 |
|
Demerzel
|
|
World vs USA?
Normal war, win to World easily. The EU nations would form the technological core to any army to counteract the US units and the rest would provide mass quantities of troops for the shock corps.
In a nuclear war, no-one would win ( America can't shoot down ICBMs ), and the sheer number the British, French, Chinese, Indians, Israelis, Pakistanis & Russians have would be enough to nuke America 20 times over. The US would of course nuke most of the rest of the world. joy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Demerzel
|
|
i presume you mean if the aegis cruiser is at the destination site? not much use if they have to be at the launch site as they would be ineffective against land based ICBMs and can hardly be expected to be trailing missile subs all the time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JimmyCracksCorn
|
|
Macedonia - Sovereign country north of Greece.
Dec 2002
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
standing in line... believing the lies... bowing down to the flag... you've got a bullet in your head... |
KEWL M4N I LUV THAT SUNG ZACH IS SUCH A WIKED AWESUM RAPPER AND HES SMART T00!!!! DID YOU NOW HE WENT TO HARVERD OR SUMTHING? I WOULD BUY ANYTHING BY HIM!!!!!!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:25
|
|
The US would easily win, if we keep the war conventional. I've posted extensively on this before, but what it comes down to is that the USN is insanely superior to the rest of the world's navies combined, and the fact that the USN could defeat any attempt to transfer troops across the Atlantic/Pacific.
Canada's armed forces could easily be destroyed and the useful parts of Canada (breadbasket, oil, manufacturing areas) occupied. Mexico and the rest of the Central/South American armies would not present much of a problem - a couple US divisions on the Texas/Mexico border backed up by the Texas Guard and a few hundred aircraft would do the trick.
I suppose the Russians could try an invasion of Alaska out of Kamchatka, but there are major supply problems there - I just don't see how they could supply enough troops to defeat the US military in Alaska and occupy anything other than a few islands and a few square miles of ice. And this isn't even counting the intervention of the USN, which would rip apart any attempting landing.
The only other possibility I see is an EU strike from the UK-Iceland-Greenland-Canada - attempting to occupy those areas to establish a chain of airbases that could provide cover to transports. This ignores a couple of problems, though - the EU navies do not have enough transports to move significant numbers of troops long distances - it would take years to build up a large force, and if that force was being landed in Canada, the US would just destroy it piecemeal.
But that assumes they could even take Iceland and Greenland. Possibly they could take Iceland, but the US would simply drop a Marine Expeditionary Unit (or even Brigade) on Greenland, with some engineering units, anti-aircraft defenses, etc., and match the EU's Iceland base. That would lead to a stalemate.
Granted, the US couldn't invade too many people outside of this Hemisphere, but the point is that they could easily contain and destroy any attempts to send troops to the Western Hemisphere.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:25
|
|
Floyd makes good points
US isolation would be a huge advantage. Once major invasions are thrwted, the US could then use long range bombers to begin fire bombing cities into submission of countries that are singled out. Once those agree to ceasefire, the US would then move on to the next, all the while defending its shores with impunity. It would be brutal, millions upon milions of innocents would die (perhaps up to a billion by the time it is all over  ) in the end, but it would be the only way to beat the rest of the world back into a ceasefire.
Sheer numbers tho, and production capacity of teh rest of the world would mean the US would need a good deal of luck on their side, but ti could be done.
Long term, if the US would win in this way, with families destroyed and half dead, extreme hatred for the US would exist throughout the world. They would probably hate the US even after America pumps trillions back into rebuilding the world in the Marshal Plan II...
Kman
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
I don't think the world would ever unite in such a fashion. All those countries dislike each other thouroughly. Now some of them just appear to be united because the US is pressing a little too hard. Even then, we can still drive wedge in their alliances. If we pull ourselves out, you will be surprised about how quickly these guys will be at each other's throat.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Demerzel
|
|
hmm the USN is a mighty powerful force but I don't believe even it could stand up to the rest of the World's combined power. Especially, if you consider that the aircraft and ships the USN uses have been sold to other navies and would be used against them.
I'm not saying that it wouldn't be one hell of a fight, but World vs. USA could only result in a World victory esp. if the World was able to prepare for even a couple of months before a war started.
Give it a couple of years and the EU will be even more powerful militarily. At the moment, the EU already matches the US industrial power but the military does lack behind.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-02-2003 16:36
. So, it's up to them.
|