Forums - Politics Discussion - North America versus Europe - who would win in an all out war?

North America or Europe? - continent wise

North America 320 50.24%
 
Europe 313 49.14%
 
Total:633
JEMC said:
marley said:
JEMC said:
marley said:
KingofTrolls said:

If we added Russia to the EU, they will win. Why ? Fight on two fronts. No country afford to do that. Much bigger resources than North America. . And Russians military technology can fight vs US technology.
Ships, tanks, rockets etc.


If not - USA will win. Why ? EU does not have enough good ships to fight on seas, they dont have a real opportunity to attack, they can only defend themselves, thats all.

 

On other hand, i think Russia/China/arabic countries vs USA/Eu/Japan conflict is more likely.


If the EU does not have enough good ships to really attack (only defend), then there wouldn't really be much of a fight on two fronts for NA. 

The Navy of the European countries isn't up to the Navy of the US, so in a 1 on 1 war, it would have to defend. But in a 2 fronts war, the US would have to split its Navy in 2 groups, Pacific and Atlantic, and in that scenario the Navy of Europe could take a more agressive role.

 

In my opinion, th US would win because their army would all be under 1 command, avoiding a lot of the confusion that would reign over the European armies, but also because despite what they could say, they would use atomic bombs if they think it's worth it.


They're not just talking about the US though.  Wouldn't Canada and Mexico be able to help defend on one front while the US moves most of their forces on the other one? 

If I'm not wrong, neither Canada or Mexico have aircraft carrier ships. They have ships with choppers, but not planes. Also, Mexico doesn't have submarines and while Canada does have them, they are diesel.

Those factors, coupled by the (and I don't want to be rude) superior naval experience of other European navies like UK's Royal Navy, would mean that with the US taking care of Russia, the navies of the european countries would have a clerarly superior advantage over the Canada/Mexico ones.

America is known to already supply Mexico with guns.
Hence, we give the Mexicans more guns and send them over as the main infantry men to Europe. You guys would be fucked. That is 118,000,000 hard working Mexicans.



Around the Network
chocoloco said:
JEMC said:
marley said:
JEMC said:
marley said:
KingofTrolls said:

If we added Russia to the EU, they will win. Why ? Fight on two fronts. No country afford to do that. Much bigger resources than North America. . And Russians military technology can fight vs US technology.
Ships, tanks, rockets etc.


If not - USA will win. Why ? EU does not have enough good ships to fight on seas, they dont have a real opportunity to attack, they can only defend themselves, thats all.

 

On other hand, i think Russia/China/arabic countries vs USA/Eu/Japan conflict is more likely.


If the EU does not have enough good ships to really attack (only defend), then there wouldn't really be much of a fight on two fronts for NA. 

The Navy of the European countries isn't up to the Navy of the US, so in a 1 on 1 war, it would have to defend. But in a 2 fronts war, the US would have to split its Navy in 2 groups, Pacific and Atlantic, and in that scenario the Navy of Europe could take a more agressive role.

 

In my opinion, th US would win because their army would all be under 1 command, avoiding a lot of the confusion that would reign over the European armies, but also because despite what they could say, they would use atomic bombs if they think it's worth it.


They're not just talking about the US though.  Wouldn't Canada and Mexico be able to help defend on one front while the US moves most of their forces on the other one? 

If I'm not wrong, neither Canada or Mexico have aircraft carrier ships. They have ships with choppers, but not planes. Also, Mexico doesn't have submarines and while Canada does have them, they are diesel.

Those factors, coupled by the (and I don't want to be rude) superior naval experience of other European navies like UK's Royal Navy, would mean that with the US taking care of Russia, the navies of the european countries would have a clerarly superior advantage over the Canada/Mexico ones.

America is known to already supply Mexico with guns.
Hence, we give the Mexicans more guns and send them over as the main infantry men to Europe. You guys would be fucked. That is 118,000,000 hard working Mexicans.

That, with the US Navy busy on the other side of the continent, would die after their ships get sunken by the european submarines .



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

I can't believe this is even a question--let alone that anyone is voting Europe. It could be the *world* against NA and NA would still win. A huge percentage of you have *no idea* either a. how powerful the US mil is or b. how weak nearly every other mil on earth is, in comparison.

(I'm sure someone, somewhere, in here has already enumerated this, but Jesus...put down the games and pick up some books and read some current events, guys. It's so lopsided that there shouldn't even be a question of who walks away from this fight with most of its limbs attached. Stop voting loyalty--or anti-Americanism--and join us in reality.)



chocoloco said:

America is known to already supply Mexico with guns.
Hence, we give the Mexicans more guns and send them over as the main infantry men to Europe. You guys would be fucked. That is 118,000,000 hard working Mexicans.

 

Population of Mexico is over 120 mln. 

Btw i do some research, Canadian Navy = Armada Espanyola. So USA fight on seas alone.



Both would lose out ;(



Around the Network
ECM said:
I can't believe this is even a question--let alone that anyone is voting Europe. It could be the *world* against NA and NA would still win. A huge percentage of you have *no idea* either a. how powerful the US mil is or b. how weak nearly every other mil on earth is, in comparison.

(I'm sure someone, somewhere, in here has already enumerated this, but Jesus...put down the games and pick up some books and read some current events, guys. It's so lopsided that there shouldn't even be a question of who walks away from this fight with most of its limbs attached. Stop voting loyalty--or anti-Americanism--and join us in reality.)

Russia mil is actually very strong. 

I can't believe somebody really says world vs NA and NA still win. 

U need to pick some books, bro.



I'm looking at recent reports which estimate the U.S. as having 50% of the Earths Naval Forces by proportion. Good Lord. (Look at page 30 of the pdf in this link) http://myweb.fsu.edu/bbc09/Crisher-Souva%20-%20Power%20At%20Sea%20v2.0%20full.pdf

Now look at this link: http://www.military1.com/army/article/402211-how-much-stronger-is-the-us-military-compared-with-the-next-strongest-power

"We have 10 aircraft carriers. The good kind. Everyone else has 10. Combined."

"There are 8,400 attack helicopters in the world. The U.S. has 6,400 of them."

"The M1 Abrams tank has seen more combat than just about any other tank on the battlefield today. It has never been knocked out by enemy fire. (Completely killed). Ever.

China has less than 500 Type 99 tanks, that have just been developed, and are not even close to being as good as the Abrams. We have 8,700 Abrams."


People are actually underestimating the U.S. Army here.



InitiatedSpoon said:
I don't want to sound overly harsh towards NA but it's generally well accepted by anyone in the armed forces around Europe that the US army is poorly trained and highly arrogant/unprofessional and typically only wins engagements due to their superior tech... The only reason Europe is so far behind is simply because the governments here cannot convince their citizens such spending is needed whereas is quite easy to convince the apish and moronic masses that such things are needed in the US especially. European society focuses much less on military accomplishment unlike in NA and we're much less fixated on warfare.

However NA would probably win if they could get it over and done with quickly simply due to their superior tech and the reach of their Navy and Airforce. If Europe could draw them out into a lengthy war (a few years) eventually they would win.


Apish and moronic masses..... Wow, you sure know how to compliment, don't you! Your opinion of the government is one thing, but to insult the soldiers serving, and an entire population, calling them apish and moronic, is apish, moronic, and arrogant in itself.



PDF said:
RenCutypoison said:
I feel like canada and mexico would never join US forces, so I don't know.


Canada is the United States closes ally.  They have a vested interest in the future of their number one trading partner.


I would say Israel is their closest ally.



    

NNID: FrequentFlyer54

With Russia fighting with the EU, this is a good one.

US+Mexico+Canada though has a massive amount of resources and could pretty well survive without help from the outside world while I think the EU would have to rely too heavily on russia and the outside world to support them. And NA would be more unified, The US has more modern military experience than any country in the world atm and a good chunk of the EU is going to be fairly useless militarily.  + thy've been spying a shit ton on the entire world for a while now so they'd know a lot of weaknesses to go after right away.


We'd at least get to see all those secret weapons the US has.



Atto Suggests...:

Book - Malazan Book of the Fallen series 

Game - Metro Last Light

TV - Deadwood

Music - Forest Swords