Could the US capture Europe?

[MobBoss]

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.

Because we are talking hypotheticals here...NOT real world.

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?

I think you missed my point. There wouldnt be any europeans left to object to it.

I might comment this further but this is so ridiculous subject as we are basically talking about civil war inside western culture.

I agree, the entire thing is ridiculous.

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

No..they are not junkyards. They are parked on runways and shrinkwrapped for preservation and later use. Definitely NOT junk.

 

[Katheryn]

The U.S. never would.

 

[MobBoss]

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.

Thats why we have both stealth bombers and stealth fighters.

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

Who says we need to beat them combined? Europe is a large place to guard. We could effectively outnumber the EU by attacking only where we have the odds. Basically, we can concentrate our forces on attack while you cant afford to on defense.

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.

Again..exercises are just that...exercises. They are not real world. And I am telling you..in the real world a Swedish or whoever sub isnt ever going to get close to a carrier. Period.

Btw, you talk a good game on these exercise results....do you have any links or proof to back it up?

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.

Do you think all the years of the US Navy training in ASW warfare tactics against the soviets useless? Come on.

 

[Dionysius]

capture, maybe. BUT: europes population is a good bit highjer than the US`s population, and the US army would soon be overwhelmed. hell, even in Iraq they can barely handle it. and imagine how angry the french would be!

 

[.Shane.]

Or put a GA in each city. But then the question becomes which GA would be acceptable to your city? Would everyone fight to have the PCD in their own city?

So, defeat Europe via culture bombs? Interesting... beats the hell out of the neutron bomb.

 

[Steph]

I can just picture them thumbing through an atlas's index mumbling: "Yurp, Yurp, nope, this one hasn't got Yurp either "

And going through the atlas's index

D
Denmark – Kingdom of Denmark
Djibouti – Republic of Djibouti
Dominica – Commonwealth of Dominica
Dominican Republic
E
See Timor-Leste for East Timor[1]
Ecuador – Republic of Ecuador
Egypt – Arab Republic of Egypt
El Salvador – Republic of El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea – Republic of Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea – State of Eritrea
Estonia – Republic of Estonia
Ethiopia – Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
F
Falkland Islands (UK overseas territory)[20]
Faroe Islands (Self-governing country in the Kingdom of Denmark)
Fiji – Republic of the Fiji Islands
Finland – Republic of Finland
France – French Republic
French Polynesia (French overseas community)

No, sorry there is no Europe at the letter E! Let's try at the letter Y for Yurop

 

[El_Machinae]

I bet if we turned Canada on its side, we could chew up a lot of Europe using the Hudson's Bay as a mouth. The masticated landmasses could just be piled onto the Rockies.

 

[Truronian]

I bet if we turned Canada on its side, we could chew up a lot of Europe using the Hudson's Bay as a mouth. The masticated landmasses could just be piled onto the Rockies.

We'd stab you in the Yukon with Scotland and then kick you in the Florida with Italy.

 

[Hotpoint]

Thats why we have both stealth bombers and stealth fighters.

You know that several different European military systems can track those things right? Royal Navy destroyers in the Gulf were picking up F117A's over Iraq as far back as 1991 and the B2A hasn't proven itself invisible to European gear either. Without the stealth those aircraft are sitting ducks, we aren't the Iraqi military over here you know

Who says we need to beat them combined? Europe is a large place to guard. We could effectively outnumber the EU by attacking only where we have the odds. Basically, we can concentrate our forces on attack while you cant afford to on defense.

The EU only has to deploy forces in those areas which the US can attack and since it could easily close the Med that means the North Atlantic. The Europeans don't need to defend central Europe. You can't get there.

Again..exercises are just that...exercises. They are not real world. And I am telling you..in the real world a Swedish or whoever sub isnt ever going to get close to a carrier. Period.

I'm afraid you need to read up more on this subject. The USN is not as good at ASW as you think it is.

Btw, you talk a good game on these exercise results....do you have any links or proof to back it up?

These do for starters?

In May 2005, the Gotland was leased to the U.S. Navy for one year, complete with a Swedish crew. The Gotland will initially be based in San Diego, where the U.S. Navy will practice joint maneuvers with the stealthy AIP-equipped diesel submarine.[5] According to the Swedish newspaper Blekinge Läns Tidning, U.S. interest in the Gotland class was aroused during joint naval exercises when the U.S. Navy was unable to track the Swedish submarine.

Reportedly, during a Joint Task Force Exercise on December 6-16, 2005, with the USS Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group off the coast of Southern California, the Gotland managed to take several pictures of the Ronald Reagan from close quarters, indicating a "strike" on the aircraft carrier. As Gotland's Lieutenant Commander Jan Westas says, the U.S. ASW forces "have had a very difficult time finding us." To date, the exercises have been carried out in deep water. It is expected that exercises with the Gotland in coastal waters will prove even more challenging to U.S. ASW.

http://www.nti.org/db/submarines/sweden/index.html

JTFEX / TMDI99 stands for Joint Task Force Exercise / Theatre Missile Defence Initiative 1999. The exercise is held in the Caribbean and on the US main land and has 27000 participants, of which 15000 naval participants. This exercise is the biggest gathering of forces since the Gulf-war, is held from 1 Feb to 4 Mar 1999.

During this exercise the Walrus penetrates the US screen and 'sinks' many ships, including the US aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71. The submarine launches two attacks and manages to sneak away.

http://www.dutchsubmarines.com/boats/boat_walrus2.htm#JTFEX / TMDI99

Do you think all the years of the US Navy training in ASW warfare tactics against the soviets useless? Come on.

The Soviet subs were a lot noisier than the Western European ones and they weren't quite as easy to find as Tom Clancy would have you believe

 

[Elrohir]

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.

You're hilarious. You don't build dozens of huge, multi-million dollar planes or ships in a few days. As for production capacity or engineering, as far as the military is concerned, the US has got Europe beaten, and badly. Especially since Europe is not one united country - it's a bunch of countries that sometimes work together.

Europe could never invade the US. Honestly, that some people believe such crap....The US Air Force is the world's largest, and most advanced. The US Navy is the world's second largest, and advanced air force. There's no way you could get enough troops over here - and you would need tens of millions of them to pacify the US.

If you want to delude yourself into believing that even a combined Europe could successfully invade the US (Even if they had a reason to) then be my guest. But I feel that it's only fair to tell you how absurd such an idea is for anyone who lives in the real world.

 

[Bamspeedy]

capture, maybe. BUT: europes population is a good bit highjer than the US`s population, and the US army would soon be overwhelmed.

Overwhelmed with what? European civilians don't have any guns, do they?

 

[Thorgalaeg]

No..they are not junkyards. They are parked on runways and shrinkwrapped for preservation and later use. Definitely NOT junk.

You cant leave a plane on a plain along years and years and then use it again (this applies for any machine but above all, planes).

It is an airplane graveyard. Those planes will not fly again and are not supossed to fly again, never. Most are dismantled and rusted. Some images about the place:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/steveportigal/sets/474181/

 

[Truronian]

To be honest I don't think its something that could reasonably occur in either direction. Europe and the US are just too level to make any headway on invading. Its gonna go to a space race.

 

[Verbose]

Overwhelmed with what? European civilians don't have any guns, do they?

You'd be surprised. Sweden, pop. 9 millon, has 5 million privately owned fire arms. It may not rival the US for gun-saturation, but there's enough private fire power to make a go of it, should it become necessary. There's also the matter of governments arming the population.

Not that it matters. Regardless if where talking US or Europe, imagining militias taking on regular troops is pretty daft anyway.

 

[angeleyes]

Of course the US could! We are already overwhelmed by American Culture, so if the americans feel they want to rule us, i don't think any european army would defend itself. We would talk, then the US would convince us that it's better for us to let them rule our government, and we should surrender without a fight.



.

 

[Verbose]

Again..exercises are just that...exercises. They are not real world. And I am telling you..in the real world a Swedish or whoever sub isnt ever going to get close to a carrier. Period.

You can of course think what you like. The Swedish navy won't care. They'll do it anyway. In fact they already are, at the invitation of the US navy to boot.

Swedish navy people go into smile-to-make-the-top-of-your-head-fall-off mode at the mention of Gotland in San Diego. These joint exercises seem set to continue for some time. While officially very polite towards the US navy, it seems to be the Swedish navy's understanding that they will keep at it until the Americans eventually become able to find them. Nothing indicates that will be anytime soon.

Of course the US Navy isn't staffed by fools. They leased the Swedish sub in full realisation that it might just be the most competent thing prowling around down below. If you want to be the best, you have to train with the best. If the Swedish boat wasn't a real challenge they wouldn't bother. This is not some kind of joint exercise out of politeness. The US navy knows these kinds of subs now exist so efficient countermeasures need to be found. That's what they're doing, and that's why the leased the sub, crew and all. The up side of things is that if the US Navy does become adept at noticing, tracking and killing a sub like Gotland, they can do it to just about anything creeping around down below.

They just aren't able to do that yet.

 

[emzie]

Mobboss, if it were a sneak attack, I would agree with you: it might be possible. But honestly, how could the US get away with such a sneak attack?

To take Europe, there would need to be a reason. Europe would see this culture shift taking place in the US, and would in turn, match it with military spending.

As to stealth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_aircraft#How_stealth_aircraft_could_potentially_be_detected

Europe already can see these coming. Aside from bombs, these planes are unarmed. They also don't break mach. They could be shot down by a Vietnam-era MiG if the MiG had the radar feed.

As to the navy

The US has 12 active carriers. Yes, there's a mothball fleet as well. But again, if the US starts recommissioning these moth-balled carriers, the world would notice.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/cv-list1.html

12 carriers. Let's assume 80 strike aircraft per (a gift to you) you have 920 fighters that could be over Europe and B-52s / B-2s.

In-flight refueling would be a bad idea. Those things are truly sitting ducks.

A *united* Europe would own the air until/unless the US captured Iceland, the Azores or North Africa.

And as Bigfoot said, US Carriers could have been sunk by Russians during the 80s. Why do you assume these modern European subs couldn't do it now? Why would the Navy study them if the design couldn't be a possible threat.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Europe is to big to fall for a sneak attack. I don't think the American population is mentaly ready for a massive war. The Iraq war with 3000 dead is considered a strain. What would they say when hundereds of thousands of coffins were being sent back to the US. The Soviets held ½ of Europe for 40 years, but I think holding all of it is hard (Europe is like 40 Iraqs)

 

[Sidhe]

Hitler certainly screwed up here, the US are more powerful than the Germans, but I'd say they would find it a nightmare to take on and control so many diverse countries, particularly with the complicated political ties, and let's not forget Russia is part of Europe, who do you think they would join?

Only a naive strategist would even consider it, and only a naive strategist would hope for success. You may well find that the rest of the world get's involved, then your arse is grass, world wars never turn out well for the agressors, eventually resources are just too stretched.

If the reverse happened the result would be the same, few countries would stand for the power the EU would gain with a control over more than one continent from a strictly political stand point, you'd be talking more support for the defenders.

 

[marioh]

The OP has this all wrong.

The question should be, "Could the US save Europe from itself, AGAIN ?".

That would make more sense, and is more rooted in reality than this fairy tale scenario.

But to answer the OP, no, the US would not be able to capture Europe (maybe parts of it for a short amount of time). It sure could bomb the crap out of them though with non-nuclear tipped ICBM's and cruise missiles.