Europe vs. US

[History_Buff]

North Vietnam didnt beat the US militarily......in fact, they lost every single military engagement. It was lack of will that beat the USA in that one...not military might.

But you are free to believe what you want despite historical fact.

The fact that you lost in Vietnam due to political circumstances doesn't mean anything. The US could've won in a heartbeat, had they not had China and the USSR to worry about. Would the American populace support a war against industrial Europe? There's only been a couple thousand casualties (I think, I could very well be wrong) in Iraq, and people are already screaming for a withdrawal. The US populace lost their war teeth some time ago.

Any actual war depends highly on the actual circumstances.

1) EU attacks NA. Americans enraged, Canadians apathetic, possibly hesitantly supportive. American naval superiority likely decisive, invasion repelled. Counter attack highly possible. Europe not a pretty place.

2) America attacks EU. Americans probably not so happy with the whole deal. Canada pissed, oil supplies likely cut down to account for increased local demand. Americans even more pissed. Home field advantage probably gives this one to the EU, but western Europe probably not pretty place.

3) War declared, no surprise assaults. American Navy likely causes this to degenerate in point 2, or a stalemate on either side of the Atlantic, which is the most likely outcome.

That's assuming no nukes of course. The nuclear option is harder for me to arbitrarily decide in my head.

 

[Mise]

Using the cold war definition yes. But that is not appropriate for our discussion.

So stop referring to it...

 

[Che Guava]

POINT OF ORDER: Henceforth, why don't we use the terms developed, underdeveloped, and undevelopped as used by the UN HDI when describing the general affluence and progression of countries?

 

[Mise]

POINT OF ORDER: Henceforth, why don't we use the terms developed, underdeveloped, and undevelopped as used by the UN HDI when describing the general affluence and progression of countries?

Seconded

 

[CCA]

Surprise surprise, most leftists and non-americans voted for Europe winning. Most Americans and rightists voted for America.

 

[MobBoss]

China is Second World, Mexico is Third World, and South Africa is First World.

And yet all of these nations are listed the same in your wiki article. I dont see a lot of difference in any of those and pre-war Iraq to be honest.

So why did you mention "Third World" and "First World" at all? Again, you're back-tracking. It's probably best if you don't refer to Iraq as any kind of "world" if you don't mean anything of the sort

Apparently you have forgotten how the issue came up at all. I am not backtracking, I am still countering the opinion of an earlier poster who stated that pre-war Iraq was a third world country despite its industry and nuclear reactor development.

 

[MobBoss]

They did not have the industrial capacity to maintain a war by themselves (they could not produce weapons and were dependent on imports of all kinds). As soon as they invaded Kuwait, everyone cut the lifelines. Europe can. The argument that Iraq was reasonably well developed is completely asinine.

Actually, having your own military industry is not what defines a third world country. They fought a protracted war with Iran for 8 years.

Iraq was pursuing the construction of a nuclear reactor until the Israelis bombed it. How many EU states havent even attempted this yet?

 

[MobBoss]

The fact that you lost in Vietnam due to political circumstances doesn't mean anything. The US could've won in a heartbeat, had they not had China and the USSR to worry about. Would the American populace support a war against industrial Europe? There's only been a couple thousand casualties (I think, I could very well be wrong) in Iraq, and people are already screaming for a withdrawal. The US populace lost their war teeth some time ago.

Again, I believe the premise is only using a sole comparison of military hardware and capability.

Again, you directly confuse a such a war with the protracted situation in Iraq. During the first months in Iraq when were were actually engaging other military units is the type of conflict I am referring to, not a long frustrating police action. But I suppose you have to recognize the difference in order to see the difference.

But I do agree with you, the circumstances that would begin such a conflict would have direct impact on the feelings and attitude of the populace.

 

[REDY]

Well most realistic scenario
1.1. America will declare war
2.1. Every EU state will send capitulation by their own
3.1. American forces are invited in EU

 

[Verbose]

Well most realistic scenario
1.1. America will declare war
2.1. Every EU state will send capitulation by their own
3.1. American forces are invited in EU

As good a solution as any.

Is the US invading to overthrow Facism and reestablish democracy? Why fight them?

Is the EU invading the US the reestablish the Constitution of the Republic? Why fight them?

If it's a simple matter of whether the US with their present capabilities could go beach-storming in Europe, sure why not?
Appropriate Euro response would be to send the ice-cream vendors by day and the prostitutes by night to confront the US military. Let's take their money.

Should for some unfathomable reason the US and Europe find themselves on an unreconsileable conflict course in the future, I think it's fair to say that the US has so far never been in a conflict with an entity with a larger population, greater industrial capacity and technological parity, if it chooses to spend its money like that.

At the moment Europe has the remnants of an invasion defence designed to take on the SU. Structural inertia means it's still around, but the trend is towards more flexible forces possible to quickly deploy overseas. The US is also not gearing up towards fighting huge campaigns of continental proportions. Neither is facing any direct military threat.

These threds seem to be a case of US wish-fulfillment, finding an imgainary foe on which all these damnably expensive whiz-bang units could actually be used.
That's the slight tragedy of the present US armed forces; all dressed up and nowhere to go.

And since this thread is very much about MobBoss, I think he manages to be perfectly right, broadly speaking (the US could blitz in anywhere if they get a task-force across the atlantic), but totally underestimates everything which is not American.

Should the US assemble a mighty task-force for an invasion of Europe, odds are a couple of carriers would be sunk by Euro subs already leaving port, just to make a point. The latest generation of subs are a known problem for the US navy.

 

[Mise]

And yet all of these nations are listed the same in your wiki article. I dont see a lot of difference in any of those and pre-war Iraq to be honest.

What on Earth are you talking about? Those countries are listed as NICs. The difference is that a Third World nation is defined as a country that is not First or Second world. How hard is that to understand?

Is Iraq First World?

No.

Is Iraq Second World?

No.

...

Therefore, Iraq is Third World.

Apparently you have forgotten how the issue came up at all.

If you had stuck with "it's fairly well developed", and not flung head-long into "it's not a Third World nation", then I'd have agreed with you.

I am not backtracking, I am still countering the opinion of an earlier poster who stated that pre-war Iraq was a third world country despite its industry and nuclear reactor development.

Well, it's a Third World country, despite its industry and nuclear reactor development.

 

[sonorakitch]

The US doesn't have the numbers to invade. Look at the problems they're having in Iraq.

Finally, I think that we can rely on the American armed forces to be massively overconfident and make lots of mistakes, judging from recent (and not-so-recent) performances. Since they need to be quick, I think that this will cost them a lot, they'll be bogged down, and the EU will gradually outmanufacture the US in a protracted war.

Do you really think the problems in Iraq are due to an ineffective fighting force? You really must be off your rocker.

The US pummelled the world's 4th largest army in 1991 in 100 hours, they invaded a country successfully in 8 weeks that the Soviet Army couldn't do in 8 years, and they once again invaded and occupied a country the size of the Iberian peninsula in 3 weeks.

The problems now are IED's my friend. The US military, if the political machine were to unleash it, would eliminate any further resistance in Iraq in weeks. But---because of the problems with collateral damage and American loss of life (as well as some other things) we don't.

To say that the problems in Iraq are a military effectiveness problem is ignorant at best.

~Chris

 

[sonorakitch]

I am not sure the OP was specifically asking about an invasion of one or the other...simply a war. A more even and serious look at military capabillity and effectiveness would be the clash of these two armies on a third point in the world. Say Sudan...or Indonesia...or somewhere else.

The idea that either country [bloc] could effectively occupy the other is pretty ridiculous...I think we can all agree on that.

If this war were to be fought over some third party territory, the US would win in a landslide. That is my opinion, based on factual evidence collected over thousands of years and millions of books (not to mention a few CFC threads).

Oh well.

~Chris

 

[Nylan]

Do you really think the problems in Iraq are due to an ineffective fighting force? You really must be off your rocker.

The US pummelled the world's 4th largest army in 1991 in 100 hours, they invaded a country successfully in 8 weeks that the Soviet Army couldn't do in 8 years, and they once again invaded and occupied a country the size of the Iberian peninsula in 3 weeks.

The problems now are IED's my friend. The US military, if the political machine were to unleash it, would eliminate any further resistance in Iraq in weeks. But---because of the problems with collateral damage and American loss of life (as well as some other things) we don't.

To say that the problems in Iraq are a military effectiveness problem is ignorant at best.

~Chris

Best explanation I've heard in years

*cringes in fear of liberal backlash*

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

The US pummelled the world's 4th largest army in 1991 in 100 hours, they invaded a country successfully in 8 weeks that the Soviet Army couldn't do in 8 years, and they once again invaded and occupied a country the size of the Iberian peninsula in 3 weeks.

False. The Soviet Union easily occupied urban areas and easily repelled all Mujahadeen efforts to dislodge them from urban areas throughout the entire war. It was rural areas that the rebels held on to. Even after the Soviet Union withdrew completely, the democratic government there repeatedly held Kabul against Islamist attacks for three years. The Soviet Union went in with a sympathetic government controlling Kabul.

The Soviet Union left because mounting economic troubles at home made it impossible to maintain a costly Afghani effort.

The Taliban, on the other hand, still control almost half the country. The idea that the war has been won in Afghanistan is completely false.

 

[Verbose]

False. The Soviet Union easily occupied urban areas and easily repelled all Mujahadeen efforts to dislodge them from urban areas throughout the entire war. It was rural areas that the rebels held on to. Even after the Soviet Union withdrew completely, the democratic government there repeatedly held Kabul against Islamist attacks for three years. The Soviet Union went in with a sympathetic government controlling Kabul.

The Soviet Union left because mounting economic troubles at home made it impossible to maintain a costly Afghani effort.

The Taliban, on the other hand, still control almost half the country. The idea that the war has been won in Afghanistan is completely false.

The Soviets losing in Afghanistan the way they did was really a tragedy. It meant almost all of the western educated progressive secular elite of the country ended up in Russia, giving the traditionalists pretty much a free hand in running the place.

 

[Brighteye]

Do you really think the problems in Iraq are due to an ineffective fighting force? You really must be off your rocker.

The problems now are IED's my friend. The US military, if the political machine were to unleash it, would eliminate any further resistance in Iraq in weeks. But---because of the problems with collateral damage and American loss of life (as well as some other things) we don't.

To say that the problems in Iraq are a military effectiveness problem is ignorant at best.

The aim is to hold down a country with a hostile population whilst not destroying that population. The US hasn't the numbers to do this effectively.
Claiming that it has the numbers to do something else, such as kill almost anyone, isn't relevant. If we're going for civilian casualties in a war between Europe and the US, we may as well exchange nukes, and we'll all go together.

If the US invaded Europe in an attempt at military conquest it would fail. If it went in for destruction rather than conquest, it would succeed, but if things went that far, as I said, Europe would use what nukes it has, which is plenty enough to kill huge amounts of the American population.

In a third location, America has the advantage, and would probably win, unless the location for some reason gave the EU a very big advantage (such as being ridiculously close to home turf).

 

[innonimatu]

The US pummelled the world's 4th largest army in 1991 in 100 hours

What, you still believe that outdated propaganda? I guess Grenada was also a threat to the United States and Panama a mighty enemy governed by a demon worshiper...

Face it, the US only attacks weak enemies.

 

[Phlegmak]

they invaded a country successfully in 8 weeks that the Soviet Army couldn't do in 8 years,

Just an FYI: The US mostly outsourced that invasion to the Northern Alliance. The US just bombed the Taliban. The Northern Alliance did the ground work. Mostly.

 

[Nylan]

Face it, the US only attacks weak enemies.

yeah, like Imperial Japan, a China-backed North Korea, and Nazi Germany