Between these two groups, militarily speaking, I would argue that North America has an advantage.
1) Much more nuclear weapons exist in the North American arsenal. It also helps the NA side that these weapons are in a centralised system with most of the world within range of missile fire.
2) A smaller number of governments involved (and a more focused population) on the NA side implies a faster ability to get into "total war" quickly. And let's face it, this is a hypothetical conflict on a scale similar to that of World War II. It would most likely be necessary to have a total war approach in order to actually defeat the opposing forces.
3) Language is no barrier to operations for the NA. Virtually all fighters would speak English, as opposed to an EU force with many, many different languages making internal communication far harder.
The NA force would, however, suffer one crippling disadvantage, unless this all happens in some future scenario where they rely much more heavily on China (presumably neutral) for trade. That is, the EU is the main source of trade for the US, which it relies on for a vast amount of its riches. Without that, it would be very difficult to survive. The US is, after all, the antithesis of self-sufficiency as countries go. Meanwhile, the economics would be in favour of the EU, which within itself is much more self-sufficient.
Just because the NA has an advantage, doesn't mean that it would win. If nuclear weaponry actually got used, it would likely result in returning fire. And unlike in
Fallout 3, this would lead to nuclear winter and the destruction of virtually all living species (except the cockroach and a few other bugs; it's hardly very fun). A fallout shelter would not protect people from the kind of cold that would result, or create a steady source of food.
Thankfully, such a conflict is virtually unthinkable as history stands.
Skeleon said:
McCa said:
wait.. He spelt Muslim "moslem?" And the continues to sprout ignorance?
His profile says USA, but interestingly enough, "Moslem" is actually the correct German spelling for "Muslim". I dunno if any other languages use the same spelling as us Germans, though.
It's interesting, there's a lot of mythology surrounding those phonetically similar terms.
This is the best source that I've found on how those two words work:
http://hnn.us/articles/524.html
So the words are interchangable in use, though not in meaning. I've seen both used in sources from England, Australia, and even America. So it's not just a German thing to call the ethnic group "Moslems". However, it would appear that these days it's more politically correct to call them "Muslims".
Still, one could use either without meaning any offense intended. It's certainly not a sign of ignorance to call the group that, when commonly the other spelling is used without any such intention.
