Who will win? US Army vs. ALL OF Europe's combined Armies? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Ironhorse · 04-28-2004, 01:14 AM

50 WW3 Maniacs

Mr. Marks · 04-28-2004, 01:16 AM

51 Surrendering EU army guys.

Pornwolf · 04-28-2004, 01:22 AM

It really depends on who is attacking who. If anyone attacks us they would lose. All of us are just looking for a reason to shoot our guns. Having some foreign country come over here on boats and planes dropping from parachutes would be like a gift certificate to the gun range for every American.

Theo · 04-28-2004, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by papichulo
Israel's army can SMOKE all of EU's army (even the eastern euro former commie ones). When it comes to military skillz, Don't fuck with Israel.

bullshit, tell that to arabs, not here

Israel is a small country with increased military numbers for their population and that's all. Greece military expenses if you include the secret budget match the Israel's one and we have 1mil more manpower. Army is obligatory here too. Now look a small comparison between Israel, Germany and UK which are way bigger countries.

ISRAEL

males age 15-49: 1,562,716
note: both sexes are liable for military service (2003 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$8.97 billion (FY02)

now look at UK

Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 14,877,666 (2003 est.)

Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$31.7 billion (2002)

GERMANY

Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 20,509,838 (2003 est.)

Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$38.8 billion (2002)

War is not a Rambo episode. Having higher military skillz as you say and if that's in reality valid won't match such differences.

jayeff · 04-28-2004, 01:38 AM

If you placed the two armies ready on a battleground, all other things being equal, the European army should win. That is one of the reasons why some EU countries, notably France and Germany, are not wholly enthusiastic about NATO and the special influence the US has in that organisation.

But in a (non-nuclear war) presumably ranging back and forth between the US and Europe, the US would have an advantage. Few European countries have forces that are intended to fight (far) outside their own territories, whereas the US military is planned largely on the assumption that it will be fighting overseas. Going up against Europe, the US would be handicapped in that many of its jump-off points are in Europe, but still it should be better placed to attack Europe than vice versa.

Of course if the conflict moved from bombing to invasion, then a lot would depend on the reaction of the population. That's largely an unknown as Americans haven't fought at home since the Civil War and few Europeans of combat age have personal experience of war either. I tend towards believing Europeans would bear up better, but really, who knows...

milambur · 04-28-2004, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jayeff
Few European countries have forces that are intended to fight (far) outside their own territories, whereas the US military is planned largely on the assumption that it will be fighting overseas.

UK and France both have armies that are deployed all over the world.

Theo · 04-28-2004, 01:52 AM

the sure thing with EU is that their leaders would never agree on which tactic to follow

Hal · 04-28-2004, 01:56 AM

sad to admit the USA would win easily

the USA spends $350 billion a year on defence, compared to $35 billion in the UK, and $350 billion is what the next 10 big military powers spend in total

it's all about the money

and carriers:
the USA has 7 carrier battle groups, each with 100+ combat aircraft... the UK has 3 tiny aircraft carriers and I think France just has 1

but we are all great friends and do alot of business together

Pornwolf · 04-28-2004, 02:02 AM

A look at Bowling For Columbine should give a good indication of what to expect should there ever be an invasion. A look at Boyz In Da Hood should also be required for any potential invaders.

Rappers would be a secret weapon.

Mefo · 04-28-2004, 02:06 AM

you guys are all fucked up in the head, if there would be a war, no one will win it because the whole population will fight against the invaders....that will happen if the EU goes into the US and vice versa...

milambur · 04-28-2004, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hal
sad to admit the USA would win easily

the USA spends $350 billion a year on defence, compared to $35 billion in the UK, and $350 billion is what the next 10 big military powers spend in total

it's all about the money

and carriers:
the USA has 7 carrier battle groups, each with 100+ combat aircraft... the UK has 3 tiny aircraft carriers and I think France just has 1

but we are all great friends and do alot of business together

The US spend alot yes, but combine all European countries and you'll see that the figure will not be so far behind the US.
As for the carriers, they would be sunk pretty fast on both sides, so I doubt it would matter.

I think alot of the modern weponry would be useless pretty fast since I'm sure both the US and Europe would destroy every military satellite pretty fast.

ControlThy · 04-28-2004, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hal

the USA spends $350 billion a year on defence, compared to $35 billion in the UK, and $350 billion is what the next 10 big military powers spend in total

True.

However, the EU can easily match US defense spending due to the budget of the EU countries being alot larger than the US budget.

ControlThy · 04-28-2004, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by papichulo
Israel's army can SMOKE all of EU's army (even the eastern euro former commie ones). When it comes to military skillz, Don't fuck with Israel.

Right.

The EU is not a small group of Arab nations with army technology dating from the 19th century.

Israel definitely has an advanced army but its way too small to be a serious threat.

cortezzz · 04-28-2004, 02:20 AM

eh... dont forget the eh, eh, great czech army...

they still dont have any air-fighters..

milambur · 04-28-2004, 02:21 AM

If Israel tried anything hostile against a major worldpower, the Mediterranean Sea would become 20770 sq km larger.

cortezzz · 04-28-2004, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by papichulo
Israel's army can SMOKE all of EU's army (even the eastern euro former commie ones). When it comes to military skillz, Don't fuck with Israel.

wtf? where are you from? all eastern euro former commie countries actually dont havy any army that would be able to fight anywhere on this planet.. the dont have enought money to build a powerfull army at this time. maybe in africa they can fight, somewhere..

Mr. Marks · 04-28-2004, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by milambur

I think alot of the modern weponry would be useless pretty fast since I'm sure both the US and Europe would destroy every military satellite pretty fast.

See, this is the edge that EU / US have over China. China doesn't have too many satellites up. Not as much as the EU and US at least.

matty · 04-28-2004, 02:35 AM

Whoever can get the first nuke airborne

Pornwolf · 04-28-2004, 02:38 AM

But soon they will have about 10 million elite hackers who can take over our sats at will.

I'm not kidding. If anyone thought the russian hackers were bad just wait a few years and see what happens.

milambur · 04-28-2004, 02:52 AM

Military spenditure for the EU is in the range $200 - $250 Billion, US is about $300 - $350 Billion and China about $50 - 100 Billion.

reynold · 04-28-2004, 02:56 AM

I hope it won't get that far!

CamChicks · 04-28-2004, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hal
sad to admit the USA would win easily

the USA spends $350 billion a year on defence, compared to $35 billion in the UK, and $350 billion is what the next 10 big military powers spend in total

I don't think that figure is relevant. The dollar is an imaginary value. What you would pay to build a tank in China is a whole lot less than what you would pay to build a tank in the USA, but the end product is similar

All that is important is the final total of manpower and equipment.
China is not far behind us in tech, and outnumbers us 3 to 1.
We cannot let some idiot president piss these people off.

I've been been trying to find a good source of info detailing how much of what they've got compared to us .. this is the most comprehensive inventory I've found: (but unoffical) http://www.sinodefence.com/

In general, I think most Americans severely underestimate foriegn powers. To our peril.
We do need the EU, and we must make sure China sides with us instead of the (inevitable) United Islamic Nations.

Mr. Marks · 04-28-2004, 03:17 AM

I don't think the relevant measure is $$$ spent but FIERCENESS and HEART of the troops.

Nas7782 · 04-28-2004, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by papichulo
See, this is the edge that EU / US have over China. China doesn't have too many satellites up. Not as much as the EU and US at least.

That's what we said about the former USSR, until they became the first "supposedly backward" country to launch a satallite in sapce(sputnik). By then, we were playing catch up (we eventually did and surpass them).

As CamChick had pointed out, China had been sending more and more satallite into orbit. As for scientific personel, they're catching up.

As for worrying about our current prez irritating China. Don't worry, the Bushes have closer relationship with China than any other powerful political families to date.

slackologist · 04-28-2004, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by T[H]C
All i have to say is the US air and navel power would reduce china to rubble before they even saw a US soldier.

one word.

nuke.

slackologist · 04-28-2004, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by milambur
Military spenditure for the EU is in the range $200 - $250 Billion, US is about $300 - $350 Billion and China about $50 - 100 Billion.

I can tell you one thing. USD$50 Billion can buy a lot more in China than it can in the U.S. -- So long as you're chinese :-)

Joe Citizen · 04-28-2004, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by papichulo
I don't think the relevant measure is $$$ spent but FIERCENESS and HEART of the troops.

Praguer · 04-28-2004, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by papichulo
I don't think the relevant measure is $$$ spent but FIERCENESS and HEART of the troops.

JamesK · 04-28-2004, 03:53 AM

what a fucking stupid thread.

Mr. Marks · 04-28-2004, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Citizen

Besides aborigines, who have australians conquered?

Mr. Marks · 04-28-2004, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wildcard
what a fucking stupid thread.

I could say the same about your life.

eroswebmaster · 04-28-2004, 04:03 AM

DA BEARS!

Joe Citizen · 04-28-2004, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by papichulo
Besides aborigines, who have australians conquered?

Australians have conquered nobody and this is a good thing. I want to live in peace with our neighbours.

By the way genius, it was the English the conquered (murdered)the aborigines. Australia wasn't a nation before 1901.

JamesK · 04-28-2004, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by papichulo
I could say the same about your life.

What a childish comeback. You don't even fucking know me. Grow up, kid.

theking · 04-28-2004, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CamChicks
If the rest of the world turned against the USA, the USA would be fucked.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_wea_hol

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_arm_for_per

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/...va_mal_age_154

IMHO China could take us if Europe didn't assist us. They have almost as much weaponry, with twice the armed forces, and three times the available manpower; growing rapidly every year. Throw in N.Korea and we don't stand a chance.

EU + Russia could fuck us up too. But that's less politically likely.

Of course, nukes still gaurantee Mutually Assured Destruction.

China is not a Naval power...thus cannot project its military forces.

Goose · 04-28-2004, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tbabe
i dont know, its not doing a great job in iraq. But certainly france would surrender.

slackologist · 04-28-2004, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by papichulo
Besides aborigines, who have australians conquered?

one might ask, who has the british empire conquered besides aborigines?

Mr. Marks · 04-28-2004, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by slackologist
one might ask, who has the british empire conquered besides aborigines?

Australian parasites. Not exactly known as a major power.

Joe Citizen · 04-28-2004, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by papichulo
Australian parasites. Not exactly known as a major power.

Are you are fucking retard?

Do ya think it could have something to do with population, shitstain?

CamChicks · 04-28-2004, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
China is not a Naval power...thus cannot project its military forces.

The question did not specify where the fighting would take place. If US history repeats itself, we would more likely be invading them over some fake drama. And we'd get beaten back hard.

They do have a large defensive navy (plus a lot of nuclear subs), just not the floating cities / aircraft carriers we routinely use. Those are only necessary if you're planning to invade other countires.

IMO no nuclear power will ever wage a fullscale war with another nuclear power, unless by accident.

But it should still be made known that we do not have unchallenged powers to go wherever we want. Our last few 'wars' have been misleading in that regard.

steve90 · 04-28-2004, 06:09 AM

well france woulnt be a factor in it thats for sure

slackologist · 04-28-2004, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by papichulo
Australian parasites. Not exactly known as a major power.

Nice insult there troll.. but yeah anyway .. Australia has a minor population, hence less tax to draw on for spending on defence..

VeriSexy · 04-28-2004, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CamChicks
The question did not specify where the fighting would take place. If US history repeats itself, we would more likely be invading them over some fake drama. And we'd get beaten back hard.

They do have a large defensive navy (plus a lot of nuclear subs), just not the floating cities / aircraft carriers we routinely use. Those are only necessary if you're planning to invade other countires.

IMO no nuclear power will ever wage a fullscale war with another nuclear power, unless by accident. But it should still be made known that we do not have unchallenged powers to go wherever we want. Our last few 'wars' have been misleading in that regard.

You seem to know allot about Military stuff for a chick

Here's world military spending

http://www.cdi.org/budget/2004/world...y-spending.cfm

China is also pushing Europe to lift the Arms embargo so they can buy more high tech weapons and tech transfers. Imagine what will happen if they got a copy of the Euro Fighter and started mass producing.
http://www.contumacy.org/bbs/index.p...mes;read=26893
http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?sid=13&aid=14196

They also got their first batch of SU30MKK from Russia.
http://www.kanwa.com/edaily.htm

China more than doubling budgeted military spending this year
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040423060406.hm15bwqn.html
China's official defense budget in 2004 is more than 25 billion dollars.

But when off-budget funding for foreign weapons system imports is included, total defense-related expenditures this year should soar to between 50 and 70 billion dollars, said Richard Lawless, the deputy undersecretary of defence.

Of course they will never do this cause they don't want to look hostile. They just want to make money

VeriSexy · 04-28-2004, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
China is not a Naval power...thus cannot project its military forces.

Your right, China will only invade Taiwan.

China Eyes Ukrainian Slava-Class Cruiser

Ukrainian Defense Minster Oleksandr Olinyk announced March 2 that the Slava-class cruiser Ukraina will be offered for sale on the international market. He said China most likely will be the buyer of the warship, which, despite lengthy construction delays, is 96 percent complete.

China is in the midst of procuring large, multipurpose surface combatants from Russia, such as the Sovremenny-class destroyers, while also building new units of the Lanzhou- and Guangzhou-class destroyers in order to improve the sea service?s air defense, surface strike and antisubmarine warfare capabilities. The Slava-class cruiser, however, adds the new dimension of long-range surface-strike capability with 16 P-500 Bazalt surface-to-surface missiles with a range of 297 nautical miles.

This capability would give the Chinese Navy a standoff capability against large air-capable combatants such as aircraft carriers, amphibious ships and other large surface combatants.

If China accepts the cruiser as is, it likely will transfer the vessel to China for completion and outfitting, since it will be able to finish the work at significantly less cost than if completed in the Ukraine. Current estimated value of the Ukraina is $500 million.

http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/may_04_50.php

They are also building their own stealth ships.

04-28-2004, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by titmowse
i think alien would kick predator's ass.

You sure about that? We will see this summer.

God this thread is so utterly useless.

VeriSexy · 04-28-2004, 07:31 AM

Here's a few more without any stupid tugboats in the way.

04-28-2004, 07:36 AM

None of you patriotic and argueing idiots realize that a conflict of such dimensions would mean the end of it all. Why do you think the Cold War never escalated? Because people were afraid of just that. And the scale was much smaller than in this hypothetic scenario.

Get your head out of your ass, and get back to work, for fuck's sake.

mpulse · 04-28-2004, 08:28 AM

With the advanced weaponry of the US...we could do pre-assaults before ground troops were activated, which would more like take a high number of enemy troops out...not to mention that "if" this war took place, rest assured the draft would be reinstated. FYI...prior to WWII, US standing army was roughly 180,000 troops...and within 1 year of the draft, the new figure was 7.2 million. So technology and #'s are on our side if this stayed a conventional war. Just my

Nicky · 04-28-2004, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimboc
Of course not...

Unless Bush gets re-electected

Corleone · 04-28-2004, 08:35 AM

Europe that'd be easy

04-28-2004, 01:14 AM	#51
Ironhorse Pixel Pusher Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 7,093	50 WW3 Maniacs __________________ [email protected]

04-28-2004, 01:22 AM	#53
Pornwolf Drunk and Unruly Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Hollywood Posts: 22,712	It really depends on who is attacking who. If anyone attacks us they would lose. All of us are just looking for a reason to shoot our guns. Having some foreign country come over here on boats and planes dropping from parachutes would be like a gift certificate to the gun range for every American. __________________ I've trusted my sites to them for over a decade... Webair, bitches.

04-28-2004, 02:02 AM	#59
Pornwolf Drunk and Unruly Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Hollywood Posts: 22,712	A look at Bowling For Columbine should give a good indication of what to expect should there ever be an invasion. A look at Boyz In Da Hood should also be required for any potential invaders. Rappers would be a secret weapon. __________________ I've trusted my sites to them for over a decade... Webair, bitches.

04-28-2004, 02:06 AM	#60
Mefo Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 6,169	you guys are all fucked up in the head, if there would be a war, no one will win it because the whole population will fight against the invaders....that will happen if the EU goes into the US and vice versa... __________________

04-28-2004, 02:20 AM	#64
cortezzz Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: white house Posts: 955	eh... dont forget the eh, eh, great czech army... they still dont have any air-fighters.. __________________ ....................../´¯/) ....................,/¯../ .................../..../ ............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ ........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\ ........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') .........\.................'...../ ..........''...\.......... _.·´ ............\..............( ..............\.............\... [email protected] skype: cortezzz2006

04-28-2004, 01:16 AM	#52
Mr. Marks Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Wherever I want Posts: 7,517	51 Surrendering EU army guys.

04-28-2004, 01:38 AM	#55
jayeff Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 2,944	If you placed the two armies ready on a battleground, all other things being equal, the European army should win. That is one of the reasons why some EU countries, notably France and Germany, are not wholly enthusiastic about NATO and the special influence the US has in that organisation. But in a (non-nuclear war) presumably ranging back and forth between the US and Europe, the US would have an advantage. Few European countries have forces that are intended to fight (far) outside their own territories, whereas the US military is planned largely on the assumption that it will be fighting overseas. Going up against Europe, the US would be handicapped in that many of its jump-off points are in Europe, but still it should be better placed to attack Europe than vice versa. Of course if the conflict moved from bombing to invasion, then a lot would depend on the reaction of the population. That's largely an unknown as Americans haven't fought at home since the Civil War and few Europeans of combat age have personal experience of war either. I tend towards believing Europeans would bear up better, but really, who knows...

04-28-2004, 01:52 AM	#57
Theo HAL 9000 Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 34,515	the sure thing with EU is that their leaders would never agree on which tactic to follow

04-28-2004, 01:56 AM	#58
Hal Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: London, UK Posts: 768	sad to admit the USA would win easily the USA spends $350 billion a year on defence, compared to $35 billion in the UK, and $350 billion is what the next 10 big military powers spend in total it's all about the money and carriers: the USA has 7 carrier battle groups, each with 100+ combat aircraft... the UK has 3 tiny aircraft carriers and I think France just has 1 but we are all great friends and do alot of business together

04-28-2004, 02:21 AM	#65
milambur Mainstream since 2010 Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,327	If Israel tried anything hostile against a major worldpower, the Mediterranean Sea would become 20770 sq km larger. __________________ Alea iacta est

04-28-2004, 02:35 AM	#68
matty Mining for Porn! Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: New Haven CT Posts: 1,328	Whoever can get the first nuke airborne __________________ Want to accept Bitcoin (BTC) on your site without any issues? I modestly estimate a 15%-20% boost in conversions. Projects Like These Cost Big $$$, Please Donate: 112BNRe8WiooVBTqDFSLzjBo6Ve1LunViN

04-28-2004, 02:38 AM	#69
Pornwolf Drunk and Unruly Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Hollywood Posts: 22,712	But soon they will have about 10 million elite hackers who can take over our sats at will. I'm not kidding. If anyone thought the russian hackers were bad just wait a few years and see what happens. __________________ I've trusted my sites to them for over a decade... Webair, bitches.

04-28-2004, 02:52 AM	#70
milambur Mainstream since 2010 Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,327	Military spenditure for the EU is in the range $200 - $250 Billion, US is about $300 - $350 Billion and China about $50 - 100 Billion. __________________ Alea iacta est

04-28-2004, 02:56 AM	#71
reynold Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Global Traveler Posts: 51,271	I hope it won't get that far!

04-28-2004, 03:17 AM	#73
Mr. Marks Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Wherever I want Posts: 7,517	I don't think the relevant measure is $$$ spent but FIERCENESS and HEART of the troops.

04-28-2004, 03:53 AM	#79
JamesK hi Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 16,731	what a fucking stupid thread. __________________ M3Server - NATS Hosting

04-28-2004, 04:03 AM	#82
eroswebmaster March 1st, 2003 Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seat 4 @ Venetian Poker Room Posts: 20,295	DA BEARS! __________________ For rent - ICQ 127-027-910 Click here for more details

04-28-2004, 06:09 AM	#91
steve90 Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: California Posts: 2,397	well france woulnt be a factor in it thats for sure

04-28-2004, 07:31 AM	#96
VeriSexy Join The Royal Family Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 25,463	Here's a few more without any stupid tugboats in the way. __________________ Looking for a KICK ASS TEEN SPONSOR? Check out ROYAL CASH - THE KING OF TEEN! Incredible webmaster tools FHGs, Morphing Blog and RSS Feeds, Embedded FLV & WMV Videos. With TOP RATIO Sites like TeenStarsOnly.com - Earn $$ with our New Site & Bonus Payouts!! ATMovs.com \| iTeenVideo.com \| TeenSexMovs.com \| TeenSexMania.com

04-28-2004, 07:36 AM	#97
X37375787 Guest Posts: n/a	None of you patriotic and argueing idiots realize that a conflict of such dimensions would mean the end of it all. Why do you think the Cold War never escalated? Because people were afraid of just that. And the scale was much smaller than in this hypothetic scenario. Get your head out of your ass, and get back to work, for fuck's sake. Last edited by X37375787; 04-28-2004 at 07:38 AM..

04-28-2004, 08:28 AM	#98
mpulse Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: St. Pete, FL Posts: 765	With the advanced weaponry of the US...we could do pre-assaults before ground troops were activated, which would more like take a high number of enemy troops out...not to mention that "if" this war took place, rest assured the draft would be reinstated. FYI...prior to WWII, US standing army was roughly 180,000 troops...and within 1 year of the draft, the new figure was 7.2 million. So technology and #'s are on our side if this stayed a conventional war. Just my __________________ when in doubt...don't whip it out! ICQ#280837216

04-28-2004, 08:35 AM	#100
Corleone C.R.E.A.M Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 15,262	Europe that'd be easy