UK & Europe vs USA

[Jack]

Still no match for Europe... Russia, has an amazing military, Germany, is still strong, Australia, is the best military in the world. (This assuming that Australia gets called in under the commonwealth act. )

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


You need Australia to win? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA pathetic! You need to assemble half the world, just to be able to have a fair fight with us, one country? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You best surrender now, kid!

lol @

If all of Europe banded together & I really do mean all of Europe (which includes russia) could get together under one banner then yes they could go toe-to-toe with the US.

Kinda pathetic, really.

Its more to do with population figures that really rather than professional fighting forces. I mean I am assuming that in such an event conscripts would be used.

The US has a large population even when compared to that of Europe, especially when you limit that to those able to fight.

Technologically wise it'd be a somewhat pointless comparison, we'd just lob nukes at each other and be done with it. lets face it we can kill each other many hundreds of times over already

That's a piss poor excuse, the EU almost doubles the US's population BEFORE you add the non-EU European countries!

[CRASSUS]

lol @

If all of Europe banded together & I really do mean all of Europe (which includes russia) could get together under one banner then yes they could go toe-to-toe with the US.

Kinda pathetic, really.

Its more to do with population figures that really rather than professional fighting forces. I mean I am assuming that in such an event conscripts would be used.

The US has a large population even when compared to that of Europe, especially when you limit that to those able to fight.

Manpower wise that is, after all European countries are somewhat smaller than the US.

Technologically wise it'd be a somewhat pointless comparison, we'd just lob nukes at each other and be done with it. lets face it we can kill each other many hundreds of times over already

no. you can kill us maybe 20 times over seeing as we can eliminate 90% of your nuclear arsenal (except france, sneaky sub making french).

[Kit-Fox]

Honestly I dont know that Jack, I would have thought the US population would have exceeded the EU before adding russia.

Well I stand corrected

[Kit-Fox]

lol @

If all of Europe banded together & I really do mean all of Europe (which includes russia) could get together under one banner then yes they could go toe-to-toe with the US.

Kinda pathetic, really.

Its more to do with population figures that really rather than professional fighting forces. I mean I am assuming that in such an event conscripts would be used.

The US has a large population even when compared to that of Europe, especially when you limit that to those able to fight.

Manpower wise that is, after all European countries are somewhat smaller than the US.

Technologically wise it'd be a somewhat pointless comparison, we'd just lob nukes at each other and be done with it. lets face it we can kill each other many hundreds of times over already

no. you can kill us maybe 20 times over seeing as we can eliminate 90% of your nuclear arsenal (except france, sneaky sub making french).

no with russia we could kill you many times over just like you could to us. and russia/uk&france all operate nuclear armed submarine patrols.

[Deaths_Rider]

Still no match for Europe... Russia, has an amazing military, Germany, is still strong, Australia, is the best military in the world. (This assuming that Australia gets called in under the commonwealth act. )

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


You need Australia to win? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA pathetic! You need to assemble half the world, just to be able to have a fair fight with us, one country? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You best surrender now, kid!


[quote]

and how are those wars agansist two third world countrys going for you? if you cant crush them in a 10 year period without large loses how would you extend the frount to all of europe and the uk

[CRASSUS]

lol @

If all of Europe banded together & I really do mean all of Europe (which includes russia) could get together under one banner then yes they could go toe-to-toe with the US.

Kinda pathetic, really.

Its more to do with population figures that really rather than professional fighting forces. I mean I am assuming that in such an event conscripts would be used.

The US has a large population even when compared to that of Europe, especially when you limit that to those able to fight.

Manpower wise that is, after all European countries are somewhat smaller than the US.

Technologically wise it'd be a somewhat pointless comparison, we'd just lob nukes at each other and be done with it. lets face it we can kill each other many hundreds of times over already

no. you can kill us maybe 20 times over seeing as we can eliminate 90% of your nuclear arsenal (except france, sneaky sub making french).

no with russia we could kill you many times over just like you could to us. and russia/uk&france all operate nuclear armed submarine patrols.

A: Russia is not europe, Russia doesn't like the EU.
B: we can find the UK submarines, we can't find those pesky french.

[Kit-Fox]

IF we were at war you'd find it pretty hard to find our subs, just like we'd find it hard to find yours.

And russia is part of Europe even if it doesnt like it

[Deaths_Rider]

while i agree russia would fight on the side of the EU it would only happen so they could take over more land maybe even have the us as a new russian territory

[Jack]

Honestly I dont know that Jack, I would have thought the US population would have exceeded the EU before adding russia.

Well I stand corrected

The American population is roughly 300m, the EU population is roughly 500m.

[spoiler]

lol @

If all of Europe banded together & I really do mean all of Europe (which includes russia) could get together under one banner then yes they could go toe-to-toe with the US.

Kinda pathetic, really.

Its more to do with population figures that really rather than professional fighting forces. I mean I am assuming that in such an event conscripts would be used.

The US has a large population even when compared to that of Europe, especially when you limit that to those able to fight.

Manpower wise that is, after all European countries are somewhat smaller than the US.

Technologically wise it'd be a somewhat pointless comparison, we'd just lob nukes at each other and be done with it. lets face it we can kill each other many hundreds of times over already

[/spoiler]

no. you can kill us maybe 20 times over seeing as we can eliminate 90% of your nuclear arsenal (except france, sneaky sub making french).

And shoot down the rest, remind me again why we are worried about their nukes, exactly?

[spoiler]

lol @

If all of Europe banded together & I really do mean all of Europe (which includes russia) could get together under one banner then yes they could go toe-to-toe with the US.

Kinda pathetic, really.

Its more to do with population figures that really rather than professional fighting forces. I mean I am assuming that in such an event conscripts would be used.

The US has a large population even when compared to that of Europe, especially when you limit that to those able to fight.

Manpower wise that is, after all European countries are somewhat smaller than the US.

Technologically wise it'd be a somewhat pointless comparison, we'd just lob nukes at each other and be done with it. lets face it we can kill each other many hundreds of times over already

no. you can kill us maybe 20 times over seeing as we can eliminate 90% of your nuclear arsenal (except france, sneaky sub making french).

[/spoiler]

no with russia we could kill you many times over just like you could to us. and russia/uk&france all operate nuclear armed submarine patrols.

So basically you need outdated Russian weapons to take us.

and how are those wars agansist two third world countrys going for you? if you cant crush them in a 10 year period without large loses how would you extend the frount to all of europe and the uk

10 years? Not really, it hasn't even been 8 yet. It's more like 6 years. 5k military casualties is a lot? We had a small battalion go up against 2,000,000 militants, you're telling me that 5k casualties is a lot? I guess we know now who'll be the first to surrender. French not withstanding, as they'll surrender before the party even starts.

while i agree russia would fight on the side of the EU it would only happen so they could take over more land maybe even have the us as a new russian territory

Honestly, I think you would find that Russia would probably join sides with the US over the EU, considering the EU would be the bigger threat after the war. Considering that the EU is in their backyard. It would be wiser for Russia to take out the EU then the US because of that.

[Mister Sandman]

A: Russia is not europe, Russia doesn't like the EU.
B: we can find the UK submarines, we can't find those pesky french.

A: Russia is Eastern Europe. Get a globe.
B: Who cares?

Honestly, I think you would find that Russia would probably join sides with the US over the EU, considering the EU would be the bigger threat after the war. Considering that the EU is in their backyard. It would be wiser for Russia to take out the EU then the US because of that.

Russia would probably with EU. Then after may be more likely make a third front.

10 years? Not really, it hasn't even been 8 yet. It's more like 6 years. 5k military casualties is a lot? We had a small battalion go up against 2,000,000 militants, you're telling me that 5k casualties is a lot? I guess we know now who'll be the first to surrender. French not withstanding, as they'll surrender before the party even starts.

In all honesty you cannot defeat Afghanistan, or the 'terrorists'. It is all fictional. Also, you claim you went against around 2 000 000 militants, that your so very very wrong. More likely you went against 2 thousand.

The solider gets paid to fight, the rebel doesn't. That means the rebels can win.

So basically you need outdated Russian weapons to take us.

The Kalashnikov is the best weapon for mass use in the world.

Still no match for Europe... Russia, has an amazing military, Germany, is still strong, Australia, is the best military in the world. (This assuming that Australia gets called in under the commonwealth act. )

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


You need Australia to win? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA pathetic! You need to assemble half the world, just to be able to have a fair fight with us, one country? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You best surrender now, kid!

EU wouldnt need Australia to win. Also, remember, USA is not just 'one country' it is one of the biggest countries in the world.

Added to this you forget the social implication which USA would do horribly at. As USA is a second world country in many respects, and its migration, gun control problems already there. USA may fall under its feet. Meaning, social tension, due to war, and due to an economic crisis a war with USA vs Europe. USA will fall fast!

If you havent noticed, USA is dependant on trade.


No trade = No economy.


Since in war times, Europe is closer to everything that means. Europe would have NO problem what so ever trading with Asia and other countries.
Restriction on USA would be easily placed.

And USA buddies, dont go looking for help in the south, because Latin America hate you too (mainly because most of the south American countries are converting to socialism, and communism. )


Have Fun

[Deaths_Rider]

The solider gets paid to fight, the rebel doesn't. That means the rebels can win.

someones been watching Godfather 2

oh and can we stop fighting fictional wars this wasn't who would win a fight it was which is better to live in

[Mister Sandman]

The solider gets paid to fight, the rebel doesn't. That means the rebels can win.

someones been watching Godfather 2

oh and can we stop fighting fictional wars this wasn't who would win a fight it was which is better to live in

Havnt seen that movie yet.

[Kit-Fox]

Jack you know damn well the US couldnt shoot down a couple of hundred nukes any more than the rest of the world could and thats without russia

So uk & france alone couldnt kill you hundreds of times over with em but hell we only need to do it once and that we certainly could do alone & you know it.

With russia we'd just be able to kill you as many times over as you could kill us, little point as like I said it only needs to be done once but since we arent really worrying about that and comapring numbers atm...

Why you have to make it such a big thing?? Is it really that much of a threat to you to accept that the US isnt invincible? BEsides the whole thing is academic as you certainly know damn well it'd never happen

[semper]

Actually, man for man the UK army is the best in the world, SAS anyone? Alas it is very small though. Australia, Mr Sandman? pleeeeeeeeasssseeeee.. lol.

Just thought I would pitch that in there.

This was not just an argument about war, it was meant to encompass all aspects of these countries. We all know america has no culture, but their ability to destroy it should not be ignored...

[CRASSUS]

A: Russia is not europe, Russia doesn't like the EU.
B: we can find the UK submarines, we can't find those pesky french.

A: Russia is Eastern Europe. Get a globe.
B: Who cares?

Russia is eastern europe but has never really felt european throughout it's history, not to mention Russia would prefer oil and resource rich countries of eastern europe to the United States.

Honestly, I think you would find that Russia would probably join sides with the US over the EU, considering the EU would be the bigger threat after the war. Considering that the EU is in their backyard. It would be wiser for Russia to take out the EU then the US because of that.

Russia would probably with EU. Then after may be more likely make a third front.

Why would they risk millions of soldiers when they could just invade eastern europe, more then likely WITH US support

10 years? Not really, it hasn't even been 8 yet. It's more like 6 years. 5k military casualties is a lot? We had a small battalion go up against 2,000,000 militants, you're telling me that 5k casualties is a lot? I guess we know now who'll be the first to surrender. French not withstanding, as they'll surrender before the party even starts.

In all honesty you cannot defeat Afghanistan, or the 'terrorists'. It is all fictional. Also, you claim you went against around 2 000 000 militants, that your so very very wrong. More likely you went against 2 thousand.

The solider gets paid to fight, the rebel doesn't. That means the rebels can win.

The engligh didn't win in Afghanistan, the Russians didn't win in chechnya, the japanese didn't win in manchuria, occupations are a **Filtered** it's a fact.

So basically you need outdated Russian weapons to take us.

The Kalashnikov is the best weapon for mass use in the world.

Doesn't make it outdated.

Still no match for Europe... Russia, has an amazing military, Germany, is still strong, Australia, is the best military in the world. (This assuming that Australia gets called in under the commonwealth act. )

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


You need Australia to win? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA pathetic! You need to assemble half the world, just to be able to have a fair fight with us, one country? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You best surrender now, kid!

EU wouldnt need Australia to win. Also, remember, USA is not just 'one country' it is one of the biggest countries in the world.

Added to this you forget the social implication which USA would do horribly at. As USA is a second world country in many respects, and its migration, gun control problems already there. USA may fall under its feet. Meaning, social tension, due to war, and due to an economic crisis a war with USA vs Europe. USA will fall fast!

If you havent noticed, USA is dependant on trade.


No trade = No economy.


Since in war times, Europe is closer to everything that means. Europe would have NO problem what so ever trading with Asia and other countries.
Restriction on USA would be easily placed.

And USA buddies, dont go looking for help in the south, because Latin America hate you too (mainly because most of the south American countries are converting to socialism, and communism. )


Have Fun [/quote]

You think europe has the supplies to be self-sustaining compared to the United States? that's ludicrous. Not to mention Asia would tell you to go to hell and trade with the US, seeing as there are US troops in South Korea assuring mutual protection against the north, there are troops in Japan, there are troops in Taiwan, we have better relations with China then europe. Also Europe has a far worse immigration problem then the united states.

If we were at war with europe you don't think we wouldn't tell the South Americans to either give us supplies and troops or we would literally bomb every square inch of their country?

Actually, man for man the UK army is the best in the world, SAS anyone? Alas it is very small though. Australia, Mr Sandman? pleeeeeeeeasssseeeee.. lol.

Just thought I would pitch that in there.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displa ... d=13022029 Small and inept.

http://www.economist.com/world/britain/ ... d=13022177

Jack you know damn well the US couldnt shoot down a couple of hundred nukes any more than the rest of the world could and thats without russia

So uk & france alone couldnt kill you hundreds of times over with em but hell we only need to do it once and that we certainly could do alone & you know it.

No we can shoot your nukes inside your silo's.