LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI tried to give you a chance for redemption...so you really think Moscow is East (that's to right, when you look at the map) of the Urals ?Originally Posted by lwarmonger
No sh*t. Perhaps you should read the rest of the thread.
And France and Britain are just rushing to commit national suicide by initiating a nuclear exchange in order to hurt the US.Indeed. French and British ssbn's would surely be located and destroyed. After they have launched.
The resupply "period" you are talking about is one month, btw.
The period of war that we are talking about is a couple of years to build up for the invasion of Europe, by the way.
I tried to give you a chance for redemption...so you really think Moscow is East (that's to right, when you look at the map) of the Urals ?
Pardon my ignorance but wouldn't EU forces be targetting US eastern seaboard naval bases and carrier groups with their nukes, rather than American cities?
A smaller force would have no choice but to go for the maximum damage possible.
Chimo
Lemme see, 3 British Carriers , 2 French, 2 spanish and 1 Italian.The Euro navy, even if you combined it all together with whipped cream and a cherry on top, is a joke.
Even if you count out the last 2, that makes five carriers for the USN to face. Inferior types no doubt, but they would do a lot more than scracth the paint.
Britain has 12 SSN;s France 8 I believe. The Norwegians and Germans also have excellent Diesel Subs. The USN Surface fleet is gonna suffer badly at the hands of the Europeans, before the later are destroyed. Not to mention the surface units who would casue attrition as well.
"Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell
The USN did a study of the Falklands War and they concluded that the Argentines would not have been able to come within 100 miles of a NIMITZ class CVBG.
Like all aspects of warfare, find the enemy, kill the enemy. Whoever finds the other first is going to win.
Chimo
I was thinking about Europe using nukes to target the US fleet but it would be a 'delicate balance' to hit US surface fleet targets without getting nuked in return.
The EU doesn't have that many nukes to spare.
Chimo
You're an idiot. What do you think "no sh*t" in that context means? My point was, that we can destroy all of Europe if we need to, but since nuking Russia isn't necessary, we don't even have to do that. Now stop wasting my time with stupid statements, and perhaps read the thread before you post in it next time.
Unless they can drag in Russia as a second strike guarantor
What does Russia gain by that expect destruction?
"Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
NEVER FORGET
Amounts to surrendering your nuclear forces to Russian control. They will be the ones to decide which targets you can hit while they can retain enough of a counter-force punch to make the 2nd strike effective.
Chimo
They're a suspicious bunch. If they see ICBM's flying toward Europe they may well assume they're targeted anyway and launch. Also how happy would they be to have a fried Europe on and in fact over their doorstep.
Agreed, but if you're on a hiding to nothing anyway, you have to weigh up what is the lesser of two evils.
They will make sure that whatever US forces survives would hit the EU alot harder than what would hit Russia.
Chimo
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: