Could the US capture Europe?

[Elrohir]

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.

A little nitpick: According to this link, the US can operate "over 1000" aircraft out of its aircraft carriers.

 

[Phlegmak]

This thread seems to have devolved into a "my penis is bigger than yours." The whole thing is imaginary, so let's not get worked up over nothing.

 

[Princeps]

This thread seems to have devolved into a "my penis is bigger than yours." The whole thing is imaginary, so let's not get worked up over nothing.

I agree. Stupid debate.

I love you.

Aww, I love you too...

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

A little nitpick: According to this link, the US can operate "over 1000" aircraft out of its aircraft carriers.

In total war the amount of troops in the begining of the war isn't that important. It is the ability to produce new weapons and replace lost ones that is more important. BTW Europe has way more than a 1000 fighters.

 

[Sidhe]

In total war the amount of troops in the begining of the war isn't that important. It is the ability to produce new weapons and replace lost ones that is more important. BTW Europe has way more than a 1000 fighters.

Indeed and which country/s would bring more resources to bear? Europe or the US, I'm thinking Steel, aluminium and oil here? I'm not 100% sure- but if the Middle East came to our side, which lets face it their more likely to do than join the US, barring Israel(and you'd think considering their position they'd stay neutral?) - then we're looking at an attrition victory. Unless Canada get taken out early.

Whichever way you look at it it's a loss for the agressors, I think to believe otherwise is probably more due to one side having an errection on, than anything considered?

This so has to be a Civ scenario, it would be superb

 

[Elrohir]

This thread seems to have devolved into a "my penis is bigger than yours." The whole thing is imaginary, so let's not get worked up over nothing.

Yep. But some people will argue over anything....

In total war the amount of troops in the begining of the war isn't that important. It is the ability to produce new weapons and replace lost ones that is more important. BTW Europe has way more than a 1000 fighters.

I agree, the economy of each nation is very important - the US did not beat Japan in WW2 because we had better soldiers, or initially a larger or better military, we beat them because we could overwhelm them with sheer numbers of men and ships.

I wasn't talking about fighters total, I was talking about airplanes on aircraft carriers. But in just fighters total, I'm pretty sure the US would win there too. But this is really starting to get ridiculous, so I think I'll stop here.

 

[Riffraff]

With the international relations you guys have at the moment - we'd kick your ass

 

[Stolen Rutters]

If Europe were united AND were the enemy? Not a chance.

If we came in as liberators? Of course.

Same goes the other way.

Sure, it was pretty much done during WWII but that was a different era. Hitler took Europe because it wasn't prepared to defend itself from the quick strike of the Wehrmacht and the regime kept control of the area by force and by removing any other organization inside Europe with the ability to field an army. When the Americans, Soviets, and British finally came through as liberators, they only had the Wehrmacht to attend to, not a united continent-wide insurgency against the invaders. Oh, yeah, and the fact that the United States economy, at the time, outproduced the rest of the world combined helped alot.

 

[marioh]

This so has to be a Civ scenario, it would be superb

This is the only way to test this scenario. And we should all acknowledge, and accept the results of it.

 

[emzie]

A little nitpick: According to this link, the US can operate "over 1000" aircraft out of its aircraft carriers.

Over 1000 aircraft, not over 1000 fighter/bombers. The same page says "though current Carrier air wings clock in at about 64" which doesn't include recon planes / those radardish weird things. 12 carriers at 64 wouldn't come close to air superority over Europe.

 

[Mise]

We'd roll over and take it in the ass whilst the French throw condescending words at them and the Germans sure up their borders with the millions of German men and women who are too old to do any real work. Spain would detonate bombs along the Pyranees and sail out into the Atlantic Ocean with Portugal, Italy would play defensively and pretend to be injured a lot before switching sides half way through, Norway would sell overpriced oil to underpaid tank drivers, Sweden would tax them, Denmark would film them naked, whilst Holland would make a fortune selling sex and drugs to US troops (the "liberal media" would be blamed for corrupting the Army of Christ). Nobody cares about Belarus, Bulgaria, CZ/SK, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Yugoslavia, the Baltic states, the Ukraine, or any other crappy lil Lebensraum nation like that, so America can probably have them.

 

[Kozmos]

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.

In the question at hand, patriotism is not a question nor a factor. It is simply cold hard logic. In a no holds bar war, excluding only nukes, the EU would fall.

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.

Yup instaead of dead recruits you have dead veterans. Cheerio!

 

[Sidhe]

This is the only way to test this scenario. And we should all acknowledge, and accept the results of it.

K but we'd have to run it a few times, your on best of ten? It would be so cool if we could play it out though, I think that's something everyone could agree on although can you imagine who they get to program it impartially?

 

[Trajan12]

Well we can automatically count the French out as they would surrender after a few days of heat.(Sorry if you want those to end youll have to impress me ) The UK would help us if Blair was in power. I dont see how they could match full US industrial output and their 35 hour workweeks sure wouldnt help.

With massacres, carpet bombing, and mass concentration of airpower or a blitzkrieg we could do it.

 

[Truronian]

Technically, in a no holds barred war between a united Europe and the US, China would win.

 

[Mise]

Technically, in a no holds barred war between a united Europe and the US, China would win.

NK would nuke em.

 

[Trajan12]

We'd roll over and take it in the ass whilst the French throw condescending words at them and the Germans sure up their borders with the millions of German men and women who are too old to do any real work. Spain would detonate bombs along the Pyranees and sail out into the Atlantic Ocean with Portugal, Italy would play defensively and pretend to be injured a lot before switching sides half way through, Norway would sell overpriced oil to underpaid tank drivers, Sweden would tax them, Denmark would film them naked, whilst Holland would make a fortune selling sex and drugs to US troops (the "liberal media" would be blamed for corrupting the Army of Christ). Nobody cares about Belarus, Bulgaria, CZ/SK, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Yugoslavia, the Baltic states, the Ukraine, or any other crappy lil Lebensraum nation like that, so America can probably have them.

 

[emzie]

You know, what everyone is forgetting is this: such a war would be so taxing on both the US and the EU that afterwards, the entire west would have Canada to defend it from Chinese domination.

No but seriously, such a war would devistate both the EU and the US. It would destroy the west.

 

[emzie]

Technically, in a no holds barred war between a united Europe and the US, China would win.

You beat my smart-ass comment by 3 minutes

 

[marioh]

K but we'd have to run it a few times, your on best of ten? It would be so cool if we could play it out though, I think that's something everyone could agree on although can you imagine who they get to program it impartially?

True. A war simulation game would probably be better suited for this type of test rather than Civ.
Knowing how Civ is, we'd probably have the infamous spearman wiping out a whole set of modern armor.