How would you conquer the U.S.

[Saint Marcus]

I thought this was the EU/Russia vs. the US? You can't just throw in the rest of the world when it's convenient...

If you just please read the goddamn thread before posting. the Russia+EU part is only for the Atlantic area. I personally have named: Europe, Russia, China, India, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and possibly others. Those listed countries alone have a population of 3 billion!!

We have a strategic oil reserve for just that purpose.

I believe it was calculated that those will only last for 6 months at most.

Most of the imported oil comes from Mexico and South America anyway.

I'm not quite sure of that. Source?

The rest of the world would suffer also.

I said they would, didn't I. The point is, the US economy will collapse and the rest of the world's economies won't (sure some will, not all).

Not to mention, once the economy switches over to a war-time mode, those integrated trading routes become alot less important.

This isn't Civ3 you know

A coordinated, entrenched 270 million, leading in technology.

You honeslty expect 270 million people to fight? Most Americans talk a lot, but won't actually fight. They are too used to their comfy lifestyles. The US doesn't have an Afghan-style war mentality. Plus, even if the US can call up a few million troops, and maintain+arm them, most of them will be poorly trained and cannon fodder. The US can't sustain heavy casualties, while countries like China and India certainly can. And since in population alone the US is outnumbered 12 to 25 times, and in armed forces they would be outnumber even more than that, the US doesn't stand much of a chance in a long war of nutrition. They simply are too small.

[Lonestar]

Mark, we really do get the vast majority of our oil fromMexico, South America, and Domestic sources.

[Saint Marcus]

I'm sure you do.

Still I like a source giving stats on the total oil import by the US, per country.

[David Floyd]

The total of Harriers on VSTOL Carriers is 2 to 3 times as high.

And my point still stands. If 300 Harriers go up against 300 Tomcats/Superhornets, they will lose. Badly.

Iceland has many military facilities, especcially for aircraft. These aren't for the Icelandic military (which doesn't really exist) but for foreign (read NATO) forces. It was a key location back in the Cold War, and NATO realised that. The island can certain support quite a number of aircraft.

Indeed so, and, IIRC, the maximum number of aircraft based out of Iceland during the Cold War was a couple of squadrons of F-15s, some P-3 Orions for subhunting, a couple of liason planes, and a couple of radar aircraft.

Considering the combined EU navy is about 20% bigger than that of the US, I find this rather hard to believe, since the US has to fight on two fronts.

No it doesn't. China, et al, don't have blue-water navies, at least not in sufficient numbers to threaten a single US base.

What happened to the subs?

I already explained the subs. Basically, most of Europe's subs are not suited to long-distance operations, they are coastal diesal boats. England, and to a lesser extent France, and Russia (the few they have available), are the main European powers that have submarines that could operate against a coordinated US fleet. Those subs would die pretty quickly, too, either from US submarines, S-3 Vikings, or dedicated ASW frigates and helicopters.

Oh yeah, while the US is surrounded by enemies they go off invading Greenland, which is miles away and right in between Canadian and European forces.

Mark, you aren't reading, I already told you how Canada would easily be neutralized, and a single armored division hitting Mexico would pretty much neutralize them as well. How hard do you think it would be for a US carrier group to escort a Marine Amphibious Unit, or even a Marine brigade, up to Greenland, take the place unopposed, land some combat engineers, fly in some fighters and security personnel, and bingo.

And who needs to occupy Iceland? They are basically our allies.

By occupy, I mean move the aircraft, supplies, infrastructure, defenses, etc. - this takes time.

You honeslty expect 270 million people to fight?

YOU honestly expect 300 million Europeans to fight, or support a fight? Get real. We're talking hypothetical, and if you're people support a war then Americans get to as well.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Mark L
Still I like a source giving stats on the total oil import by the US, per country.

Will this suffice?

[Saint Marcus]

I already explained the subs. Basically, most of Europe's subs are not suited to long-distance operations, they are coastal diesal boats. England, and to a lesser extent France, and Russia (the few they have available), are the main European powers that have submarines that could operate against a coordinated US fleet. Those subs would die pretty quickly, too, either from US submarines, S-3 Vikings, or dedicated ASW frigates and helicopters.

Please do some research before making assumptions.

Russia+EU have a total of: 81 nuclear powered subs, plus 33 diesel non coastal subs, plus a number of coastal subs.

The US has a total of: 72 nuclear powered subs.


And don't you think Europe and Russia have ASW frigates and helicopters too?

And my point still stands. If 300 Harriers go up against 300 Tomcats/Superhornets, they will lose. Badly.

But 300 Harriers, plus 150 Rafales/Typhoons/Gripen will beat 300 Tomcats/Hornets.

YOU honestly expect 300 million Europeans to fight, or support a fight?

Did I say that? Please note that this isn't EU vs US, but World vs US.

Will this suffice?

Yep, thanks. This source shows that the US will lose most of it's oil.


Comment of Greenland will follow, but you don't honestly expect the Europeans and Russians just let Greenland sit there undefended, do you?

[David Floyd]

Please do some research before making assumptions.

Submarine Inventories for European nations and Russia:

Source: http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/

Bulgaria - 1 Romeo class patrol submarine (Slava)

Croatia - 1 Velebit class midget submarine (Velebit)

Denmark - 1 Nacken class - the Kronborg. Entered service in 1980.; 3 Kobben class COASTAL submarines (Tumleren, Saelen, Springeren

France - 2 Le Triomphant SSBNs (Le Triomphant, Le Temeraire); 2 L'Inflexible SSBNs (L'Indomptable, L'Inflexible); 6 Amethyste SSNs (Rubis, Saphir, Casabianca, Emeraude, Amethyste, Perle)

Germany - 12 Type206A Coastal Submarines, all from the 1970s (U15, U16, U17, U18, U22, U23, U24, U25, U26, U28, U29, U30)

Greece - 8 Glavkos class Coastal Submarines (Glavkos, Nereus, Triton, Proteus, Poseidon, Amfrititi, Okeanos, Pontos)

Note: I'm sick of listing all the exact names, just assume I have access to them.

Italy - 8 coastal submarines

Netherlands - 4 Walrus class diesal submarines

Norway - 12 coastal submarines

Poland - 1 Kilo class submarine, 2 Foxtrot class submarines

Portgual - 2 coastal submarines

Russia -
Note on Russia:
State of the Russian Fleet: Due to continued political, economic and societal chaos in Russia, the Fleet is in a badly deteriorated state. Even those ships that remain in commission and theoretically operational are generally unable to deploy, due to lack of trained crews and lack of funds to buy fuel and stores. In general maintenance is minimal or nonexistent, and there are no funds to conduct much-needed overhauls, even for major fleet units. Many ships have been abandoned when repairs or refits came due.
This list identifies those units believed to remain operational, but most of these units are unable to deploy for the reasons cited above. Ships in refit are listed only when there is a reasonable chance of them returning to service. Ships laid up pending refit generally are listed, as they could return to service if funding became available.

2 Typhoon class SSBNs; 6 Delta-IV class SSBNs; 8 Delta-III SSBNs; 8 Oscar-II SSGNs; 10 Akula/Akula-II SSNs; 2 Sierra-II SSNs; 1 Sierra-I SSN; 8 Victor-III SSNs; 18 Kilo class diesal submarines

Spain - 8 coastal submarines

Sweden - 9 diesel submarines

Turkey - 16 coastal/patrol submarines

Ukraine - 1 Foxtrot class submarine

UK - 4 Vanguard class SSBNs; 7 Trafalgar class SSNs; 5 Swiftsure class SSNs

Yugoslavia - 1 coastal submarine

Relevant Totals (SSBNs, SSGNs, SSNs, and non-coastal/patrol diesel electrics):

24 SSBNs
8 SSGNs
39 SSNs
36 SSKs (I believe that is the designation for diesel-electrics)

However, 21 of those SSNs, more than half, belong to Russia. No reasonable estimate would allow that all of those are operational, they just cannot be given the current state of the Russian military. I'll be overly generous, however, and allow you 10 Russian SSNs. That is VERY generous, I think.
Further, the 32 SSBNs/SSGNs don'ts figure into an attack submarine matchup - they aren't suited for that role, and if you allow those in for you guys, you have to allow the US Ohios to be counted. So, we're down to 28 SSNs, and 36 SSKs, a total of 64 submarines, all from various nations that are not used to operating together, do not have uniform weapons, uniform shipyards, uniform repair procedures, etc., etc.

How's that for research

And don't you think Europe and Russia have ASW frigates and helicopters too?

I imagine, but the US doesn't need to use it's submarines to go after your fleet, it would use it's submarines to go after YOUR submarines, and further for missile strikes on bases such as Iceland, whereas in order to have a prayer you have to use your submarines in an offensive role against the US carriers.

But 300 Harriers, plus 150 Rafales/Typhoons/Gripen will beat 300 Tomcats/Hornets.

I still don't agree that 150 fighters could operate from Iceland. In addition, you are forgetting US aircover from Greenland and US bombing and submarine attack missions against Iceland.

Comment of Greenland will follow, but you don't honestly expect the Europeans and Russians just let Greenland sit there undefended, do you?

Not a hell of a lot they can do about it. What're you gonna do, descend on Greenland with paratroops? Send troops in by sea? Not that you would have control of the seas. Further, Greenland is closer to US bases than it is to European bases, and is within easy range of US bombing capability, along with US carrier groups.

[Ted Striker]

.

[The Eliminator]

There is absolutely no way that anyone would be able to invade the US. Not to mention that the Iceland-Greenland corridor would be impossible. The best bet would be through the Aleutians or across the Bering or from across the pole (which is also impossible, but relies less on navies). That is the reason why North America has always been untouchable - we're impossible to invade.

As for those oil stats, I don't know where they come from, but they are wrong. Check the Economist. Canada is the largest exporter of oil to the US, and the Yanks would own Alberta and the Grand Banks in a matter of hours after the conflict began. More than enough oil to last for quite a few years. There is no way that the World would be able to take out industrial centres or oilfields, because they wouldn't be able to conduct bomb raids.

American air superiority is guaranteed over North America, Greenland, Iceland, 1/4 of Russia, and Japan. Naval superiority is guaranteed over the North Atlantic and Pacific.

The only thing I don't agree with so far on the American side is the confidence some have shown in Tomcats and Hornets. Tomcats are 35 years old, Hornets are 25 - and that is as good as it gets for the Navy. I would take Harriers any day. However, the Invinvible or the Hermes would'nt get 20 minutes into the North Atlantic Drift before they are sunk.

[David Floyd]

The only thing I don't agree with so far on the American side is the confidence some have shown in Tomcats and Hornets. Tomcats are 35 years old, Hornets are 25 - and that is as good as it gets for the Navy. I would take Harriers any day. However, the Invinvible or the Hermes would'nt get 20 minutes into the North Atlantic Drift before they are sunk.

WTF??? OK, go ahead and take those Harriers against US naval aviation

Lookit. Sure, the original production run of the Tomcats and Hornets are old - but they have been heavily upgraded over time. We are now flying the F-14D (admittedly dated, but a ****load better than the frickin' Sea Harrier), and the F/A-18E/F Superhornet (a ****load better than the Sea Harrier). Even MarkL quasi-admitted that US naval aircraft were superior.

American air superiority is guaranteed over North America, Greenland, Iceland, 1/4 of Russia, and Japan. Naval superiority is guaranteed over the North Atlantic and Pacific.

To be completely fair, US air superiority over Iceland is very questionable at best. The US can't stage that many aircraft out of Greenland, and I'd think real hard before committing carriers to an offensive role that close to the European and Russian mainland. It's possible though.

Air superiority is definite over North America, the North Atlantic, and the Pacific.

I don't know where you are getting the 1/4 of Russia thing, but before MarkL blasts you for that let me strongly urge you to rethink. Same with Japan - Japan's air self defense force is nothing to sneeze at, and our only viable bases in the area or Kunsan AFB on South Korea and Okinawa (remember, for obvious reasons I'm assuming Taiwan, S. Korea, and Israel are with the US). I would think air neutrality at best over Japan, because of Japanese air defense assets as well as their modified F-16s, and the fact that the US air force in the Pacific would be heavily engaged with the PLAAF.

[MORON]

As for those oil stats, I don't know where they come from, but they are wrong. Check the Economist. Canada is the largest exporter of oil to the US, and the Yanks would own Alberta and the Grand Banks in a matter of hours after the conflict began.

Like we'll give you the oil. Well burn them and the pipe lines from alaska as well.

Burn in hell u southen devils

[Dimorier Maximus]

Dangit, people! If you try to take over the US, you're gonna get nuked to the stone age. Forget it! It's not happening! Not unless you want a radioactive world to rule.

[Faeelin]

One thing you're all forgetting, except for a few: most of the world's grain comes from North America. USA and Canada produce something like half the world's supply. Assuming it goes to war against you, you get rationing. Assuming Australia refuses to get involved (being the lovers of freedom that they are) you've just lost 3/4 of your food supply.combined with US naval war in South Atlantic, you're gonna get a lot of hungry mouths...

[MORON]

Just tell them that they'll get food once they win and there is no turning back.....

Motivation is no prob.

[David Floyd]

One thing you're all forgetting, except for a few: most of the world's grain comes from North America. USA and Canada produce something like half the world's supply. Assuming it goes to war against you, you get rationing. Assuming Australia refuses to get involved (being the lovers of freedom that they are) you've just lost 3/4 of your food supply.combined with US naval war in South Atlantic, you're gonna get a lot of hungry mouths...

Yeah, good point, I brought it up earlier but of course no one listened.
As an extension, much of the rest of the world's grain comes from Argentina, Australia, and the Ukraine - and of those, the Ukraine is the most reliable source, followed by Australia. Shipments from Argentina would probably NOT happen, at least not following the defeat of the Russo-EU navy and the redeployment of the USN. Actually, after that defeat, the US might even be able to detach, say, 3 carrier groups to go after Australia, but without forward bases that would be an iffy proposition at best.