I agree that the concept of a D-Day invasion and occupation is unrealistic, but I think Europe would basically be pummelled by the air and on the sea for as long as the war continued, while Europe can do nothing of the sort to the US. If the US could secure a small number of bases, like in Turkey, Morocco, or Ireland, then I’d guess Europe’s best strategy would be to outlast, not outfight.
Silly premise to begin with, but I’ll pretend to take it seriously.
First big question: WHERE is this war taking place? Is the U.S. trying to invade and occupy Europe? Vice Versa? Is Europe trying to overthrow our government and replace it with one more to their likng? Vice versa?
My take is, whichever side has bigger ambitions is going to “lose,” because neither side could possibly conquer or hold much enemy territory. Neither side has anywhere NEAR enough armed, trained soldiers to ATTEMPT a trans-Atlantic invasion, let alone to pull one off successfully.
Never mind Europe as a whole. Could the U.S. hope to invade, conquer and occupy… the Netherlands for very long (I’m deliberately picking a small country with no nukes readily available)? It’s hard to see how! Transporting enough men across the ocean to pull that off would take months (that’s being a giddy optimist). Where would our troops mass in preparation for invasion? NO neighboring country would help us invade the Netherlands! And even if the Dutch are far weaker than we are militarily, they’re strong enough to make an invasion costly. Costly enough that saner voices in the U.S. would start asking, “Why the hell are we doing this, again?”
As I mentioned in the originating thread this whole scenario plays out like a video game – and as realistic as they are now a days, let’s not forget that they remain games.
So I’ll play.
To all those vocal Americans, both here and in the other thread, that are so vocal about a crushing US victory (or words to that effect) I can only say that you’re dreaming. First off, lets not conflate matters by saying that the EU has to retaliate by attacking the American mainland. That is both unfeasible from a military scenario or as an objective. All European forces need to concentrate on is on repelling the attack – if they do, mission accomplished, war won. And I say that we’d be more than up to it right now. Sure the attrition rate would be huge – think Iraq times 20 – but we have more than enough weaponry to put a hurting on anyone that dares try to invade us. Some of you speak of naval and air superiority, and sure that should be granted, but again you wouldn’t be fighting backward nations such as Iraq and Afghanistan. IOW said superiority is theoretical for we have any number of advanced weapons in all areas – subs, anti-aircraft weapons, LTS missiles and thousands of aircraft – that simply could not all be stopped at once. For instance, Aegis system or not, your carrier groups would present a fairly easy target if placed anywhere near their effective range. That alone might make some of you think twice about your alleged superiority. Secondly, force projection…we wouldn’t need it as we are already there. As are our supply lines, factories, personal etc.
More later. Just realized I am late for an appointment.
Nobody could win without nukes, because neither side could possibly hope to achieve any kind of meaningful victory. Neither side has even close to the the ability to invade and conquer the other. The best one could hope for is an endless war of attriction, both physically and economically. Neither side would come out of it with an intact economy.
With nukes, of course, everybody loses.
To be clear, I’m not saying that Europe would quickly be defeated or sue for peace early in a war. If the US was able to establish bases for tactical air, then I would think that the war plan for the US would probably be along the lines of what NATO did to Serbia. Lots of airstrikes, the occasional bombed embassy… whoops, I didn’t mean that!
Frankly, the missile technology that I know Europeans have is pretty much the same, AFAIK, as US technology (subsonic missiles developed in the 1980s, with upgrades over time). US anti-ship missile technology is well behind that of the Russians or Chinese. While US carriers would indeed be threatened, I would say the threat is greatly less than what a US carrier would face in a war against either of those countries, and not the “easy target” you speak of.
Furthermore, since European investment in major weapons systems has been very low compared to the US, I just don’t think Europe has bought enough stuff, or more likely, enough of the right stuff, to last through a war. For example, latest scandal is that the UK doesn’t have enough helicopters to support its troops in Afghanistan. And it won’t be able to produce more helicopters during the war since the US has such an advantage in long range strike.
I think would would end up happening isn’t a knockout blow by the US, but just a long series of jabs that, at some point, it doesn’t make sense for either the Europeans to put up with anymore, or the US to continue delivering. And after all that is done, Europe may emerge victorious in the sense that they did not submit to an invasion, but hobbled by another unneeded war.
How much of the nuclear option is off the table? Obviously direct ground explosion is. But what about EMP? Is a high altitude nuclear EMP 20 miles off shore ‘using Nukes’?
You could mess up a lot of infrastructure Europe, or the U.S. The key military and government stuff is shielded, but a lot of the field stuff, and damn near all of the civilian stuff is going to become paperweights instantly.
You could do some targeted chaos with non-nuclear EMP, no where near as crippling.
Quoth Omniscient:
In case you haven’t noticed, Europe has been kicking our butts lately, economically, and what economic strength we do have is increasingly not in the manufacturing sector. I’m not sure I’d mark manufacturing strength as a tick in America’s column.
Back, but out of the game – better things to do.
I’ll just support the above post with the following news:
EADS/Northrop trumps Boeing in Air Force tanker competition
Backwards Europeans selling planes to the USAF. How does that work? :dubious:
Interesting.
This post also makes a lot of sense:
I agree – but with the same caveat as before. The US simply cannot invade & conquer the EU. It’s a *** dream to think otherwise.
Yeah, it’s a commercial airplane turned into a flying gas station. Not exactly a huge threat to carriers. And the contract was canceled and is supposed to be up for a new competition sometime, so nobody knows if EADS is going to get the contract, or if Boeing will win the second bid.
I risk appearing uncouth here–but recent American conflicts have been a little half-assed. Let’s operate on the assumption that something extremely devastating to U.S./E.U. relations happens. Something so bad, so Pearl Harbor-esque, that there’s huge support for war against Europe.
I think if the motivation of the American people is assured, this becomes a much different scenario. In a lot of respects, you cannot hold up Vietnam and Iraq (due to lack of popular support) and Afghanistan (due to limited military commitment) up as examples of true American military capability. I think it’s hard to argue that America has really flexed its muscle since WWII.
Is this too jingoistic? <3 you guys across the pond. 
That works the other direction also. Correct?
A fag dream? 
I think it’s safe to say that Europe hasn’t really flexed its muscle since WWII either. Except for a little nastiness down in Balkan. And everybody knows that for good old-fashioned bloody slaughter, total war and genocide you need Europeans. Down there where you get your hands dirty, rather than just raining it down from up in the sky. China can swing it if in a bend, but Europeans do it with more heart. Americans are just awful at it. Always whining about human rights and civilian casualties and other liberal bleeding heart rubbish. And lets not even start on nation building or your puny little concentration camp in Cuba about which there seem to be no end to the whining and gnashing of teeth we are forced to hear. Even a third rate European empire would have dealt with that problem ages ago. Your heart is just not in it at all.
I love impossible to happen questions like this! (Assuming EU means England/Scotland/France?Low Countries/Germany/Spain/Italy/Poland/Hungary/C-lovakia etc (not Russia/ex Soviet states Turkey/Balkans etc). Also assuming this is a real knock-down drag out war where one side has to try to win big eventually.
My 2 cents:
U.S. has the initial military advantage especially on the seas and in the air.
However, I do not see the U.S. being able to successfully invade and capture wide areas of the EU. They would have to pick at the corners and try to establish bases. All this time the EU is gearing up.
Economy and production I see the U.S and the EU as equal. So, this would result in one large stalemate.
However, if the U.S. could use their initial advantage to pound the industry of the EU and keep it down, they might be able to keep an industrial advantage and, over a long time, grind the EU down.
If I was in charge of U.S. forces…I would initially start by targeting EU Industry. If factories are being built, attack them to try to keep them down. I would also try to grab some defendable real estate to use as bases. Gibralter and some Med Islands?
I would also ‘pick on’ one or two EU states…putting most of my pressure on them in order to drive them out of the EU and into neutrallity…a kind of carrot and a stick approach…trying to ‘unwind’ the EU.
You agree that the US cannot invade and conquer the EU with the caveat that the US cannot invade and conquer the EU?
Righto then! 
I agree. But with the caveat that the US cannot invade and conquer the EU.
On manufacturing:
On GDP: that is simply not true.
Almost every history I’ve read of WW2 showed a major problem for the UK being that they were strong on paper but by the point the war started heating up they had “become a nation of bankers and insurance salesmen”.
I suspect in the USA we’d the histories would list us as “a nation of nurses and web developers”.
Neither of which is much use in winning a war.
-Joe
The EU has no will to fight.
After all, its people have no sense of collective identity, no sense of belonging.
That could be cured, by direct election of EU reps, but no chance in hell of that.
So, EU Member States would be abandoning the “united” Europe pretty fast.
That leaves Belgium.
I think we can take Belgium.
Wouldn’t it depend on how the war started, and what the goals of each side are? You’re sort of assuming that the US is the aggressor here. It’s equally possible that the EU could be the aggressors.
I never claimed that it’s entirely vanished, since that’s very obviously not true. I do claim that it’s much diminished from where it was in the 1940s, and that very obviously is true. Look at all of the steel mills and car factories (which, in an all-out war, would be tank and airplane factories) that have closed down. Many have been closed for so long, and the towns built around them collapsed so far, that I doubt they could even be re-opened.