By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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
mornelithe on 10 February 2014

ArnoldRimmer said:

Well, the numbers are clear: about 400,000 casualties = only 0.6% of all WW2 casualties. Everyone can interpret that number as he likes, I interpret them as US sacrifices in WW2 being low. And if one judges a country's "sacrifice" in WW2 by looking at how many % of that country's population died (which makes sense when it comes to judging a whole country's "sacrifice", as it takes a country's size into account), US WW2 sacrifice looks even more neglectable: 0.32%. The average of all countries in the world was 8 times higher, 2.5%.

Now I don't deny that the US nevertheless had a huuuge impact on WW2, and I'm actually glad the US was involved, because ultimately my own country benefitted a lot, it may have been the only country that ever actually benefitted from US war efforts. But the motives of course had absolutely nothing to do with morals or anything, it was completely for the government's own selfish reasons: WW2 made them the only global superpower, up to this date.

Yeah, but a great deal of that disparity in lives lost can be directly attributed to physical location.  The US losing 400,000 when at no point (other than a few small scale espionage missions) did the war touch mainland America, is quite a bit of military personel lost.  What I mean is, there was no occupation of territory, there was no threat from the north or south.  That played a massive role in the lives lost, and makes a huge difference...in my opinion.

JEMC said:
Did you know that the M1 Abrams is no longer in production?

No longer in production does not equal not in the US arsenal, 8700 of some of the finest tanks ever made is still 8700 of the finest tanks every made.  Coupled with the newer vehicles adapted from the most recent conflict, and the things DARPA pumps out on a regular basis...that's a fairly formidable armored corps.



Around the Network
KingofTrolls on 10 February 2014
Mnementh said:

China and Russia do work together internationally from time to time and do not try to provoke each other too much, as they both are strong powers. The same is true between Russia and the US and China and the US. Diplomacy between this powers is always calm and friendly. They might have their touchy topics, but they never let it escalate too much.

And Russia fights a war on terror in Chechen. That are muslims. China does the same againts Uigurs. Taht are muslims. Russia invaded Afganistan and fought the Taliban some decades ago. Back then the US supported the Taliban. No, they will not form an alliance against the US.

If USA will not stop their conquer they will just have to do it, if they still wanna be powerhouse. Its just mathematic, nothing else.

China got a real problem with Japan, and Japan is USA ally, with US troops there. Japan is also Russia problem, just like South Korea. Japan and Rusia actually are still in II WW.

Next issue - Africa. Chinese dominate Africa and USA slowly try to push them back. Same goes to Middle East. U think they will just leave ?

 

 



episteme on 10 February 2014

No one would win, everyone would lose.



JEMC on 10 February 2014
NYANKS said:
JEMC said:

NYANKS said:

*good points*

"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."

Did you know that the M1 Abrams is no longer in production?

Also, I agree that it's a very good tank, but both the british Challenger or the German Leopard A5 (still in production) are excellent tanks too that not only are comparable to the Abrams, but also surpass it. In autonomy, for example.

That is very possible, I'm not really a tank expert.  However, the numbers are overwhelming.  The U.S. could have ~15 times the tank numbers of Europe (if they really have 18 times what China has). 

The problem again is how do they bring those tanks over to Europe? By ships and only a few at a time.

Besides, the time where tanks were unbeatable war machines died as soon as the anti-tank rockets were created. They don't even need to destroy the machine, just break the chains to turn them into fixed artillery platforms.



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.

chocoloco on 10 February 2014
arcane_chaos said:

not saying America would win but doesn't the U.S spend more money on it's military than like the next 5 countries combined?

EDIT: I stand corrected...it might be even more

 

http://armscontrolcenter.org/issues/securityspending/articles/2012_topline_global_defense_spending/


This is also showing the American spending during the Obama era. During the Bush era, the mititary budget in the USA was even higher. Bush raised the military budget greatly during his time in office.



Around the Network
Mnementh on 10 February 2014
KingofTrolls said:
Mnementh said:

China and Russia do work together internationally from time to time and do not try to provoke each other too much, as they both are strong powers. The same is true between Russia and the US and China and the US. Diplomacy between this powers is always calm and friendly. They might have their touchy topics, but they never let it escalate too much.

And Russia fights a war on terror in Chechen. That are muslims. China does the same againts Uigurs. Taht are muslims. Russia invaded Afganistan and fought the Taliban some decades ago. Back then the US supported the Taliban. No, they will not form an alliance against the US.

If USA will not stop their conquer they will just have to do it, if they still wanna be powerhouse. Its just mathematic, nothing else.

China got a real problem with Japan, and Japan is USA ally, with US troops there. Japan is also Russia problem, just like South Korea. Japan and Rusia actually are still in II WW.

Next issue - Africa. Chinese dominate Africa and USA slowly try to push them back. Same goes to Middle East. U think they will just leave ?

You think these countries will push their issues with each other aside only to oppose together the US? I think they prefer waiting till the industry of the US goes more and more down the drain and profite from exporting into the US while it happens. That seems less risky and more profitable.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

NYANKS on 10 February 2014
JEMC said:
NYANKS said:
JEMC said:

NYANKS said:

*good points*

"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."

Did you know that the M1 Abrams is no longer in production?

Also, I agree that it's a very good tank, but both the british Challenger or the German Leopard A5 (still in production) are excellent tanks too that not only are comparable to the Abrams, but also surpass it. In autonomy, for example.

That is very possible, I'm not really a tank expert.  However, the numbers are overwhelming.  The U.S. could have ~15 times the tank numbers of Europe (if they really have 18 times what China has). 

The problem again is how do they bring those tanks over to Europe? By ships and only a few at a time.

Besides, the time where tanks were unbeatable war machines died as soon as the anti-tank rockets were created. They don't even need to destroy the machine, just break the chains to turn them into fixed artillery platforms.

True, they could bring them over but it would be really inefficient annd time consuming.  I suppose it would matter more if Europe were attacking the U.S. lol

What's youre take on the fight?  We never really establsihed a scenario in the thread lol



bucky1965 on 10 February 2014
ArnoldRimmer said:
bucky1965 said:
I guess WW2 was just a pipe dream.

Bad example. Very much unlike what hollywood movies suggest, WW2 was a war that the US was hardly even involved in. And that is also the reason why they were indeed the big "winners" of WW2 - they waited until all other countries had already pretty much ruined each other before entering the war. That way, they kept their casualties and expenses extremely low.


I guess it would have been better to let Hitler control all of Europe. And Japan all of Asia. Silly me.



JEMC on 10 February 2014
NYANKS said:
JEMC said:

The problem again is how do they bring those tanks over to Europe? By ships and only a few at a time.

Besides, the time where tanks were unbeatable war machines died as soon as the anti-tank rockets were created. They don't even need to destroy the machine, just break the chains to turn them into fixed artillery platforms.

True, they could bring them over but it would be really inefficient annd time consuming.  I suppose it would matter more if Europe were attacking the U.S. lol

What's youre take on the fight?  We never really establsihed a scenario in the thread lol

As I said earlier on, I think the North America wouls win simple because with the US being there, they would be the ones taking command, so everybody branch of the army will be under control. In Europe, this will be a lot harder to achieve (would France let the British lead or the other way around? I doubt it), so it would be an "easy" win for America simple because of that.

Also, I think that European countries would be more reticent to use the nuclear weapons than the US would.



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.

finalfantasystud on 10 February 2014

dude NA would win easily i mean c'mon we have been spending outragous amounts money the last 40 years on our military might and it shows we have military bases in over 200 countries ain't no way anyone could stop us (nuclear threat not included) we spend 30% of our tax money every year on the army, navy, air force, etc. goes on and on we have spent our money this way just so we could take over the world "global force for good" i dont buy that bullshit but the key word is GLOBAL we have been slowing taking over the world (in terms of military might) for years now. Money wise were fucked, our shitty little bond scam aint gonna help us when were at war with the people who are buying them. Either way were all fucked anyway there is just to many people on this earth there isn't enough resources and its only getting worse. In the US the population has doubled in the last 50 years and no one even cares we should have done what china did years ago but instead were promoting it get pregnant at 14 and we'll give you a show on MTV, or promoting having 19 kids, anyone heard of the show 19 kids and counting? just ridiculous, US please mind our own buisness.