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
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: EU/USA War, based on a specific scenario
mightypeon    9/14/2005 11:25:31 AM
Well, such a thing has been debated quite often, but never with a semirealistc Scenario in mind. Lets just go with the following quite random timeline: 2005/2006: several minor annoyances and trade disagreements happen between Europe and the USA. Bsuh, who is figures that he needs a populartiy boost seeks a spacegoat and starts a Nation wide Germany and France bashing campaign. Beeing bashed by Bush promtply leds to the reelection of Chancellor Schroeder. Spring 2006: The European Iranian talks come to a break, Iran stops its Nuclear programm as well as the support of terrorist groups in Israel, in exchange it gains a host of European arms. Amongst them is a shipment of 400 Leopard 2A4 tanks (in fact, Iran gets the Europane equipment the Europeans would have exchanged or upgraded enyway) In addition, the Iranians grant European companies first rights in developing Iranian Oil fields. Summer 2006 While the irani army is getting trained with their new equipment, a heavy shiite uprising breaks out in eastern Irak. The Shiites demand to be a part of Iran, the rebellion is crushed by the US military. 11.09.06 The US are hit by Terroists. The Gouverment claims Iran to be the culprit. The forces that just crushed the Shiite Rebellion in eastern Irak move up the border. Seeing a hole in the Iranian defense, an US general asks for permission to invade and gets it. While diplomatic conuselatins are still ongoing, the US troops overwhelm the tactically suprsied and not fully trained Irani border forces with minimal losses. The US imprisons the equally suprised European staff still teaching the Iranis. 18.09.06: While US forces are making further progress into Iran, the EU demands the freedom of its instruction staff. 19.09.06: Bush says "that the Europeans can kiss his behind" in an Interview. 20.09.06: German troops surround US bases in Germany. 21.09.06 Seeing America is distracted, Shiite rebels in Irak rise up again. All European powers cancel any overflight rights to the US that have been previously in place. A violent Mob lynches several Germans in a rural american willage, the local police stands by, of course this leads to another uproar in the EU. 22.09.06 With aid from local rebels, a British officer of Pakistani origin manages to escape his prison camp. He shoots a GI while doing so. 23.09.06 The American advance is stalled by logistal problems and constant partisan warfare. 24.09.06 Rumors inclince that the runaway British officer is activly particiapting in the Irani resistance. Pakistan cancel its cooperation with the US. 25.09.06 Under the cover of bad weather, the Iranis start are quick, dedicated and determined counter offensive against the US forces. The US line is breached. The way of the attack implies the Iranis had satellite info on the American positions, as well as human intelligence sources in the American army. In addition, the attack was carefully cordinated with partisan activites in the Ameriakn rear. The American gouverment blames the EU on the defeat and threatens consequences. Schroeder is cited saying "America and which army?" in a private circle. 26.09.05 A massive American airstrike takes out a lot of Irans ammunition producing facilites. Several EU cititzens are killed during the attack. Due to a misprinted order, a imprisoned European instructor is sent to Guantanamo because he shares the name of a terrorist. 27.09.06 The interment of a European instructor interred in Guantanamo is leaked to the BBC. Diplomatic relations between the EU countries and the USA are severed. China proclaims its neutrality in an eventual conflict. Fistfights break out before American Baracks in Germany. 28.09.06 Backed up by reeinforcements, the US manage to flank the Irani force. Hoping on the fact that the US have other problems to take care off, Iran offers peace talks. 29.09.06 A first ceasefire between Iran and the USA is concluded. Iran sends some "terrorists" to the US and labels them as the bad evil instigators. 30.09.06 The US refuses to return the still held instructors. The EU ulitmativly demand the return of the instructors. German troops move into 2 logistical US bases in Germany and arrest the American troops. 01.10.06 Led by a overly rash American Colonell, a Batallion of bradleys fires at approaching German troops. Beeing led by an equally rash German Oberst, the Leopard 2A6 MBTs fire back. The USA and Europe are at war. Now that we have a Scenario, what would be your predictions?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32   NEXT
Jimme    RE:Jimme -FS    9/21/2005 2:41:28 AM
A report done in 98 on tech IS meaningless 7 years later. Tech is significantly becoming more advanced every year let alone every decade. For instance Cell phones were sparsly popular in 98, today there circulation has increased nearly ten fold, that could mean the difference in a small company then, going Huge today. You say that relative positions don't change but i would beg to differ. Even here in the US R&D funding changes with the wind depending on the apointed legislators and who's in the white house. Take for example in the 80s with the transition from Carter to Reagan, Defense spending was raised higher then ever before, the US capabilities soared as Ronald looked to counter a SU threat. Now fast foward to 1998, when a relative soft Clinton was in office, Democrates typicaly lower defense spending and cancel or limit military projects. Since 98? A Republican has taken office, a standoff was held with China over a spy plane, Embasseys have gone up in smoke, a hole was blown into USS Cole (while i was abroad no less) and then the unthinkable, 9/11 occured. Now we have a war in hand , lil kim and Iran&co are threatening to build nukes... More reasons and needs to advance tech and capabilities then ever, and necessity being the mother of all invention One would have to believe that the situation in 98 is far from the situation at present. two totaly different worlds literaly. Another factor is what thats currently known about US military projects today was known then? Like was the F-22 even public knowledge then? I am not closed minded nor ignorant and actualy was taking the time to study your article till i decided lemme link it and saw its from 98. Bottom line is till you can build a super computer on par with the gems IBM creates your never going to have parity with US tech. Theory's and Ideals are great but If you dont have the processing power to test and perfect them, they'll remain dreams. Ask any coldwar era Russian scientist and they'll tell you the biggest difference between SU n US was that SU lacked the computer power of the US which made things like stealth (which the SU toyed with first) out of reach.
 
Quote    Reply

fall out    RE:Dark America...Fall Out   9/21/2005 3:10:33 AM
"Korea: Deemed Not necessary With conventional forces, we were able to regain most lost territory and secure the South. Although there is still no peace treaty" -- right, so, the US failed it's objectives, fails to obtain a peace treaty and lost thousands with many more wounded, her top general Macarthur asked for nukes, China weren't armed and Russia slightly, yet you DIDNT use nukes! Repeat, didnt use them!!!!! "by not worth it I mean the political cost and not military" - right....... so the political cost of nuking Europe wouldn't be too high? You know, your major allies, major trading base, part engine of the world economy (EU has a larger economy than the US), not to mention how the rest of the world would react, including Russia who still have enough nukes to destroy everything American and China who have enough money (esp from your trading inbalance) to produce and procure thousands of nukes... get a grip mate! "You need to get it thru your thick skull that WE DID NOT LOSE IN VIETNAM. We slaughtered NVA/Viet Cong whole sale. When Vietnam fell. It fell AFTER the Peace Treaty in a separate Vietnamese on Vietnamese conventional war. If the US had been actively fighting then, it would have ended up the same way for the North. Slaughter. South Vietnam was lost by diplomats and not soldiers. A failure of diplomacy AFTER American military involvement ended. The War itself was a defeat, although temporary, of the Communist North. I dont dispute that they later came back and defeated South Vietnam. But they DID NOT DEFEAT the US Military. So given these realities, nuclear weapons were again not needed" --- Bit too proud to admit defeat are we? The one and the only never fails hey? So the US always fights other nations, incurs many thousands dead and even more wounded, and then just packs up. You had several years to make this happen mate, and it didnt! So how about you get it thru your thickskull that America lost the Vietnam war!! "How you are connecting Europe to South East Asia in this context is invalid. Europe is a much more strategically important region to the US. Also if the Europeans were trying to capture hundreds of thousands of US troops on their bases and making war preparations. THis would threaten a region we consider vital to national security. To happen in the manner suggested by the original poster suggest a madman assumed power and was prepared to threaten the US directly. There is no way by doctrine or logic the US is going to let the EU deploy WMD delivery systems, conduct war preparations all while holding US troops hostage on their bases. Simple fact is that the US would destroy the EU WMD means and if the situation on the ground got out of hand Regional commanders would be able to carry out nuclear strikes on hostile forces as I showed in the Doctine. In fact go and do some research of the cold war and see what was to be done under similar circumstances against the USSR. Of course all European Military leaders know this and for that reason would never carry out the orders. Especially the non nuclear nations. FS can dream of EU glory and massive buildup but it simply would not have time and if it did. the US would still surpass it even if we did nothing." ----- right, for starters, the US would have moved the troops out of Europe, in fact that would be one of the first things they would do after some increased tension between the US and the EU, secondly, you dont just go from allies to sworn enemies as quick as free beer at a college function! I just honestly cant believe how utterely ridiculous this is! Does anybody else agree with me? IF Europe had NO nukes and NO means of producing/procuring them then id still bet london to a brick that the US would not use them, BUT, having said that, Europe DOES have NUKES and the means to DELIVER them and going by the age old acrynom MAD, nobody will be even contemplating using nukes!!!! For god sake!! Do you believe the US could cope with the loss of about 100 million!!!!!!! Your an absolute nutter one of which is off the scale!!!! F'k!
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    RE:Dark America...Fall Out   9/21/2005 3:33:08 AM
>>>"Korea: Deemed Not necessary With conventional forces, we were able to regain most lost territory and secure the South. Although there is still no peace treaty" -- right, so, the US failed it's objectives, fails to obtain a peace treaty and lost thousands with many more wounded, her top general Macarthur asked for nukes, China weren't armed and Russia slightly, yet you DIDNT use nukes! Repeat, didnt use them!!!!!<<< ---sigh...young civilians...WHAT THE F DO YOU NOT GET ABOUT WE DID NOT HAVE TO USE NUKES TO SECURE THE KOREAN PENISULA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >>>"by not worth it I mean the political cost and not military" - right....... so the political cost of nuking Europe wouldn't be too high? You know, your major allies, major trading base, part engine of the world economy (EU has a larger economy than the US), not to mention how the rest of the world would react, including Russia who still have enough nukes to destroy everything American and China who have enough money (esp from your trading inbalance) to produce and procure thousands of nukes... get a grip mate!<<< ---I DIDNT MAKE THIS SILLY LITTLE SCENARIO. I ONLY GAVE A PROFESSIONAL ANALYSIS OF HOW IT ENDS UNLESS THE EU SURRENDERS. MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE US EUROPEAN BASES. Why the F do you think 400+ US nukes are still over there! And dont bring up the Russians. No way they get involved. >>>"You need to get it thru your thick skull that WE DID NOT LOSE IN VIETNAM. We slaughtered NVA/Viet Cong whole sale. When Vietnam fell. It fell AFTER the Peace Treaty in a separate Vietnamese on Vietnamese conventional war. If the US had been actively fighting then, it would have ended up the same way for the North. Slaughter. South Vietnam was lost by diplomats and not soldiers. A failure of diplomacy AFTER American military involvement ended. The War itself was a defeat, although temporary, of the Communist North. I dont dispute that they later came back and defeated South Vietnam. But they DID NOT DEFEAT the US Military. So given these realities, nuclear weapons were again not needed" --- Bit too proud to admit defeat are we? The one and the only never fails hey? So the US always fights other nations, incurs many thousands dead and even more wounded, and then just packs up. You had several years to make this happen mate, and it didnt! So how about you get it thru your thickskull that America lost the Vietnam war!!<<< ---Plain and simple. You are an ignorant. You should take a few military history courses and educate yourself. >>>"How you are connecting Europe to South East Asia in this context is invalid. Europe is a much more strategically important region to the US. Also if the Europeans were trying to capture hundreds of thousands of US troops on their bases and making war preparations. THis would threaten a region we consider vital to national security. To happen in the manner suggested by the original poster suggest a madman assumed power and was prepared to threaten the US directly. There is no way by doctrine or logic the US is going to let the EU deploy WMD delivery systems, conduct war preparations all while holding US troops hostage on their bases. Simple fact is that the US would destroy the EU WMD means and if the situation on the ground got out of hand Regional commanders would be able to carry out nuclear strikes on hostile forces as I showed in the Doctine. In fact go and do some research of the cold war and see what was to be done under similar circumstances against the USSR. Of course all European Military leaders know this and for that reason would never carry out the orders. Especially the non nuclear nations. FS can dream of EU glory and massive buildup but it simply would not have time and if it did. the US would still surpass it even if we did nothing." ----- right, for starters, the US would have moved the troops out of Europe, in fact that would be one of the first things they would do after some increased tension between the US and the EU, secondly, you dont just go from allies to sworn enemies as quick as free beer at a college function!<<< ---More foolish stupidity. How are you going to move 150,000 troops out in 9 days? Look at the posted timeline. Then, I already told you. Europe key terrain in US defensive posture and would be defended with nukes. As to that dumb comment about allies to enemies, look at how the cold war started or the Iranian revolution or Desert Storm!!! My God you are and ignorant cuss. >>>I just honestly cant believe how utterely ridiculous this is! Does anybody else agree with me?<<< ---No why would they? I have backed up everything with facts. Even the usual suspects are practicing the 5th ammendment. >>>IF Europe had NO nukes and NO means of producing/procuring them then id still bet london to a brick that the US would not use them, BUT, having said that, Europe DOES
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    RE:Dark America...Summary of Fall Outs Errors   9/21/2005 3:34:35 AM
-US Lost Vietnam -US Lost Korea -US Would not USE Nukes Preemptively or against a non nuke equipped OPFOR -US Could/Would withdraw from EU in 9 days without fighting
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    RE:Dark America...Fall Out   9/21/2005 4:18:05 AM
Vietnam.... Darth will not admit that America can be beat in any contest.... so there is no point is saying they lost anything to him... reminds me of a football manager who's team go down 4-3 then saying it is not really a loss as he is glad to be out of the cup because it allows him to concentrate on the league... perhaps it is best to ask who won the Vietnam war.... or ask if America achieved their war aims....
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    RE:Dark America...Summary of Fall Outs Errors   9/21/2005 4:34:00 AM
-US Lost Vietnam nobody belives that they won. many, including far better positioned people than you think they lost... what did Nixon think??? -US Lost Korea a draw that has left the area unstable for 50 years.... -US Would not USE Nukes Preemptively or against a non nuke equipped OPFOR don't see what this has to do with the EU as they have nukes....??? -US Could/Would withdraw from EU in 9 days without fighting would take far longer than 9 days to leave Europe at current force state.... but most would have left in the buildup of tensions as the respective governments withdrew the basing rights from the Americans. I saw you say something about "young civilians"?????? I thought you had said you were not in the military any more which at 30 makes you a young civilian or a middle aged civilian?
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    RE:Dark America...Paul   9/21/2005 4:51:31 AM
>>>-US Lost Vietnam nobody belives that they won. many, including far better positioned people than you think they lost... what did Nixon think???<<< ---OK post a poll in the America Board is you want to find out how wrong you are. >>>-US Lost Korea a draw that has left the area unstable for 50 years....<<< ---More stable than Europe if we are counting tensions and shooting wars in the last 50 years. >>>-US Would not USE Nukes Preemptively or against a non nuke equipped OPFOR don't see what this has to do with the EU as they have nukes....???<<< ---No, France and the UK have nukes. And in the context of this scenario the EU can hardly be said to have formed a joint doctrine. And Germany, isnt a nuclear power. You anti-US posters are always looking for ways to humble the US. What makes it funny is you almost always trip overyourselves doing so! If a nationalistic Germany surrounds US troops per the scenario. Why would it be in the interest of France or the UK to intervene on behalf of the Germans militarily? >>>-US Could/Would withdraw from EU in 9 days without fighting would take far longer than 9 days to leave Europe at current force state.... but most would have left in the buildup of tensions as the respective governments withdrew the basing rights from the Americans.<<< ---Go back and read. There is no period of tension in this scenario that would prompt any buildups or refusal of basing rights. And even if there were, short of a forced withdrawal. It would take months or years to take effect. >>>I saw you say something about "young civilians"?????? I thought you had said you were not in the military any more which at 30 makes you a young civilian or a middle aged civilian?<<< ---The reference to youth and civilian are in regard to state of mind. The same standard applied to my roughly translates to "wise General". You know my age but I'll leave you to wonder about my current status under the geneva convention.
 
Quote    Reply

fall out    RE:Dark America...Fall Out   9/21/2005 9:18:02 AM
"sigh...young civilians...WHAT THE F DO YOU NOT GET ABOUT WE DID NOT HAVE TO USE NUKES TO SECURE THE KOREAN PENISULA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" --- To secure the Korean Penisula?!!!!!!! The best you got out of it was a measly draw that has left an aggressive communist, stalinist state about to procure nuclear weapons! Yeah, you did a real good job there buddy. How about you use some common sense next time... "I DIDNT MAKE THIS SILLY LITTLE SCENARIO. I ONLY GAVE A PROFESSIONAL ANALYSIS OF HOW IT ENDS UNLESS THE EU SURRENDERS. MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE US EUROPEAN BASES. Why the F do you think 400+ US nukes are still over there! And dont bring up the Russians. No way they get involved" -- they may not get involved but that's why the troops and nukes are there for! cold war or no cold war, the bear still lumbers on... And i didnt make this silly scenario either, but your the one who harped on about the political cost being too high to USE N-U-C-L-E-A-R W-E-A-P-O-N-S in the Korean war against a non-nuclear armed foe, yet you believe that the use of nuclear weapons, in ANY scenario is feasible against the EU! HAHAHAHAHA, yup, that's right... "Plain and simple. You are an ignorant. You should take a few military history courses and educate yourself" - you've got some serious issues mate... "More foolish stupidity. How are you going to move 150,000 troops out in 9 days? Look at the posted timeline. Then, I already told you. Europe key terrain in US defensive posture and would be defended with nukes. As to that dumb comment about allies to enemies, look at how the cold war started or the Iranian revolution or Desert Storm!!! My God you are and ignorant cuss." -- Right, so you've been strong allies with at least Western Europe (and now Eastern Europe) now for over half a friggen century, and not some political marriage of common interests (aka USSR in defeating Nazi Germany or Iraq in countering an Islamic Iran) and yet you think in 9 days this could all fall apart? I never said that they could withdraw all those troops in 9 days, what i did say was that there is no way a war would start, especially between former strong allies, so quickly as to enable one side to capture the other's bases, troops, etc. America would have pulled them out a long time before this pathetic war even started and YOU KNOW IT! "No why would they? I have backed up everything with facts. Even the usual suspects are practicing the 5th ammendment" - yup, right, how have backed up the ""FACT"" that the US defeated North Vietnam or that Korea is a stable country/penisula or that the US would totally ignore France's and the UK's nuclear arms, ignore MAD and use nukes against the EU regardless of the consequences?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Your totally mad, are you 13 and in school holidays? "Well history proves this to be as igorant as your last comments. Twice" - hahaha, right, once again well backed up by those fruitfull facts mate... "No its called knowing WTF I'm talking about. Go get a clue." - yeah right mate, i dont need to be in the military to know about politics, i actually study politics too btw, but that's besides the point. You need to re-attach your cerebrum mate...
 
Quote    Reply

fall out    RE:Dark America...Summary of Fall Outs Errors   9/21/2005 9:20:52 AM
US Lost Vietnam -US Lost Korea -US Would not USE Nukes Preemptively or against a non nuke equipped OPFOR -US Could/Would withdraw from EU in 9 days without fighting --- US did lose Vietnam US had a measly draw in Korea and was never able to take over the entire Penisula against poorly armed and trained Chinese and North Korean soldiers... US would not use nukes against a NUCLEAR FRIGGEN ARMED country you friggen idiot, jesus tap dancing christ mate you are so unbelievably stupid it's not funny! US could not withdraw form their bases within 9 days as that's not what i said (nice use of facts again mate) Back to the drawing board mate...
 
Quote    Reply

fall out    RE:Dark America...Paul   9/21/2005 9:27:41 AM
"OK post a poll in the America Board is you want to find out how wrong you are." - that doesn't prove anything! most of them would agree with us and besides, about 2% of Americans have travelled overseas and 99% wouldn' be able to pick out the UK or France or Australia or Japan on a world map! "No, France and the UK have nukes. And in the context of this scenario the EU can hardly be said to have formed a joint doctrine. And Germany, isnt a nuclear power. You anti-US posters are always looking for ways to humble the US. What makes it funny is you almost always trip overyourselves doing so! If a nationalistic Germany surrounds US troops per the scenario. Why would it be in the interest of France or the UK to intervene on behalf of the Germans militarily?" --- Because your the one who's arguing about the US v the EU and also, do you honestly believe in that empty cranium of yours that France and the UK would allow the US to invade and bomb Germany and also attack them with nukes right next door to these countries?? hahaha, take a look at my username mate and then get back to me... "Go back and read. There is no period of tension in this scenario that would prompt any buildups or refusal of basing rights. And even if there were, short of a forced withdrawal. It would take months or years to take effect." -- Then this is totally useless scenario, as i said, not a chance in hell would these 2 conclomerates would go from strong allies to bitter enemies within friggen days! You pan-American posters just cant seem to handle the fact that the US is beatable and is not all powerful (and esp not all wise) as you make it out to be. Stop being so bloody arrogant...!
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics