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
Mnementh said:
KingofTrolls said: 

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

Russia, China and arabic countries have no love for each other. Why should they form an alliance?


U.S. expands its sphere of influence in the world. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Iran now. If it will move further, eventually no one stop USA. They know this. There's a reason China and Russia protested against the UN intervention in Syria. In addition, China and Russia have improved international relations (in 2004, Putin gave them  Damansjkij island by which the dispute took place since the death of Stalin). Until Chinese will not get nuclear weapon, they need Russian.

 

Arabic countries are supported by Russia, Putin sold them a lot of weapons, last time - anti aircraft missiles S 300. 



Around the Network
drkohler said:
Salnax said:

In total, the United States has 10 aircraft carriers. For context, that's more than the rest of the world COMBINED. America also has a majority of the world's cruisers and over a third of the world's destroyers. In terms of sheer tonnage, the USA alone dwarves the combined navies of Europe.

The problem is that we are not watching the movie "Battle of Midway" anymore. In those 1940ies times, a $1b carrier was essentially invisible to the ennemy and its aircrafts had the "right of first strike". Nowadays, I can sink your entirety of 10 carriers ($10bio) with roughly 200 missiles ($10million). While you try to rebuild your 10 ships ($10billion. 2 years if everybody is in the shipyards), I can take another 100 missiles $10mio, (1 week). In the end, the "power of a navy" has become a relative asset. The question is how do you resupply your troops and how do you distribute your troops if you want to conquer an entire continent?

Yeah but you're assuming that the first level of attack would be by ship here, aren't you?  I mean, the US has far far far more effective means of bringing a land mass to a point where you can move ships in w/ aircraft for those types of missions....don't you think?  As far as the question of troop support, that's up to the details of this conflict.  Who started it?  Was there a buildup of tensions?  Sneak attack Europe?  Sneak attack US?  These all have serious impacts upon the strategy especially with regards to the first moves.



chocoloco said:
LiquorandGunFun said:
America has weak and naive leaders, it would not be hard for even New Zealand to win.

Anything is better than a Republican.

 

America has the best miliary and spending by far.

I think i would destroy the world so we all get fucked.

This guy proves that wrong.



 

LiquorandGunFun said:
chocoloco said:
LiquorandGunFun said:
America has weak and naive leaders, it would not be hard for even New Zealand to win.

Anything is better than a Republican.

 

America has the best miliary and spending by far.

I think i would destroy the world so we all get fucked.

This guy proves that wrong.

Are you old enough to even remember the horrible Bush the II?



/edit: never mind.



Around the Network
NolSinkler said:
mornelithe said:
Mnementh said:
KingofTrolls said: 

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

Russia, China and arabic countries have no love for each other. Why should they form an alliance?

Under normal circumstances they wouldn't, but if I were the USSR, or China, or the Middle East and saw one of these bordering countries falling, I'd have serious concerns about the power shift in the region (Not to mention having the US gain control of your immediate neighbor giving them legal ability to sit there and pile up military resources on a border before doing anything).  Which is a major facet to why the US got involved in Afghanistan circa Cuban Missile Crisis.  If the Russian's took Afghanistan they had a foothold into the rest of the region, not to mention the resource implications (oil, to name one of the most obviously important).  


If the Russians took Afghanistan.

Please.  Tell me you're joking.

Why would I be joking?  You don't think that without the insane amount of money towards arming and training the mujahideen that Russia couldn't simply pound them into the ground?  They weren't exactly taking prisoners if I understand their tactics correctly.



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.



Joke tread? The only way for the biggest army in the world (by far) to loose was if they f***ed up in a cosmic scale.

Only if Europe had an incredible effective spy network, there would be a fair fight.



pezus said:
Well Europe is in better physical shape on average lol

But, you guys tend to drink more booze and smoke more ciggerates?

 

Also, Russia is not Europe. If you get to add randm countries than I suppose Souh America is on the N, American team. lol

 

This is not really a funny topic.



LiquorandGunFun said:
chocoloco said:
LiquorandGunFun said:
America has weak and naive leaders, it would not be hard for even New Zealand to win.

Anything is better than a Republican.

 

America has the best miliary and spending by far.

I think i would destroy the world so we all get fucked.

This guy proves that wrong.


With a uniform as spiffy as that?