Could the US capture Europe?

[Kyriakos]

Hm, is that the same US that was so scared of trying to invade Serbia, and so had to instead bomb it for months so as to avoid an invasion?

In other words: no

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Hm, is that the same US that was so scared of trying to invade Serbia, and so had to instead bomb it for months so as to avoid an invasion?

In other words: no

That is true. Nowdays countries are so afraid of losing troops that no one could fight a total war.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

Capture: Yes
Hold: No

They'll have to raze us.

Well at least you know how your military stands . Guess we'll have to handle you like I handle most cities I capture in RTW: Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate! (Unless I'm feeling unusually benevolent at the time).

But I believe during certain times in our history we could have taken and held them.

Hm, is that the same US that was so scared of trying to invade Serbia, and so had to instead bomb it for months so as to avoid an invasion?

In other words: no

I just think Clinton was too much of a coward to use the military effectively, I mean look at how he handled Somalia. After the "Black Hawk Down" incident, we basically decided to cut and run. According to the interviews taken with some of the men who were there (interviews performed by the History Channel), they wanted to stay there and finish the job.

 

[Kyriakos]

(posted on the wrong thread)

 

[silver 2039]

Hahahaah....invade and hold down more than 20 diffrent countries across the ocean encompassing an entire continent many of whom posess modern top of the line military equipment, and two of which posess nuclear weaponry and whose citizens would undobtfly fiercly resist? No I think not.

 

[Winner]

Absolutely not. If all European countries mobilized, they could build a huge army of millions, armed with hi-tech weaponry.

US would have to move its troops across the Atlantic, successfuly invade and then prevent Europeans from cutting them off.

Without nuclear weapons, it is completely impossible.

 

[Winner]

This is a nice show of the future world - no great power will be able to decisively win a war against any other great power, therefore the war itself will be limited.

 

[MamboJoel]

This is a nice show of the future world - no great power will be able to decisively win a war against any other great power, therefore the war itself will be limited.

... Limited to the only possible battleground : terrorism, guerilla and co...

 

[garric]

The sheer amount of nationalism and anti-Americanism in this thread astounds me. If the United States wanted to, it could easily steam roll through Europe. If a TOTAL WAR was declared, where a soldier wasn't more afraid of hurting a civilian than of facing a soldier, the United States has the personell and the equipment to defeat Europe. Europe is divided, both physically, mentally, culturally, and geologically. What happens when we take out France, that supplies much of Europe's food? What happens when we cut em off from World Trade and watch their economies crumble? It's really not that hard. The Nazis did it before we came in and stopped them.

 

[C~G]

The sheer amount of nationalism and anti-Americanism in this thread astounds me.

So now it's even anti-american to say that you would be able to fight off american forces with european ones?
This kind of attitude astounds me.

It's really not that hard. The Nazis did it before we came in and stopped them.

You probably mean your old country, Soviet Union that beat the crap out of the nazis before the americans ever set a foot to Europe. Normandy was small thing compared to the Eastern Front where everything important happened.

Better put the credit where it's due.

What comes to the actual subject US doesn't stand a chance capturing whole Europe. It's impossibility from the perspective fighting never-ending guerilla war and not forgetting that above all you would lose all the battles on homefront.

The whole idea is absurd.

 

[Grisu]

The sheer amount of nationalism and anti-Americanism in this thread astounds me. If the United States wanted to, it could easily steam roll through Europe. If a TOTAL WAR was declared, where a soldier wasn't more afraid of hurting a civilian than of facing a soldier, the United States has the personell and the equipment to defeat Europe. Europe is divided, both physically, mentally, culturally, and geologically. What happens when we take out France, that supplies much of Europe's food? What happens when we cut em off from World Trade and watch their economies crumble? It's really not that hard. The Nazis did it before we came in and stopped them.

yours is the first post in this thread that really drips of nationalism......

It's true that Europe is divided on many issues, right now. but history showed that the easiest way to unify something is to have a common enemy
you write as if taking out france would be child's play, totally ignoring that France probably wouldn't just sit there and let you take it (despite what many people seem to think...).

as for "the nazis did it before"... well, this time the germans wouldn't be alone...

I don't doubt that the US could easily raze europe. But really conquer it? nope.

 

[Colonel]

Absolutely not. If all European countries mobilized, they could build a huge army of millions, armed with hi-tech weaponry.

US would have to move its troops across the Atlantic, successfuly invade and then prevent Europeans from cutting them off.

Without nuclear weapons, it is completely impossible.

Winner I see your point on moblizeing more troops( but we could draft aswell, may not equal the same but we would have a higher percentage of trained based on existing troops) but Europeans wouldn't be able to arm them with the most advanced hi-tech weaponary. You run into the same problem the US right now, cost.

I am sure we wouldn't be able to hold it without massive numerical superiority over the population, say 2 to 1 atleast and theres no way to get that many troops. However as to takeing the European continent, if we have learned anything from the US invadeing places its not a problem to invade its a problem to hold. Even for a fairly advanced country like Germany, they wouldn't be able to produce the things necessary to thwart an American invasion.

Note I am not takeing into account Morale or potential for Americans at home from rioting, strictly on the basis of military ability.

 

[Bamspeedy]

I think the US could defeat Europe, but not control it.

And I only think the US could defeat Europe if the citizens of the US was strongly supporting it (like in WW2).

 

[Lambert Simnel]

The sheer amount of nationalism and anti-Americanism in this thread astounds me. If the United States wanted to, it could easily steam roll through Europe.

EH ? How is it anti-Americanism to respond to an asinine question like the original post by saying, no, you couldn't do it ?

I suspect you have no idea of the numbers involved in the European military forces, or contemplated at all how the US would get its troops landed and keep them supplied. You really come over as someone who thinks Europe is about the same size as Conneticut, but they just speak funny.

As has already been asked in this thread, if you can't subdue Iraq (with help) where on earth do you get the idea from you could subdue Europe ?

 

[Bamspeedy]

Canada better start building up it's military. When we leave to conquer Europe, the Canadians can sweep down and take over!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The sheer amount of nationalism and anti-Americanism in this thread astounds me. If the United States wanted to, it could easily steam roll through Europe. If a TOTAL WAR was declared, where a soldier wasn't more afraid of hurting a civilian than of facing a soldier, the United States has the personell and the equipment to defeat Europe. Europe is divided, both physically, mentally, culturally, and geologically. What happens when we take out France, that supplies much of Europe's food? What happens when we cut em off from World Trade and watch their economies crumble? It's really not that hard. The Nazis did it before we came in and stopped them.

Thanks

And it's your fault we're all divided. If you wouldn't have butted in 65 years ago we'd all be kicking US butt and taking names by now. Who cares if they're German names?

Ziggy Sternestaub sounds pretty cool

 

[Urederra]

0% chance of success.

 

[thetrooper]

The sheer amount of nationalism and anti-Americanism in this thread astounds me. If the United States wanted to, it could easily steam roll through Europe. If a TOTAL WAR was declared, where a soldier wasn't more afraid of hurting a civilian than of facing a soldier, the United States has the personell and the equipment to defeat Europe. Europe is divided, both physically, mentally, culturally, and geologically. What happens when we take out France, that supplies much of Europe's food? What happens when we cut em off from World Trade and watch their economies crumble? It's really not that hard. The Nazis did it before we came in and stopped them.

You're only joking, right?

 

[Taliesin]

I think America's best bet would be to take Canada hostage and hope that Europe tries to rescue us. (You would, right? Guys? Buddies?)

 

[Fox Mccloud]

The nаzis did it before we came in and stopped them.

The Germans had the best army in the world at their time while most of their neighbors (France, Belgium, Soviet Union, Poland etc.) had crappy armies. Today, most of those countries have modern high tech armies, though.

You probably mean your old country, Soviet Union that beat the crap out of the nаzis before the americans ever set a foot to Europe. Normandy was small thing compared to the Eastern Front where everything important happened.

The Soviet Union wasn't exactly "beating the crap" out of Germany. The Germans were at first beating the crap out of them. The Soviets won at great cost, 20 million people many of them being civilians. It was a Pyrrhic victory.