America’s wartime experience in terms of losses on its own soil are pretty weak and light compared to the wars experienced by Europe. The American Civil War, whilst pivotal to the history of the nation, pales in comparison to Europe’s bloody past, let alone a large scale modern war.
I think WWII has given Americans an unrealistic expectation of what Total War is since they came into the war so late. Furthermore, being so far removed from the front lines, the US never suffered like the Europeans. The US came out of WWII largely unscathed and geared up for mass production and profit like no other country, all benefits of wartime with very few of the deficits.
Given the circumstance I think the highest probability is that America would be the aggressor, which would further weaken the chances of winning as their determination to win a war of domination wouldn’t be as strong as the Europeans fighting to avoid obliteration. Plus I think American morale would be completely devastated once they realised it wouldn’t be a brief few weeks of airstrikes followed by a high-speed mech infantry roll into the national capitals. Look at recent history, the American public doesn’t have the stomach for a real war against a worthy adversary.
Now, YOU’RE being as silly as the American jingoists.
I’m a 48 year old American. My experience with war, devastation and sacrifice is about nil.
But while Germany and France have experienced those things, a 48 year old in those countries is no more accustomed to wartime deprivation and suffering than I am! The idea that a 48 year old London solicitor is any more prepared to handle a new Blitz than I am is absurd. The vast majority of Europeans have NEVER experienced war first hand.
There is NEVER going to be a war between the U.S. and the E.U., because
There’s absolutely nothing to be gained, on either side.
Our ideological differences just aren’t wide enough
Both sides have nukes, which means a conventional war is unthinkable
Neither side has anywhere NEAR enough soldiers to ATTEMPT a successful invasion of the other side. Building an army large enough to make the attempt would require a lot of time, trillions of dollars, and a massive conscription effort. None of those things is feasible on either side.
We don’t WANT to invade or conquer Europe, and we COULDN’T do it if we did want to.
Europe doesn’t WANT to invade or conquer us, and they COULDN’T do it if they did want to.
What kind of “war” does that leave? Some kind of skirmish between our forces and theirs in some distant part of the globe? A proxy war, with the U.S. and E.U. supporting different factions in a local conflict?
The U.S. can project military power around the globe much more easily than Europe can. That’s about the extent of our advantage.
So, in theory, if the U.S. and the E.U. both wanted to conquer some remote island in the Pacific, and were both willing to go to war over it, the U.S. would win.
You should keep in mind that in recent conflicts in which the American willingness to go along with war has waned with time, we were not fighting the French.
I’m going to humbly agree with RickJay and call unmitigated horseshit on this one. Apparently you’re not quite aware of one of the bloodiest civil wars of the 20th Century – nor what the sides stood for.
– bolding mine.
So you see, it was none other than workers as a whole that made the backbone of the Republican side. And while some the descendants of those same worker might have gotten somewhat complacent due to Spain’s rapid economic development which saw it rise into one of the top ten nations in GDP, to question the Spanish work-ethic is folly. To question their fighting spirit is suicidal as history will attest…both for good and ill.
For a current example one only need point to the huge number of Spanish companies (ranging from telecom industries to tourism to banking to construction and anything in between) doing business all over the world, USA included. Never mind the fact that Spain today has surpassed the very US of A in capital investments in LA and SA. So much so that some regional economists, jokingly and not so jokingly, have taken to calling the “Economic Reconquista.”
Getting back on topic it is also worth adding the strategically, Spain (Iberia by default) is most certainly one of the most – if not the most – important strategic areas to be both defended by the EU and invaded by US forces. If for the simple reason that whomever controls Spain controls access to The Mediterranean Sea. However – and I’ve found that many many people are unaware of this fact – Spain is no easy capture as it one of the most mountainous nations in Europe. Many place it second only after Switzerland. Thus the terrain, if actually invaded, lends itself perfectly to guerrilla warfare a la Afghanistan. Except with well-equipped, highly trained professional soldiers who know the grounds like the back of their hands. In fact the very word “guerrilla” originates in Spain – should anyone here communicate with the dead, I’d be interested in knowing what Napoleon thought of said tactics.
So while I’ve little doubt that on a one-on-one conflict, Spain would succumb, I am also sure that it wouldn’t exactly be the picnic the the first Spanish-American war proved to be. Now add to that the rest of the EU nations and again, I’m confident in saying you’ll have bitten quite a bit more than you could chew.
Yanks are fat and useless and only good at eating burgers and watching telly. Half the troops don’t know Europe from Asia, and would get lost on the way over and invade Canada instead.
And yet again we have another foreigner talking shit about another country’s alleged cultural defects. I would, again, humbly suggest to you what I did to Omniscient; the history of making military predictions based on alleged defects in national or racial character is a history of stupidity and shocking surprises, and so caution should be taken in making predictions that in the past have always proven to be wrong.
And in this case it’s not even sensible. The USA did great the last time they went up against a well-organized, industrialized enemy. Their big defeat was at the hands of a comparatively weak and poorly organized country.
I’m quite surprised that on a board of allegedly smart folks we’re talking about the potential for military success and failure in terms of populations having or lacking the correct character traits to fight or maintain a war effort. I mean, how many times in the past has that turned out to be nonsense? Pretty much every single time, and often on both sides of the same war.
Kidding aside, I’ve worked with French soldiers and assure you they are badass and not to be fucked with. World War II was an aberration in the history of a country that has kicked five hundred different kinds of ass. There’s a reason so many military terms are derived from French.
And of course, it illustrates the silliness of the scenario, because if France is ever seriously threatened by an invader, they’ll use nuclear weapons. There’s absolutely no two ways about it; if the Marines land in France, Washington will be incinerated. Nuclear weapons are a central part of their defense doctrine and they have never shied away from stating they’re willing to use them first.
Hypothesizing war between the US and Europe without nuclear weapons is like hypothesizing war without airplanes, or without guns, or involving the sudden arrival of Cylons. You can sit around and say “Hey, what if the US and Europe got into a war but weren’t allowed to use any sort of guided weapons?” but what’s the point? It’s a hypothetical that completely removes us from the real world.
It would highly depend on why the US is attacking the EU.
Because I can think of many reasons that would mean Britain would be fighting WITH the US, not against. Reasons why Britain doesn’t join with the US would have to be quite bad, and I can imagine not just the EU being involved if that’s the case. The rest of the world might take advantage.
I doubt the UK would side with the US against the rest of the EU. If it came down to it, the most likely outcome is the aforementioned Canada route. But I don’t know why I typed that since I really came in here to say, **RickJay **and RedFury, I think you’re in the wrong thread - what we have here is a good ol’ fashioned jingo-off
I predict that whoever will win *this *particular war is whichever group can strategically mobilise the most posters to pull the most superficially relevant factoids out of their arses. Enjoy your game!
Don’t Europeans usually brag about having smaller and less well-funded armies than us? That all goes right out the window when the dicks come out, I guess.
Since it was mentioned, if we’re hypothesizing a war that specifically breaks out between the USA and EU, there’s not a doubt Canada would side with the USA diplomatically, though it might try to sit it out militarily unless the issue involved Canada. Going to war against the USA would be utterly suicidal for Canada. The border is completely undefendable.
It’s worth pointing out that Quebecers are not more anti-American than other Canadians, despite speaking French, and in regard to some issues are LESS anti-American than English Canadians are. In any event in such a scenario Canada would doubtlessly be concerned with its own survival and would not express the slightest hostility towards the US.
Undefendable against a truly determined, ruthless U.S., I suppose.
But again, even if we were as fierce as the Spartans, and bent on conquest, we’d still need a MUCH larger Army than we have to ATTEMPT an invasion of Canada.
Let’s be absurdly optimistic and say we could raise, train and equip a large enough invasion force in one year. Would Canadians sit on their hands for that year? Of course not! Canada’s universities have plenty of smart physicists, Canada has plenty of natural resources, and they could put together a nuclear arsenal in short order if they had to.
And while Canada’s Army isn’t huge, I have no doubt their elite forces are good enough to make an invasion costly, at least for a while. Costly enough that Americans would have to ask, “Was there REALLY any need for this???”
What was the point then? I saw a post about European dick waving and bragging. If I totally misunderstood the post, and have *completely *overlooked some obvious element to it, I’d be most grateful if you’d explain it to me.
