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
hist_ed    RE:UN embargo   2/23/2005 1:12:31 PM
The problem with UN peace keepers is that usually they are "peace implementers." They are mostly sent to places that haven't yet achieved peace. So we get the example of lightly armed, badly trained third world soldiers standing by while their charges are raped and murdered. Sometimes their orders explicitely say that they can't intervene against armed attacks. My brother worked for the UN in East Timor during their independence referendum. He was told only to observe and report, not intervene. He and another guy disobeyed those orders to pull a guy out of a mob that was hacking him to pieces with machetes. The mobs knew they weren't supposed to hurt the guys with the blue UN armbands so my brother's colleague jumped on the victim to block him from the guys with machetes while my brother dragged him away. Again they were disobeying their instruction to save this guy. I've seen a proposal for an international body composed only of democracies. Unfortunately there are many democracies who see the UN as a good tool for blunting US power so would likely oppose any reform or alternate organization. So we will likely always get absurdities like Libya and Syria being memebers of the UN human rights commision.
 
Quote    Reply

Donkey    RE:UN embargo   2/23/2005 1:26:35 PM
The ROE's that my dad worked under were mostly the same, only return fire if shot at directly & then only shoot at them if they were on the right side of the line. Have you seen the BBC drama 'Warriors' about British troops on peace keeping duty in Bosnia, powerful stuff. Am not always a fan of US policy, but we do need their military mussle to help The ROE's that my dad worked under were mostly the same, only return fire if shot at directly & then only shoot at them if they were on the right side of the line. Have you seen the BBC drama 'Warriors' about British troops on peace keeping duty in Bosnia, powerful stuff. Am not always a fan of US policy, but we do need their military muscle to help remove some of the dickheads that are out there butchering women & children, it's just a shame that the security council is run by politicians who tell the military what they will allow, rather than the military telling the politicians what they need to do. hist_ed did you say that you are a history teacher about 1500 posts ago? Donk
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    Donkey Hist_ed IsoT   2/23/2005 2:10:45 PM
Donkey and hist_ed, All nationalism aside the UN is of no use to any of us US or Non-US. I do realise that the US has interest the are uniquely US and might not be in the best interest of all. The UN niether able to help or hinder these interest. That is the definition of inept. It is impossible to please everyone all the time. And some nations in the UN can act with or without approval. So what is the point of a toothless world body. The United States is the UN military. For the UN to truly be effective, there has to be force, and will to back up that force. There has to be enough power from members that no one can go rogue without consequences. The only member able to inflict consequences is the United States. This is not a bad remark about the US, rather it is a condemnation of the apathy of the rest of the world. The US has done the things any nation in a similar position would do IF it wanted to be successful. No one could question that success. Other nations need to duplicate that success or face domination. Thats the way of the world.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    IsoT   2/23/2005 2:29:49 PM
I forgot to address you in my last post. Do not take offense as this is not a personal attack and only represents a very well informed opinion. The fact is that the EU doesnt not have the military power or coordination that comes with togetherness to do ANYTHING to prevent the US from keeping Iceland. In fact the EU doesnt have the military force at all to act outside its borders against a major power and certainly not against a superpower. Time and time again I have shown how the US could rapidly build up there today if the American people, President and Congress wished it and the EU could not do a damn thing SHORT OF NUCLEAR ATTACK to stop it. Your current force distributions today represent day one of my little scenario. There is no way the EU could stop the US if it decided that the time to leave Europe had come, redeploy the US forces in Europe to CONUS, Iraq and Afghanistan. And during that redeployment. Iceland was built up and reinforced. That is undistutable and had been firmly decided in the US favor. What is possible is that during the tensions, the EU could reposition some of its forces, build up and attempt at a later time to remove the US from Iceland. But the chances of success are still in the US favor. To entertain Nemesis and out of respect for his effort to try a plan to take Iceland. We are debating the chances of its success. But I am being firm in my numbers because It is my aim to see just how far this very Small US force could go. All who understand military tactics and doctrine know that is the US went to war with the EU a colossal US combined arms force would come to battle. And then there would be no chance of any victory short of gross incompetence or bad, bad luck.
 
Quote    Reply

Nemesis1    RE:The EU plan   2/23/2005 2:55:36 PM
1600 aircraft(out of 2500)including 300 Eurofighers, 100 rafaele, 200 gripen,hundreds of tornado's, 180 F/A 18 Hornets, Nimrods etc and 30 Subs (1/2 RN,FN SSN's and Other SSKs) attack a US forcce of 8 CSF. What happens? Nemesis
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:The EU plan   2/23/2005 3:31:55 PM
Well we are not talking 8 CSF. Im talking 2 CSF. 8 CSF fully loaded for war after a build up would be almost unstoppable. But that also depends tactics. But a force that big would easily win control of the Atlantic and any coast for about 150 mile inland. Nemesis, It would be beyong the EU to simultaneously launch a strike of 1600 planes. That would not be supportable by the tankers you have available and it would seriously compromise command and control. What would be likely is that the EU would develope strike packages out of the 1600 planes. This would allow the EU to send multiple waves at the CSF around the clock and not overwhelme your support and logistics. Alone and unsupported by outside assets, the CSF would die or be seriously damaged. It is hare to say how many EU planes would fall because of the various tactics the EU could use. If they just went straight in and used only numbers to overwhelm the CSF I estimate you lose 1/8 to 1/2 and maybe more of your planes. Good tactics could reduce these losses. But keep in mind the key words about this suggestion. ALONE AND UNSUPPORTED. The CSF is not alone nor is it unsupported. Lets go through a few things. The CSF can arrive before 1600 a/c are moved and readied for a massed air attack. Its not just the planes you have to move but their fuel bombs and maintenance ect. This takes time. Use Kosovo or GW1 for a reference. Some of these moves are IMPOSSIBLE to hide from modern intelligence collection methods. And while their may be many airfields to move to, you are limited by logistics. For example, I have to talk in terms of ground forces because thats my background, I have to deploy and support an Armored Cavalry Squadron. I have my line troops positioned such that they have very widely spaced areas of operation. My air troops are in the rear at friendly airfield or in a hastily prepared FARP. The line troops are able to operate independent of each other and are quite formidable. But the one limitation is where my Headquarters Troop is. I can only send the Line troops out so far before I do not have enough HEMMTs, Dueces and 5 tons to support them in a timely manner and without over working my cooks, Fuelers, especially maitenance, and supply. Also there is a limit before command and control gets screwed up due to a limitation with communications. Deploying any futher means that my cooks for example have to start cooking meals at 0130 to 0200 just to get meals ready in time for the lOGPAC with the Fuel and ammunition that HAS to arrive and could take hours depending on distance and terrain. You could do limited things to mitigate this temporarily like using OH-58's to carry light enough items like mermites, radios or replacements to the more distant units. But these are very temporary fixes. Another example is if C troop has an M1s NBC system catch fire or the engine blow its pack because the engine start procedure isnt followed I have to be able to recover, repair and/or replace that tank ASAP. So there is a limit to dispersal. The same thing applies to aircraft which are even more maintenance intensive than tanks. The headquarters troop used in my example is a critical node and is not hard to identify if you know what to look for. Thank you for bearing with my example. Below you will read the reason for it. To most 1600 planes comming after you represent an overwhelming force. To me they represent an overwhelming opportunity. I know I do not have to fight them all at once. So why would I? Why would I wait to allow 1600 planes to assemble and stike? Why when I could target the tankers, AWACS, GCI, EW sites, Runways and bases and logistics system they need to fly. And all those planes in such a small geograpy gives me a good chance to do that. By using stealth aircraft like the F-22 and F-117, sub lauched TLAM, the speed, mobility and forepower of CSF and the speed, stealth and range of CONUS based strategic bombers. The US could get in and destroy the bulk of this force pre-emptively before they become a factor.
 
Quote    Reply

hist_ed    RE:UN embargo   2/23/2005 3:39:42 PM
Yes, I teach high school history in the Seattle area (world history-I am gearing up to do World War 1 in a few weeks-that's a lesson plan I enjoy) And a clarification: My brother isn't in the military. He was in Timor as an election observer. The UN was actively discouraging people with military background from going there and absolutely forbade any UN personnel from being armed in any way. "Observe and report" even if they were observing massacres (and many of them did). Even when the UN sends in soldiers they frequently have the same orders. If memory serves more than once in the Balkans UN peacekeepers stood around and did nothing while hundreds or thousands were being slaughtered. This been repeated elsewhere to say nothing of the current revelations of peacekeepers becoming the predators on the populations they are supposed to be protecting. Yes Gix, I think the UN is largely impotent from a military standpoint without the US or EU stepping up-I know you disagree with the EU part of that, but the French knocked around the Ivory Coast without too much trouble lately (by the way, where were the "No Blood For Chocolate!!" protests?-The Ivory Coast is the largest producer of cocoa in the world). The one thing the UN can produce in abundance is rhetoric. Unfortunately, its rhetoric does have impact. The UN legitimizes some of the worst authoritarian regimes and has legitimized some non-state actors that were awful (the PLO comes to mind). Arafat would have remained a mass murdering thug without the UN giving him its seal of approval. It is also dangerous because it is seen by many as the embodiment of international law. Given that most of the member governments of the UN are non-democratic and its rules give North Korea and Cuba the same weight as Norway and Japan I would say that its pronouncements on "law" are a bit suspect and do a lot of real damage. It won?t ever go away for the same reason that the Security Council will never change, the majority of the members have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are (though it might become a lot less solvent if the US ever stopped funding it).
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:UN embargo   2/23/2005 4:02:58 PM
"Yes Gix, I think the UN is largely impotent from a military standpoint without the US or EU stepping up-I know you disagree with the EU part of that, but the French knocked around the Ivory Coast without too much trouble lately (by the way, where were the "No Blood For Chocolate!!" protests?-The Ivory Coast is the largest producer of cocoa in the world). The one thing the UN can produce in abundance is rhetoric. Unfortunately, its rhetoric does have impact. The UN legitimizes some of the worst authoritarian regimes and has legitimized some non-state actors that were awful (the PLO comes to mind). Arafat would have remained a mass murdering thug without the UN giving him its seal of approval. It is also dangerous because it is seen by many as the embodiment of international law. Given that most of the member governments of the UN are non-democratic and its rules give North Korea and Cuba the same weight as Norway and Japan I would say that its pronouncements on "law" are a bit suspect and do a lot of real damage. It won?t ever go away for the same reason that the Security Council will never change, the majority of the members have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are (though it might become a lot less solvent if the US ever stopped funding it)." --hist_ed I was trying to be a little diplomatic to some by "only" calling the UN inept and not outright dangerous. About the only thing it is good at is corruption and spawning demons.
 
Quote    Reply

Donkey    RE:IsoT   2/23/2005 10:43:09 PM
gixxxerking Don?t think that the EU forces can win, but they would give you guys a bloody good spanking & once the folks back home via CNN start to see your loses, I think that any president will be forced to bring the boys home,& as sail for home water, certain EU leaders will be shaking their fists at you, warning you not to come back or you will get more of the same. The main problem as I se it with the EU armed forces is lack of common kit & no integration?.okay let me explain?.the US goes to war in Iraq, you take your Abraham?s with you, no real logistic problems?.the EU goes to the same war & takes £ different MBT?s. You have one common fighter F22, one common bomber the F35, one multimode f18 (navy) f16 USAF?.we have Typhoon/Raphael, Tornado/Mirage?instead of building force for the defence of Europe, we build equipment as much for national pride as national defence. Both the RN & MN need new carriers, other countries want carriers?no common design or build plan. The MN wanted a super nuke carrier to rival yours, look what they got & we may not even get ours. The Horizon destroyer (euro destroyer) project fell apart because no one could agree build contracts. The result is projects duplicated, money wasted & not enough quality kit bought. Donk
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    Donkey   2/23/2005 11:10:58 PM
All nationalism aside. EU is not inept but your post describing the Eurocrat situation is accurate. In defense of individual homelands I think EU countries would do better. But in an intercontinental war where coordination is key against a foe as substantial as the US, EU is not ready and is not an equal militarily. Not that 10 to 20 years from now that cant change. But for now it is not ready. I talk often of F-22 or other platforms but they are irrelevant compared to integration, mobility and situational awareness. All areas the US excels in. The Cold War is over and NATO is a shadow of what it was. And the US was and still is the foundation of continental European Defense. This is changing but still has a way to go. I dont think the casualties on either side would be that high actually if we manage to not nuke each other. Because either the US will be wildly successful and achieve success so fast that the EU will fragment and individual nations will look to self interest and opt out of EU defense to spare themselves. Or, the US will find the opposition very stiff and change tactics to seige type warfare and cut EU off from the Sea and intercontinental air. The US could hold the seige longer than the EU could endure and remain a single entity. Also the EU has very little means to break out of the strangle hold. But this is now. In a decade or two EU could be more powerful if the Eurocrats can be avoided.
 
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