Is a full-scale, successful invasion of the US possible?

[kitto]

*Originally posted by Psi Cop *
First of all, I’d argue that American carriers are far better at launching than any other carrier on earth. We operate our carriers regularly in actual combat situations (though not necessarily ship threatening), and train far more than the Russians or the French. I think we’d work far better as a well-oiled machine than they would.

Well, I’m sure the French would disagree, but I’m not about to argue that point. No doubt every major Navy in the world feels they operate extremely efficiently - I’m not sure how you would begin to compare them other than in a war time situation.

As for carriers operating independently… not really, actually. One carrier battle group is usually enough to end any situation that comes up. But in a situation like preparing to go into Iraq, we have about five carriers in the region. That’s hardly independent. Besides, in a wartime situation, tactics change. I’d imagine that we’d see a lot more destroyers forming up in a battle group, escorting a couple carriers. Still spread over several hundred miles, of course, but well within each other’s air umbrellas.

Right. In war time you’ll see carriers operating together. In peace time however, they operate independantly. Hypothetically speaking it would be possible to hit the carriers before war had been declared. It takes a long stretch of the imagination I know, but it wouldn’t be impossible. Even if you only manage to hit a couple of them to begin with, it will take the others months to regroup - they’ll be sailing alone until they can.

I didn’t mean to imply that F-22s would be going off of carriers. Just that they were the most advanced.

I agree, they will be the most advanced - by a pinch. Don’t tell that to the Eurofighter team though - they’d argue that point to death.

But the de Gaulle won’t be carrying Rafales exclusively. That’s stupid for any carrier. You need your rescue craft, your gunboats, your radar craft, sub-hunters… you need a very balanced ship. They could probably double the number of Rafales, but the US planes would still outnumber them two to one, even assuming we didn’t mount any more intercepters either. And even doubling the number of Rafales would cripple some other operations. What’s to keep a US sub from torpedoing it if it has no ASW planes?

I didn’t mean it would be carrying exclusively Rafales - probably closer to 25 in the end - plus ASW, helicopters etc…

I have to correct you here. Active sonar is based on sound waves. It doesn’t matter how “quiet” the boat is while running, it’ll still return a strong signal. There are certain water conditions and other things it can do to try and avoid sonar, but how quiet the boat is doesn’t affect that.

Well, I suppose the point I was trying to make is that even with active sonar you have to ping the target. The ocean is damn big, and it is perfectly possible for subs to avoid active sonar, if difficult.

Diesels are quiet, yes. But endurance rules. Nukes can stay down for as long as they have food, and still operate at full capacity. Run all electronics, run the turbines full-speed, etc. Even the strongest batteries can’t keep up with running turbines full speed for days on end. If it turned into a one-on-one hunt between a Los Angeles class and a diesel powered sub, all other things being equal and barring randomchance, it would go to the LA boat. Both would be quiet and looking for each other, and presumably not suceeding (assuming they are of equal skill). Eventually the diesel would need air.

I think you’d be surprised at how good the new diesel electrics are. In terms of endurance, the nuke boat as you say is only limited by the stores it can carry (90 days worth by some estimates). In a long drawn out hunt I’d also put my money on the nuke boat, but then who’s to say it has to be a long drawn-out fight?
And an L.A. boat up against a British nuke sub? Now that would be an interesting match-up.

Well, maybe it’s just nationalistic pride speaking, but I think the US has always had a solid advantage over both the UK and France. Heck, we give certain techs to the UK because they’re so solid of an ally.

As you mentioned in an earlier post, the US has a lot of money to through into research, but it spreads it across an awful lot of fields. The UK tends to focus on particular fields of particular benefit rather than going for anything and everything. For example, stealth bombers, strategic bombers, and high-flying spy planes are things the UK has no need to pour money into. What this usually means is that the things it does put money into are cutting-edge.

Take for example, the trimaran hull design for warships. The UK has built a prototype which is out on sea trials. The idea is that the trimarn hull provides more stability, allows greater speeds, allows an increased deck size (spread across the three hulls), for helicopters or even a carrier design, and the two smaller outside hulls provide additional protection. The US Navy is watching the project with great interest.

Now as to who has the technological advantage in ACTIVE craft is a bit harrier. The UK and France tend to build things in much smaller numbers, meaning they can constantly be building something better. The US, on the other hand, orders gigantic product lines (such as 30 Virginia class subs) at a time, and needs to consider carefully how soon they’ll need to be upgraded again.

That is a very good point, though it doesn’t mean the UK or France are going to be any more lax than the US in the design an procurement phase. It is afterall going to cost the same to design a boat that you only build one of as one you build 30 of.

Part of the problem is that we disagree on what type is more advanced. I’d argue that the US destroyer fleet is still more advanced than anything else currently existing. US boats have to be more capable than the rest of the world’s, because they have to last for far longer. That’s why we always put so much effort into designing our new craft. When they are finally launched, nothing else in the world is their equal for years.

That’s where I disagree. When comparing advanced (rich) Western nations with large navies (read the US, UK and France) it is usually the one with the more modern boats who has the most advanced. The UK and France are just as concerned about building durable future proof boats as the US, inspite of producing less of them. Most of the current US surface fleet was built in the 80’s and early 90’s (with the exception of some of the carriers), while most of the UK’s surface fleet was built in the 70’s. Some of the frigates were built in the 80’s and 90’s, but only around 12 or so. The UK’s new air defence destroyer should be coming into service later this decade, and that will be the most advanced there is out there until, after that, there is a new US boat, a new French boat, another new UK boat and so on…

[asterion]

Put me down as someone who says that just penetrating in several hundred miles from the border would be tough. Alien, I believe it was, said that he’d try going through New Mexico. Now, I wouldn’t want to try crossing the Mexian border in many places–you’re either fording a river (admittedly, the Rio Grande isn’t always much of a barrier, but hey), are near cities, or are in the middle of the freaking desert. But, for sake of argument, let’s say you manage to cross sucessfully. Now the time of year comes into play. It gets hot down there, especially in summer. Go through Arizona, eastern California, and New Mexico in July? You’d either be stupid or desperate. So, let’s assume winter–or at least early spring or late fall. Now, you’ve got to push northward. Since I know the most about New Mexico, I’ll stick with the possibilities with it.

New Mexico may be a poor state and half the country may not seem to know where it is, but it is well-armed for a couple million people. You’ve got three air force bases–Kirtland, Cannon, and Holloman–to deal with. Holloman is where you’d have to worry about first–it’s the furthest south and it’s the base for America’s F-117s. White Sands Missile Range is near Holloman as well, but I don’t think you’d have to worry about that. You’d have to neutralize our stealth aircraft, so you’d have to do something about Holloman, same way you have to do something about Whiteman in Missouri.

Holloman also has some F-4Fs and Tornados. Now, these are fighters, and I don’t know how they’d work as fighter bombers compared to the F-117s.

Now, I don’t know much about Cannon. Never been there. Someone who wants to correct me, please take this up as well.

Then you’ve got Kirtland. Now, Kirtland has the New Mexico Air National Guard using F-16s. Again, these are fighters and I don’t know how they’d do as fighter bombers.

Besides the military, how are you going to drive north like Alien suggested and get into Colorado and Wyoming? You’d probably have to use I-25, which goes right through Albuquerque. That would not be fun.

Water? People used to use the Rio Grande. Tough luck using it now. You’d have to supply off the stored resources of various cities if you can’t take enough with you.

Sorry, I’ve had to truncate because I’m out of ideas. I’m sure other people could take it up.

[XPav]

Oh, and by the way, the Yak-41/Yak-141. doesn’t exist. It never entered production.

While there are, of course, ways to sink US carriers, there’s no “magic bullet” that can take out every single carrier. Subs, missiles, whatever, the US Navy knows about these threats and trains to meet them.

In short, Psi Cop’s saying all the right things.

[XPav]

*Originally posted by Gorsnak *
**…calling upon the Texas National Guard to seal the border with Mexico. He molds the TNG along with state and municipal police forces into a single force…

He politely requests that US armed forces stationed in Texas cooperate with his paramilitary force, and if he doesn’t receive cooperation, he at least receives non-interference.
**

The US President federalizes the Texas National Guard.

Your assumption also assumes that the US military would be willing to utterly break their oath to serve their commander and chief.

You also assume that the true nature your terrorist organization would never be found out. I’m also curious as to your source of suicide bombers. Where are you recruiting them. You sure need a lot of them.

[Gorsnak]

*Originally posted by XPav *
The US President federalizes the Texas National Guard.

You think the Texas National Guard wouldn’t follow the Governor in the sort of chaos I proposed? I admit, this is one of the chancier bits of the plan, but I don’t think it’s terribly improbable. I’ve never been in Texas, but I do know a few Texans tolerably well, and they seem to think of Texas as sort of a sovereign state that just happens to graciously tolerate the federal government. If a popular Texas Governor issued bold and decisive orders to the citizen soldiers of the Guard, orders calculated to seem likely to contribute to the safety of their families, I think they’d likely go along with him. And I find it hard to believe that Army regulars would open fire on Guardsmen to stop them from doing it.

Your assumption also assumes that the US military would be willing to utterly break their oath to serve their commander and chief.

Nonsense. My plan is to create an environment in which determining what the military oath requires is very open to question. There’s widespread panic, and civilians dying frequently. There’s a growing body of legislation standing in direct opposition to the Bill of Rights. What does the oath really demand? Where is the soldier’s duty? Is it to the ideals of the Constitution? Is it to Commander in Chief? Is it to protect and serve their countrymen? If this latter, given the evidence that’s going to be available to him, he should support the Governor, or at least not impede those who do. I think a lot of the military will view their duty in this last manner. I may be underestimating the unquestioning discipline in the armed forces; I don’t know. Others with more experience on that matter can respond, if they wish.

You also assume that the true nature your terrorist organization would never be found out. I’m also curious as to your source of suicide bombers. Where are you recruiting them. You sure need a lot of them.

I don’t need very many suicide bombers. I do need a lot of arsonists and murderers. This is the weakest part of the whole plan - not carrying out the terrorism, but finding people willing to do it. I was discussing this with a friend last night while writing this, and we concluded that the thing to do would likely be to recruit out of the slums in cities in Latin American countries that have felt the boot of American imperialism in relatively recent years, and offer to take care of people’s families if they perform these services for us - that is, offer desperate people who already have grounds to dislike the US a way to ensure that their children are fed and healthy. Fidel might be willing to help in this regard as well, perhaps, though I’m not terribly confident about that. Anyways, hiding the nature of the Bolivar Liberation Front is trivial. Tell your recruits that you are the Bolivar Liberation Front, and those who get caught will confess to the authorities all they know about the vast web of Hispanic terrorist cells. There’s no need for the footsoldiers to know that they’re just tools to create an environment conducive to forming a fascist dictatorship. Heck, the people who train the footsoldiers and give them orders don’t need to know. Only a tiny handful at the very centre of the conspiracy need to know.

[avalongod]

In a conentional war, no way, couldn’t be done.

The way to do it would be to sow dissention within the US, perhaps capitolizing on a very bad president (even worse than the one we have now)…if discord like that which occurred during the 60’s could occur again, it could be accelerated through economic attacks on the US (so we’re limiting ourselves now to a combined UK/EU initiative) which would help increase discontent among the populace. If this could get bad enough that a huge economic downturn brought on civil strife, more readical elements could be encouraged through quiet military and economic assistance. If this broke out into open civil war, our mythical anti-superpower could then enter the war on the side of the rebels and overtake a deeply divided US armed services.

Any thoughts on this?

[keithnmick]

Just out of interest - how many nations have nukes in subs?

If, say, the Brits launced ALL of their sub based nukes at the US at once:

http://www.cnduk.org/INFORM~1/tridcapa.htm

• at cities, military bases and command and control centers,
  …While the French launched ICBMs and Exocet cruise missiles at US carriers and foreign bases in a kind 21st century blitzkreig as teams of Ruskies landed at various US coastal cities in their WIG craft that they had secretly been working on all this time:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/aerospace21/ekranoplans/

Any joy with this scenario…at all?

[kitto]

*Originally posted by XPav *
While there are, of course, ways to sink US carriers, there’s no “magic bullet” that can take out every single carrier. Subs, missiles, whatever, the US Navy knows about these threats and trains to meet them.

I’m sure the US trains to deal with a biological attack on US soil - that doesn’t mean they could stop it.

As I’ve said all along, this is a way-out-there hypothetical scenario. But the truth is you don’t need a magical bullet. Europe, Russia and other nations combined have more subs than the US - all it takes is one of them to take a carrier down. However implausable it may seem, it is not impossible. And that is what this is all about - “how could it be done”. And remember, a sub is only one way to sink a carrier…

[rogue4007]

Thanks for some great threads here, this has got to be one of the most interesting debates for some time here. Much of what has been discussed concerning hardware is subjective, in so far as it has never been tested in true war conditions, when was the last time an American carrier had to defend itself against a well organised sustained attack? You only have to look at the Falklands war to see how much rethinking had to be done on naval warfare, the British lost quite a few ships, against all previous thinking. Psi cop makes some observations about sonar,
most sub hunting is done through passive sonar, the minute a surface ship uses active sonar it lights up its exact position to a sub, effectively giving the sub a lock on to the target. In Nato excersises carrier groups have been attacked successfully by subs. In many cases taking out the carrier totaly.
Acting on the position that the US has been invaded, the carrier groups would have to return to US waters to help in the defense of the country. If the invasion forces had any kind of foothold on the land, they would then be able to launch aircraft to attack the carrier groups, Land based aircraft would be a lot more of a problem to the carriers than sea based ones, owing to the fact of bigger payloads for the aircraft, also much increased range. Resupply would also be a problem for the carrier groups, modern warfare uses huge amounts of ordnance, if the invasion forces could restrict resupply of munitions to the carrier groups they would then have a huge problem. The main target here would be the aviation fuel supply ships, remember Rommel in WW2, the best tanks in the world, but no fuel to run them.
On paper the US should win, but i think it would be a lot closer than many imagine.

Rogue

[Psi_Cop]

Kitto,

Well, I’m sure the French would disagree, but I’m not about to argue that point. No doubt every major Navy in the world feels they operate extremely efficiently - I’m not sure how you would begin to compare them other than in a war time situation.

I’m certain the French would disagree… but they have one carrier with a relatively low number of personel that are actually trained in its operations. The US has been launching combat operations for decades, and is well experienced. That French carrier, for example, has never launched a fighter in aggression.

Right. In war time you’ll see carriers operating together. In peace time however, they operate independantly. Hypothetically speaking it would be possible to hit the carriers before war had been declared. It takes a long stretch of the imagination I know, but it wouldn’t be impossible. Even if you only manage to hit a couple of them to begin with, it will take the others months to regroup - they’ll be sailing alone until they can.

Yeah, but after a few were taken out, the rest would be watching their backs. It isn’t like they can’t operate very effectively on their own… and even so, you overestimate the time it would take to get them together. Besides, a good chunk of the fleet is in port at any one time.

I didn’t mean it would be carrying exclusively Rafales - probably closer to 25 in the end - plus ASW, helicopters etc…

Well, if you really crowded everything on to the ship, you could fit maybe 35 to 40 aircraft on board. You need multiple rescue aircraft to pick up downed pilots. At least three or four hawkeyes for airborne radar. Lots of antisub craft, or you’re torpedoed. I think that 25 is still rather high as an estimate… but even if it did carry that, let’s just apply the same percentage to the US carrier. If just over half of its aircraft were fighters, that’s about 45 targets for those Rafales to tangle with.

As for advanced boats and ships… they might be coming later in the decade, but we’re talking now. If we’re going to speak about later in the decade, then the US has fully operation F-22 squadrons, probably a few working units of the JSF, DDX is probably finished in the design phase and being laid down, and CVNX is probabably finished design as well.

Keithnmick, if you add nukes to the picture, everyone loses. We can’t defend against any sort of ICBMs unfortunately, whether sub based or land based. Russia could smash the US with their arsenal. Of course, we’d hit back and slap everyone else around. But, since you asked, I think that only four countries have (active) Ballistic Missile Submarines. The US has the 18 Ohio class boats (soon to be 14), the English have four Vanguard class boats, and the Russians have… a bunch. I don’t know the numbers. The French hadsix SSBNs which are now retired, and are in the process of building a new class of four more. I think that three of them are built and active, but I’m not entirely sure, it might be +/- a sub for them. To the best of my knowledge, no other countries have SSBNs.

All right, now a few points from rogue4007.

most sub hunting is done through passive sonar, the minute a surface ship uses active sonar it lights up its exact position to a sub, effectively giving the sub a lock on to the target. In Nato excersises carrier groups have been attacked successfully by subs. In many cases taking out the carrier totaly.

Actually, not to put too fine a point on it, but I think that you’re thinking back too far. In World War II, this was true. In the Cold War, it was true because you wanted to know where it was – not to attack it, just to watch it. Active sonar tells them they’ve been found instantly. Now of course, you’re talking about US Carrier Battle Groups. They ain’t small and they can’t hide. Satallite surveillence, scouting aircraft, and other factors make the group detectable. And once a group is spotted, it’s really near impossible to get “lost” again. It may be hard to initially find a battle group, but we’re talking the latest European and Russian hardware and analysts. Once they lock on, it’s found.

Of course, this doesn’t mean it’ll be easy to take out. I’ve never denied that some groups can be taken out, but once again, we have 14 of the bloody things. They can defend themselves adequately.

Acting on the position that the US has been invaded, the carrier groups would have to return to US waters to help in the defense of the country.

Nope. No point to that. We’ve got hundreds of land based fighters and bombers to deal with that. The purpose of the carriers would be either to straddle the sea lanes and make sure no more troop transports get by, or go launch raids on enemy ports so they have that much less shipping and naval capability. The land based forces can take care of themselves.

If the invasion forces had any kind of foothold on the land, they would then be able to launch aircraft to attack the carrier groups, Land based aircraft would be a lot more of a problem to the carriers than sea based ones, owing to the fact of bigger payloads for the aircraft, also much increased range.

If they actually got any sort of foothold, they’d be concentrating entirely on defending it. Look at the aircraft numbers I posted early in the thread… we’ve got over 1500 F-15s and F-16s (both land based, not carrier based) alone.

Resupply, on the other hand, would be a problem. But whatever problem it was, it would be ten times worse for any invading forces, because their supplies wouldn’t be arriving either. Remember that we operated for four years in the Pacific Ocean with a steady supply, during the biggest naval war in the history of the world. We’d get by.

Oh, just as another general point about carriers to no on in particular… the US also operates several Amphibious Assault Ships. They’re usually used for Marine transport, but they have 42 transport helicopters, a half dozen ASW helicopters, and a half dozen Harriers. You pull those transport helicopters off, add more harriers, and you’ve got a very nice pocket carrier.

Last point… carriers have the Phalanx Weapons System on board. These things can shoot down incoming missiles at ranges of over two miles. They aren’t perfect, but no one else has anything like this. Missiles coming at the ship in small numbers have a very good chance of being shot down.

-Psi Cop

[Gorsnak]

As to this whole active/passive sonar thing: is it SOP for carrier group pickets to use active sonar whenever the fleet is at sea? I had thought the original subs-sinking-carriers proposal was a coordinated simultaneous suprise assault on every possible carrier group. Since I believe SOP is not to go active for run-of-the-mill picket duty, there’s no reason to think unfriendly attack subs couldn’t ambush carrier groups with some degree of success, so long as the carrier groups had no forewarning.

Really, though, this whole debate about who has the snazzier toys is stupid. European hardware is roughly on par with American hardware, though there isn’t as much of it. Clearly if Europe wanted to engage in war with the US they’d build more of it. Europe, if Russia is included (and maybe even if not - I’m not sure), has a larger industrial capacity and population than the US, and would likely win a war if they were unified, prepared, and dedicated, but not otherwise. Fortunately, America and Europe are on friendly terms, and there’s no foreseeable threat of these two industrial and technological juggernauts trying to annihilate each other. And for that let us all be eternally grateful.

[Psi_Cop]

Two points…

First of all, I wouldn’t be so sure that Europe has more industrial power than the US. I’m going to use a few numbers here… all taken from CIA World Factbook, under their respective countries.

The United States has a GDP of $10.082 Trillion

Now I’ll add up the GDPs of the major countries in Europe (all numbers in trillions of dollars)-- the UK (1.47) + Germany (2.174) + France (1.51) + Italy (1.402) + Spain (.757) is $7.313 trillion… still quite a bit less than the US. However, if you multiply the GDP by the percentage of the economy that’s rooted in industry, the European Industrial GDP is roughly 10/9 of that of the United States. Of course, that doesn’t mean all that much. In World War II, by the end of the war, the United States had double the industrial capability of every other country in the war, combined.

Also, it’s good to note that the US has both the hardware and the reach now. Within days of a declaration of war, we’d be bombing their industrial centers, while no one but Canada and Mexico would have the reach to hit our own. And Russia’s long range bombers, of course… those that still work. For an example on production times, it takes years to build a big ship. Even at full wartime production, it took us four years to build the big Essex class carriers we started right after Pearl Harbor. By the time a significant amount of new BIG hardware could be built, the war would be over one way or the other.

As to this whole active/passive sonar thing: is it SOP for carrier group pickets to use active sonar whenever the fleet is at sea? I had thought the original subs-sinking-carriers proposal was a coordinated simultaneous suprise assault on every possible carrier group.

I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there were daily sonar sweeps. It isn’t like it costs extra money to run the sonar, after all. The guys are still on duty, the electricity is still on, and the equipment is still slowly corroding away (and has to be replaced eventually) whether it’s being used or not. So I suspect it’s used.

Besides, once again, I cite that whole 14 carrier business. Less than half are usually out at sea at any given time. The rest are in port, or under repair/maintinence/refueling. I doubt every single carrier at sea could be taken out the same hour… and even if they could, we’ve got half of them left.

-Psi Cop

[Lemur866]

The other thing is, simultaneous surprise attacks on dozens of sites around the globe is going to be pretty difficult to pull off. It may work perfectly in the movies, but in real life someone always screws up. You can’t have simultaneous attacks without a communications traffic. And while we don’t know the exact capabilities of America’s communications spying, we have to assume that it is extensive.

The other thing to keep separate is the difference between tactical surprise and strategic surprise. Suppose Europe and Russia and China secretly conspired to attack the US simultaneously. Perhaps this could be done tactically. But strategically, we would have to have years of warning. Europe can’t simply attack the US tomorrow, without years of preparing the population. China’s military probably would attack the US if they were given the order.

But what would happen if Britain and France tried to order the same thing? It wouldn’t work, unless the US had already dropped out of NATO, and tensions between our countries were at a near-insane pitch. In those cases, America would have to assume a more defensive posture, we’d restart Cold War practices of having pilots waiting in their bombers, our forces would be on higher alert, etc, etc, etc. And the culture of Europe would have to be totally transformed.

So if we look at an attack on the US from Europe, we have to imagine a world utterly transformed from what it is now. If we imagine that, there is no reason to suspect that current military spending levels and deployments will be anything like what they are now.

Currently our navy is free to sail anywhere in the world with impunity because the only naval forces that have the capability to harm our forces are the forces of our European allies. If we imagine that Europe becomes our enemy, both the US and Europe would be doing different things than they are now.

[Gorsnak]

*Originally posted by Psi Cop *
Two points…

First of all, I wouldn’t be so sure that Europe has more industrial power than the US. I’m going to use a few numbers here… all taken from CIA World Factbook, under their respective countries.

The United States has a GDP of $10.082 Trillion

Now I’ll add up the GDPs of the major countries in Europe (all numbers in trillions of dollars)-- the UK (1.47) + Germany (2.174) + France (1.51) + Italy (1.402) + Spain (.757) is $7.313 trillion… still quite a bit less than the US. However, if you multiply the GDP by the percentage of the economy that’s rooted in industry, the European Industrial GDP is roughly 10/9 of that of the United States. Of course, that doesn’t mean all that much. In World War II, by the end of the war, the United States had double the industrial capability of every other country in the war, combined.

Well duh. Every other country in the war had had the crap bombed out of it. I don’t see how that’s remotely relevant.

And since when are there only 5 countries in Europe? By my count there are over 30. I got bored after doing the EU plus Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia, but these are the numbers I get (also from the CIA wolrd factbook):

US GDP 10.082
Industrial GDP 1.814

EU GDP 9.2
Industrial GDP 2.52

EU + 4 GDP 11.028
Industrial GDP 3.189
All numbers in trillions of US$

I expect by the time Norway, Switzerland, and all the eastern European countries got added in, Europe would have double the industrial-based GDP of the US.

And I’m not sold on the puchasing power parity formula the CIA Factbook is using, either - I suspect the true potential of eastern Europe to turn out military hardware would be underestimated in these calculations.

Europe also has well over twice the population of the US. That’s hardly trivial.

And finally, it seems pretty obvious that anyone planning on attacking someone is going to begin building military hardware before they launch any attacks. They aren’t going to wait until they’re already at war.

Look, this entire debate is just silly. The possibility of Europe and the US being at war is non-existent for the foreseeable future. But it’s just ridiculous to try to insist that the EU isn’t very comparable to the US in terms of economic and technological capability, and therefore comparable in potential military strength, should they decide to start spending the money on it.

[Gorsnak]

*Originally posted by Psi Cop *
Two points…

First of all, I wouldn’t be so sure that Europe has more industrial power than the US. I’m going to use a few numbers here… all taken from CIA World Factbook, under their respective countries.

The United States has a GDP of $10.082 Trillion

Now I’ll add up the GDPs of the major countries in Europe (all numbers in trillions of dollars)-- the UK (1.47) + Germany (2.174) + France (1.51) + Italy (1.402) + Spain (.757) is $7.313 trillion… still quite a bit less than the US. However, if you multiply the GDP by the percentage of the economy that’s rooted in industry, the European Industrial GDP is roughly 10/9 of that of the United States. Of course, that doesn’t mean all that much. In World War II, by the end of the war, the United States had double the industrial capability of every other country in the war, combined.

Well duh. Every other country in the war had had the crap bombed out of it. I don’t see how that’s remotely relevant.

And since when are there only 5 countries in Europe? By my count there are over 30. I got bored after doing the EU plus Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia, but these are the numbers I get (also from the CIA wolrd factbook):

US GDP 10.082
Industrial GDP 1.814

EU GDP 9.2
Industrial GDP 2.52

EU + 4 GDP 11.028
Industrial GDP 3.189
All numbers in trillions of US$

I expect by the time Norway, Switzerland, and all the eastern European countries got added in, Europe would have double the industrial-based GDP of the US.

And I’m not sold on the puchasing power parity formula the CIA Factbook is using, either - I suspect the true potential of eastern Europe to turn out military hardware would be underestimated in these calculations.

Europe also has well over twice the population of the US. That’s hardly trivial.

And finally, it seems pretty obvious that anyone planning on attacking someone is going to begin building military hardware before they launch any attacks. They aren’t going to wait until they’re already at war.

Look, this entire debate is just silly. The possibility of Europe and the US being at war is non-existent for the foreseeable future. But it’s just ridiculous to try to insist that the EU isn’t very comparable to the US in terms of economic and technological capability, and therefore comparable in potential military strength, should they decide to start spending the money on it.

[Gorsnak]

Sorry about the double post.

[ChaosGod]

You guys know nothing about the real world balance of power.
Uruguay currently has 240 nuclear subs on permanent patrol on the north Atlantic and the Pacific. They have been deployed at the start of the Iraq crisis and are currently on yellow alert. If the US government decides to ignore the UN and continues to dismiss public anti-war sentiment, a pre-emptive strike will be launched. After all the major military sites have been taken out, all remaining civilian and paramilitary resistance will be eliminated with the invasion of 30 million cows trained for urban combat.

[Psi_Cop]

Oh, good lord. READ what I said about GDPs… I listed the exact countries and figures that I was using. I didn’t say it was decisive or entirely accurate, nor did I claim I was including all of Europe. Heck I didn’t even say most of Europe. I made no pretense that I was including every country – I had neither the time nor inclination. Note that your additonal 25+ countries equaled only about 50% of than the five I mentioned, and 1.2 trillion of that came from Russia – something I wasn’t including as part of main Europe. Technically, part of the country is in Europe, but I tend to count it as more of a seperate entity.

Your figure is far more accurate, but look at what it says. All of Europe + Russia is less then ten percent more than US GDP. Hardly a decisive advantage. Especially when you consider that most of the Eastern European countries are totally unsuited to producing high tech weaponry. Industrial GDP might be almost twice as great, but the US can trash a good portion of that industry by several means… as I said, we have the ability to project our power anywhere in force. There are few ways for any other country to strike at US industrial centers without ICBMs.

Europe also has well over twice the population of the US. That’s hardly trivial.

And finally, it seems pretty obvious that anyone planning on attacking someone is going to begin building military hardware before they launch any attacks. They aren’t going to wait until they’re already at war.

Population is trivial in modern trans-oceanic warfare on a short-term scale. I don’t think it would ever get to armies vs. armies. By the way, you keep stacking the deck more and more against the US. Europe builds up for years, but the US can’t? So far, the US has no chance to prepare, has no intelligence on any other country’s troop movements, loses every carrier to submarines within an hour, and has a piece of land siezed right away. Sheesh.

By the way… it doesn’t matter if the possibility is next to non-existant. Many debates are hypotheticals to begin with. Half the threads in the forum are hypothetical.

Oh, as a last side note… the US GDP is slightly more than 1/5 of the GDP for the entire world. In a protracted conflict of attrition, the US would eventually lose, sure, but it would be the bloodiest war in history, and unacceptable for pretty much anyone on either side.

-Psi Cop

[kitto]

Psi Cop

As for advanced boats and ships… they might be coming later in the decade, but we’re talking now. If we’re going to speak about later in the decade, then the US has fully operation F-22 squadrons, probably a few working units of the JSF, DDX is probably finished in the design phase and being laid down, and CVNX is probabably finished design as well.

Guess we got our wires crossed then - I was taking end of this decade rather than now, when Europe will have the new boats rolling out of the shipyards. IIRC the US will have it’s new transitional carrier (CVNX) later this decade, but no other new surface ships until the teens?

Europe builds up for years, but the US can’t?

I don’t know if Gorsnak meant that, but I think he’s stumbled across the point that Europe has a lot more lee-way in increasing defence spending than the US does. Mainly because the US spends so much more than Europe does at the moment, but it would be a lot harder socially and economically for the US to increase defence spending (further than it already has been increased in the budget) than it would be for Europe to increase defence spending.

[Gorsnak]

Oh, good lord. READ what I said. Oooh, I like that line I said that the fact that the US currently has more toys than anyone else is because Europeans don’t prioritize military spending the way the US does. I’m not saying the EU has any substantial advantage over the US, just that it’s very comparable in size and resources. If it should decide to devote the proportion of its economy to military spending that the US does, in about 10 years it would field armed forces of comparable capability. It won’t. But it could. And if it did, there’s no reason to think that the US would, or even could, escalate its own military spending to maintain the current proportionate sizes of the respective militaries. The Soviet Union you could spend into the ground. I doubt you could do the same to the European Union.

As for Russia, I specified Europe plus Russia when I first mentioned this, if you’ll scroll up a bit.

Finally, you’re still taking GDP’s at face value. If you think the US produces 1/5 of the sum total of “stuff” produced in the world, I frankly don’t know what to say to you.

Oh, and I only added 14 countries (the 10 remaining EU states, plus the 4 mentioned eastern countries), not 25+…there were 10+ more I didn’t look up, though they were mostly Balkan states, aside from Norway and Switzerland, so it would probably be only another 10-20% gain.

For the record, I agree that the US is currently invulnerable to a conventional attack. I don’t view my subversion into a fascist dictatorship scenario above to be out of the question, though. It’s also far more interesting than quibbling over the displacement of different aircraft carriers.