European Union vs. North American Union

[Bobzer77]

Now I'm going to admit I'm not too much of a military strategist so I could be wrong with this but you are all forgetting something which could potentially tip the balance.

Ireland

We have like 2 naval patrol boats, now I know thats impressive enough already but imagine if we loaded the boats with explosives. Now we have a super-weapon to rival any nuclear stockpile.

So we send the boats over to America, sink them on the east coast and then detonate the explosives, I'm not a physicist either so I could also be wrong here but by my calculations we should blow under the eastern seaboard quite a bit causing much of that side of America to collapse in the ocean.

I think that constitutes a win although I'm not sure how to defend against the massive wall of water that would probably be coming our way but if we survive we spend another 100 years rebuilding the fleet of 2 patrol boats and we are ready for the next war.


(note: the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily match those expressed by the author)

 

[TornadoADV]

In America, you of course would have to deal with plenty of local armed loonies

Because only crazy people acknowledge the 2nd Amendment, MIRITE?

 

[bcponpcp27]

Well I think Israel would help the US (yay!) and that might be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

 

[Bobzer77]

Well I think Israel would help the US (yay!) and that might be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Or the middle east could spend their time arguing over who gets to pick at the broken remains of the west.

 

[stonkingjonas]

Depends on how long the war would actually become.
If it would just play out as a relatively short skirmish (wich is unlikely) then the US would probably be on top.
On the other hand if the war would be very long lasting, the US would have a much harder time.
All trade from Europe to the US would most likely cease and any other country who aren't a part of the EU supplying the US with just about anything would most likely at the very leat be haltered.
This because many countries ship their good, be it oil, artificial flavoring, obesity inducing chemicals (all products the US are oh so dependant of) either over European airspace, over European waters or over European land.
Face it, the US is much more dependant on its IMports rather than EXports.
I'm not saying the US lacks the capability to manufacture all things they need, what I say is that they lack the TIME to do it.
I would daresay that most Americans wouldn't be very willing to give up their comfortable lifestyle for a war.
For example: What if Europe would stop exporting grain to the US? Most of the grain grown in the actual US is fed to livestock.
Most americans probably thinks right now: "Yes, more burgers=D".
Sure, but burgers without buns. If you want the buns, that would mean LESS burgers. And we cant have that, can we?

After a few years, the level of civil unrest in the US would be too high for the government to function at all.
Guarenteed within a decade, the country would be thrown into anarchy and civil war.

I think the US would have MUCH more to loose on a american/european conflict than the EU would.
And as for allies in the war, who do you think China would support? Europe supplies them with nearly everything they can't make for themselves.

Russia, Australia/New Zeeland and Africa are wild cards. They could go either way. Russia would most likely sit the whole thing out (unless China joins, then Russia would be on the same side as them). Australia would probably pss that one out too.
If the EU got Africa, then the US would be properly fucked. If the US got them, the war would just drag on for a bit longer.

And as for a war of that magnitude (wich could certianly be called WW3) the outcome wouldn't matter on who has the most/the biggest guns. It would come to who can throw the most money to make people boycott everything that has to do anything with the other side.
In other words, the conflict would be economical, not military.

So to conclude this, my money would be on the EU. Hand down.
But as a Swede, I might be bias =D.

 

[darkless]

We have like 2 naval patrol boats

I am aware you are joking, but we have a whole 10 (Greatest Navy ever right!) naval ships two of which are brand spankin' new battleships

 

[wooty]

To be honest I can see it as Europe arguing and arguing with each other, and Britain being the lackies doing all the actual fighting seeing as weve recently had a lot more experience and have the most effective military in Europe

 

[Nomad]

Now I'm going to admit I'm not too much of a military strategist so I could be wrong with this but you are all forgetting something which could potentially tip the balance.

Ireland

We have like 2 naval patrol boats, now I know thats impressive enough already but imagine if we loaded the boats with explosives. Now we have a super-weapon to rival any nuclear stockpile.

So we send the boats over to America, sink them on the east coast and then detonate the explosives, I'm not a physicist either so I could also be wrong here but by my calculations we should blow under the eastern seaboard quite a bit causing much of that side of America to collapse in the ocean.

I think that constitutes a win although I'm not sure how to defend against the massive wall of water that would probably be coming our way but if we survive we spend another 100 years rebuilding the fleet of 2 patrol boats and we are ready for the next war.

That has got to be the single most genius plan I have ever seen. It needs to be taken off the internet right now, lest the powers that be discover it and put it into action.

Hmm, it's probably not a good idea to get into a naval dicking contest with the British.

If memory serves, the US navy is twice as big as the British navy, while they have roughly 10 times as many naval aircraft. Britannia did rule the waves for a long time, but no more.

I do, however, question the importance of naval superiority in a modern world war. I would think air superiority to be a much more deciding factor, looking at the much improved range and performance of modern aircraft over ww2-era counterparts. WW2 itself showed that the age of battlefleet concentration was long over, and the single most important naval vessel type of the war was the Aircraft Carrier... Which was important primarily because it provided a mobile base for airforce operations.

Well I think Israel would help the US (yay!) and that might be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

In this context, Israel would have little to no impact on the war, since nuclear arms are excluded from the scenario. Israel would only mean a minor second front opening to the south of the EU, but that front would likely be closed fairly soon by european forces. They have a population of 7.5 million, with an army of 600 000 at full strength. As mentioned earlier, the EU would have a combined force of around 8 million troops before even having to change drafting policies. Finland alone would be able to keep Israel at bay for an extended period, add Sweden and Denmark and they'd be outnumbered 2 to 1. Hell, allocate the armies of the Baltic states and the front would be closed within weeks or even days. And that's without even having bothered the larger military powers of Europe.

 

[darkless]

Australia/New Zeeland and Africa are wild cards.

Australia and A fair portion of Africa are commonwealth countries and would therefore be Obliged to help the EU just like Canada.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Heh. An incredibly unlikely scenario, and basically a stalemate if you ask me.

Neither side has enough of an edge to ever mount a serious invasion of the other side, and without that, you'd get a war that just would never end. (100 year's war with modern weaponry anyone?)

I'd say this would just ruin both sides, and lead to massive casualties without ever getting anywhere.

 

[manaman]

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.

Well I guess while we are at it we might as well take away any advantage the US has, how about we take away the ability to control the GPS satellites so that only the EU can use them now, and not the US who put them there and controls the entire system from two uplink sites.

Ohh ohh, lets take away all the Subs as well, and the planes, you know planes are better tech can't have them - but only from the US.

I know how to settle this, everyone is given a pointy stick and told to run at everyone else, China wins end of debate.

You made this "mental exercise" into a game of cops and robbers with the kids all running around screaming "I shot you, bang bang" While the other kid just runs away screaming "nah uh, you missed"

Seriously you have a definite bias for the EU, and you keep imposing restrictions on the mental exercise as new points you never thought of crop up. Besides it was supposed to be Canada, US, and Mexico, so why does nobody seem to talk about anyone else in the fight but the US.

 

[JimmerDunda]

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.

 

[shadowstriker86]

NAU would win. Why? Experience. In as little as 200+ years from this country's founding we've had at least 10 major wars

Revolutionary
Civil
Spanish-American
World War 1
World War 2
Korea
Vietnam
Cold War (not that much action but still considered a war)
Desert Storm
Iraq Operation (not a war because an operation means theres a hidden agenda)

i know im missing some but still, i think experience is what counts and considering we'd be goin up against a place we've been in before, have moles and bases there as well, i think the NAU has the advantage

 

[neoman10]

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!

will someone tell me when Russia got in the EU? I'm looking a 50 cent coin now and see no Russia (even Sweden and UK are on there, even though they have no Euro...yet)

 

[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.

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

Russia's navy is a joke; they can't even field submarines without them ending up on the bottom of the oceans. China (and russia as far as I know) lack any amphibious/assault craft to land troops anyway. Russia and China's air force, on the other hand, MIGHT give us a run for our money if we screwed up. The problem they have is they're dependent on land based operators (or were) to do anything. We're not.

 

[firedfns13]

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.

 

[martin's a madman]

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.

Sorry, I can't take your conspiracies as truth without proof.

 

[martin's a madman]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union

Yes, theoretical, thank you for finding a source that proved me correct.

I don't care this is a theoretical thread anyways, so what does it matter?

Exactly, that is what I said with my very first post on here.