European Union vs. North American Union

Recommended Videos

darkless

New member
Jan 26, 2008
1,268
0
0
akIceman said:
darkless said:
freakonaleash said:
hey why doesn't anyone mention the navy SEALS,aka the most elite special force in the world.
because they aren't the most Elite special forces in the world that title goes to Spetsnaz, SAS or the Sayeret Matkal of isreal.
Delta Force. End of story. SAS and SEALS are about on par (maybe the SAS has a slight edge). The Royal Marines are about on par with the US Marines (Less Force Recon). The US Army has the Rangers and Green Berets, and there are more Americans that British overall, so that is roughly a draw.
yeah but the Sayeret Matkal kick both there asses really.
 

fuzzball

New member
Jun 7, 2009
71
0
0
Zac_Dai said:
fuzzball said:
Zac_Dai said:
Seeing as right now we can't even win a war in a shithole like Afghanistan I doubt either side would make any good progress.
That is not a standard war, this war would be a lot more straight forward
Straight forward how?

The op doesn't even mention what the victory conditions are.

Is the EU invading North America or is it the other way round? Then if the aim is to subdue the populace and begin ruling over a new empire, I hardly think thats going be straight forward if history is anything to go by.

So if modern western armies can't even inflict a decisive defeat on the Taliban with the sheer technological advantage they have I can't even begin to imagine how they could do it to say a whole continent.
Depending on the circumstances on how the war started, it would be straight forward and conditions for victory would be apparent, all the countries going to war have a home country that you could attack. The Taliban don't have bases, they don't have places you can just bomb with out killing innocent people that are not involved with the Taliban.
 

yaik7a

New member
Aug 9, 2009
669
0
0
firedfns13 said:
yaik7a said:
Nobody said that chemical weapons cant be used so ...
bye bye partisans
Then America goes nuclear, and MAD plays out.
Besides, that's like saying America should deal with the Taliban/insurgents by hosing down Iraq and Afghanistan with nerve agents.
When do partsans get nukes
 

yaik7a

New member
Aug 9, 2009
669
0
0
JimmerDunda said:
yaik7a said:
JimmerDunda said:
yaik7a said:
JimmerDunda said:
George144 said:
If all of the EU rose up America would be crushed, not just in terms of military support but looking at it economically and socially America couldn't survive without the support and co-operation of the EU. Especially as its likely that Russia and Chine would bring their aid to the EU (well its kind of iffy with China they might just stay neutral.)
Considering the fact the USA(not including canada or mexico) has a larger Navy than the European Union combined, I think you may want to rethink "crushed."
but then Russia enters
Haha, don't make me laugh. Russia's Navy has been piss weak since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Of couse they are , with some of the most advanced subs in the world !
>Implying Russia's subs are more advanced than the USA subs.


Russia can barely keep their over sized rust buckets maintained.
Ever seen a typhoon ? or a Borei ? well if not then we have nothing to talk about .
 

firedfns13

New member
Jun 4, 2009
1,177
0
0
yaik7a said:
When do partsans get nukes
They don't. But if you expect America to go to the brink of destruction and then start spraying down chemical weapons on its citizens, you should expect them to deploy nuclear weapons.
 

yaik7a

New member
Aug 9, 2009
669
0
0
firedfns13 said:
yaik7a said:
When do partsans get nukes
They don't. But if you expect America to go to the brink of destruction and then start spraying down chemical weapons on its citizens, you should expect them to deploy nuclear weapons.
If the government goes down they cant use nukes as read the OP !!111!!1!
 

firedfns13

New member
Jun 4, 2009
1,177
0
0
yaik7a said:
firedfns13 said:
yaik7a said:
When do partsans get nukes
They don't. But if you expect America to go to the brink of destruction and then start spraying down chemical weapons on its citizens, you should expect them to deploy nuclear weapons.
If the government goes down they cant use nukes as read the OP !!111!!1!
Too bad for europe then, they either get retailation of chemical (except I don't think America has too many chem/bio bombs anymore) and in the abscence of retailatory chemical/biobombs we'd substitute nukes.
 

martin's a madman

New member
Aug 20, 2008
2,319
0
0
demoman_chaos said:
martin said:
Sorry, I can't take your conspiracies as truth without proof.
Here [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgGEv-cdoms]
That doesn't exist right now, and I further doubt that it will exist during Obama's presidency. Someday maybe but not at the moment.
 

yaik7a

New member
Aug 9, 2009
669
0
0
firedfns13 said:
yaik7a said:
firedfns13 said:
yaik7a said:
When do partsans get nukes
They don't. But if you expect America to go to the brink of destruction and then start spraying down chemical weapons on its citizens, you should expect them to deploy nuclear weapons.
If the government goes down they cant use nukes as read the OP !!111!!1!
Too bad for europe then, they either get retailation of chemical (except I don't think America has too many chem/bio bombs anymore) and in the abscence of retailatory chemical/biobombs we'd substitute nukes.
So when did those dam'n old rebels get dem nukes ?
 

firedfns13

New member
Jun 4, 2009
1,177
0
0
Gah. What I'm saying is that I highly doubt you could eliminate the US Government to the point where you could deploy WMDs with no retailation.
 

Cabisco

New member
May 7, 2009
2,433
0
0
In my mind this is how a war would pan out:

Part one: Big ass naval battles. To begin with the British forces would kick their arses as they recall the wonderful days of the napoleonic wars, then of course they will see a ship flying french colours and proceeded to smash the shit out of it. The french will fire back and all the european countries will start blasting each others navies apart for the last 1000 years of paybacks built up. Amercian forces ( i use the term american as the continent not just usa) would retreat and watch the pretty fireworks.

Part two: with both the French leaders annoyed at the British arrogance and the whole shooting them thing and British leaders annoyed that the French are indeed French, Germany decides that they should take control of the armies. One EU commander makes a passing reference to the last time Germany had a position of power in europe and all shit breaks loose. The countries of Europe level Germany to the ground with the British and French forces being mates again, however now their are no Germany military forces and no naval power.

Meanwhile. Back with the American Forces, the population of the USA overjoyed with the idea of kicking some ass the Mexicans secretly invade Texas with their army of 45 tanks which had been in planning since World War 2. The Republicans decide that with Manifest Destiny and all it's for the best that mexico becomes a new state rather than remain a country. The Democrats meanwhile call for an end to the war under the threat of over the next 40 years releasing sad war movie after sad war movie. The Canadians think 'Fuck it' and decide to turn their armies against the growing bear population which has seized land in their absense of watching the europeans attack each other.

I would continue but i really can't be bothered and it's not particulary funny. Someone make up an ending.
 

picturecreeper

New member
Apr 14, 2010
11
0
0
Unkillable Cat said:
One thing not being taken into consideration in all of this is logistics. The key to any war, finance, food, productivity, and supply lines. Bear in mind this whole theoretical war would rely upon Europe getting along so it is assumed as the basis of what Im writing.
Europe has a large amount of untapped oil both on land and at sea. Financially Europe is in much better shape. Europe has superior health care (manpower). Europe has more fertile land. Since Europe comprises of many independent nations, manufacturing is also harder to interrupt as most of them have self contained industry.
America's only advantage would be supply lines. Organising a singe republic, V's dozens of independent nations is far more efficient.

Americas biggest enemies? a huge coastline, a lack of allies outside of Europe, reliance on imported oil. The war is lost before standing forces are even taken into account.
Europe has more fertile land, since when? No allies outside of Europe? Oh yeah, I forgot that Israel doesn't count, who knew. The U.S. has some of the largest reserves of oil in the world underneath Alaska and Yellowstone, so don't pull the dependence card, we can use our own if we want. Better health care? Right, because people come to America's hospitals for shits and giggles.