Sorry Warhammer but are you attempting to say that 3 american carriers ( less then 180 fighters ) could crush several THOUSANDS strikers, fighters, missiles from Europe ?????? Sorry i think i've missed your point.

Warhammer - Coac is correct you have a VERY over-inflated view of the striking capability of a CBG. Not to mention that AFAIK there is usually only 1 carrier statiioned around Europe. Bigtasty- Not really sure what you are trying to infer abou the army in Iraq. The US has no intentions of trying to take over the Persian gulf region, nor does it have the need as you seem to suggest. The US is not nearly as dependant on Middle Eastern oil as most people think. Indeed if I remember correctly Saudia Arabia is the 4th largest supplier behind domestic, Mexico, Venezula, and Canada.

Actually, there is a carrier north of europe, and at least 2 within a days sails of the mediteranean. 300 strike aircraft + the ships and cruisemissiles that go with the carriers. And france and germany don't have thousands of planes at their disposal. Got to go, will post more later.

Warhammer..the CAGs these days total about 72 fixed wing aircraft (about 15 smaller then back in the 80s)about 50-60 of these are fighters/bombers (14s, 18s and super 18s). The french have several hundred mirage 2000s/Rafales, the Germans have a few Eurofighters and plenty of Tornados, s do the Brits. Not to mention the horde of f-16s from Norway, Belgiun, Netherlands, Greece, F-18s out of Spain. 3 Carrier battle groups would be outnumbered 5 to 1 easy with planes of roughtly comparable capabilities.

uhhh, 3 carriers could defeat Europe? Do you think you should take a break from Hollywood man? Honestly, I can't believe how far some people will go after watching some kind of American Top Gun movies...

Umm... I didn't exactly say that 3 carrier groups would single handedly defeat europe, but anyway... The actual sentence that I included the 3 carrier groups, was referring all to the european production facilities. I didn't say anything about them taking out the entire european air force by themselves. All I said that europe wouldn't have any aircraft production facilities left before it was too late. I said that europe couldn't withstand 3 carrier groups, and heavy bombers flying in from the states, and reinforcement carrier groups, and let alone the fact that we could even have fighters flying in from our various bases in the azores, iceland, and greenland. Oh, and did anyone notice the fact that we have air bases littered all over the middle east that are a hop skip and a JDAM away from european production facilities? The USAF/Navy with its almost 7k fighters and bombers is more than enough to take on all the world's air forces at the same time. The main problem is getting rid of the russian litter laying about over half the world. Too bad it is so poorly maintained and updated, or it might pose a bit more of a threat than target practice. Anything under a Mig-25 and you might as well consider it trash, leaving the russian arsenal with perhaps 2k planes that are the core of that force. China has roughly 3k mig 19s and 21s, which is just a lot of target practice. Also, the United States practically has a monopoly on bombers in the world. The only other nation with any notable ones is russia, and there are only a few of those still flying. Also note that the united states holds 53% of the fleet power in the world. Coupled with the massive air force, there isn't much chance of the rest of the world catching up since the US can hit you at will, and still produce in relative peace. BTW, I stand corrected on the fighter numbers(just barely). France has almost 1k fighters exactly, and netherlands makes up almost another 1k(800 tornadoes) so europe can last a bit longer than I thought, though it still doesn't change the fact that all of europe's production facilities are ash, and after that it is only a short time until the last of the mirages are out of commission. Here is some info: (note: France and the Netherlands hold the most significant quantities of fighters with very few if any bombers, after that it is all negligible. Perhaps the rest of europes added together might make the equivalent of having another france...) Mirage F1 FR 340 Mirage 2000 FR 408 Mirage III FR 152 Mirage V FR 169 Rafale FR 10 EF-2000 (Typhoon) NT 40 Tornado NT 800 Jaguar NT 166 F-104 (Starfighter) US 102 F-14A (Tomcat) US 140 F-14B/D (Bombcat) US 110 F-15 (Eagle) US 870 F-16 (Falcon) US 2,565 F-18A (Hornet) US 850 F-18E (Super Hornet) US 120 F-22 (Raptor) US 12 F-4 (Phantom) US 768 F-5E (Tiger) US 1,177 A-10 (Warthog) US 210 A-4 (Skyhawk) US 184 AC-130U (Spooky) US 21 B-1B US 90 B-2 US 21 B-52 (BUFF) US 90 EA-6E (Intruder) US 110 F-111F (Aardvark) US 32 F-117A US 44 F-15E (Strike Eagle) US 190

granted maybe the u.s is not that reliant on the oil of the middle east,but what of the u.s future rivals the e.u and china? We cannot quickly dismiss any future actions,anything is a possiblity,re ww2 the dutch east indies was of importance to america,not soley for its own need,but rather for being a massive spanner in the jap warmachine.

“Umm... I didn't exactly say that 3 carrier groups would single handedly defeat europe, but anyway” - Wait for it…. “Do you think that the combined air forces of europe could withstand 8 weeks of bombardment from the 3 Carriers we have in the region?” - Seems to me that you ARE suggesting that 3 Carriers could stand against Europe alone “Oh, and did anyone notice the fact that we have air bases littered all over the middle east that are a hop skip and a JDAM away from european production facilities?” - Oh Really? Where? Turkey isn’t going to let us use Incerlik.. they are going to keep their head down as much as possible? Iraq? As far as I know we haven’t set up the logistics their for a major air campaign. Saudi Arabia? We do have the Facilities there but 1500 miles is a bit more than a hop skip and a jump. “The USAF/Navy with its almost 7k fighters and bombers is more than enough to take on all the world's air forces at the same time” - Where are you getting your numbers? My stats showing all US fighter/bombers from Active/Reserve/NG from the Air Force/Navy/Marines shows about 3,000 and that includes the ones in storage! “China has roughly 3k mig 19s and 21s, which is just a lot of target practice.” - Which after you have fired all your missiles and there are still a thousand swarming at you doesn’t seem like such an insignificant force. Not to mention that they have at least 300-500 J-10s,J-11s,Su-27s,SU30s which are more than enough to make an Eagle or Viper driver sweat. Basically what it all boils down to Warhammer is that you have an over confident view of the US Military, and that is THE most dangerous attitude to have. Is The US military the strongest in the world? Most definitely, Does it theoretically have more firepower than the combined forces of Europe? Probably, That doesn’t mean that we could take Europe out with half our navy and long distance Air strikes. Just because you are the best doesn’t mean someone who is good can’t beat you if the game is set up to his advantage.

No saying that certain events could not happen, what I am saying is that the US would not be invading to fulfil its own needs.

And then you read that sentence in context with the rest of the paragraph, and you find that I was referring to Europes production facilities, and its ability to keep an air force after they have nothing left to build airplanes with. If you thinkI meant that 3 carrier groups were going to own all in that region, then for the record, I am not saying that. What I am saying, is that after all the cruise missiles from the destroyers have been launched, after as many sorties have been launched as possible before the Carrier groups are sunk, that Europe isn't going to have much left that can carry on the fight with a constant onslaught from the States. Tornadoes are nice and all, but a good majority of them are going down before they get close to a carrier group. They don't have the range to get a missile off before a missile meets them. And just what is Turkey going to say that is going to convince us not to launch from their bases? Only thing that would preoccupy those bases is if turkey itself were also at war with us. We could still launch from them, and it isn't like we would expect them to last, but after they finished the first sorties up in Europe, I know there is at least one country that is on our side in this fight, and that is Israel. I am sure they wouldn't mind if we fueled up there. And the fighters in Israel don't need to bomb france, running protection for the carrier groups would be enough. I am getting my numbers from this site BTW. I pasted all the numbers from the warplane database. Nothing dangerous about being confident in the US military strength. I am not president after all, and that is about the only way that it could be dangerous. Besides, saying we could is not saying we would. I do have a confident view of our military, but that is not what is over confident. I just have very small confidence and respect in the rest of the world's militaries, namely the Air Forces and Navies. And my main point was that military wise, the game would be set up in our advantage, and the main advantage that the rest of the world has is land area, population, and time.