Should Europe Go To War With America?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DaShi
It is quite obvious that America has become the biggest threat to world peace since WWII. This is clearly the result of an ineffective government. While we can all blame President Bush for this, we must not ignore the very government that put him into power in the first place.

Why should Europe specifically go to war? Europe is clearly the nation most threatened by American hegemony. The anti-Europe (and especially anti-France) attitude of America has been made clear in nearly all of its recent actions in foreign affairs. Europe is constantly in a position where it is getting bullied and pressured by the US to comply with its demands. Also, we must ask ourselves, is Europe truly safe from American aggression? There have been hints from Washington that such an action is not only feasable but possibly proper in the American mindset.

But this war, won't simply be to remove a potential threat to world stability, but also to assist the people of America, who are clearly suffering under this regime. The current leadership of America has driven the country into massive debt so that the prviledged class can maintain its status quo, while the lower classes suffer from massive unemployment and abuses to their freedom. With the removal of the President Bush and the abolition of the current Constitution that allowed such a tyrant to rise to power, the American people, under the guiding hand of Europe, can rebuild and live in a country that is governed properly and fairly for everyone.

While this war would be both an act of humanitarian aid as well as self-preservation, Europe can only rightfully be expected to take certain advantages from it. America is bloated with all sort of natural and manufactured resources. To leave them in the hands of the crippled American people would be as wasteful as if they were still being consumed by the soon to be former American government. As liberators, Europe's duty will be to see that such resources are put to good use. Europe will governs the overseas sales of them; and while at a lower price than they formerly would have been for Europe and her allies, the profits will go toward rebuilding America.

Who knows, fifity or sixty years in the future, America may once again be able play a role in international affairs? While the road may be harsh, in time, both America and Europe will benefit from this and be grateful toward eachother for it.

Why is it that everytime I think I have seen all the weird stuff in this forum, someone ups it some more?

[Shi Huangdi]

How about the USA and EU team up to destroy Bristol and whatever town yavoon is from?

[el freako]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
How about the USA and EU team up to destroy Bristol and whatever town yavoon is from?

That's the most sensible suggestion so far

[PLATO]

Originally posted by el freako


That's the most sensible suggestion so far

[Urban Ranger]

Chill out, yavoon, or you'll get some time to do so.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
You're a fascist, a pagan, an idiot, an anti-semite, a dork, a n00b, a cheater, a liar, AND you hate black people.

...And still you wan't to destroy capitalism! You should be thrown out of a helicopter!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by el freako


No, the system is not in place but it would work.

It requires using mobile phone transmitters to be used as lots of small radar emitters - this, coupled with a lot of computing power (but that was what made stealth possible in the first place) and good communications can make it possible to pinpoint stealth aircraft as well as we can pinpoint the non-stealth sort now.

So you effectively have a single, national radar system. You have to have a supercomputer (or more likely quite a few of them, networked, and/or a few zillion networked normal computers ) sifting through all of the returns to get rid of spurious ones. It seems to me that such a system would be incredibly vulnerable - disrupt the computer network and the whole thing is useless, and I don't see how it would cope with ECM.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Patroklos
But like you said we have world wide power, not to mention incontravertable naval superiority. What do you plan on building your weapons with, or for that matter feeding your people?

It takes an average of 7-12 years to design a military aircraft. 3 years to build an aircraft carrier (not sure what you would put on it though) and 1.2 to train the average Western grunt. You'd be building up for a very long time.

Meanwhile the war would be over in less than a year. It is not feasable for a war of that scale using modern weapons to last more than that.

Of course we don't actually have to invade, just outflank France so they feel hopeless and surrender (as someone else said).

Building up the manpower to launch an invasion would take years for either continent. US do not have the manpower to invade a hostile Europe with your current army. This is not some backward third-world country surrounded by US allies. US could perhaps get the upper hand by securing naval dominance in a quick strike, but it would be costly. You would have to fight your way through carriers, modern subs and stealth ships.

[Chemical Ollie]

Why does this thread give me a feeling of "My dad's d!ck is bigger than your dad's"?

[joncha]

Because it is.

Oh, and you can just go ahead and say "dick" now.

dick dick dick dick dick

jon.

[Chemical Ollie]

Dick Cheney is a fag

[MrFun]

You can apologize anytime you want to for using that slur, Chemical.

[Patroklos]

We would lose some Naval assets in the brown water, but there is nothing you have to counter 7 carrier battle groups in the Blue water, and you need to shut down the convoy lines. European naval aviation is a joke compared to the US, and your subs are on par for number but not quality. Your mainly diesel force is useless away from the coast. Eurpopean surface compatents are, well, Oliver Hazard Perry-class and worse (a few exceptions, so few to not make a difference).

And then there is a problem with any European defence, control and interoperablilty. If you take out the US NATO compontents which are basicaly the key stone that makes it all work, you are left with a mess.

And why do you think invading is necessary? Think of it this way. We as the US know everything about any target we will ever need to hit in Europe right now. You know the same about us, but you have nothing to atack the contenetal US with, let alone in any quantity that it would make a diference.

This wouldn't be a war of continent invades continent, but rather who can make whose life so miserable they give up. US can still get resources with impunity from the Pacific, you might be able to disruct Atlantic lines of communcation but doubtful and not for long. It comes down to the fact that we can strike Europe, Europe can't strike us.

Did someone say that European fighter (in large scale production) force is on par with American? Give me an F-16, F-15, F-14, F-18 over a Griffin, Tornado, or Mirage any day of the week.

Now if this were to take place 100 years from now with the EU having the continet perhaps using a common and integrated armed forces then things might be different.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Chill out, yavoon, or you'll get some time to do so.

Howabouts you just close the damn thread instead.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

Howabouts you just close the damn thread instead.

Why?

[Ted Striker]

Pretty good troll

But we've got the azz kicking Brits on our side.

Plus New Europe

I'd expect Spain and Italy to sit on the sidelines but given a choice they would team up with USA.

So it's really:

USA and most of Europe vs. Germany/France/Benelux

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Pretty good troll

But we've got the azz kicking Brits on our side.

Plus New Europe

I'd expect Spain and Italy to sit on the sidelines but given a choice they would team up with USA.

So it's really:

USA and most of Europe vs. Germany/France/Benelux

When you get past the rhetoric of the Franco-German alliance then it does seem that most everybody else does come down on the side of the US. Hmmm...

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Chill out, yavoon, or you'll get some time to do so.

A little slow on the draw, aren't we, partner?

[Dis]

why is it other people's trolls never get deleted but mine do?

[Tripledoc]

God damn dimwit Fascists.

[Kuciwalker]

[Pekka]

If wars were fought by the way of who has the biggest military budget.. well I just don't know how to continue this sentence, because it's so stupid. I'm out of words.

This way of thinking is seriously dangerous. If we cancel out the nukes, which both parties have, anyone who'd say US (or Europe by that matter) would win hands down and is serious about it is.. a prophet. The outcome of it can not be predicted at all. The advantage is with the defendor however, so if Europe was to attack the US, it might work, but Europe couldn't hold the US very long, even if Europe would be able to gain upper hand in the US soil. But it wouldn't last very long.

Same goes the other way, even if the US would be able to make a good first offensive destroying the most important targets in few days, it would still not be able to hold the continent for long. I think this is a no-brainer.
If someone disagrees, they should stop taking Rambo movies so seriously. It's just not happening.

It depends of course on how the Europe would react to US attack, would they take it seriously enough to be unified and establishing a good structure of command and regional defenses. The US military strength is not nearly enough to hold Europe for long time. Just like Europes strength is not enough in US soil. I don't know, maybe most of you are not familiar how mobilization in here most countries work. War is not simple mathematics. I think that should be the lesson we should have learned a LONG time ago. Some people are seriously illusioning that since there were countries easily rolled over by nazis in the WWII... Hey.. nazis were European too. That's not my point of hinting that Europe has its killing up there, it's just that if anyone thinks they can predict, or think it will be hands down victory for either one of the sides, that would be a horrible mistake, most likely leading to disaster beyond belief and mental brakedown.

To the topic itself. Well first of all at the current state the Europe is in, they couldn't launch an offensive taking out the US now. Reasons being it's not unified enough, and there is no 'army of Europe'. It's a bunch of single countries. There is no common structure either, so even if we outnumbered the firepower, it still wouldn't work. The first attack might be succesful, but it wouldn't last long enough, and it would turn into a mess.

Also thinking that there is a chance of attacks, that is way too paranoid thinking. Even if there were serious dents in relationship, there would be no war. The dent would have to be pretty huge, and right now I can't think of any of possible scenarios that happening.

The outcome besides the war itself, is too unpredictable. Most likely it's bad. The whole thing with relations and all that would be so unbalanced in the whole world, that it would lead into chaos, and would have so big percussions, that it's impossible to say how long they would have an effect. It would be too damaging.

Who ever tries to make the relations between Europe and the US worse by reasons not known for sure should be watched closely. Only terrorists would benefit from that situation. The anti feelings of both sides will be then overplayed, that's the way it starts. There must be infriction, some kind of bad blood starting slowly, so people won't start thinking too much and see what's going on. Otherwise it would not work. I don't believe Americans would wish to attack Europe, and Europeans do not wish to attack Americans. So the anti feelings must be overplayed, so the other side would think 'they really hate us, don't they?' and be confused 'why do they hate us?'. That's what you would want to create the first infriction.

Then you need to create reasons why there is the suggested anti feelings and even hate, of course the reasons being totally bogus to take the eye off of the real plan. There will be lots of people objecting to it, and they need to be silenced and downplayed. Affiliate them with groups that are not liked. Have them hated by your own. That's the way the infriction will grow, and people forget to ask 'why' and if they do, they don't find the real answer, which is not known because anyone who would have such plans is a mad man and sick bastard.

Then you start with little diplomatic feuds, and create problems that really are not there. But you have to start is slowly, so it would come to no surprise and people would go 'That's right, the bastards .....' and there would be no questioning about are we taking the proper action. If the other side does not play along and counter like you wish, you can claim they are being hostile anyway. Few people will know the difference anyway so it doesn't matter.

Give warnings to things that they can't reply to, because there is no real problem in the first place. Start rumours, boycotts and whatnot. Provoke a situation where citizens of your side are being attacked in the other sides soil. If not happening, stage one. This should work good, have tens of people killed, women, children mostly. Have a huge mourning and make sure everyone knows what happened. Don't accept apologies, make everyone think this was planned by the other side so if they apologies, it's becasue of the etiquette, but they're real bastards even coming to say something now.

Have little mobilization going on, but only little and keep it a secret. Hint, that the other side is mobilizising a bit, but downplay your own action. Overplay theirs. Then, have a dispute going on with for example ships in the sea, crash the other sides boat and blame it on the other side. Mourn, bastardisize the other side for it as if it was their fault.

Shoot down their plane in their soil, claim it was on your own soil. Claim it was gathering information about your side and formations. The other side will know it was not their fault, but will say the pilot got lost or the GPS was broken or something, or that it was an accident. They most likely want to play safe, so they choose this option. Other option is to retaliate and that's what you want anyway.

When they say 'Pilot got lost, we tried to call him back but there was no communication, it was broken too', make sure everyoen goes 'yeah sure..'. Stage it if no one goes 'yeah sure'.

Make sure everyone thinks that the other side is having a problem with you, not the other way around. This way there's only minimum amount of symphatizers for the other side and we can silence and make them look bad for saying kind words or trying to find the real answer.

Claim, that the other side is gathering information now more, and is mobilizising secretly, even if they aren't. Then inform that your troops are already mobilized to counter the immidiate threat. Now no one cares about anything except what's going to happen. Single out one point of pressure, where it might start. Have news showing this place AT ALL TIMES and interview troopers, who are of course selected and say what you need to hear. Make sure your side is thinking this is defensive action. Otherwise it will fail and it's your ass big time if they find out your hideous plans, and find your head in top of a pole.

Create more pressure near the borders. Now you're ready to start the war and you have your side with you, but make sure the other countries are not trying to cool you down. Try to have them as allies, or at least that they won't side against you. But in case it fails, just **** it, go with the flow. Provoke the other side at all times, and inform your own people and news crews that they are the ones provoking. When the first bullet flies, accidentally or not, launch full offensive from all points.

Yep, that's pretty much about it.

[Pekka]

To answer shortly, NO, Europe should not go to war with America. Not even if they ask us to. It might be only considered, when the US in civil war, and the other side of it is clearly more wrong than the other one, and even then it should be considered real hard, and maybe just watch it from the news.