Could the US capture Europe?

[Lambert Simnel]

Your military experience is being overrun and routed by your patriotism here.

I think you've nailed MobBoss's comments perfectly here....

 

[Grisu]

Nope. The only exception to this assumption was that nukes would not be used. Not a strategy of complete annihilation or extermination. In this assumption, the US military doesnt have to "play nice" and hold back. There would be no "Geneva convention" laws to protect the populace.

except that you'd lose the war at home long before you'd be done with that extermination plan .....

 

[Elrohir]

Could we capture Europe? Yeah. Holding it, though, would require massive slaughter of the native population, so that would be out of the question.

How did this come up, anyway? Why would the US attack other members of NATO?

 

[Lambert Simnel]

And take into account that the US can't just march out and leave it's homesoil undefended.

Shhh! Don't tell them our plan! Our Chinese allies will have invaded and conquered everything from the Pacific shoreline to the Missouri within a matter of days (I reckon they'll stop there, though. I mean, who'd want to take East St. Louis ?)

 

[Bill3000]

I don't know. It would absolutely have to be total war, that's for sure, but I don't know much about the military strength of the military of the countries involved to be sure. It would be an interesting scenario, though.

 

[MobBoss]

Also, it would have to employ space based weapons to negate pure reliance on carrier-based aircraft (as other have pointed out, the US carriers are quite vulnerable). There too, the Europeans could take effective counter-measures, and respond in kind against targets on the US continent. Even if a military victory could be achieved, the occupation would almost certainly fail.

I have no idea why people say we would have to rely on carrier based planes. Dont you people realize we have in flight refueling? Dont you remmeber the jets that hit Libya decades ago flew all the way from the continental USA? Who the hell says we would have to rely solely on carriers?

Also, I would hope someone like Igloodude to speak up on just how "vulernable" a carrier group is. First of all, you have to find the carrier in order to target it and it is virtually surrounded by support ships and air wings protecting it. Second, you would have to send enough firepower in one salvo, to overwhelm not only the carriers own protection, but also that of its aegis crusiers/destroyers protecting it. Third, you can rest assured that the carriers KNOW this and would take measures to make sure it didnt happen. These guys are not going to drive up into the English Channel and let you sink them. Not going to happen.

except that you'd lose the war at home long before you'd be done with that extermination plan .....

Not part of the scenario question. The questions is could we do it...with the emphasis on "could". The answer is yes, but only under certain conditions.

 

[Oruc]

As diplomatic relations between USA and Europe deteriorated the European nations would of course increase military spending (as I doubt the Americans would just suddenly decide to invade on a whim), If the USA is actually considering and engaging in an invasion of Europe, Europe would of course prepare for this.
So no I dont see it working.

 

[thetrooper]

How did this come up, anyway? Why would the US attack other members of NATO?

It's absurd, really.

Could a united Europe capture the US?

 

[Grisu]

Not part of the scenario question. The questions is could we do it...with the emphasis on "could". The answer is yes, but only under certain conditions.

so basically we're only allowed to take facts into account that favour the US? my point is that you couldn't, because if you tried to do it via extermination/slaughter your very own population would rise up against you and thwart the attempt.

 

[MobBoss]

so basically we're only allowed to take facts into account that favour the US? my point is that you couldn't, because if you tried to do it via extermination/slaughter your very own population would rise up against you and thwart the attempt.

Nah, our faschist secret police would already have all the dissenters imprisoned in gitmo.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

We dont have to fix it. We have hundreds if not thousands of planes shrink wrapped and in storage in the SW. You can even see them on google:earth.

So, the old planes junkyard atTucson that google maps made famous.

 

[Elrohir]

It's absurd, really.

Could a united Europe capture the US?

It must be a slow day....

They don't have the transports to carry the troops over, or the tanks to protect them when they get there, or the ships and planes to escort the transports, or....well, that's just as absurd a question as the first.

 

[MobBoss]

So, the old planes junkyard atTucson that google maps made famous.

If you call F-14s old junk. Lots of them there. Hundreds upon hundreds of A-10s there as well....and those dont suck by anyones standard.

But I merely point that out to prove the USA has quick access to replace combat air losses, and does not necessarily have to build new ones from scratch. I dont think the EU has anything comparative to that.

 

[C~G]

One other thing people have not mentioned here is battle experience. When was the last time Germany was in a war? Or any of the EU powers for that matter? The only nation with any real veterans, on any real scale, would be Britain. American troops are currently battle hardened and of veteran status. That makes more of a difference than people think.

Nope.

It's somehow strange that in one thread you talk about the importance of morale and here you go out just saying how easily US would take over entire Europe without ever adding morale to the equatation and considering it as possibly the biggest factor contributing to the result.

I thought for military personnel like you the answer would be obvious. How on earth you are going to convince the troops march into Europe, facing hostile troops everywhere and remember we aren't talking about only military personnel here, that's why those calculations are BS. Do you really think the europeans (how pacifist you might think about us nowadays) would just stand around while thousands of years worth of cathedrals is destroyed by some couple hundred years worth of shopping malls?

Look back in history and see where europeans came from and think again.

I might comment this further but this is so ridiculous subject as we are basically talking about civil war inside western culture. If you ask me we both are betraying ourselves with lowering ourselves to the level of thinking there could be ever chance in hell we would be against each other. The whole idea is insane.

Someone probably next suggest that US should nuke Europe since it's so dangerous. But that might be unpatriotic. Not in the sense of that nukes are used but it might contain such acknowledgment that Europe has military power of it's own and not all of them are french whiners.

EDIT: BTW, dear americans the thing about shopping mall culture wasn't my personal opinion but would reflect the sentiments of European if really under the threat of US.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

If you call F-14s old junk. Lots of them there. Hundreds upon hundreds of A-10s there as well....and those dont suck by anyones standard.

But I merely point that out to prove the USA has quick access to replace combat air losses, and does not necessarily have to build new ones from scratch. I dont think the EU has anything comparative to that.

Junkyards? Sure. But it is only junk. To bring that into this conversation is nonsense.

 

[Hotpoint]

I have no idea why people say we would have to rely on carrier based planes. Dont you people realize we have in flight refueling? Dont you remmeber the jets that hit Libya decades ago flew all the way from the continental USA? Who the hell says we would have to rely solely on carriers?

How many refueling aircraft does the USAF have, how many pilots have the endurance to fly the Atlantic twice? You don't just need long range bombers you need fighter escorts too or they'd be blown out of the sky.

There's just no way that the United States could put enough aircraft over Europe to beat the combined EU Airforces.

Also, I would hope someone like Igloodude to speak up on just how "vulernable" a carrier group is. First of all, you have to find the carrier in order to target it and it is virtually surrounded by support ships and air wings protecting it. Second, you would have to send enough firepower in one salvo, to overwhelm not only the carriers own protection, but also that of its aegis crusiers/destroyers protecting it. Third, you can rest assured that the carriers KNOW this and would take measures to make sure it didnt happen. These guys are not going to drive up into the English Channel and let you sink them. Not going to happen.

The US Supercarriers are not going to get close to Europe because they would fear being overwhelmed by land-based aviation (remember we are talking thousands of aircraft here), and more importantly they wouldn't want to get sunk by EU Submarines which they would if they got near European waters. Check how often USN Carriers get sunk by conventional subs in exercises, even the Chilean Navy has managed it that's why the United States is currently borrowing a Swedish Navy boat to exercise against, and not hugely successfully as it happens. the new AIP (Air Independent Propulsion) subs aren't just much longer ranged than the old diesels they're really quiet.

Whilst the Supercarriers could gain some security by keeping their distance (they'd still be at risk from British and French SSN's anywhere in the Atlantic) they then face the problem of only being able to launch strikes a limited distance into EU airspace and mission turnarounds get very lengthy too.

 

[ulsterman88]

They could probably capture several nations who are incapable of defending themselves or have a poor record at stopping invasion in modern times e.g. France. I would like to see the Yanks try to invade Ireland thats just asking for trouble, we already have several armed militias who dont need an excuse to start fighting.

 

[Bigfoot]

@ MobBoss:

I had a chance to serve on some US carriers during my stint in Mr. Reagan's navy. I can recall being 'pinged' by nearby Soviet subs on more than one occassion, just a friendly reminder that they could take us out if they wanted to. Its true that defensive counter-measures have come a long way since the 1980s, but so have the offensive weapons. All they need is for a single plane or sub to get through to take out a carrier, so I would not be so sanguine about our carrier defenses.

As to the use of US bases, they are simply too far away to respond to rapidly changing battlefield conditions. Also, the planes are vulnerable during refueling, and it greatly limits their time over the target area. IMHO it is more likely that we would develop new weapons and technologies to do the job, ergo the move into space based weapons.

 

[Bigfoot]

They could probably capture several nations who are incapable of defending themselves or have a poor record at stopping invasion in modern times e.g. France. I would like to see the Yanks try to invade Ireland thats just asking for trouble, we already have several armed militias who dont need an excuse to start fighting.

Nah, we would just recruit our Irishmen to fight your Irishmen.

 

[zenspiderz]

It must be a slow day....

They don't have the transports to carry the troops over, or the tanks to protect them when they get there, or the ships and planes to escort the transports, or....well, that's just as absurd a question as the first.

The hardware that eruope possesses at this moment is irrelavant. All those things can be built if required. What matters is production capacity and engineering expertise and europe has that in spades more so than US in my opinion. It is just that (in civ terms) US 'hammers' are currently building military whereas europe's hammers go into infrastructure development and wealth generation .. oh .. and tribute to our master the US.