European Union vs. North American Union

[PsychoV3nom]

i would say north american union because of the U.S navy seals (and other spec ops) and Canada's endless resources.

 

[TheFacelessOne]

This is a stupid question.

My vote is that we'd both pummel each other to death, and have another country trample over our remains and use them as decorative pieces.

But, if EU invaded first, I'm willing to be that North America could eventually push back and at least touch Europe.

 

[CorvinBlack]

If no nukes, the EU would crush you in about 1 year, our economy wouldn't suffer as much as yours, and we have better diplomatic potencial(we are not hated by the entire world) so we could quickly organize allies.

If you count Russia on the EU side, you lose. Fast. Less then 4 months.

If it is just one big field and all forces of NAU and EU clash, it would be a draw. And bloody.

 

[firedfns13]

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

So? You need a navy to invade. So what if you can repel a land invasion of Europe, it means nothing if you lack the navy to get them to America.

 

[freakonaleash]

compare the U.S spending on military with the rest of the world and your gonna see who wins.

 

[zuluking187]

Yes the Americans have more ships (by a small margin), but you have to look at how well trained and experienced they are, the UK navy alone has some of the proudest traditions and strictest training in the world, and has likely the most real combat experience on any large scale in the Falklands,

What the fuck does "proudest traditions" have to do with anything? And secondly, the US Navy has the most experience, you know, with it being involved in more wars as of late.

plus many of the ships in the US fleet are aircraft carriers and not actual warships and are spread out around the world.

Aircraft carriers are the pride and joy of any navy, without aircraft carriers, your navy is practically shit. Oh and the US has 11, the EU has 7. Oh and the US ones are twice the size of the EU ones.

Its a strong Navy but head to head against all of the EU's I'm willing to bet it would be defeated.

A bet you would lose, the US Navy would curbstomp the EU Navy.

 

[darkless]

compare the U.S spending on military with the rest of the world and your gonna see who wins.

How much each union spends is completely irrelevant.

 

[firedfns13]

Who thinks that the SAS can just casually fly into Washington DC and kill the Commander in Chief or Congress?
Do you guys forget about the Marines that are stationed close by? Radar?
The Secret Service? They have SUVs that have pop up 40mm gattling cannons. ByeBye SAS helicopter. Even if you got in and crash landed, you'd be sandwiched between the Secret Service, police, marines, and ordinary citizens or the gangbangers around there.

 

[zuluking187]

EU.

Westren Europen armies are, genrally, the best trained and equipped in the world. On top of that there are the very millitant Eastren Bloc and Russia!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5277034.ece

compare the U.S spending on military with the rest of the world and your gonna see who wins.

How much each union spends is completely irrelevant.

Indeed how much money a military has to operate is totally irrelevant. How u mine for fish?!?

 

[Lord George]

Yes the Americans have more ships (by a small margin), but you have to look at how well trained and experienced they are, the UK navy alone has some of the proudest traditions and strictest training in the world, and has likely the most real combat experience on any large scale in the Falklands,

What the fuck does "proudest traditions" have to do with anything? And secondly, the US Navy has the most experience, you know, with it being involved in more wars as of late.

Fristly by tradition we mean we've been doing it for a very long time and we've got very good at it and secondly, I'm sure the Us Navy has been in a lot of action in the middle of the fucking middle east I mean they can just run their boats over the land or perhaps attach little wheels to them. At least the Uk has fought actual wars against opponents who could shoot back with more then rocks and actually had boats.

plus many of the ships in the US fleet are aircraft carriers and not actual warships and are spread out around the world.

Aircraft carriers are the pride and joy of any navy, without aircraft carriers, your navy is practically shit. Oh and the US has 11, the EU has 7. Oh and the US ones are twice the size of the EU ones.

US Aircraft carriers become useless when they have to fight something other then innocent civilians, the Greeks alone could likely beat large parts of the US Airforce due to them being partly crazy but also being highly skilled and brilliantly trained pilots.

Its a strong Navy but head to head against all of the EU's I'm willing to bet it would be defeated.

A bet you would lose, the US Navy would curbstomp the EU Navy.

Head to head over the long term its likely both sides would sustain heavy loss's but I'm sure the higher quality of training and experience would give the edge to the EU enabling victory.

 

[Shaoken]

Umm America's army is not near the most elite... at all. Also, que smartasses who treat war like a game with pwned, and other such terms.

Notice how I said "military" not "army." USA has the largest and most advanced Air Force and Navy in the world. We also have a large Marine Corps, which rank as some of the best trained soldiers in the world.

I think in comparison with other militaries the US is pretty average. It makes up for it with size and diversity though, so if they're attacking country A which has a good land army but is lacking in their Air Force the US has plenty of bombers and fighters at their disposal. If they have good Anti-Air capablities then the US uses their navy to bomb those sites into rubble. If they have a good navy then they're already on the US' side.

 

[darkless]

EU.

Westren Europen armies are, genrally, the best trained and equipped in the world. On top of that there are the very millitant Eastren Bloc and Russia!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5277034.ece

compare the U.S spending on military with the rest of the world and your gonna see who wins.

How much each union spends is completely irrelevant.

Indeed how much money a military has to operate is totally irrelevant. How u mine for fish?!?

I'm sorry but i can not wrap my head around what you are saying at the end there, what do you men by "How you mine for fish"? Not being condescending this is a serious question.

 

[Nomad]

Too hard to imagine. currently the EU has no serious military cooperations (Thats NATO... guess who's running the show there).

The general scenario of two superpowers battling it out with eachother in today's modern society is too hard to imagine. Global economy prevents it.

Disregarding that, and turning to your point. While I will cede your point about NATO, the state of the organisation is not rock solid. The EU is moving steadily towards superstate status, and with the Treaty of Lisbon the EU nations share a common border and defense responsibility, meaning they do have a very ironclad military cooperation starting 2010/2011. With the EU moving in a federative direction, they may sooner or later decide to step away from the NATO cooperation. After all, NATO sort of lacks a clear purpose with the loss of a major military opponent (Warsaw Pact).

Discounting economy, nukes and diplomatic interest, it'd be a tough fight. If I remember correctly, the US has more than twice the annual military spending of the whole EU combined. Adding Canada and Mexico, the EU is clearly a financial underdog. The achilles heel of the NAU could possibly be sheer manpower, but the US alone is still able to marshal more than 3 million troops, while the strongest contender in the EU - France - tops out at 800 000. The EU will certainly have a numeric advantage, but I wonder how large it would be?

The outcome of that conflict would ultimately depend on which factor is the most important to successful warfare - quality or quantity? The US, by virtue of the spending, wins the prize on the first one, but is outmatched in the second. I will, however, mention that taking nukes out of the equation is a bit unfair to the numbers, since the US devotes vast resources to their nuclear arsenal. The EU nations do too, but not to the same extent.

The whole scenario would spell certain doom for all involved, however. The global economy would collapse, no side could occupy the other for an extended period, and other major powers could easily pick up the pieces in the aftermath.

Hmm.. Let's say that France, Britain and Germany have an army numbering 100,000 men. I know Britains army is around 100,000 strong, so i would assume France, Germany, and perhaps Spain Italy, Sweden and Poland to have roughly the same size armies.

100,000x6=600,000

Now, let's say that smaller EU nations like Belgium, Netherlands, Romania, Greece and Ireland have an army numbering 50,000 men. There are 27 EU states, minus the six already mentioned that leaves 21, minus luxembourg which doesnt have an army, that leaves 50,000x20= 1,000,000.

Your numbers are a bit off. The UK has 200 000 soldiers in active service, with the same number in reserve and another 100 000 in paramilitary forces, making a grand total of 500 000, give or take. France caps out at 800 000, as mentioned. Germany, 700 000. Sweden - 300 000. My rough estimate says the EU should be able to marshal a combined force of maybe 7 million, after drafting and mobilisation.

Your end result of around 1 million before mobilisation is pretty solid, though. I would estimate it to between one and two million, but it's a good estimate.

compare the U.S spending on military with the rest of the world and your gonna see who wins.

How much each union spends is completely irrelevant.

Err, what? How can it not make a difference if you're arming your soldiers with pointy sticks or rocket launchers? Because pointy sticks are what you get without military spending. Since the US has more than twice the military spending of the EU, they should logically have around twice as developed and abundant equipment and supplies.

 

[darkless]

compare the U.S spending on military with the rest of the world and your gonna see who wins.

How much each union spends is completely irrelevant.

Err, what? How can it not make a difference if you're arming your soldiers with pointy sticks or rocket launchers? Because pointy sticks are what you get without military spending. Since the US has more than twice the military spending of the EU, they should logically have around twice as developed and abundant equipment and supplies.

The EU is just as well equipped as America on half the spending, Thus the point of who pays more is made irrelevant unless you want to get in to who will run out of money first funding a long term war effort.

 

[demoman_chaos]

Since when does North America have a union?

It doesn't have a union, it has a free trade agreement. I think he meant IF there were a union.

The North-American Union actually exists. Why else would there be so little done to Mexican immigrants. Look it up on youtube, you'll be surprised.

 

[ChaoticLegion]

Well considering Canada still swears allegiance to the british crown and monarch, it would most likely side with Britain in such a large scale conflict.

Anyhow, due to people in this thread who are either extremely bias... think special forces are immortal, and also haven't the slightest clue of America or the EU... the majority of the posts in this thread can be classed as pointless ramblings (very much like this one i agree) and provide nothing to any "hypothetical" discussion.

 

[Shaoken]

compare the U.S spending on military with the rest of the world and your gonna see who wins.

Yeah, and the US spends more on their health care industry so they must be better./sarcasm

The amount of money spent does not equal quality. Keep in mind that a lot of that defense budget goes towards experimental technology, some of which ends up completely useless. Case in point; the Gay Bomb (yes, they really did try making one of these. It's an established fact and you have to wonder who had this great idea).

Here's a good example; look at the amount of causalities US forces usually take and compare them to other nations during similar circumstances. That would be a good indication of the skill of the armies.

And you're forget that despite their insanely large military budget, they're still capable of truly retarded decisions like sending some troops into Iraq/Aphganistan armed only with pistols. Some didn't even have body armor! Just because they have the best toys doesn't mean they're smart enough to use them.

Err, what? How can it not make a difference if you're arming your soldiers with pointy sticks or rocket launchers? Because pointy sticks are what you get without military spending. Since the US has more than twice the military spending of the EU, they should logically have around twice as developed and abundant equipment and supplies.

No, they logically shouldn't. More military spending means more research and development, and does not translate to better quality. There's a reason why it's not a good idea just to throw money at things to try and fix them, it's because poor management will just piss it all away. Case in point; the US' health care system. They spend twice as much as others but get worse results.

 

[freakonaleash]

hey why doesn't anyone mention the navy SEALS,aka the most elite special force in the world.

 

[darkless]

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.