Correction, I meant to say the Russians would sacrifice a few million of THEIR guys, sorry.
This coming from those whose knowledge on the issue apparently only comes from American media. I realize that’s an insulting statement, but what you two have just said is such a load of bovine scatology that it’s hard to reply any other way.
Name any given “hi-tech asset” of the US military and I can name you a made-in-Europe counterpart that is every bit as good or better. We have, after all, been developing many things jointly with EU nations, sold some to them, and bought some from them. In addition, some European countries have gotten their arms equally from the Soviet development line as much as from the Western, essentially giving them the best of both worlds (and believe me, there are as many fields where eastern gear vastly surpasses western as the other way around)
If the EU as a whole pooled the best assets from each nation, I would hazard to say that the combined total would, in fact, have a slight edge in capability over US equipment. British aircraft, German tanks, German firearms, French AAMs, German ATGMs, British AGMs, etc, etc. It would be a rather daunting resource pool were it actually put together with an eye to using the best available, thus avoiding the stupid regional “not-made-here” syndrome that currently impedess large chunks of each countries’ individual military (including the USA’s, BTW)
So, on the battlefield, there would be technological parity (at the minimum) and doctrine would largely be the same due to joint training…so the real issue becomes strategic and political capabilities. Our Navy would, indeed, be a strong opening advantage, since we have two oceans’ worth, but the Navy is also currently the most undermanned and underfunded of all the US armed forces. Its readiness state is absolutely pathetic, and a substantial chunk of it is only barely managing to even make basic maintenance. It’s entirely possible that a numerically smaller, but more efficient and capable combined-forces navy could maintain an even fight…on the surface, anyway. AFAIK, only England has a substantial submarine force, and we’ve all heard about the state -that’s- in. That would be a real problem, and while the US surface fleet may not be up to spec, the sub force is still in pretty good shape.
So, the war could possibly be entirely fought on the sea for a substantial period of time (that is, maybe a whole year), the likes of which haven’t been seen in centuries. It would actually be somewhat interesting to see how modern naval equipment and doctrine would actually hold up to such an extended campaign. If either side did actually get to the point to staging an invasion, it would be quite bitter indeed. The logistics concern would heavily favor the defending side, which would be an especially serious problem for a scenario with a US offensive, since the American military’s voracious appetite for constant supply is considered one of its biggest weaknesses.
Air superiority would never be a possibility for either side, so it would be extremely brutal both on the ground and in the air. I doubt many people outside of the military truly appreciate the staggering lethal capability of conventional modern warfare. It would be over in months, maybe a year or two, but within that time frame there would be enough carnage to put both WW1 and WW2 to shame.
It would be horrific, and I doubt either the American people nor the European people are anywhere near prepared to pay that price…but since we’re assuming some massive ideological conflict begins this utterly mythical scenario in the first place, we’ll assume that each side treats it as a fight to the death. What might bear discussion is the relative production and resource capabilities for each side, however, I personally doubt this would play much role as, again, I believe it would be mostly settled and done with before long-term production ever came into meaning.
If it did, though, both sides are in for some trouble. Both have heavy industrial bases, but are poorly self-sufficient. If the war -did- extend out into multiple years, it would undoubtedly spill over into other parts of the world as a battle for resources. The Middle East would be a big concern here, as oil is the lifeblood of a modern army, even more so than food.
So, what you’re looking at is a true “World War” – no place of any value, that could be conquered, would be spared. It’s not an issue of range: an ocean isn’t all that big anymore, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there was even the advent of space warfare, since neither side will want to leave those pesky spy satellites around. It would be destruction on a massive scale, particularly since I doubt that Russia and China would remain neutral as the scenario dictates.
Thank goodness there’s no chance of it happening, eh? 
I’ll be quite happy if world war 3 never takes place except in computer simulations.
Mexico is in no way prepared to play in these kinds of stakes. They’d almost have to stay neutral just to get away intact. Canada would most likely do the same. I don’t really see them supporting a US offensive and I definitely don’t see them supporting a US defensive. They probably couldn’t afford to ally with Europe right off the bat (bar some pre-war buildup w/ allied help) but the undefended border works both ways: Canada would be an excellent staging area for an attack on the US, and we’ve got a lot more critical cities along the border than Canada does thus we’d need to defend more of it more vigorously.
I can’t see that much happening either, but since the cooperation of the Middle East would be essential to either side’s long-term victory, there would be heavy pressure coming in to play. I don’t see them voluntarily siding with either combatant, but they’ll be forced to choose to gain protection of one of them, rather than be a battlefield between themselves and both major forces.
If Israel bucks the trend, they’re toast. I don’t care how much better their military is than their neighbors, they can’t possibly fight all of them at once, and don’t you doubt that their neighbors would love to have a chance to roast them. (they might just use the hostilities as an excuse to, anyway)
Now THAT is wishful thinking. Russia will do what’s in their best interests, and keeping the US military away from them (and thus away from a successful invasion of Europe) is definitely in their best interests. I would expect them the join the war if they feel an advantage can be gotten from it, but off the bat, they’d probably be neutral or merely supply equipment to the European Powers. But I can’t possibly see a scenario that makes them eager to ally with the US. Ain’t happen, not after the last sixty years.
I’d agree that China would probably stay neutral all the way through. Whereas Russia would wait for the best time (if) to throw its weight in with the best situation, I think China would stick to its own issues and give the rest of the world a big F-U. It’d be a great chance for them to go after Taiwan (which could cause big problems for the US in the long term) but beyond their own regional concerns like that, I don’t see China doing anything for either side. Let the round-eyes kill themselves off if they want.
I wouldn’t even try to guess which side would win. It would be a nasty thing and could just as easily go either way. The lesson to be learned in questions like this is to understand exactly what your capabilities are, and what those of your enemies are. The “we’re the greatest, of course we’ll win” attitudes are what exactly what cause these kind of stupid, devastating wars in the first place.
The whole reason the cold war stayed cold was because the less-patriotic individuals on both side realized that they could very well lose it if it went hot…so they each focused on prepping for a defensive war. Two defenders = no aggressors = no war. Let’s keep it like that.
US vs EU, eh? Ok, it would be more like US vs Germany & GB, and you KNOW that alliance ain’t gonna last. I see it like this- Day 1- Italy surrenders.
day2- waiting for Italy to do it first, so that they can save face-France surrenders.
Day “whatever, whocares man” -the Dutch army stays loaded for the duration- whichs shows they have a certain practical side.
day 4- the Belgian split over the Flems vs the Walloons- the rest of the EU, not wanting anythinglike that on their side- don’t care.
Day 5- the Swedish army commits mass suicide in a fit of depression- as their ration for the day did not have dessert.
Day 6- the Danish, realizing the BIG market for porno is the american gi, surrenders also, and demands to be occupied.
Day 7- Norway insists it is a real country, TOO, and sulks off when everyone gets it mixed up with Sweden & Denmark.
Day 8- The Brits bomb the Germans, as that worked real well for them in the LAST war, now didn’t it?
Day 9- The Germans, realizing that Britain will put up quite a fight, simply BUY Britain.
Day 10- The USA has won the war- but Congress is still locked in a fight over Whitewater. The Joint Chiefs have decieded not to wake Bush from his nappie, and Cheney is on life-support. Luxemburg sneaks in, and conquers Washington. Their Army -both of them- don’t know what to do with it, but the rest of a grateful nation votes them a trillion dollars to keep it.
Mexico allied with us in WWII, they even turned down some good offers from Nazi Germany to do so. I’m pretty sure they would stick with us, though about all that would do is keep us from being invaded from the south.
Russia might delay stepping into the battle, but I think they would end up siding against Europe, more to gain that way. They would be afraid of a nuclear exchange, I think…Europe has nukes too, but not as many.
I actually think that if the USA was in trouble (i.e. Russia joins the EU) China would come to our aid. From what I’ve heard their economic future is very dependent on us.
Thank you! Thank you! I’d like to thank my family and also HugeHuw for making this all possible. Further thanks to Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable for explaining what “Bon Mot” means. I intend to donate half my prize to abandoned kittens, and my interests include world peace and enviorem…enviorneo…green policies.
So, what’d I win?!
I hate to nitpick, but the current US Navy is not the largest that has ever existed!
BTW, I think the US would probably win after a long, bloody and pointless campaign too.
It does depend on who’s attacking, though. Whoever starts has the advantage of surprise – I’m sure American bases in Europe wouldn’t be expecting the SAS to start blowing up HAS’ or munitions dumps!
Thank you! Thank you! I’d like to thank my family and also HugeHuw for making this all possible…
**
[/QUOTE]
Hey man, don’t worry about it! You’d do the same for me right?
My major concern in taking Europe would be in dealing with the elite infantry forces of some of the European powers. It is their existence that leads me to believe that Europe could never be secured. But the European powers rely heavily on US information systems and logistics to deploy and engage. France, with it’s long record of independence in military matters may be in the best position to act independently of the US but it’s air force is lacking in experience and recent troubles have made the only full sized navy carrier the US might have to face out of commission.
Europe has some very strong technological advances coming forward from the Rafale to the Eurofighter as well as what may be an advantage over the US in some air to air missile capability. But thoses systems are not complete at this time. Europe still lacks numbers of aircraft in all weather flight capability as well as air detection and jamming aircraft.
**
The status of those bases at the beginning of your imaginary conflict is of outmost importance. If the US has had time to deploy heavy ground assets to those bases than they have a chance to avoid a maritime invasion of Britain and I think we can all imagine how horrible that would be for both sides. If I was a US general looking at that possibility I’d simply blockade Britain and not even try to step foot on it. If the war starts tomorrow (I assume aliens have used mind control rays on the US and made us insane, I see no other possibility ) then no, they won’t hold against the British. They are just air bases with few ground assets.
In Germany those bases hold considerable ground assets that were once put in place to stop an invasion by the Soviet Union. If turned against the Europe they were meant to protect, they would be a considerable threat.
**
Agreed that any assualt would take a long time to prepare. If the US secretly began bringing tanks into its bases in Britain it would need one hell of a cover story.
“Lots of planes you yanks are flying in.”
“Um… yeah, It’s just booze. Honest.”
You know it really is possible to disagree with a poster and not resort to insults. But you didn’t do that and now you’ve managed to mildly irritate me.
I have a master’s degree in internation relations part of those studies relied on comparing key military assets between nations. While I may have been out of the loop for a little while, I think my knowledge is somewhat better than you erroneously believe.
SeaWolf
Nimitiz class Carrier
Ticonderoga class Cruiser
Arleigh Burke class destroyer
E-3 Sentry AWACS
JSTARS
B-2 Stealth Bomber
F-117 Sealth Fighter
F-15E Strike Eagle
A-10 Warthog
GPS guided bomb
Tomahawk cruise missile
MX missile
Trident missile
Now I would give the European powers a nod in some air to air missile capability. But the British only recently purchased E-3 Sentries of their own. I’m not sure what the rest of Europe is currently using for their airborne detection, I suspect nothing. Ground fixed radars are easy targets and will no longer exist after the first day. If you don’t know where the enemy is but they know exactly where you are, you are in for a bad but short day.
I now refer you to this report summary of the Kosovo war detailing some of the inadequacies of the European deployment.
“The conflict in Kosovo, however, demonstrated that many NATO members have a long way to go to prepare their forces to meet new Post-cold war military contingencies. The European allies generally found it very difficult to move forces quickly into the theatre of operations in the Kosovo campaign, and few air forces possessed the “smart weaponry” such as cruise missiles, advanced all-weather target European acquisition systems and secure communications needed to carry out the NATO strategy for that campaign. Although the European members of NATO have two million people under arms, it proved extremely difficult for their military establishments to deploy a mere 40,000 soldiers into the Balkans. As a result, American forces conducted the overwhelming share of the missions, providing over 70% of the aircraft for the campaign, 80% of the munitions1 and even accounting for 150 of the 200 refuelling aircraft used in the war.2 The fallout has been consequential. A recent Pentagon working group, for example, has concluded that the costs to the United States rise rather than fall when allies are included as part of contingency forces in world hot spots. The reason is that the allies lack essential combat capabilities such as properly equipped ground manoeuvre brigades and combat aircraft that might permit some reduction in the forces that the United States would otherwise commit.3”
From: http://www.naa.be/publications/comrep/2000/at-254-e.html
**
Yes, it would be a daunting resouce pool if put together. But it won’t be. There currently is no central command in control in place. This is in the process of being created, but we’re talking about the present day here. Even when in place, Europe will suffer from being an alliance of dozens of nations each with it’s own government and its own mandate for personal survival.
As far as the US being affected by “not made here” syndrome, the M1A2 tank’s cannon was designed in Germany. We know talent when we see it.
In the case of muli-national control, combined-forces and efficient rarely go together. US carrier forces would wipe out any surface opponents before they even knew what happened. Britain does have a solid submarine force with some exceptional designs. The US would lose ships to them but the advantage of numbers would win out.
I know the US isn’t willing to pay the price and of course we haven’t the slightest desire to even consider the possibility. I’m sorry if this turned into a “our side is better than your side” thing. The problem with comparing militaries is that it’s hard to keep in mind what the objectives of that particular military are. Most European armies are designed for regional conflicts. They are good at what they do. Why should they spend the huge costs to create a global military power like the US when they have no such need?
Like the Chinese embassy?
The bomb hit what it was programmed to hit.
Silly concept, but interesting…
All European armies trained and equipped themselves for decades with one goal in mind: Defending against Warsaw Pact armored units with every weapon that could be brought to bear. Even if a tank is 30 years old, it’s still better than nothing if your survival as a nation is at stake. You don’t have the money to spend on high-tech weaponry that might or might not work as advertised if it means running out of antitank mines or some other low-tech but highly functional piece of weaponry. In the Kosovo air campaign, PGM was dropped from American planes because they had superior survival chances - it’s one thing to ask a Danish pilot to gamble his life for his own country, quite another to ask him to do so in another country - if there’s an ally who’s better equipped to do the job. (FWIW, Danish troops have been up against rioting Kosovar Albans for the last 48 hours in Mitrovica - I won’t comment on that, lest we’ll be shipped off to the Pit.)
The US Army has been planning a completely different scenario, sending their troops a far way off to do battle. So obviously European forces are worse equipped to take on the US than US forces Europe. I wouldn’t know about taking Europe, but probably the real estate wouldn’t be worth having anyway when the smoke cleared and the rubble stopped flying.
The terrain isn’t as favorable as Iraq. High population density means lots of urban combat, and that’s an area where technical provess is less important than well-trained (and highly motivated) infantry, IMHO. Probably worse than jungle fighting when it comes to casualties and impact on morale. And finally, this is the mission we Europeans have trained and equipped for. We know what bridges to blow up and what roads will and won’t take the weight of armored units.
Re. the Chinese embassy: Wasn’t it established that the Chinese had used the embassy as a Serbian signal node in return for getting a look at the downed Stealth fighter ? In which case any claim of neutrality is bogus, of course.
S. Norman
America great technology, outdated maps:)
I was kinda alluding to that. I’ve heard several theories that the US hit exactly what it wanted to hit. But no one has yet dug up any susbtantial proof on that theory.
We have all of one SeaWolf, and it’s still very much in the “let’s see how this works” stage. England, at least, has surface forces on technological parity, and Russia definitely does (although their tech and doctrine focuses mostly on different areas). The F15 and A10 are definitely not high-tech, both are rather brute-force approaches to the problem, in fact. Going up against the likes of Harrier, Gripen, Tornado, Rafale, Eurofighter and Mirage 2000, it’d be pretty even. The value of the B2 and F117 against a modern air defense system is a great debate in and of itself, and it could very well turn out to be that they’re a giant waste of money against an opponent at technological parity (if one got shot down in Kosovo, of all places…) . The Tomahawk is nothing unique, cruise missiles are pretty standard, really, it’s just that most countries aren’t as willing to piss money away on them as the US is. Also bear in mind that Tomahawk has a comparatively light warhead, and its performance against hardened targets is not the best. I also doubt that a bomb with a GPS addon kit is unique, again, it’s a pretty basic concept and one that’s not really any more difficult to implement than the LGB addon kit.
I wouldn’t be willing to bet on that. Going up against an actual enemy air presence would limit a lot of that, and modern enemy air defense would limit it even more. You just can’t take out everything with cruise missiles, and the kind of air superiority needed to strike with that level of impunity would be a very hard-won thing indeed. A point to be said here is that the European Alliance would actually have an air defence system, something that can’t really be said about the US. Were our air force tied up in a full-blooded fight, we wouldn’t really have anything of note to protect assets from the ground: Patriot is only a medium-range point defense solution, as is the ground AMRAAM currently being toyed with…and we don’t have near enough of either to provide for defense of more than the most critical (read: political) of targets. Hawk and Nike are way too horribly outdated to do much of anything were they dragged out of mothballs.
Not really. The entire XM70 project was originally intended to be a jointly-developed, produced and fielded armor platform for both Germany and the US. But we got huffy and left, but kept the gun and basic layout to keep from having to redo the whole thing over from scratch ourselves, and the XM70 diverged into the Abrams and Leopard 2. And, IMO, the Leo is the better tank, particularly for long-scale operations. And I honestly can’t think of any reason other than “not made here” to explain why, for example, the M47 Dragon has been in service for so long (or even deployed at all, the piece of crap)
Okay, I’m going to pretend that this goes down in the very near future, with what each side has now. It’s a trade war. Doesn’t matter who started it, the result would be that both sides would attempt to stifle each others’ commerce. I assume complete neutrality on the part of all other nations.
Due to naval sizes and geography, America would attempt a blockading strategy, while Europe would be forced to turn to commerce raiding. The Brit submarine force would prove invaluable, as they may be the best submariners in the world. If they were particularly smart, they’d sneak a few attack subs into the Pacific to raise hell and divert American forces there.
The Americans are not logistically capable of invading Europe, even if they managed to keep their bases on the Continent intact. Therefore, they would immediately begin nipping at the periphery. Bermuda, the Azores, and the Canaries in the middle Atlantic would be good targets for the Marines. Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean would be an American target in order to cut off commerce from the Suez Canal. Mauritius would be considered as an observation post for commerce around the Cape of Good Hope, while the Falklands would serve to complete the stifling of maritime trade around Cape Horn. The ESA base in French Guiana would be either wrecked or taken.
But the Big Kahuna in any cross-Atlantic war is Iceland. The Europeans would want to keep it in order to harass US naval and air movements; the US wants to deny that opportunity and to use Iceland as a staging base for future operations. Neither party can act offensively against the other without Iceland either neutralized or on your side. Though a member of NATO, Iceland doesn’t really have much of a military; they are primarily committed to serving the US in a logistic role.
That means that whoever can get there first with the most is going to have a huge edge. I think that the Europeans can get there the quickest. I think that the Americans could take it back–at great cost.
If the United States can take and hold Iceland, the next phase is much more difficult. The Mediterranean would have to be neutralized. Sneaking around Africa and investing the Suez is a logistical nightmare. Cracking Gibraltar, on the other hand, is equally scary.
This is where I see the war piddling to a halt. The US can constrict, but not completely stifle European trade without enormous cost and half a decade of build-up. The EU probably cannot hurt the US militarily at home, but it can probably cause enormous naval, air and merchant shipping attrition. As our armies are today, logistical breakdown on the part of both parties is near certainty.
I don’t think anyone is really equipped to fight a “World War” any longer. That’s probably a good thing.
Mekhazzio,
Look, you basically said I didn’t know what I’m talking about then you made this whopping big target of a claim:
Now I’m perfectly willing to admit my own fallibility, but if you want to dance with me in a debate you better be polite, you better not give me such nice juicy generalizations to go after, and you better cover the points brought up.
So you can’t find a European counterpart to the B-2, the F117, or the SeaWolf so you simply state they aren’t proven. Well, that doesn’t defend your statement. But let’s shoot more holes into your sinking statement for my mere amusement.
How proven do you want a system? The F-117 has been around for at least 15 years. It has been involved in at least three conflicts and it has only suffered one combat loss, and that loss may have been a system malfunction. You later give praise to modern German tanks that have never seen combat. Try to be consistent in your logic.
You want to discount the A-10 for not being high-tech, fine but it has no real European equivalent. The F-15E is most assuredly a high tech platform. It’s role is that of strike aircraft, some of the aircraft you attempt to compare it with our intercepters - different mission. The only close European equivalent is the Tornado. An excellent airframe, but one that needs some modernization.
You just mumble that the Tomhawk has a light impact warhead and that Europe could make one except they just don’t want to waste money. But again, it’s a valid point against your statement. You also overlook the value in being able to hit target with no risk to your side whatsoever a little too easily. Light warhead? Good enough to take out those ground radars.
A bomb with a GPS is worthwhile because you don’t have to hold a laser on a target while someone is trying to kill you. Heck, you don’t even have to see the target. Once again, no European equivalent capability.
You just skip the list of naval classes so lets bow our heads a moment and consider your statement sunk.
A few more notes…
I’ve noted that a lot of people like to simply dismiss the Iraq war because it gets in the way of proving that the US forces have never taken on a serious enemy. But the Iraqis had a modern French designed air defense system with an experienced air force to back it. Go study that conflict for a bit.
So the US has no air defense system? I’m sure we have a plan of some type in mind? Spitballs perhaps? Give me a cite. And again, Iraq had a European air defense system. They are not uncrackable.
You are also forgeting the US advantage in support systems (fuel tankers) that allow it to keep a substantial portion of its aircraft on station.
So like I said, the gun was designed in Germany. Now your just disagreeing with me to be contrary.
And let’s see where’s your refute of my Kosovo summary? The one that basically pointed out that European armies are lacking in deployment capability and Air capability. You didn’t even try. So trifle with me no more.
Sofa King,
Excellent analysis.
The Seawolf was dismissed not because it’s “not proven” (I’m sure it would do well at what it does), the fact is that there’s only one of them. One of anything is meaningless in a war. We even needed two atomic bombs, after all, and the real threat was not those two, but that there was more where they came from. No matter how good it may or may not be, the fact is that you don’t throw your prototype on the front line. But in any case, I already agreed that the US would have an advantage in the submarine arm unless Russia was factored in as well (at which point we start talking about the Alfa)
And a school bully might win a hundred “fights” against those smaller, weaker and more timid than he, but that does not mean he’s a good fighter. The F117’s success has been largely due to the fact that it’s only been used in situations where its advantage is absolute, and enemy aircraft (and mobile radar) nonexistant. You can’t, with any integrity, possibly claim there would be any parallels between Desert Storm or "peacekeeping’ actions to a full-scale war between equally modern forces.
I’m not the first one to question if the so-called “stealth” is really all its cracked up to be, and due to the extreme vulnerability of the B2 and F117 if it doesn’t work absolutely perfectly, and if their missions don’t go exactly as planned, they could very well turn into extremely expensive wreckage over something as minor as an enemy CAP being where it “shouldn’t” be.
The Leo is a known platform with proven abilities…it does not gamble its success on one all-or-nothing high-tech widget, which may or may not even work. It, instead, goes for all-around superiority. A better parallel to an unproven, but capable platform would be not the F117, but the F22.
What makes you say that? CAS aircraft are quite common in European inventories – in fact, some of OUR CAS inventory comes from them (I did mention Harrier) The only thing unique about the A-10 is its main cannon system, and the practicality of that is debatable…most actual deployment of the A-10 would, more likely than not, have it focusing on standoff weapons like Maverick or area-effect weapons (bombs of varying flavors)
And Eurofighter, Gripen and Mirage are all multi-role aircraft, not just dedicated interceptors. I’m not sure why you said they are, all were designed from the ground up as multirole, like the F-16 and F/A-18. The Rafale is the only one I mentioned that’s an interceptor.
I mumble because I was not aware, off the top of my head, if there were any European-made cruise missiles. However, a quick web search reveals you’ve never done your research on it either: there are quite a few. (a cite) Most of them are currently antishipping, but not all (including one French tacnuke missile), and quite a few dedicated, long-range land attack cruise missiles are set to enter service within the year that look set and ready to beat the pants off of Tomahawk.
But that’s double-edged: it also means you can only hit stationary, pre-planned targets with them, thus making them completely useless against vehicles or any other mobile asset. Also, there is no “GPS bomb” – it’s simply a normal slick with a guidance kit applied to it. They’re also less accurate than laser-guided munitions…the standoff capability comes at a price. Standoff weapons also come in more flavors than “GPS-guided bomb” (a guided missile generally being more popular) It’s a narrow advantage at best, and certainly not the kind of thing that at all has an effect in the broader scheme of things.
I “just skip” your “list of naval classes” because, quite frankly, there’s nothing special about US warships. Trying to claim they’re a major technological advantage is a bit off-base, particularly since the major punch of the surface fleet, anti-shipping missiles, are better on the other side of the pond. And that’s even ignoring the Russian arms…it could be argued that the US Navy is, in fact, at a technological
“Experienced air force”? “Modern air defense system”? One squadron of capable interceptors does not an air force make, and what may have been “modern” twenty years ago certainly isn’t now, nor does it help when it’s assembled as idiotically as the Iraqi’s was, with their absolute reliance on central control (that had been dismissed as a bad idea years before they did it) But even had they had a bristlingly superb air defense, which they didn’t, the effectiveness of air defense without air support (or vice-versa), is very limited without the other to work with it. When your serious air assets are discussed in terms of individual tail numbers, it goes without saying that your air defense is not going to have the flexible arm it needs to back it up.
Yeah, the plan is for the USAF to provide total defense for both offensive and defensive operations. It’s more than a little bit hopeful in a broad-scale conflict. The US has never had any serious air defense, and I’ve always considered it a potentially disastrous oversight were we to actually become engaged against an equal opponent. As I mentioned, Patriot is the only real air defense system we currently have, and we have only 10 batallions of it. Total That will offer some protection for the most critical assets, but on a theatre-wide scale, it will leave a lot of gaping holes.
I’m disagreeing with you because you gave a faulty example. You held up the Rh120/44 as an example of US cosmopolitanism, when the ENTIRE TANK would have been the best of both countries had the plan not been scrapped…and you neglected to mention that the armor is English, too 
The parts of the Abrams that are 100% USA are the parts that make me say the Leopard is the better tank.
The issue is nowhere near as cut & dried as you make it out to be, and I stand by my original opening statement.