Europe vs US wars. Who would win - Part 2.

I'll discuss anything with anybody...so long as they can speak coherently and seem to be grounded in some kind of logic. You went on a long rant that made little sense.

 

I still believe that this war would be won by the US. And for very historical reasons.

The US would not be going in alone.

Europe has always been a fractured political structure. It takes them to decide on a currency, that not everybody uses. They agree on a Defense organization, which and nation is free to leave at any time (and at least one major member is considering leaving right now).

And they have a history of either turning a blind eye on other conflicts on the Continent, or trying to pretend they are not even happening at all.

Any war between the US and Europe (just like WWII) will have segments of the Continent splitting into 2 sides. One side would resist the US, and the other would support it. Just as some nations resisted Nazi Germany, yet others embraced it.

And many old hatreds would come back to the surface. Let's just call 2 of them Myopia and Hyperopia. Now Hyperopia has long hated Myopia, but since WWII they have been fairly peacefull. But they both took differing sides during the Pasta Wars, when Hyperopia prefered Capellini, and Myopia prefered Capellini d'angelo. This led to the 24.5 Year War, which even 300 years later nobody forgot.

So when the US storms in and takes over parts of Myopia for a sea port and air base, Hyperopia Nationalism will then come forward, and they will give the US assistance. It may be anything from an agreement of non-interference and giving them a secure Northern and Western border, all the way to active military support.

And if people question this, look at the history of Croatia. On the promise that they could happily slaughter the Serb and Roma citizens of their region, they happily joined Nazi Germany in WWII.

European history is full of such examples, going back to the Roman Empire and beyond.

 

I'll just say one thing, the outcome of a theoretical war between the US and Europe would be impossible to guess..BUT

As i've said before the US has the capability to bring its forces to Europe, but not vis versa.......but the US would in my opinion not be able to land their forces on European mainland to any degree to mount a land attack.

Overtime, (if) the European nations gelled together in the struggle then, the overwhelming manpower advantage and industrial base of Europe should be more than capable of halting a US attack.

 

Europe really doesn't have much if any of an "industrial base" advantage over the U.S. The U.S. does have a decided advantage in high tech industries (especially the arms industry). The population could potentially be a factor though. I generally agree with you, I doubt the U.S. could ever truly invade and conquer Europe. That said, I think Mushroom's point is a very good one. The chance of all European countries banding together to fight a common enemy are about 1 in a million. It's never happened before, there's no reason to think it will happen now.

 

1) European Engineering and Manufacturing is superior to the US. The evidence is everywhere. Lets take the most obvious and visible choice for instance; Vehicles. European and Japanese cars are significantly better than US alternative's. We don't even bother trying to sell US cars as they are so poor! The US, on the other hand, cant get enough of our stuff.

What make's you think what you do is good? Other than the odd military bit of kit and Apple products (which are made in China and were designed by British Engineers), I cant think of any engineering we see coming over from America?

Why is that?...




2) The chance of all European countries banding together to fight a common enemy are 100% certain. It is a requirement of being in the EU and is set in law. How can you argue on this subject, yet not know this?

 

You quantified none of that. You're basically just stating your misinformed beliefs. Could you provide evidence of British engineers designing all of Apple's products? If you're trying to claim that Jonathan Ive is responsible for all of Apple's designs, you're insane.

The U.S. leads the world in the aeronautical industry. (Boeing, Cessna, Lockheed Martin, and General Dynamic.), telecommunications, medical research, heavy industry, chemical, and high techology productions (microchips etc) to name a few.
161 of Britanica's 321 greatest inventions come from the U.S.

Automotive production doesn't determine how sophisticated your industry is. It's a relatively simple process when compared to aircraft and microchips. The U.S. is also one of the world's largest automotive produers. Much of the world's cutting edge technology may be produced in China, Vietnam, Laos, but its designed in the U.S...and it some cases Europe.

"The odd military bit of kit" is a massive understatement. The U.S. has 14 of the world's 20 leader arms manufacturers. U.S. weapons are coveted around the world and are typically cutting edge. It's a multi-trillion dollar industry.

The U.S. imports about 25% more goods from Europe than Europe imports from the U.S. That's 1/3 of the trade deficit that the U.S. has with China. Considering the U.S. economy is heavily focused on the service industry, this really isn't remarkable at all.

Give me an example of Europe coming together to battle a common enemy during a major war in the last 150 years.

 

The chance of all of Europe banding together to fight a common enemy is 0%. And you think that it is a requirement of membership in the EU and set in law? Then I would love for you to show us that law.

The closest I can think of was not any kind of EU treaty, but the Western European Union. And that treaty was allowed to terminate in 2011.

Now, you have the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Common Security and Defense Policy of the EU. And it is a rather interesting organization. For one, NATO is the senior and leading member of this, and also has the right of "First Refusal". In other words, if there is a conflict that enough members in the EU feel is important enough to get involved with, NATO has the right to say if they are going to get involved or not. Only if NATO refuses can the CFSP decide to participate or not.

This is why in most of the conflicts of the last few years, you saw them a NATO operations, not EU operations. Even when they are in far away places like Afghanistan.

And this is also why you saw NATO get involved in European conflicts, like in the former Yugoslavia. The old system with the EPC (European Political Co-operation) could never decide if it wanted to get involved there or not, so they did nothing. It took NATO to actually go do something.

And no, the members do not have to participate as set in law. One of the things that was required is autonomy. Each member nation is free to be involved in or not be involved in actions, as their own nation decides.

Then you have the organization that would coordinate any EU actions, the European Defence Agency. And each nation is free to decide if they want to belong to this Agency or not. And for the last 2 years, the UK has been threatening to leave the organization.

So if you believe that all members of the EU are mandated to join in the defense, I would absolutely love to see where that is required. Because everything I know of the EU, it is actually the exact opposite. Because otherwise, traditionally neutral nations like Finland and Switzerland would never have joined the EU.

 

What about the Cruades? And when has Europe ever been attacked by a outside power? When we are we join together to defeat it. And normally won.

 

Sorry, don't buy the premise at all.

You assume only that the United States would attack Europe.

And that would be difficult. We do not have the power to launch an invasion as it would take.

And Europe of course has no ability to invade the U.S.

If it really came to that, then it would be about control of the Atlantic. And I see conceivable scenario where Europe could control the Atlantic or even protect Iceland from being taken.

In a short period of time, all shipping into Europe except via the Suez Canal would be stopped. Meanwhile the U.S. would have free rein to ship goods all over the Pacific.

Militarily it would be a stalemate, but the United States would have the strategic advantage, because the United States could continue to trade with Asia and Latin America- the upcoming trade lions, and even Africa relatively easily, while Europe would be lucky to be able to keep even its traffic through the Suez going. Europe would probably have to make huge concessions to Russia in order to keep Russia as its main resource and supplier.

 

For me a large question is who can build more ship, the Europeans would in my view be able to build more ships. Also the Europeans would cut the US west coast off from the east coast, using the Falklands and putting mines in the drake passage, and putting a larger naval and airbase on the Falklands. The US would however take the Europeans territories in the Pacific, Caribbean and north Atlantic. And if the US it cut off that gives the European half a chance.

 

Which kinds of ships? Military ships? I would say the U.S. has the edge. Commercial ships- yes Europe has the edge, but the U.S. would simply place big orders with South Korea- who would certainly continue business with us.

No the Europeans wouldn't cut the U.S. off from anything- the Atlantic would be the U.S.'s pond in a matter of weeks if not days.

If the United States was serious, Iceland would be taken almost immediately- which the U.S. has the capability to do, and Europe really doesn't have the capability to stop. Between the base on Iceland, American carriers and American long range air craft, America would own the skies except relatively close to Europe.

Think Germany trying to get raiding Battleships and cruisers into the Atlantic. I doubt the United States would bother with the Falklands other than a raid to take out any aircraft, missiles and port facilities. If the UK managed to successfully ferry aircraft to the Falklands, the U.S. might bother- taking the Falklands for the U.S. would be rather trivial- easier even than Iceland.

Oh and I am sure in those circumstances, Argentina would gladly assist the United States, probably with the understanding that Argentina would take over sovereignty and would garrison the Falklands after the U.S. captured them.

At best, Europe might make commercial shipping in the Atlantic difficult for the U.S., but the U.S. would shut down any European commercial shipping.

In the meantime, American Carrier groups and naval asset would be focusing on Europe, so any tin pot regime that had eyes on his neighbors would feel emboldened to risk an invasion, figuring he could wrap it up before anyone would object.

Of course the whole thing would be ruinous to all of our economies, and I hope to god no one would be stupid enough to start any such actions.

 

Excuse me, cut off the West and East Coasts? Are you not aware that we have had transcontinental roads and railroads for over a century now?

And excuse me, the Drake Passage? That is only used for either moving the Navy around for making port calls at South American nations, or for moving Aircraft Carriers.

Everything else in the US is PANAMAX, so does not need to go all the way down and around South America.

Oh, and dropping mines in the Drake Passage is a guaranteed way to get Argentina and Chile involved, on the side of the US.

But guess what, that would not really matter. Because it has more naval power then all of Europe combined.

US Navy: 286 ships

Albanian Navy: 17 ships
Belgian Navy: 14 ships
Bulgarian Navy: 8 ships
Croatian Navy: 34 ships
Royal Danish Navy: 35 ships
Estonian Navy: 8 ships
Finnish Navy: 29 ships
French Navy: 77 ships
Germany: 87 ships
Greek Navy: 84 ships
Irish Navy: 8 ships


That is half way through the European nations, but you should get the trend. And for the most part, none of the nations has any ships larger then a US Destroyer or Cruiser (UK Frigate). Combine just combat ships, and the US has much more firepower.

Then throw in the fact that each of these nations will have it's own command structure (as opposed to the US which would be under a single command authority), and you would have multiple nations that would most likely be destroyed piecemeal.

 

Well, the German Navy is largely a joke.

They look impresive, on paper. With 87 ships, it looks like an impressive force.

Then look at it in real life. When it comes to "Blue Water" ships, they have 18 ships. 15 Frigates, 2 Corvettes and 4 submarines. Everything else is for either shore patrol or support. A single Carrier Air Wing would not have much of a problem destroying half of their force in a single pass.

And yes, if there was a war between the US and the UK, they could not care less about the Falklands. That port is to far away to be of any threat, and if anything they might make a raid, to try and get the US to move even more ships and aircraft down there. Because as long as they are in South America, they would not have to worry about them in the Northern Hemisphere.

 

I didn't explain my reference to Germany well- I was referring to the Bismarck, and the Graf Spee- how the German Navy in WW2 was effectively boxed in(except U-Boats) by the Royal Navy. European naval forces wouldn't dare operate beyond effective land aircover range- and I don't claim to know what that would be but they would be no threat to most of the Atlantic.

The more I think about it, if there was such a war, Argentina would take care of the Falklands for us. Falklands would be cut off, the U.S. could send some support down there, and the whole Falklands 'question' would be resolved.

I mean its really just another fairy dust scenario. Neither side would get involved in a land war on either continent, unless the United States was siding with one side in a European conflict. And without a land war, there would just be a long impasse that would hurt Europe far more than the U.S.

 

I cant belive this is serious thread.

 

All that's needed it to stop 3-4 US carriers from getting to the northern Atlantic and Europe has a much better chance. Keep in mind Europe would have 5 years to get ready for war. Already having bases very close to the US.

I know dropping mines is a stupid idea, I would instead build 3 airbases 2 on the Falklands and 1 on south Georgia, plus RAF ascension and another airbase on one of the other islands Britain has in the south Atlantic. With over 100 jets on the Falklands and south Georgia, and any amount to replenish any loses flying down from the 2 other airbased, that's over 150 for a start. Plus 11,000 elite troops on the Falklands and south Georgia. It will take the US quite a while to take the Falklands. And with the Europeans having 5 years they could build carriers to support the defence of the Falklands, meaning even more airpower.

If this happen this year the US would win, but in 5 years and the European knowing about it, I am not so sure.

 

One thing everyone is forgetting, putting the military hardware aside.........is the strategic planning, political cunning, intelligence and the will of the people which would decide the result of a conflict between the US and Europe.

Who has the best resolve to keep fighting, the chip eating British, sausage eating Germans, wine drinking French OR the Big Mac eating Americans????

 

I'm sorry, havent the energy to completely reply to this at the moment.. Maybe later! Its been a long week!

What I would like to say now is, what technology does America export to the EU? You seemed to unsubstantiate everything yu said and tip-toe around this question. I am intrigued...?

I think its worth noting that, I am a manufacturing Engineer with a degree in Electronics. I Have worked for US, UK, German and Japanese corporations, In the Pharamaceutical, Power Supply and defence subcontractor industry's.

I have seen very little American heavy machinery or manufacturing equipment in any of these roles, but I do recall 1 instance.... And the equipment was shocking... So shocking, that we decommisioned it and replaced it with a Japanese alternative after just 5 years use. It had a servicable life of 15 yrs... apparently. hardly a world leader.

I have also seen the organisational behaviour and attitudes associated with these companies. I have worked for Perrigo, the US' largest OTC pharma company. I quit this job as, primarily, the way they manufactured products was dangerous (using Ethelyne Glycol in leaking medicine production equipment ), among other issues. The things I saw there were hideous... I left within 6 months. I have never seen those sorts of attitudes or disregards in any other organisation. I have heard these sentiments echoed by contemporaries working in the US, in different companies.

However, My roles in UK and Japanese comapnies have been completely different. Attitudes, efficiency, strategy, quality and procedures are infinity better than those expected or acheived by the US.

In every engineering company I have worked in, wetend to love selling to US customers... They will be happy with any old tat you send their way! Its not like that for Japanese or Europeans though... thats a different thing all together.

If you know anyone that works in Engineering or manufacture, ask them what they think... rather than making assumptions.

 

Since this is a Military thread, I will respond with Military equipment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_missile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-24_Tartar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-16_rifle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M777_howitzer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M109A6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M270

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18_Hornet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMMWV

Should I continue?

 

All military equipment, left over from the cold war? is that the best you could do? What about civilian?

Anyway...

f-35 is 10% developed by the UK for a start. The US bought the harrier from us. Swings and roundabouts.

All of the f-teen era jets are trounced by the Eurofighter.

The US buys many guns from the EU also. Its a very mature technology... hardly cutting edge. I could make a rifle in a few weeks with a standard metal workshop.

Most of those items were probably bought for political reasons.


Give me examples of civilian engineering, please.

 

The UK Cup Holders and Seat Cushions are not the reason the F-35 is impressive.

Yeah, Europe is still a generation behind us.

 

You want examples of "Civilian Engineering"? Go to another thread, this is a military thread.

Want a few though?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP

And now, back to who would win in a conflict between two powerhouse nations... What would happen if the Vatican attacked Monaco?

 

Anecdotal evidence doesn't cut it.

 

Umm okay- Europe has 5 years to get ready for the war.....so why in those 5 years wouldn't the U.S. just transit the majority of carriers to the Atlantic?

What bases near the U.S.? Iceland is probably the closest and like I said, it would fall as soon as the U.S. decided it should fall. If you refer to the small possessions in the Carribean....well a couple of detachments of Marines could probably take them without a shot being fired.

If the United States were smart, they would let Europe follow your strategy. Sure base '11,000 elite troops' where they could do no harm, and could easily be isolated. Base 100 jets in a place with no strategic value, concentrated in a few well known air bases.

How would they even feed them, or resupply them?

Iceland would have strategic value- the Falklands almost none.

You keep being hung on the Falklands. I really don't get your obsession with it.

 

Firstly, You should look at what the UK is developing.

Secondly, Its your attitude that makes many people dislike Americans.

Thirdly, 5th generation is a marketing tool. But lets look at your "next genration" technology...

Lets look at the f22 first. The US military says its the best...but it is riddles with problems, according to your media?

The airframes crack, it cant fly in the rain, parts of it rust(!), it poisons the Pilots, it requires 30hrs maintenance for every hours flight, it has a critical failure every 1.7 hrs and has been cancelled by the ONLY people who know how "good" it is... Why would they cancel it if its so "good"? Why would they make so few?

It has a low radar cross section... thats great. But its no good if it needs to be in a hangar for 30 hrs after a 1 hr flight. Not sure how good that would be in a war situation? Will the other side wait for you to fix them?
Also, low RCS is irrelevant vs IR. IRST is the future. Check the video below to see how visible the f22 is compared to other aircraft. There nothing it it. OK, IRST isnt everything, but the myth of the f-22 is not all its made out to be.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLzD1SCk__g"]Farnborough Day 1 Flying Display in Infrared - YouTube[/ame]

At the end of the day, Its easy to say you have the best plane, if you wont let anyone else look at it. With the exception of the "stealth" it is no better than a Eurofighter.


Now lets look at the Sentinel. That was also secretive and described as "the best" next generation in air defence and intelligence... until, the Iranians hacked into it! Oh dear... It must have took them hours!

.. and we are supposed to take your claims of "superior" technology, seriously?!