Who has the strongest military in Europe?

[Vlad95]

My point is that invasion Europe would be like Iraq on a gigantic scale. Allright, the US sink everything, bomb everything, then invade, then...what ? They can't keep millions of soldiers in Europe for a long time.

Germany took down Moscow in the WW...how long did they stay there ? What did they acomplish ?

1)Well while the US Navy is tops without a shadow of a doubt the, European Navies are capable as well. No where in the same league of course, but if they band together, than it will be a serious headache for the USN.

2) You forget the Europeans could close the Med to the USN. Gibralter is still UK. No Med, no Suez Canal to bring oil to US Shores.

Yes.

[Confed999]

Germany took down Moscow in the WW...how long did they stay there ? What did they acomplish ?

The Nazis never took Moscow.

[lwarmonger]

My point is that invasion Europe would be like Iraq on a gigantic scale. Allright, the US sink everything, bomb everything, then invade, then...what ? They can't keep millions of soldiers in Europe for a long time.

We have a long history of remaking societies to suit our will after victories. The Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WWII... we not only won the wars, but we also won the peace as well.

[lwarmonger]

1)Well while the US Navy is tops without a shadow of a doubt the, European Navies are capable as well. No where in the same league of course, but if they band together, than it will be a serious headache for the USN.

Only near their own shores. They couldn't even provide us with much of a headache on the open ocean, which is where the battle for the seas would be fought.

2) You forget the Europeans could close the Med to the USN. Gibralter is still UK. No Med, no Suez Canal to bring oil to US Shores.

Point the first. Even as things stand now, most of US oil is not imported from the Middle East. Point the second, with Europe and China/India no longer buying oil from Latin America, that area in addition to our domestic supplies has more than enough oil to meet our needs. Point the third, we are capable of closing the Med to European traffic as well. We are also capable of taking or destroying the Middle Eastern oil supply, and the North Sea oil. The Europeans can't get at our supplies of oil (the problem with having a primarily brown water navy), whereas we can shut theirs down.

[dave angel]

obviously this is a point to be glossed over by our friends engaged in a p1ssing contest, but Europe - or rather the UK and France - have between them some 500 strategic or sub-strategic nuclear weapons placed on the end of submarine launched ballistic missiles. those missiles are exactly the same as the ones in your SLBM submarines, so there's little chance they won't get to their targets.

regardless of the US's ability to wreak conventional havoc with Europes vital national interests Europe retains the ability to incinerate the ten largest cities in each of the 50 US states.

i would suggest that given the bravery of the United States in facing up to a power with two nuclear weapons on - at best - medium range platforms, the chances of the United States going to war with a power able to cause the effective destruction of the United States would be fairly slim.

to face down those odds you have to want something pretty bad, we've got nothing you need that badly.

many like to get off on the hardware the US operates, but would bet your childrens lives on knowing exactly how far you could push us before we launch or on the technical ability of your various systems to intercept 500-odd warheads?

quite simply, we can make the cost of the destruction of Europe too high for you to accept - which is why, if we tell to soldiers to leave, they will.

[Confed999]

Europe retains the ability to incinerate the ten largest cities in each of the 50 US states.

How many cities can the US incinerate? More? Doesn't "more" still keep the US on the "stronger" side?

Nobody is proposing an attack, this is purely hypothetical...

[lwarmonger]

obviously this is a point to be glossed over by our friends engaged in a p1ssing contest, but Europe - or rather the UK and France - have between them some 500 strategic or sub-strategic nuclear weapons placed on the end of submarine launched ballistic missiles. those missiles are exactly the same as the ones in your SLBM submarines, so there's little chance they won't get to their targets.

regardless of the US's ability to wreak conventional havoc with Europes vital national interests Europe retains the ability to incinerate the ten largest cities in each of the 50 US states.

i would suggest that given the bravery of the United States in facing up to a power with two nuclear weapons on - at best - medium range platforms, the chances of the United States going to war with a power able to cause the effective destruction of the United States would be fairly slim.

to face down those odds you have to want something pretty bad, we've got nothing you need that badly.

many like to get off on the hardware the US operates, but would bet your childrens lives on knowing exactly how far you could push us before we launch or on the technical ability of your various systems to intercept 500-odd warheads?

quite simply, we can make the cost of the destruction of Europe too high for you to accept - which is why, if we tell to soldiers to leave, they will.

Do you honestly believe that the United States would start a war with Europe, China, ect? This was hypothetical in the event of such a war occuring, as Confed said, nobody here was advocating such a war.

However that being said, I seriously doubt that fear of Europe's nuclear arsenal would prevent us from invading, especially as we have the means to take every bit of it out (hunting down French and British SSBN's would be a top priority once we'd finished smashing their air forces and surface fleets). Europe would have to launch pretty soon after hostilities began (long before our economy and military was prepared for a full scale invasion) in order to ensure that they managed to get a significant portion of their deterrant off, and even then we would only be hurt. Europe would be gone, and this scenario is assuming that Europe initiates the exchange. If we get in a first strike, than even Europe's ability to significantly hurt the United States comes into question, given our massive nuclear superiority. Russia is really the only nation right now other than the US with a decisive second strike capability.

[dave angel]

i would argue that the UK and France's second strike capability is sufficient to ward off any serious action by the united states - even in a hypothetical scenario.

given that british SLBM submarines are built to the same 'stealthy' characteristics as US SLBM submarines the chances of the US navy finding and killing all four before they have a chance to launch is patently ridiculous. even in our current state of nuclear 'stand-down' each of our boats carries 75-odd warheads. were your ABM systems to work perfectly you would still be looking at the loss of 30 cities. the french boats are built to similar standards.

the reason we threaten cities rather than military targets in the US is because Americans are civilised people, you value people above things.

if anyone can put forward any strategic aim that could possibly be worth the loss of 30 to 60 US cities then i'd be interested in hearing it.

its not agriculture, its not water, its not oil or other natural resources.

you have nothing we need and we have nothing you need, so the chances of either of us pressing the other so hard that military action of any kind might be contemplated by either side is zero.

[dalem]

1)Well while the US Navy is tops without a shadow of a doubt the, European Navies are capable as well. No where in the same league of course, but if they band together, than it will be a serious headache for the USN.

No, they are not capable in comparison.

2) You forget the Europeans could close the Med to the USN. Gibralter is still UK. No Med, no Suez Canal to bring oil to US Shores.

You forget we don't need M.E. oil.

-dale

[lwarmonger]

i would argue that the UK and France's second strike capability is sufficient to ward off any serious action by the united states - even in a hypothetical scenario.

given that british SLBM submarines are built to the same 'stealthy' characteristics as US SLBM submarines the chances of the US navy finding and killing all four before they have a chance to launch is patently ridiculous. even in our current state of nuclear 'stand-down' each of our boats carries 75-odd warheads. were your ABM systems to work perfectly you would still be looking at the loss of 30 cities. the french boats are built to similar standards.

Like I said, France and Britain would have to launch fairly soon after hostilities in order to ensure that they get their nuclear strike in. It would take the United States a year or two to gear up for the invasion of Europe anyhow. You don't think that over the course of 2 years we could hunt down the French and British SSBNs? I'm pretty sure we could, as their navies are no match for the US navy. After that, it would simply be a matter of time, and time would be on our side (our economy not being crippled from lack of oil and strategic minerals).

the reason we threaten cities rather than military targets in the US is because Americans are civilised people, you value people above things.

if anyone can put forward any strategic aim that could possibly be worth the loss of 30 to 60 US cities then i'd be interested in hearing it.

its not agriculture, its not water, its not oil or other natural resources.

you have nothing we need and we have nothing you need, so the chances of either of us pressing the other so hard that military action of any kind might be contemplated by either side is zero.

Cities are where you could do the most damage with your limited supply of nukes. We could replace a couple of divisions or air wings, but cities are much more difficult to rebuild. And we've fought two wars in the last century in Europe, and spent 40 years prepared to fight a third on a moment's notice, so further conflict would not surprise me a great deal (although it will be a long time in coming, if indeed it would come at all).

[sparten]

You forget we don't need M.E. oil.

To quote Blackadder
"That is the greatest piece of fiction since vows of fidelity were included in the French marriage service."

No, they are not capable in comparison.

Of course, but sufficently well equipped to cause the USN considerable damage. No doubt the USN will win. But would have suffred considerable attrition.

The present day USN is not set up to dominate every ocean at the same time like the 19th century RN. That can change (for example bringing Forrestals and Kitty Hawks back). The USN would in the mean time have to drastically reduce PAC FLTs stenght to have an overwhelming advantage they would need in this fictional ETO.

you have nothing we need and we have nothing you need, so the chances of either of us pressing the other so hard that military action of any kind might be contemplated by either side is zero.

Hmmm if history is any guide, the above fact has never stopped people from going to war.

The sad part of it is this. As memories fade and veterens die, we can only remember the "glory" of the war and its costs are glossed over. The further away we get from that time the morce the romance grows and than a time comes when people long for "the good old days" . And then..... well just read about the European nations when WWI began.

[dave angel]

your understanding of your comparative strength fails to take note of the tripwire effect of the holding of nuclear weapons. our nuclear weapons are there to guarentee our vital national interests, they also form part of our vital national interests. any attack on our nuclear capability as part of a 'wear-down' process might well trigger the kind of response you are looking to interdict.

you sink - by some fluke - one of our SLBM subs, we have one more on patrol that can flatten 30 cities in two hours. the french are in the same position.

states with the kind of second-strike capability enjoyed by the UK and france - and the US - are invunerable to attack by anyone who doesn't consider the deaths of 30 - 50 million of their own citizens a potential price worth paying.

you don't know under exactly what circumstances we might launch, therefore while there is in anyone in washington with an ounce of sanity you'll never even think about going near a state that has a real second-strike capability. nothing your country wants or needs is valuable enough to risk getting into a political or military conflict that could result in the deaths of 50 million of your citizens from a single submarine launch.

our submarines, like yours, are designed to be invunerable. they are invunerable to your navy and to mine, anyone you meet who suggests that europes SLBM submarines can be removed from the board like some politically inconvenient player purely in order for their plan to work better has been snorting columbian marching powder.

[dalem]

To quote Blackadder
"That is the greatest piece of fiction since vows of fidelity were included in the French marriage service."

What do we need M.E. oil for?

Of course, but sufficently well equipped to cause the USN considerable damage. No doubt the USN will win. But would have suffred considerable attrition.

No. The European navies would be lucky to scratch some paint.

The present day USN is not set up to dominate every ocean at the same time like the 19th century RN. That can change (for example bringing Forrestals and Kitty Hawks back). The USN would in the mean time have to drastically reduce PAC FLTs stenght to have an overwhelming advantage they would need in this fictional ETO.

The Euro navy, even if you combined it all together with whipped cream and a cherry on top, is a joke.

And we don't have to dominate "every" ocean in this silly hyopthetical, we just have to dominate the Atlantic, and we can do that easily.

-dale

[lwarmonger]

your understanding of your comparative strength fails to take note of the tripwire effect of the holding of nuclear weapons. our nuclear weapons are there to guarentee our vital national interests, they also form part of our vital national interests. any attack on our nuclear capability as part of a 'wear-down' process might well trigger the kind of response you are looking to interdict.

Europe, at worst, could hurt the United States badly with it's nuclear deterrent. We could obliterate everything between the Iberian penninsula and the Ural mountains (and in this situation we wouldn't even be nuking Russia). That makes me question whether Europe would go nuclear for anything other than an invasion of Europe/nuclear strike on Europe.

you sink - by some fluke - one of our SLBM subs, we have one more on patrol that can flatten 30 cities in two hours. the french are in the same position.

With complete naval superiority, it would not be a fluke to sink the French and British SSBN's. It would simply be a matter of time. They are difficult targets, however they are not impossible to find or kill, especially with control of the seas established.

states with the kind of second-strike capability enjoyed by the UK and france - and the US - are invunerable to attack by anyone who doesn't consider the deaths of 30 - 50 million of their own citizens a potential price worth paying.

Not true. One must simply select a level of conflict that is below the nuclear threshold. It takes a lot of balls launch atomic weapons without being nuked (or even greatly damaged) first, especially when doing so ensures national death.

you don't know under exactly what circumstances we might launch, therefore while there is in anyone in washington with an ounce of sanity you'll never even think about going near a state that has a real second-strike capability. nothing your country wants or needs is valuable enough to risk getting into a political or military conflict that could result in the deaths of 50 million of your citizens from a single submarine launch.

You are assuming that we have initiated this conflict. My basic assumption is that we are already in it, and therefore we could wage (and win) it in the manner I describe. I think that the beginning of such a conflict between Europe and the US would take the shape of WWI, where none of the truly great powers (Germany, Russia, France, Britain) actually initiated the conflict, but were ultimately drawn in anyways. Thus a feeling on both sides that the other is at fault, and a willingness to wage the war to it's final conclusion. I couldn't see either side waging an expensive war of aggression against the other.

our submarines, like yours, are designed to be invunerable. they are invunerable to your navy and to mine, anyone you meet who suggests that europes SLBM submarines can be removed from the board like some politically inconvenient player purely in order for their plan to work better has been snorting columbian marching powder.

No weapon system is invulnerable. None. Modern diesel-electric submarines are more quiet than SSBN's when they are operating on battery, and we still are capable of hunting them, so their is no reason why we would be unable to hunt SSBN's as well. Especially with the full might of the US navy (surface, sub, air) free to hunt them down with minimal hindrance. They are designed to be extremely difficult to kill, but we can find them and kill them. Especially as we know where they have to come in for supplies periodically (which can be further restricted by bombing).

[thesaint]

We could obliterate everything between the Iberian penninsula and the Ural mountains (and in this situation we wouldn't even be nuking Russia).

Ahem, sorry to interrupt your dream: the greater part of Russian popolation lives East of the Urals.

With complete naval superiority, it would not be a fluke to sink the French and British SSBN's. It would simply be a matter of time. They are difficult targets, however they are not impossible to find or kill, especially with control of the seas established.

....

No weapon system is invulnerable. None. Modern diesel-electric submarines are more quiet than SSBN's when they are operating on battery, and we still are capable of hunting them, so their is no reason why we would be unable to hunt SSBN's as well. Especially with the full might of the US navy (surface, sub, air) free to hunt them down with minimal hindrance. They are designed to be extremely difficult to kill, but we can find them and kill them. Especially as we know where they have to come in for supplies periodically (which can be further restricted by bombing).

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.