StarGateWars Forums

Jack wrote:

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:You overestimate the USA's ability to invade Europe. It does so happen that the UK has the world's second largest navy and between them the rest of Europe can produce a decent sized navy.

The UK's Navy is more like 10th in size, no where close to being the second largest. Seriously, South Korea even has a larger navy than the UK. XD I think, however, what you meant was that it is the second best. But again, you're overestimating your navy's ability. When I say the US's navy outnumbers the UK's navy, I don't mean that we have 50 ships and you have 49, I mean we have 250 ships to your 45. Hell, our destroyers(53), corvettes(48) and nuclear powered subs(71) individually out number your entire naval fleet. Yes, grouped together with the rest of the Europe, you could possibly field a Navy close to half the size of ours. But I still don't think that it would be adequate.

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:As for weapons, do you think Europe is Afghanistan or something? European nations have and DO build their own military technology independent of the USA's.

I never said they didn't, I said that the American lead NATO relies mostly on American military equipment and that a lot of European countries utilize American equipment.

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:And it is France, Germany and Belgium who are the ones pushing for a European army independent of NATO. Haven't you been watching the news? Only Britain really supported the USA in it's recent wars. The others WANT a multipolar world. Europe has alot of economic might and it wants the military might to back that up. Ten years down the road we'll see a new world order of major powers, the USA, China, Russia and Europe.

That still does not tell me why the other European nations would join a losing fight that they don't have to. You said it yourself, they wouldn't help us with our little skirmishes, so why would they help the UK? We're also not talking about 10 years down the road, we're talking about a war today.

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:So Jack, don't make the mistake of thinking everyone is dependent on American military technology.

Didn't say dependent on American military tech, I said dependent on the American lead NATO which relies on the American military and it's tech.

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:After all, remember who was the father of the American space program and for that matter it's missile program? A German, taken as spoils of war from Germany.

Yes and it's the Germans that introduced the world to the fighter jet and the Germans that introduced the world to the flying wing(the B-2 is a flying wing) and showed the world that a competent AF is a must to win wars. But how does this have any effect on a war between America and Europe today? It honestly doesn't, it can't change what has happened years ago. For instance during the cold war Canada had the most technologically advanced AF in the world, today they barely even have an AF, and what fighters they do have are all outdated.

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:

Jack wrote:

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:You overestimate the USA's ability to invade Europe. It does so happen that the UK has the world's second largest navy and between them the rest of Europe can produce a decent sized navy.

The UK's Navy is more like 10th in size, no where close to being the second largest. Seriously, South Korea even has a larger navy than the UK. XD I think, however, what you meant was that it is the second best. But again, you're overestimating your navy's ability. When I say the US's navy outnumbers the UK's navy, I don't mean that we have 50 ships and you have 49, I mean we have 250 ships to your 45. Hell, our destroyers(53), corvettes(48) and nuclear powered subs(71) individually out number your entire naval fleet. Yes, grouped together with the rest of the Europe, you could possibly field a Navy close to half the size of ours. But I still don't think that it would be adequate.

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:As for weapons, do you think Europe is Afghanistan or something? European nations have and DO build their own military technology independent of the USA's.

I never said they didn't, I said that the American lead NATO relies mostly on American military equipment and that a lot of European countries utilize American equipment.

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:And it is France, Germany and Belgium who are the ones pushing for a European army independent of NATO. Haven't you been watching the news? Only Britain really supported the USA in it's recent wars. The others WANT a multipolar world. Europe has alot of economic might and it wants the military might to back that up. Ten years down the road we'll see a new world order of major powers, the USA, China, Russia and Europe.

That still does not tell me why the other European nations would join a losing fight that they don't have to. You said it yourself, they wouldn't help us with our little skirmishes, so why would they help the UK? We're also not talking about 10 years down the road, we're talking about a war today.

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:So Jack, don't make the mistake of thinking everyone is dependent on American military technology.

Didn't say dependent on American military tech, I said dependent on the American lead NATO which relies on the American military and it's tech.

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:After all, remember who was the father of the American space program and for that matter it's missile program? A German, taken as spoils of war from Germany.

Yes and it's the Germans that introduced the world to the fighter jet and the Germans that introduced the world to the flying wing(the B-2 is a flying wing) and showed the world that a competent AF is a must to win wars. But how does this have any effect on a war between America and Europe today? It honestly doesn't, it can't change what has happened years ago. For instance during the cold war Canada had the most technologically advanced AF in the world, today they barely even have an AF, and what fighters they do have are all outdated.

To launch an invasion one must have OVERWHELMING naval and air superiority. You only need a third of a nation's AF/Navy to stop that nation invading you. Of course this applies to an invasion across an ocean.

AND you implied that European forces need American technology to function. I believe you said something similar to "what would you arm those troops with? Sticks and stones? Contrary to popular liberal opinion, guns and explosives don't grow on trees." That implies that without American equipment, European forces would have no weapons. As I've previously pointed out, that is untrue.

It is logistically impossible for the USA to invade Europe without crippling itself. Conquest these days is not as easy as it once was.

Thriller wrote:

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:

Jack wrote:

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:You overestimate the USA's ability to invade Europe. It does so happen that the UK has the world's second largest navy and between them the rest of Europe can produce a decent sized navy.

The UK's Navy is more like 10th in size, no where close to being the second largest. Seriously, South Korea even has a larger navy than the UK. XD I think, however, what you meant was that it is the second best. But again, you're overestimating your navy's ability. When I say the US's navy outnumbers the UK's navy, I don't mean that we have 50 ships and you have 49, I mean we have 250 ships to your 45. Hell, our destroyers(53), corvettes(48) and nuclear powered subs(71) individually out number your entire naval fleet. Yes, grouped together with the rest of the Europe, you could possibly field a Navy close to half the size of ours. But I still don't think that it would be adequate.

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:As for weapons, do you think Europe is Afghanistan or something? European nations have and DO build their own military technology independent of the USA's.

I never said they didn't, I said that the American lead NATO relies mostly on American military equipment and that a lot of European countries utilize American equipment.

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:And it is France, Germany and Belgium who are the ones pushing for a European army independent of NATO. Haven't you been watching the news? Only Britain really supported the USA in it's recent wars. The others WANT a multipolar world. Europe has alot of economic might and it wants the military might to back that up. Ten years down the road we'll see a new world order of major powers, the USA, China, Russia and Europe.

That still does not tell me why the other European nations would join a losing fight that they don't have to. You said it yourself, they wouldn't help us with our little skirmishes, so why would they help the UK? We're also not talking about 10 years down the road, we're talking about a war today.

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:So Jack, don't make the mistake of thinking everyone is dependent on American military technology.

Didn't say dependent on American military tech, I said dependent on the American lead NATO which relies on the American military and it's tech.

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:After all, remember who was the father of the American space program and for that matter it's missile program? A German, taken as spoils of war from Germany.

Yes and it's the Germans that introduced the world to the fighter jet and the Germans that introduced the world to the flying wing(the B-2 is a flying wing) and showed the world that a competent AF is a must to win wars. But how does this have any effect on a war between America and Europe today? It honestly doesn't, it can't change what has happened years ago. For instance during the cold war Canada had the most technologically advanced AF in the world, today they barely even have an AF, and what fighters they do have are all outdated.

To launch an invasion one must have OVERWHELMING naval and air superiority. You only need a third of a nation's AF/Navy to stop that nation invading you. Of course this applies to an invasion across an ocean.

AND you implied that European forces need American technology to function. I believe you said something similar to "what would you arm those troops with? Sticks and stones? Contrary to popular liberal opinion, guns and explosives don't grow on trees." That implies that without American equipment, European forces would have no weapons. As I've previously pointed out, that is untrue.

It is logistically impossible for the USA to invade Europe without crippling itself. Conquest these days is not as easy as it once was.

You presuposing the use of coventional warfare exclusively, governments can be toppeled without having to fire a shot.

"enemy devided cannot stand." kind of idea would be best applied.

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:

Thriller wrote:

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:

Jack wrote:

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:You overestimate the USA's ability to invade Europe. It does so happen that the UK has the world's second largest navy and between them the rest of Europe can produce a decent sized navy.

The UK's Navy is more like 10th in size, no where close to being the second largest. Seriously, South Korea even has a larger navy than the UK. XD I think, however, what you meant was that it is the second best. But again, you're overestimating your navy's ability. When I say the US's navy outnumbers the UK's navy, I don't mean that we have 50 ships and you have 49, I mean we have 250 ships to your 45. Hell, our destroyers(53), corvettes(48) and nuclear powered subs(71) individually out number your entire naval fleet. Yes, grouped together with the rest of the Europe, you could possibly field a Navy close to half the size of ours. But I still don't think that it would be adequate.

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:As for weapons, do you think Europe is Afghanistan or something? European nations have and DO build their own military technology independent of the USA's.

I never said they didn't, I said that the American lead NATO relies mostly on American military equipment and that a lot of European countries utilize American equipment.

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:And it is France, Germany and Belgium who are the ones pushing for a European army independent of NATO. Haven't you been watching the news? Only Britain really supported the USA in it's recent wars. The others WANT a multipolar world. Europe has alot of economic might and it wants the military might to back that up. Ten years down the road we'll see a new world order of major powers, the USA, China, Russia and Europe.

That still does not tell me why the other European nations would join a losing fight that they don't have to. You said it yourself, they wouldn't help us with our little skirmishes, so why would they help the UK? We're also not talking about 10 years down the road, we're talking about a war today.

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:So Jack, don't make the mistake of thinking everyone is dependent on American military technology.

Didn't say dependent on American military tech, I said dependent on the American lead NATO which relies on the American military and it's tech.

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:After all, remember who was the father of the American space program and for that matter it's missile program? A German, taken as spoils of war from Germany.

Yes and it's the Germans that introduced the world to the fighter jet and the Germans that introduced the world to the flying wing(the B-2 is a flying wing) and showed the world that a competent AF is a must to win wars. But how does this have any effect on a war between America and Europe today? It honestly doesn't, it can't change what has happened years ago. For instance during the cold war Canada had the most technologically advanced AF in the world, today they barely even have an AF, and what fighters they do have are all outdated.

To launch an invasion one must have OVERWHELMING naval and air superiority. You only need a third of a nation's AF/Navy to stop that nation invading you. Of course this applies to an invasion across an ocean.

AND you implied that European forces need American technology to function. I believe you said something similar to "what would you arm those troops with? Sticks and stones? Contrary to popular liberal opinion, guns and explosives don't grow on trees." That implies that without American equipment, European forces would have no weapons. As I've previously pointed out, that is untrue.

It is logistically impossible for the USA to invade Europe without crippling itself. Conquest these days is not as easy as it once was.

You presuposing the use of coventional warfare exclusively, governments can be toppeled without having to fire a shot.

"enemy devided cannot stand." kind of idea would be best applied.

But of course! We ARE discussing CONQUEST through warfare...there are easier ways to conquer a nation or nations, but even so western governments are too stable to truly break down..you would have to be someone amazing, almost messianic to do so, but a 3rd world nation..quite easily.

Jack wrote:If there ever was any doubt about the Russians joining the US in a war versus Europe, go ahead and erase it all from your minds right now.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/04/world ... ml?_r=1&hp

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:

Jack wrote:If there ever was any doubt about the Russians joining the US in a war versus Europe, go ahead and erase it all from your minds right now.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/04/world ... ml?_r=1&hp

lmao..Jack, do u think Russia enjoys American plans to build a missile defence system in what it considers it's domain? Until the USA totally abandons plans for such and any plans to extend it's influence to nations part of the former Soviet Union, Russia will never side with the USA.

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:It is an accepted fact by people IN THE KNOW that a single nation's dominance of the world will never occur to the scale of what it used to be like. I know Americans love their stats in sports as well as war but it is the intangibles that decide many outcomes. You can't just plant 100k or even a million soldiers on an enemy beach and say go invade. At the end of the day, regardless of how many ships one has, how many planes one has, invasion requires men to fight on the ground. And don't come on here claiming that American guns are better than European and all that claptrap.

Semper wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_mkwB9ayK4&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE





are these facts hard enough?

this is a debate forum, not a video forum.

But in response, the first one sums up everything lol..

and the one about the 'british'
they were all bloody scottish! The guy asking the questions was english. No one cares about the scots or the irish. We english despise them more then anyone.

Jack wrote:Why would we want to build a missile shield to protect Europe if we were invading them?