European Union vs. North American Union

[firedfns13]

I'm pretty sure the war would stalemate, with America "winning" because of USAF stealth bombers. Not that European air defenses are shit, but because you can't shoot a Raptor on an escort down if you can't get a lock before s/he does.

Let's break this down so far:
Land: US (excluding Russia, but they can't even exploit it themselves anyway)
Troops: US=EU
USAF > Europe
F22 >range> EF2000
A10 >>>>>>> Any plane that Europe possesses that has any sort of ATG capability. EVER.
Drones go to Germany since they possess the only designed fighter UCAV, but I'm not sure if they have anything like the Predator/the jet powered predator thing thats huge
B2> nothing to compare it to
B52 >= X plane (Man those Buffs are durable though...)
Within the next 20 years we'll have adapted the Boeing laser to be small enough for support craft (such as jamming craft) or even any sort of military vehicle.

Navy: US=EU
# of ships: EU
Carriers: US
Cap of Carriers: US
Combat Experience: US=UK A shooting war's a shooting war, and we have AEGIS (which you probably have too anyway, but im not sure) to shoot down those pesky missiles that explode your ships in the falklands.

Marines: This is going to be a doozy
Training length: UK (32 weeks)
However, I would like to point out the fact that the USMC is a tough, durable, angry bullet sponge.

Mobility: USMC We have those nice little wasp carriers that should be coming online nowabouts. Also, the USMC is flipping everywhere.


Also, I'd like to point out the fact that the UK has a gun ban, where as America most certainly does not (yet). If you somehow got troops here, the military's ranks would swell, and you'd have hundreds of thousands or millions of partisans.

 

[Nickolai77]

We must have some different sources because my charts show the USA has 50 Destroyers, 92 Frigates, and 1559 various Naval ships. It also states the USA has over 18,000 Airborne based weapons and about 4,500 helicopters.

Each of these statistics out sources all of the European Union combined, except for helicopters.

I went through the wikipedia pages of the British, French, German, Italian, Polish and Spanish navies and counted only the main warship's- Cruisers, aircraft carriers, destroyers, submarines etc. I ignored the smaller vessals like patrol vessels and auxillery ships. (The Royal Navy has some 200 auxillery vessals which i did'nt count, for instance, and i could only get the figures for naval aircraft for the British and French navies, so my estimates here aren't brilliant.
Could you please link me your source?

 

[Motti]

This may have already been said (5 pages of posting to sift through, so it's a case of tl;dr) but what side would Australia and New Zealand take in the war? We're allies with America thanks to ANZUS, but we are still technically under the rule of Britan. America's? The EU's? Or would we just fight on both sides for the sheer hell of it?

 

[The Kangaroo]

EU, I mean we have the Irish and the Swedish

 

[Agayek]

So time for everyone's daily military situation. This one is on a continental scale. Say a large scale war breaks out between the Union and the Union of North America.(Not just USA)

I think this would be close to impossible to determine. Both Unions are pretty equal in population. I would lean towards the North American Union(Well I am an American), the USA has the most elite military in the world and Canada is also a very elite military and good allies with the USA. Mexico I worry about because their ground military is not is strong as most countries, mainly due to dealing with drug trafficking problems within their own nation, they also have almost no tanks. Their Navy however is something not turn a blind eye to.

What do others think?

UPDATE: Disregard nuclear technology.

The NAU would win, simply because all the Mexicans would be able to sneak across the pond and steal all the treads off the EU's tanks before they knew what was happening. And then the Elite Anti-Terrorist Beaver Assault Legion and Liquidation Squad (or EATBALLS for short) from Canada will march all over their infantry.

There's simply no way to counter such strategy.

 

[Agema]

There would be no winner.

North America (by which we really mean the USA) is probably militarily superior, both in numbers and technology, although not by much. However, America likes its military where Europe sees it more as an undesirable necessity. Were Europe to be at risk of war, it could undoubtedly put sufficient resources into to close the gap in both.

However, the logistics make war effectively impossible.

North America and Europe are at least 3000 miles away from each other. An army could not be supported at that distance without total naval and air supremacy. Naval supremacy cannot be established without air supremacy. Heavy bombers and helicopters don't work without air supremacy either. Gaining air supremacy across a distance of 3000 miles between two opponents as sufficiently equal as the two here must be approaching impossible.

 

[Nimbus]

Since when does North America have a union?

United States Of America was called the union dumbass (long time ago 1700's 1800's)

Dumbass? You do realise that most of the world doesn't give a shit about American history, right?

 

[CouchCommando]

As a neutral with close ties to both, I'd back America for the win, if for no other reason because of the usa's vast naval carrier groups, and the obvious language and communication difficulties the europeans would have to contend with not to mention, the fact that most of their fuel sources are offshore these days.
European alliances have been notourious for there dithering and bickering in history.

 

[Cpt. Red]

As a neutral with close ties to both, I'd back America for the win, if for no other reason because of the usa's vast naval carrier groups, and the obvious language and communication difficulties the europeans would have to contend with not to mention, the fact that most of their fuel sources are offshore these days.
European alliances have been notourious for there dithering and bickering in history.

Against a great common threat I am pretty sure that they would unite with little problem...

 

[Mr Fatherland]

I don't know if anyone has said this but I can't be bothered to read all 5 pages to find out. Canada is in the British Commonwealth. It may be in the North American Union but it's part of the Commonwealth first and foremost. That pretty much leaves America by itself, and even though I'm British and therefore European, America would win.

Because they have the same sized equipment, and the Europeans don't. They use the same sized fuel caps for all their vehicles. That means a French Tank would have to take its own fuel nozzle if it wanted to refuel in say...Germany. Now, times this by a million. Imagine the difficulty of having to fuel all of Britain's Aircraft Carriers in Spain, when Spain use different equipment.

America doesn't have this problem. A petrol station in California is exactly the same as a petrol station in Texas. Plus the Ocean is between us, so all the battles would be fought on the sea. And unfortunately, America would steamroll the world in that aspect of warfare.

But it wouldn't matter anyway, because by the end with America victorious, China would come along and simply walkover them.

I would predict that both forces smash into each other and collapse, and are then trampled by China before they recover.

 

[D0WNT0WN]

Well atleast the Americans would be shooting at European Troops on purpose instead of by accident.

*Swish*

Anyways as a Brit I would hope the European Union would win in this situation but considering the amount of pure force (of numbers and fodder) of the American Army and the amount of Nuclear Warheads would kick our arses.

 

[JimmerDunda]

We must have some different sources because my charts show the USA has 50 Destroyers, 92 Frigates, and 1559 various Naval ships. It also states the USA has over 18,000 Airborne based weapons and about 4,500 helicopters.

Each of these statistics out sources all of the European Union combined, except for helicopters.

I went through the wikipedia pages of the British, French, German, Italian, Polish and Spanish navies and counted only the main warship's- Cruisers, aircraft carriers, destroyers, submarines etc. I ignored the smaller vessals like patrol vessels and auxillery ships. (The Royal Navy has some 200 auxillery vessals which i did'nt count, for instance, and i could only get the figures for naval aircraft for the British and French navies, so my estimates here aren't brilliant.
Could you please link me your source?

Here.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-ships.asp

Scroll through using the tabs on the right for any amount of information regarding almost any spectrum of the military.

 

[SnowCold]

Isn't Canada more toward europe than the USA politicaly?

 

[Zac_Dai]

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.

 

[yaik7a]

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.

Europe and Russia both have good navy's and air forces

 

[yaik7a]

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 !

 

[yaik7a]

I'm pretty sure the war would stalemate, with America "winning" because of USAF stealth bombers. Not that European air defenses are shit, but because you can't shoot a Raptor on an escort down if you can't get a lock before s/he does.

Let's break this down so far:
Land: US (excluding Russia, but they can't even exploit it themselves anyway)
Troops: US=EU
USAF > Europe
F22 >range> EF2000
A10 >>>>>>> Any plane that Europe possesses that has any sort of ATG capability. EVER.
Drones go to Germany since they possess the only designed fighter UCAV, but I'm not sure if they have anything like the Predator/the jet powered predator thing thats huge
B2> nothing to compare it to
B52 >= X plane (Man those Buffs are durable though...)
Within the next 20 years we'll have adapted the Boeing laser to be small enough for support craft (such as jamming craft) or even any sort of military vehicle.

Navy: US=EU
# of ships: EU
Carriers: US
Cap of Carriers: US
Combat Experience: US=UK A shooting war's a shooting war, and we have AEGIS (which you probably have too anyway, but im not sure) to shoot down those pesky missiles that explode your ships in the falklands.

Marines: This is going to be a doozy
Training length: UK (32 weeks)
However, I would like to point out the fact that the USMC is a tough, durable, angry bullet sponge.

Mobility: USMC We have those nice little wasp carriers that should be coming online nowabouts. Also, the USMC is flipping everywhere.


Also, I'd like to point out the fact that the UK has a gun ban, where as America most certainly does not (yet). If you somehow got troops here, the military's ranks would swell, and you'd have hundreds of thousands or millions of partisans.

Nobody said that chemical weapons cant be used so ...
bye bye partisans

 

[Steelfists]

snip

Why do people always completely disregard the normal muslim people who want to get on with their goddam lives? Just because the Quran has a verse where a tree helps a muslim cut off a jew's head or some shit doesn't mean they are all violent.

Also, Moslem is not the right spelling. I don't give a fuck if so many people have used it that it appears acceptable, its not correct.

Ignorant fuckers.

We don't disregard the normal ones we just acknowledge that there is a substantial branch that uses islam to promote a violent agenda. Radical christains say katrina was gods judgement, radical muslims fly planes into buildings, or blow themselves up. Just saying.

Thats a reasonable way of putting it. Not just saying "MOSLEMISM IS A VIOLENT RELIGION!!!!"

 

[Nomad]

Awe, isn't that cute. Europe thinks it's relevant on the world armed forces stage.

[...]

versus Europe? It's not even worth talking about. Europe isn't organized enough and can't get along. Even their irrational hate for the U.S. alone can't get them to do anything without having to hold 17 summits first. They'd be too busy worrying about weather or not their tanks and planes are "Eco Green" enough.

... Please come back when you have a basic understanding of the EU bureaucracy and current events. For starters, I'd like to refer you to the Treaty of Lisbon.

I'm not gonna say America is going to win, but I would say for certain that we're not going to lose.

Why? Because we're fucking Americans.

Vietnam.

There is no way to tell this for sure. North America would seem to have an advantage as they basically lead and run NATO. The EU did make an agreement that they could call up the troops serving in NATO capacity if they where needed for the defense of the entire EU and that the troops could be withdrawn from their NATO duties if it clashed with the EU's priorities.

Sure tech wise they are close. There is a larger war machine behind the US, and the tactics rely on quickly being able to mobilize troops from anywhere in the world to anywhere. I was in Kuwait when we declared war on Iraq.

It could all come down to who is in charge of the military and the political situation at the time. How can you all assume you know the outcome of that?

NATO would be rendered obsolete in this scenario, as the main part of NATO consists of EU nations. In this scenario, the massive member loss such a conflict would bring about would effectively end the alliance. Also, the collective EU war machine outnumbers the US war machine 3 to 1. The political situation would need to be excluded from the scenario, since the current situation, and that of the near future, makes the whole premise an impossibility.

Actually the draft would be reinstated and U.S, Canada army would probably have 20 million soldiers.

If we're allowing for change of drafting policies, then the US would again get the short end of the stick, as the EU population is nearly twice that of the US.

If worst comes to worst, I guarantee America will say "FUCK IT ALL" and just throw out nukes like the T-Shirt cannons at sports events.

This would never happen unless every single leader in Europe and America went batshit crazy. The number of nuclear weapons under the fingertips would pretty much assure mutual destruction.

Read the original question again. Nuclear capability should be disregarded in this scenario.