StarGateWars Forums

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:You ever thought about the logistics of invading a 1st world nation with a significant population over the distance of the Atlantic? Aircraft carriers would have to be used to get planes in range..vulnerable to attack by the RAF. Troop transports vulnerable to the British navy. I could go on..It's way easier to invade a nation which has no proper airforce or navy. The cost would far outweigh the gains. And China's leaders will be rubbing their hands in glee because by the end they WILL be the new Superpower.


Ofcourse don't misunderstand me, I am not anti-American..hell most of my girlfriends were American lol. But facts are facts. We live in a multipolar world where the top power IS the USA, but not so powerful it could invade the next 5-6 other powers without paying a greater cost than it would like.

The nation that discovers a 100 percent effective defence against nuclear weapons can destroy anyone with impunity. But until that happens don't hold your breath.

We have more carriers then the rest of the world combined. That's hardly going to be an issue against a nation with 2.

We have over 20 cruisers, how many does the UK have? Oh right, ZERO. The British navy is pales in comparison to the US navy. Your entire air force just barely out numbers our F-22 fleet... XD

I just finished reading a book called 'The Second World' which theorized that the world of the 21st Century will be dominated by three superpowers all vying for economic supremacy; China, the USA and the European Union. I disagree with the premise, on the basic that the EU is not united enough to constitue a superpower, but it made for interesting reading.

For a start, I don't think anybody should underestimate Britain. Hitler attempted an invasion with arguably superior odds and failed. Luck was on our side, admittedly, but I also like to think that spirit was a factor too.

You also have to ask the question of how the rest of the world would react to a war between the US and the UK. As ETL said, China would be rubbing its hands with glee. A lot of countries, for whatever reason, are Anti-American.. and would therefore be glad of chance to take them down a peg or two. Whom they side with in such a hypothetical war could be the deciding factor, possibly turning it from an inevitable US victory into something different. How much funding and support would the UK recieve compared to the US? Who would they turn to for help? I can't think of anybody, to be honest, whereas the UK has the commonwealth, Europe and god knows whoever else dislikes American globalization. This is not a foregone conclusion.

Mordack wrote:I just finished reading a book called 'The Second World' which theorized that the world of the 21st Century will be dominated by three superpowers all vying for economic supremacy; China, the USA and the European Union. I disagree with the premise, on the basic that the EU is not united enough to constitue a superpower, but it made for interesting reading.

For a start, I don't think anybody should underestimate Britain. Hitler attempted an invasion with arguably superior odds and failed. Luck was on our side, admittedly, but I also like to think that spirit was a factor too.

You also have to ask the question of how the rest of the world would react to a war between the US and the UK. As ETL said, China would be rubbing its hands with glee. A lot of countries, for whatever reason, are Anti-American.. and would therefore be glad of chance to take them down a peg or two. Whom they side with in such a hypothetical war could be the deciding factor, possibly turning it from an inevitable US victory into something different. How much funding and support would the UK recieve compared to the US? Who would they turn to for help? I can't think of anybody, to be honest, whereas the UK has the commonwealth, Europe and god knows whoever else dislikes American globalization. This is not a foregone conclusion.

And whom of any importance would fight with you from the commonwealth? I'm fairly confidant that Australia would join America if they were forced to choose a side, likewise with the Canucks, but even if the Canucks didn't it wouldn't matter, they almost entirely rely on us for their defense. India wouldn't fight us either. You're also putting way too much stock into this "everyone hates America" stuff. Sure there is a lot of hate for America, but it isn't suicidal. China would be quite happy about the war, but they would not fight against America, if anything they would help us. If Russia were to get in on the war then I could almost guarantee that it would be on our side, as we could promise them some of Europe in exchange for their cooperation. Hell, we could quite possibly make the same deal with China and India. That would be a sight, every super power on the planet ganging up on little ol' Europe.


And even if the rest of Europe joined in against a solo US, we could STILL take you. I don't think you truly appreciate the size and magnitude of the American military. You also mention supplies and funding. Well, how much of your military tech is of American design? How much is purchased from America? Now how much of our military tech is purchased from foreign nations? Where would you turn for weapons once we stopped selling you ours?

Jack wrote:

Mordack wrote:I just finished reading a book called 'The Second World' which theorized that the world of the 21st Century will be dominated by three superpowers all vying for economic supremacy; China, the USA and the European Union. I disagree with the premise, on the basic that the EU is not united enough to constitue a superpower, but it made for interesting reading.

For a start, I don't think anybody should underestimate Britain. Hitler attempted an invasion with arguably superior odds and failed. Luck was on our side, admittedly, but I also like to think that spirit was a factor too.

You also have to ask the question of how the rest of the world would react to a war between the US and the UK. As ETL said, China would be rubbing its hands with glee. A lot of countries, for whatever reason, are Anti-American.. and would therefore be glad of chance to take them down a peg or two. Whom they side with in such a hypothetical war could be the deciding factor, possibly turning it from an inevitable US victory into something different. How much funding and support would the UK recieve compared to the US? Who would they turn to for help? I can't think of anybody, to be honest, whereas the UK has the commonwealth, Europe and god knows whoever else dislikes American globalization. This is not a foregone conclusion.

And whom of any importance would fight with you from the commonwealth? I'm fairly confidant that Australia would join America if they were forced to choose a side, likewise with the Canucks, but even if the Canucks didn't it wouldn't matter, they almost entirely rely on us for their defense. India wouldn't fight us either. You're also putting way too much stock into this "everyone hates America" stuff. Sure there is a lot of hate for America, but it isn't suicidal. China would be quite happy about the war, but they would not fight against America, if anything they would help us. If Russia were to get in on the war then I could almost guarantee that it would be on our side, as we could promise them some of Europe in exchange for their cooperation. Hell, we could quite possibly make the same deal with China and India. That would be a sight, every super power on the planet ganging up on little ol' Europe.


And even if the rest of Europe joined in against a solo US, we could STILL take you. I don't think you truly appreciate the size and magnitude of the American military. You also mention supplies and funding. Well, how much of your military tech is of American design? How much is purchased from America? Now how much of our military tech is purchased from foreign nations? Where would you turn for weapons once we stopped selling you ours?

Rely on you for defense??? WHo do you think you are protecting us from lol

Jack wrote:

Mordack wrote:I just finished reading a book called 'The Second World' which theorized that the world of the 21st Century will be dominated by three superpowers all vying for economic supremacy; China, the USA and the European Union. I disagree with the premise, on the basic that the EU is not united enough to constitue a superpower, but it made for interesting reading.

For a start, I don't think anybody should underestimate Britain. Hitler attempted an invasion with arguably superior odds and failed. Luck was on our side, admittedly, but I also like to think that spirit was a factor too.

You also have to ask the question of how the rest of the world would react to a war between the US and the UK. As ETL said, China would be rubbing its hands with glee. A lot of countries, for whatever reason, are Anti-American.. and would therefore be glad of chance to take them down a peg or two. Whom they side with in such a hypothetical war could be the deciding factor, possibly turning it from an inevitable US victory into something different. How much funding and support would the UK recieve compared to the US? Who would they turn to for help? I can't think of anybody, to be honest, whereas the UK has the commonwealth, Europe and god knows whoever else dislikes American globalization. This is not a foregone conclusion.

And whom of any importance would fight with you from the commonwealth? I'm fairly confidant that Australia would join America if they were forced to choose a side, likewise with the Canucks, but even if the Canucks didn't it wouldn't matter, they almost entirely rely on us for their defense. India wouldn't fight us either. You're also putting way too much stock into this "everyone hates America" stuff. Sure there is a lot of hate for America, but it isn't suicidal. China would be quite happy about the war, but they would not fight against America, if anything they would help us. If Russia were to get in on the war then I could almost guarantee that it would be on our side, as we could promise them some of Europe in exchange for their cooperation. Hell, we could quite possibly make the same deal with China and India. That would be a sight, every super power on the planet ganging up on little ol' Europe.


And even if the rest of Europe joined in against a solo US, we could STILL take you. I don't think you truly appreciate the size and magnitude of the American military. You also mention supplies and funding. Well, how much of your military tech is of American design? How much is purchased from America? Now how much of our military tech is purchased from foreign nations? Where would you turn for weapons once we stopped selling you ours?

Jack, you are reaching!lol The Chinese would NEVER join the Americans..for many reasons..Taiwan foremost among them. Remember Korea and Vietnam, who do you think was helping the USA's enemies then? As for Russia, their dislike for the USA it at an all time high since the end of the Coldwar. The USA's push for a defence against nuclear weapons includes putting certain equipment in what Russia considers it's realm of influence.

The EU may be divided, but they could EASILY raise an army the size of the USA's if they truly wished. As I've pointed out before, it is NOT easy to invade a nation across an ocean, especially as in this case nations considered part of the 1st world.

Thriller wrote:Rely on you for defense??? WHo do you think you are protecting us from lol

From whom is irrelevant, the point was that without US support, European defenses would be severely handicapped.

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:Jack, you are reaching!lol The Chinese would NEVER join the Americans..for many reasons..Taiwan foremost among them. Remember Korea and Vietnam, who do you think was helping the USA's enemies then? As for Russia, their dislike for the USA it at an all time high since the end of the Coldwar. The USA's push for a defence against nuclear weapons includes putting certain equipment in what Russia considers it's realm of influence.

The EU may be divided, but they could EASILY raise an army the size of the USA's if they truly wished.

Reaching? lol please. Sure you could raise the man power to combat the US, but again, what would you arm those troops with? Sticks and stones? Contrary to popular liberal opinion, guns and explosives don't grow on trees. As I've already pointed out, most of the military equipment used by NATO, you know that military alliance that is lead by America and serves as Europe's main line of defense, is manufactured by America. As for China, I never said it was probable, I only said it was plausible. And it is, as much as they may or may not hate America, they are still reasonable. It may be possible for the US to offer China something the EU can not. Then there is the fact that they rely on us economically about as much as we rely on them.

As for Russia, we may be the focus of their hate now, but that is only because we do not allow them to go stomping across the European country side. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, Russia is extremely imperialistic, if we offered them parts of Europe in exchange for helping us, you can bet your bottom dollar that they would jump at the offer.

You bring up Vietnam and Korea, which I find hilarious considering the hypocrisy. Why would China fight America just because they did 50 years ago but Germany would go running to help the English in a futile battle against the Americans? Why, for that matter, would Europe unite to fight one nation's vastly superior enemy? As Appy pointed out earlier in the thread, there is a lot of bad blood between various European nations, so again, why would they help the English? And as you've already acknowledged, Europe can not unite under a single currency in peace time, what makes you so sure they would team up to fight a battle they would lose that they don't even have to fight?

ETL wrote:As I've pointed out before, it is NOT easy to invade a nation across an ocean, especially as in this case nations considered part of the 1st world.

True, it would not be easy, no one ever said it would be. But do you know why it would not be easy? It's because of the sea battles and the fact that most navies lack the assets required to transport a significant number of troops. Then there is the landings, which were a huge problem in WWII. But as I've already pointed out, The EU's navy is no match for the American navy. And we do have the ability to transport huge numbers of troops overseas. It's a part of being a superpower. Our carriers, long range bombers and ICBMs also means that we would be able to make short work of coastal defenses.

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. 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. Currently I believe there are 3 major Western European arms producing companies, BAE, EADS and Thales. Among the world's top 10 arms producers are the USA, the UK, France, Germany and Italy. Western Europe's 4 major nations are in that list.

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.

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

de-industrialisation of MANY western countries is also a factor that no one has touched on...yet, and yet, with no industrial base behind ANY nation, how can they be classed as a super power?

a big and modern military doesn't make a super power alone!

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.

Ahhh, Jack you are so reliable at times. It truely is a great source of amusement for me to read your posts.

oh btw it was the english that invented the Jet engine, the germans perfected the idea of what a fighter plane should be able to do

Kit-Fox wrote:oh btw it was the english that invented the Jet engine, the germans perfected the idea of what a fighter plane should be able to do

Actually the jet engine was invented back in the first century by a Roman mathematician, Heron of Alexandria. Then later used by the Chinese in rockets.

Furthermore the English jet engine was finished mere months(April) before the German jet engine(September) and didn't even work proper(could not be shut off manually, had to run out of fuel first), whereas the German jet engine did. Besides inventing a faulty jet engine, the RAF had no interest in it at all so it went nowhere until 1941, 2 years after Germany build the first jet powered airplane. In unbiased history the two are generally credited with simultaneously inventing the jet engine(as it applies to today's aviation).

Finally I did not say the jet engine, smartass, I said the jet FIGHTER. Which you admit yourself is correct. Now any other ridiculous claims you'd like to make? Perhaps that the British discovered electricity?

I would advise that you do not try to argue with me about aviation, it is obvious you know little to nothing about the subject. As such, you'll just make yourself look like an idiot.

Yes Jack, you said jet fighter, which implies a jet engine. In your own post you have even said that the brit got it working first, it matters not whether it was perfect or had any practical applications or if anyone else was developing it at the same time. The fact remains that it was the british to first make a working jet engine.

if you hadnt meant to imply a jet engine you should have said the germans perfected the idea of what a modern fighter airframe should be capable of, which I have already agreed with you is correct. Especially as at the time brit planes were built to fulfill a particular/specific purpose whereas german planes were more multi-function in their roles.

Is there any need to be so aggressive, I mean really chill out once in a while. Really do you have some sort of pathological need to berate the UK & Europe?? Seriously, get help!

EDIT:

the patent for a stationary turbine was granted to John Barber in England in 1791.

In 1928, RAF College Cranwell cadet [10]Frank Whittle formally submitted his ideas for a turbo-jet to his superiors. In October 1929 he developed his ideas further.[11] . On 16 January 1930 in England, Whittle submitted his first patent (granted in 1932).

All the principle work for modern Jet engines and their functioning can be traced back to england and british work. While I'm not trying to say no one else did anything or thought of the idea, it remains a fact that it was the brits who brought it all together first to make a functioning engine.

erm, i watched a doc about Germany's MANY advanced weapons and they had a working Jet fighter and engine in 1933. it wasn't perfect and still needed allot of work before it could become a viable and reliable replacement for prop planes, but the body of the jet was FAAAR in advance of ANY other nation, the only thing that let it down was the engine itself. because they were years away from making the engine work for more than just a few hours before the rotors needed changing and because such a time line wasn't workable for Hitler, the project was given a low priority and more conventional planes and tech were given a much higher priority.

if it wasnt for the fact that the Luftwaffe needed numbers and if Hitler had been more bold with the project, things would have been different.

i also saw another doc about aviation and in it they said that if the brits Rolls Royce engine (which was FAAAR more reliable) was fitted to the Messerschmitt Me 262 , it would have been the best plane by far and years ahead of its time.


i'm no aviation expert so don't flame me if that's wrong but i don't see any reason why it wouldn't be correct.

The Germans were very technologically advanced back in the lead up to and during the second world war. It's absolutely astonishing to watch the documentaries about the technology they had back then and how it is still used today.

Kit-Fox wrote:Yes Jack, you said jet fighter, which implies a jet engine.

That's like saying that because someone was talking about a race car they were implying a super charger, it's just retarded. I warned you about this, don't argue with people that have clearly superior knowledge about a subject, especially when you know all of nothing about it.

Kit-Fox wrote:In your own post you have even said that the brit got it working first, it matters not whether it was perfect or had any practical applications or if anyone else was developing it at the same time.

No, I said they finished building their prototype first, I said that it didn't work that the Germans were the ones to first complete a working prototype. I'll say it again, the Brits no more invented the jet engine than did the Germans invent the airplane. The jet engine already existed, what Frank Whittle invented was the turbojet. Yes technically speaking the Brits invented the turbojet first. But this does not matter, since I was not talking about turbojets, but jet fighters. If I wanted to imply turbojets I would have said turbojet.

Kit-Fox wrote:Is there any need to be so aggressive, I mean really chill out once in a while.

I'm not always so aggressive, however your little incorrect smartass remark called for an aggressive response.

Kit-Fox wrote:Really do you have some sort of pathological need to berate the UK & Europe?? Seriously, get help!

Berating Europe? By pointing out the facts about jet engines?

Actually the Jet Engine Whittle is credited for did indeed function as expected, what wasnt expected were the leaks that occured from unsuitable materials causing a continual acceleration even after the fuel source was removed from the system, as the leaked fuel continued to be used from within the confines of the engine itself.

However you have to use what you've got, you cant use materials you dont have access to & it still doesnt change anything. All modern plane jet engines and principles have come out of work the brits did.