Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: USA vs EU
gixxxerking    1/6/2005 6:13:25 PM
This is the mood in the Fighters forums so I thought I would just declare war here instead. C'mon all you armchair generals, who wins this fight?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
gixxxerking    RE:Nukes   2/18/2005 10:03:33 PM
ex that exactly what I was refering to in response to the sudden "we go nuclear scenario". And I also acknowledged the French as having a much larger arsenal. Although one has to remember the SSBNs cant all be deployed in a "suprise" scenario. Which means 1/2 to 1/3 are in port and vulnerable to being destroyed. So thats about 300 warheads at sea for both with the rest in port.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    RE:Nukes   2/18/2005 10:28:02 PM
as soon as you go green, yellow, orange red, the issue of nukes at sea changes at each level this flipflopping from latent, to emerging to full blow threat is the very reason why there is inconsistency of response. One things start to go orange evryone starts looking at containers and bringing the parts together. 48 is a peace time fitout - this is certainly not peace time. Once again we go back to the fact that you want to play Patton without signalling your intent. Once again I point out that other intelligence agencies were able to work out when and where the 10th was going because the US compromised it's own deployment. Where does the 82nd train for arctic warfare and for how many months a year? You have specialised arctic squadrons within Norway, Finland, the UK and France. You're ignoring the reality that US Forces that wargamed against the Norwegian arctic troops in the late 80's struggled against much smaller forces. and for goodness sake, I have never ever said that subs will stop and atlantic crossing. You have a congenital inability to read what people say and interpret it in the extreme. At every point, not matter what point I make it will have a caveat attached. Seeing that you're a fan of Le May, then you ought to read up on him a bit more. ;) Both he and MacArthur earned the wrath of theoir presidents as they were regarded as loose canons. Both are universally regarded as egomaniacas suffering from delusions of grandeur. In Le Mays case, they rewrote the book to stop lunatics initiating first strikes of their own volition. You need a better role model. ;)
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:Nukes --gf   2/18/2005 10:45:12 PM
Sometimes you need a Le May. Patton and Le May would have been good friends! "Where does the 82nd train for arctic warfare and for how many months a year? You have specialised arctic squadrons within Norway, Finland, the UK and France. You're ignoring the reality that US Forces that wargamed against the Norwegian arctic troops in the late 80's struggled against much smaller forces." --gf Well a lot has changed since the 1980's you think. We struggled in Vietnam too! Seems like we learned a bit huh. Well I can assure you the 82nd will do very well know. They train(fight too) when and where mission requirements dictate. "and for goodness sake, I have never ever said that subs will stop and atlantic crossing. You have a congenital inability to read what people say and interpret it in the extreme." --gf I'm glad thats clear. The part about crossing the Atlantic...;) "48 is a peace time fitout - this is certainly not peace time. Once again we go back to the fact that you want to play Patton without signalling your intent. Once again I point out that other intelligence agencies were able to work out when and where the 10th was going because the US compromised it's own deployment." --gf Again what do you do when a JDAM fall on the facility where the warheads are fitted. As to tipping off the EU. The 82nd could get to Iceland with or without suprise first.
 
Quote    Reply

Jimme    Would Nukes even be an option for either side?   2/18/2005 10:57:29 PM
I mean seriously. From the UE stand point, US has more operational Nukes then they do. Why even provoke the US into using them? Specialy when worst case secenerio is that the EU would fly a different flag maybe? From US stand point no politician would condone using Nukes unless they were seriously prokoved by the use of nukes by a foe. US is also extensivly expierenced with the concept of MaD. In todays age of surgical strikes and smart targeting, Nukes are pretty much outdated obsolete technology. Useless for anything other then say deterence or terror. i dout they would even be a factor, even in a far fetch scenerio as the US invading the UE.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    RE:Nukes --gf   2/18/2005 11:01:10 PM
"Well a lot has changed since the 1980's you think. We struggled in Vietnam too! Seems like we learned a bit huh. Well I can assure you the 82nd will do very well know. They train(fight too) when and where mission requirements dictate." It's not their core warfighting ability - and you're asking them to field against specialists. eg The French Alpine troops and the Swiss trained to harass the Russians and bleed them dry in the snow. It is their primary competency and they still train for that role full time even though the Russians are no longer the prime. What brigade sized US asset has arctic warfare as their core competency? "Again what do you do when a JDAM fall on the facility where the warheads are fitted. As to tipping off the EU." The facilities are underground and nuke proofed. You'd have to drop a city buster on them - as soon as you do that you've just changed the ROE's. It would have to be a really "special" JDAM to drill through the facility..... Besides, like the US, everyone else stores "critical components" in diverse and separate locations. Its called redundancy. ;)
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:Nukes --gf   2/18/2005 11:15:44 PM
Ok gf, I do not have much knowledge of UK SLBM procedures other than approx number of warheads and missiles. They do not have more than 200. I do know that unserviced for a year by US will degrade some of them. So they could max load the deployed SSBN of spread it out to 2 SSBNs. The French SSBNs can help to add to the firepower. SO we have 200 to 500 warheads potentially at sea. Fair enough. As to attacking the Hardend facility, I'll give you an acronym that may offer a solution, Direct Strike Hard Target Weapon. The 82nd can deal with "specialist". IF they can get to Iceland THROUGH already deployed US forces. Of course US specialist called Rangers will also be present. So IF they get there it will be a good fight and dependant on the circumstances.
 
Quote    Reply

addo    RE:Nukes --gf   2/19/2005 5:32:49 AM
During one year of buildup, wouldnt more european countries be able to arm themselves with nuclear weapons? (Germany, Sweden, Italy etc)
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:Nukes --gf   2/19/2005 6:38:09 AM
Went to bed last night and forgot to post so I won't be doing the calculations again, I hate doing them any way. The combined destructive area's something like 115-300,000km square IIRC depending on the number of warheads (min/max respectivley) with effects reaching out to about 300-800,000km square (radiation etc). Anyway, the point is the targets; there's no need to kill the entire population. Destroying communications, certain military targets, and political and economic centres would effectivley destroy the country; no leaders, no economy, no way to distribute food etc; the population will eventual either kill itself or succumb to any number of secondary effects. Of course then there's the risk of Russia getting involved, nukes would be flying in there general direction. Sure the EU would be wiped out but this is all the US's choice to make. I agree with ex that this may not be the course of action the EU might take but trying to invade another nuclear power is not the course of action the US would take is it. Remember the US has a choice whether it wants to start this war and then if it wants to strike civilian targets with nuclear weapons if the EU strikes an invasion force, a legitimate military target. That's why it's a deterent. PS - I'm only bringing up nuclear weapons because no one seems to be able to agree on the conventional side of things. I still think the US has no chance of doing what has been suggested for the numerous reasons that have already come up. Addo - Probably, plus tomahawks, torpedoes, AShMs etc all being armed with nuclear warheads. In reality I think the US would first not even try it, and second, back down if they did and were threatened with a nuclear war.
 
Quote    Reply

Nemesis1    RE:USA vs EU   2/19/2005 7:58:20 AM
Unless Americans come to realize that they are not stronger in the world because they have the bomb but weaker because of their vulnerability to atomic attack, they are not likely to conduct their policy at Lake Success [the United Nations] or in their relations with Russia in a spirit that furthers the arrival at an understanding. Albert Einstein (1947) Nemesis
 
Quote    Reply

ex-98C    RE:Crazy scenario   2/19/2005 8:49:54 AM
" If I cannot get UK on US side , I will simply not go after Europe . No US Citizen will ever accept to go to War with Britain , and if we do not have Britain as a "Carrier" to lunch Ops against EU , the US is bound to fail ." 1)I would agree that its almost unthinkble that the US would go to war with the UK. However a massive upheaval in relations that changes how we few each other is possible, if extremely unlikely. 2) I would generally agree not having a secure base near the EU mainland makes invading the EU almost impossible
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy