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

Forums - Politics - 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
HylianSwordsman on 10 February 2014

Russia isn't part of Europe. It's split between Europe and Asia, but more is on the Asian side. But it doesn't matter. America doesn't need nukes, it has kinetic bombardment. That shit isn't just for CoD Ghosts, it's real, and the US can do it, right now. Not as powerful as nukes, but it's a hell of a lot easier to mass produce a bunch of rods of tungsten and drop them from a space airplane than to create nukes. Also, nukes are illegal in outer space thanks to the Outer Space Treaty, but not kinetic bombardment. The US also just has a bigger economy in general, especially if you combine it with all of North America. They're also more unified, and the US has the biggest military in the world. It would be a North American win hands down, but a war like that would leave western civilization in ruins.



Around the Network
MoHasanie on 11 February 2014
Zadainie said:
Russia alone can destroy America.

Well the exact same thing can be said about America destroying Russia - they both have loads of nucleur weapons. It was the same story during the Cold War which is why both agreed on Nucleur disarmament. 



    

NNID: FrequentFlyer54

fatslob-:O on 11 February 2014

North America would destroy the EU ...



thranx on 11 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 could be wrong, but besides Japan, Russia and Germany, the US may have lost more men than any other europeon coutnry in  ww2. dont know how that is considered extremly low. I think we lost more men than the british, the french, the italians.



S.T.A.G.E. on 11 February 2014

America has less people than Europe, period. They have the weapons to create a huge hole in Europe though.



Around the Network
existenz2 on 11 February 2014

NA would win because Europe would need to be organised between countries which isnt going to happen quick enough in that situation.

 

I would enjoy the first Nuke on france though



Alphachris on 11 February 2014

This Question in the year of the 100th anniversary of the 1st World War... There would be no winners, only losers. Take some time and learn for yourself how that war ended.

People should be more respectful when talking about such topics... Remember, regarding your probable age it would be YOU possibly dying in that war... and for what reasons?



Kasz216 on 11 February 2014
Alphachris said:
This Question in the year of the 100th anniversary of the 1st World War... There would be no winners, only losers. Take some time and learn for yourself how that war ended.

People should be more respectful when talking about such topics... Remember, regarding your probable age it would be YOU possibly dying in that war... and for what reasons?




the2real4mafol on 11 February 2014
-CraZed- said:
the2real4mafol said:
If America couldn't win in the many 3rd world countries it bullied then what chance does it have on Europe?

Europe has 700 million people, America has 300 million. So you are already outnumbered there.
We have some of the best run armies. Britain, Germany, Turkey and Russia.

The only thing America has is better military technology but time and time again this hasn't been what has won wars, at least not guaranteed to anyway.

It's the will to fight that win wars.

Unless America used nukes on us, i don't think they would win. But with Britain, France and Russia also having them that's unlikely too.

This is an interesting thread but an unlikely scenario I hope

The reason America "couldn't win in the many 3rd world countries" (even though that statement is patently false) is because we never waged all out war as to the thread OPs question. The US is notorious for Nation building and being PC in its approach to other nation's indigenous populations. In an all out, no holds barred war the US fighting force is second to none. And once the chains are off there is no limit to how much damage a combat brigade can inflict on an enemy force. Mistaking our kindness for weakness is a mistake.

The US has better technology AND better warriors making use of that technology. There is a reason when the $#!t hits the fan the world looks to the US to step in and handle it.

You can't actually win a war without winning hearts and minds of it's inhabitants, otherwise you would just end up massacring or discriminating against them all. Just like the "great" imperial powers



Xbox Series, PS5 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch 2 will outsell the PS5 by 2030

Badassbab on 11 February 2014

The US would win hands down. It's navy would eventually destroy the navies of Europe and then it's a simple case of naval blockade from a distance (to stay out of range of cruise missiles and to give it a chance to defend against maritime aircraft launched anti ship missiles). It wouldn't and couldn't really invade the continent as without nukes it won't be able to win a land war and even with nukes it probably wouldn't win as Russia has tons of tactical nukes at it's disposal to stop large conventional attacks.