North America or Europe? - continent wise | |||
| North America | 320 | 50.24% | |
| Europe | 313 | 49.14% | |
| Total: | 633 | ||
| LiquorandGunFun said: America has weak and naive leaders, it would not be hard for even New Zealand to win. |
New Zealand YeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaH! we have the power of Middle-Earth!
OT: I think EU would win hands down, they have the superior numbers and resources.
Kasz216 said:
Even with Russia AND China it's rough, just due to ridiculious US naval superiority.
What I find funny is how everyone complains about how much the US spends on the military vs other stuff, why the US has such a big military compaired to the EU that it can use everywhere and is stationed everywhere etc...
but as soon as the question boils down into a "Who would win in a fight" everyones liberal predalictions disapear because nobody wants to be on the side that loses in a war that will never be fought.
Suddenly Europeons want to have an army just as good, even though a combined EU is really only about the size of the US in GDP terms, and a combined EU and Russia still smaller then USA, Canada Mexico.... Sort of reminds me of the guys who are "totally cool" with homosexuality, except have to act exageratidly grossed out if they see two dudes kissing. At the end of the day, no matter how enlightened most guys are, it all still boils down to one big pissing contest for most people. Outside which a EU + Russia army that was superior to the US army would actually cost a hell of a lot more as a percentage of GDP. Christ the fact that the US would pretty handily defeat a combined Europe+Russia should be seen as something upsetting... for Americans. Not Europeons. Because it shows just how freaking wasteful military spending in the US is, that a combined fictional superthreat isn't even really any threat at all. |
Never mind I am certain I read this wrong.
I really wanted to challenge Europeans to make an arguement.It would make he thread more than just a defeat by all the reasoning given why North America does appear to have the dominant power.
| starcraft said: UK looks to rebuild its carriers |
outdated carriers with no planes to fly from them and no money to operate them
| chocoloco said: Never mind I am certain I read this wrong. |
Just to be sure, the correct way to read it was "The US spends way to much on it's military as shown by how even fantasy situations like this don't actually pose the US military much challenge."
+ People should take a look in the mirror, since a lot of those same people who think the US spends too much still want to think the EU can win in a fight due to macho pride causing them to betray their liberal beliefs. When such beliefs should see being the weaker force as country as a good thing.
And again, for people who think Europe will win. Tell me how Europeon troops ever land on American soil.
The US navy roughly accounts for 50% of the entire world's naval strength.
http://myweb.fsu.edu/bbc09/Crisher-Souva%20-%20Power%20At%20Sea%20v2.0%20full.pdf
Ridiculious... and that's without even considering the inherent differences within ship classes.
And this isn't even counting the fact that weapons will need to be replaced, and factories take a loooong time to build... and the US has by far the most factories ready to build more weapons today....and due to how US poltics works, these factories are all over the place making them far to spread out to effectivly striek.
And the fact that the US has the world's best weapons for avoiding being shot down, and bombing factories.
Kasz216 said:
And this isn't even counting the fact that weapons will need to be replaced, and factories take a loooong time to build... and the US has by far the most factories ready to build more weapons today....and due to how US poltics works, these factories are all over the place making them far to spread out to effectivly striek. And the fact that the US has the world's best weapons for avoiding being shot down, and bombing factories. |
This. America already overwhelmingly wins on a snap war, but if it goes on for a few months as well, it would be insane how quickly and effectively America could shift to war manufacturing.
People also underestimate how reliant the European countries are on American tech, weapons and intelligence (such as GPS) to operate. America's first move would be to cripple the technology of the UK, France and Germany with a few switch flips.
Soleron said:
outdated carriers with no planes to fly from them and no money to operate them |
Sigh.
Yes I know. Hopefully they can turn it around mid-program. Militaries can be astoundingly innovative if you allow them to be.
starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS
Russia alone can destroy America.
starcraft said:
Sigh. Yes I know. Hopefully they can turn it around mid-program. Militaries can be astoundingly innovative if you allow them to be. |
I'm not free to talk on this subject, but the direction in certain programmes is very much away from the ability to project power.
| bigjon said: Well, I know you said only conventional warfare but one of the things that would be a huge factor in any attempt to invade the US is the fact that well, unlike most of Europe the average Joe can own an assault rifle, and people know how to use them. There are something like 200 million guns in circulation in the US (including all types of firearms). However, because of this I believe the manpower pool in the US would be more capable(since most americans know how to shoot a firearm) if both sides started a draft (which in this type of all out war it would be required) |
bolded: thats a patently false statement. they are rarely owned, almost imposible to get, and are heavily regulated.
also its closer to 400 million. there was like 50 million background checks in 2012 alone for firearm purchases (and that doesnt track multiple purchases).
The Poll is exactly 241 votes vs 241 votes. Never seen a poll this close.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
