How to Invade the US/Europe ?

[Tom201]

Yop a good plan - after all we have the Finnish Ski-troops on our site

[Ecthy]

they'd nuke any fleet or army on the way, no civilian losses that would cause a world nuke war after all

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus


In the Atlantic you can, though not in the North Sea/Baltic/Med.

You don't think the Israelis would keep the Suez open?

I'm sure Russia will be more than willing to supply us with oil.

Good for you. Wouldn't be enough.

Considering the sheer number of Morrocans living in Europe: unlikely

Considering the 226 year old close relationship with the USA; likely.

Impossible.

Yeah, you guys proved that during the Kosovo campaign....

Oh wait, that's right. It turns out the Europeans have no air capabilities at all! Nevermind.

Impossible without nukes

Replace "Only with France. Impossible with nukes for rest of EU"

Impossible. ETA bombers will get you

Promise them a homeland.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Lonestar
You don't think the Israelis would keep the Suez open?

I think that Israël would be busy enough to fight the totality of its neighbors to be able to keep Suez open

Good for you. Wouldn't be enough.

There is still the whole Arab world, which would be more likely to supply UE than US.

Considering the 226 year old close relationship with the USA; likely.

Morocco was colonised by France for a century, and was independant since no more than 50 years. It stills has excellent relationship with France. And I hardly believe that USA had any kind of relationship with Morrocco in 1780's.
Morrocco with UE then.

Yeah, you guys proved that during the Kosovo campaign....
Oh wait, that's right. It turns out the Europeans have no air capabilities at all! Nevermind.

I doubt that the airpower of Europe would be enough against the airpower of USA. Though, to launch the aircraft, US would have to put its carriers in bombing range of Europe. It's easier to sink a carrier than to destroy totality of airports in whole Europe. So I doubt that USA could achieve air control over Europe.

Replace "Only with France. Impossible with nukes for rest of EU"

Well, I suppose it does not ask for a serious answer

Promise them a homeland.

Ever tried to speak logically with a Basque ?

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Does the lack of a unified national identity in Europe preclude their militaries from working well together? Most of them have been NATO allies for 50 years now...

The level of cohesion is still much less than for a single nation military.

operationally there are still issues with language, etc. (NATO documents are done in 11 languages IIRC).

There are issues in terms of command and control. (Basically each country can "appeal orders" up their national chain of command.)

Yes they do have an alliance, some standardization of gear, and hjave done lots of exercises together. It's still not as cohesive as a single EU force would be.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


I think that Israël would be busy enough to fight the totality of its neighbors to be able to keep Suez open

I think we'd let the Israelis do everything short of popping a nuke if we Thought they'd help keep the Suez open.

There is still the whole Arab world, which would be more likely to supply UE than US.

I also bet the Israelis would bomb llloooottttsssss of Oil facilities in the Persian Gulf Area.

Morocco was colonised by France for a century, and was independant since no more than 50 years. It stills has excellent relationship with France. And I hardly believe that USA had any kind of relationship with Morrocco in 1780's.
Morrocco with UE then.

You only think I'm making this up. The King of Morrocco was thefirst soverreign to recognize the United States. Sure, it was "Colonised" by France, but only after the United States tried every trick in the book to prevent that from happening. (the French case was helped along with Muslim terrorists kidnapping a Rockefeller), but like most European colonies, the Moroccoan King was still nominally in power.

I doubt that the airpower of Europe would be enough against the airpower of USA. Though, to launch the aircraft, US would have to put its carriers in bombing range of Europe. It's easier to sink a carrier than to destroy totality of airports in whole Europe. So I doubt that USA could achieve air control over Europe.

Hmmm...could be so. A lot of that statement hinges on the abilities of the European Navies, and I think the only group of Submariners out there that could pull it off are the British. Problem with that, there are not that manyy British subs.

Well, I suppose it does not ask for a serious answer

Dang straight. Damn French....

Ever tried to speak logically with a Basque ?

So glad you can see past Ethnic stereotypes.

[Dom Pedro II]

For the EU to even fight this war (even if they wanted to), they'd have to have a lot of major changes to their united government, infrastructure, and dramatically increase the size of their existing military and unite all of them under a common language and command system.

[yaroslav]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Promise them a homeland.

They have a homeland, as members of Spain!

[Ned]

Saint Marcus, Regardless of your point-by-point denial, the U.S. today has the power to do everything I said in my post. The EU doesn't have a chance.

But this really illustrates an important point. The EU really needs to invest more in military to help us out. For example, the EU could not even defeat Iraq by itself, IMHO. It would be nice to see the EU carrying 50% of the load, not 5% as it does now.

BTW, EU support is appreciated.

Ned

[Ecthy]

oh yes, we could very well defeat Iraq by ourselves... we wouldn't have the same popular support you guys have, but military-wise it wouldn't be a problem. I think the leaders should make a game out of it. who can defeat a middle east country faster? EU tries Iraq and the US tries Libya, Sudan and Somalia, just for keeping it balanced.

civilian losses don't get counted as long as the games last

[kittenOFchaos]

GP: what the war is about MAKES all the difference in the world.

If the war can only be won by destroying the other power it is completely different from a war where you are trying to force a concession.

The method of resisting an invasion is completely different depending on the consequence of the invasion.

If the goal of the EU/US was a war to destroy the other power then every weapon, every method of killing your enemy becomes acceptable. But, if it is merely to force a concession you must temper your actions to avoid provoking the war going to another level.

e.g if the EU used bio-weapons effectively then the USA would be forced to retaliate on a similar scale. To use such weapons esculates the war.


At present we are merely talking about an invasion of a country with no context. An invasion of the EU or USA if it were to the death is a completely different concept from lets say forcing the USA to remove/reduce trade tarrifs on EU goods.


Whether bombing of civilian targets is acceptable or whether the targets are limited to military installations is dependent on what the war is about and what will make an invasion successful.

Foo!


Marcus: the US Air Force wouldn't have much trouble brushing aside European air defence...Britain with one of the more respectable militaries (France has the best, Germany one of the worst) has next to no air defences that could challenge the USAF. If the nature of the war demanded it and the USAF wanted to bomb the major European population centers to dust then they could.

[Dom Pedro II]

Oh great! Rearming Europe... I thought you guys have been trying to get out of the imperialism biz...

[Ecthy]

LOL, what about the US' armament then?

[Dom Pedro II]

Trust me... I don't like the US armament either... I think the U.S. is a military nightmare for the rest of the world, and the sooner its brought down, the happier I'll be. Unfortunately, what the world needs is a some kind of defense force for everybody not where the U.S. gets to make unilateral decisions.

[Ecthy]

I despise hegemony, of any kind. And "defending citizens" or "interests" are just an excuse, although the latter excuse is a pretty blunt one.