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
DarthAmerica    Hey mate...   9/21/2005 11:04:32 AM
...In case you want historical examples of all the things I have told you. Suez Crisis Cuban Missiles Crises Berlin Blockage Hiroshima Nagasaki Taiwan Straight Crisis And for Official Reading, if you can find it now. NSPD-17 JP 3-12 And others I cant refer to right now. While you are at it, Paris Peace Accords And also read the goals of the Korean War. Then compare Koreas 50 year history to Europe and see whos more stable. I'm going to start charging tuition!
 
Quote    Reply

fall out    RE:Hey mate...   9/21/2005 9:45:57 PM
"Suez Crisis - so what? an imperialistic fight over some canal. Were there nukes involved? No Cuban Missiles Crises - the closest we (according to public records anyway) came to a nuclear war, YET, surprise, surprise, there still wasn't a war, let alone nukes involved! Why? Coz both sides had the means to destroy each other (as does Europe and hence why you wouldn't touch em and vice versa!) Berlin Blockage - So what? What does this prove? Absolutely nothing? Mate, your clutching at straws... Hiroshima - To end the most destructuve war in history and prevent an invasion which would cost millions (and ill say it again, Japan wasn't armed with nukes) Nagasaki - See above Taiwan Straight Crisis - So what? They have a crisis every now and then so the CCP can look as though they practice some sort of govt over Taiwan (fat chance!). No war, no nukes... And for Official Reading, if you can find it now. NSPD-17 - again, does not prove anything against a nuclear armed nation/s! JP 3-12 - and see above And others I cant refer to right now. While you are at it, Paris Peace Accords - yeah.... And also read the goals of the Korean War. Then compare Koreas 50 year history to Europe and see whos more stable. - oh yeah, the Balkans were under the thumb of the Soviets for much of that time, you know, during that time called something like the Cold War, you may have heard of it? Now? The Balkans are settled (as much as they can be), the Bear is sleeping once again and Europe is WAYYYYYYYY more stable than the Korean penisula or for the entire Asia-Pacific region for that matter... I'm going to start charging tuition! - And im going to start giving you a brain! You have proved nothing and backed it up with absoltely nothing. The US lost Vietnam, and believe me i take no pleasure in saying this as, you may not know, but about 50,000 Australians were involved in that war and about 500 or so died. But we (does that help, it's not just the US) LOST! Korea was a pathetic draw, the Cold War never went hot and ever since the invention of nuclear weapons there has not been one major conflict between major powers armed with the most destructive weapon in history. Nukes are the best thing for peace, just think of them as an extremely expensive insurance policy against (major) war... Back to the drawing board...
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    What are they smoking in the land down under!   9/21/2005 10:13:56 PM
>>>"Suez Crisis - so what? an imperialistic fight over some canal. Were there nukes involved? No<<< ---Wrong. Ask FS about this in particular. AND it counters your BS that Allies dont fight. http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/30-60147.asp >>>Cuban Missiles Crises - the closest we (according to public records anyway) came to a nuclear war, YET, surprise, surprise, there still wasn't a war, let alone nukes involved! Why? Coz both sides had the means to destroy each other (as does Europe and hence why you wouldn't touch em and vice versa!)<<< ---Wrong. Both sides did not have that ability. Only the US had it, and it was en route to the Soviet Union and they knew it. >>>Berlin Blockage - So what? What does this prove? Absolutely nothing? Mate, your clutching at straws...<<< ---Wrong, and thats strike three. It counters your absurd arguement that Allies dont go from friend to foe real quick. You should read Chapter 2 and 3 of Unrestricted War. >>>Hiroshima - To end the most destructuve war in history and prevent an invasion which would cost millions (and ill say it again, Japan wasn't armed with nukes) Nagasaki - See above<<< ---Counters your arguement that US would not nuke Europe if they had no nukes. Remember you bet a "London Brick". http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/30-60147.asp >>>Taiwan Straight Crisis - So what? They have a crisis every now and then so the CCP can look as though they practice some sort of govt over Taiwan (fat chance!). No war, no nukes...<<< ---Because the CCP fears US Nukes silly. >>>And for Official Reading, if you can find it now. NSPD-17 - again, does not prove anything against a nuclear armed nation/s! JP 3-12 - and see above<<< ---You are being just plain pig headed now. READ THE G D Documents! Here I'll help you. http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/30-59809.asp
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    RE:Dark America...Paul   9/22/2005 4:43:02 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. these boards are populated by nationalistic right wingers from all countries.. hardly a fair place to get a general opinion. if I posted the question on the American board then I should also post it on the Vietnam board.... and the world board... I will ask it here if you want? the average American at home does not think they won the Vietnam war???? back in 75/76 they certainly thought they lost... I remember watching the Vietnam war happen on tv and nobody in the UK thought they did anyhting other than lose.(well actually I was stationed in Germany..) what goals did the US achive in the Vietnam war? certainly not the ones they went in to achieve when they started... I cannot belive that you actually think that the US won the Vietnam war???? perhaps you mean they did not lose and are using pseudo legalease? to me saying that the US did not lose the Vietnam war is like saying that Iraq did not lose GW1...
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    RE:Hey mate...   9/22/2005 5:13:09 AM
And also read the goals of the Korean War. Then compare Koreas 50 year history to Europe and see whos more stable. are you talking about the EU or the whole of geographic Europe with its 30ish seperate countries and numerous ethnic groupings split amongst these over the last 3000 years???? what do you mean by stable??? chance of war breaking out? actual war breaking out, deaths per head of population due to violence??? I'm going to start charging tuition! I would happily take a class with you as tutor but I doubt that you are teaching the curiculum that the exam boards have set... :-)
 
Quote    Reply

mightypeon    Oh my god I have created a monster.....   9/22/2005 6:12:36 AM
After having tried to talk a semblance of sense into our fellow darthy in a situation more suitable to talking sense into him than this, (and the thing I got in return was the "Darth bible") it seems that this task is impossible to achieve without applying methods similiar to neural surgery. I consider the experiment of getting a reasonable and civil discussion on such a highly hypothetical matter as failed. have a nice day.
 
Quote    Reply

fall out    RE:Oh my god I have created a monster.....   9/22/2005 10:08:30 AM
everybody know's he's ultra-nationalistic Republican BS artist cob, but i like going toe to toe with him, ill keep going on and on as long as he keeps going on... ;)
 
Quote    Reply

jlb    RE:Suez - FO   9/22/2005 12:36:54 PM
"Suez Crisis - so what? an imperialistic fight over some canal. Were there nukes involved? No" Actually, yes, but in a way that supports your views: In 1956 the British deterrent was in its infancy (probably about 10 Blue Danube 15kt bombs total) and France didn't have nukes at all. For different reasons, both the USA and the USSR were opposed to Franco-British intervention. The USSR threatened nuclear attack if operation Musketeer wasn't cancelled and the troops withdrawned. The USA declined to support their NATO allies. (it's interesting to note here that the reasons for the intervention were very similar to the reasons why the US/UK put the Shah in power in Iran) Without a credible deterrent, Franco-British forces were forced to retire. It is not an accident that the decision for France to go nuclear was made right after Suez. And an aside about Vietnam: The French army likes to pretend they won the Algerian war. Yeah, sure... But I suppose Darth would agree with them? :D And it's also interesting that Darth resorted to the bible as the ultimate reference. Darth, please, show me or point me to just one - 1 - historical proof that Jesus Christ is not a complete myth. just one. make my day.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    jlb   9/22/2005 2:35:23 PM
>>>Darth, please, show me or point me to just one - 1 - historical proof that Jesus Christ is not a complete myth. just one. make my day.<<< ---No Problem. The Bible and the Koran. Try reading them. Ancient text from his time period should be more than enough "proof". Now I encourage you to read 2 Corinthians 5:7. "Walk by faith and not by sight". I am qualified to be a Minister of Your Salvation or the Minister of Death. Now as to the Suez Crisis. It was not because of the USSR threat of nuclear attack that the US stopped the EU. It was because of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and the political mess surrounding that event. The EU's timing was inconsistent with US foreign policy. The way it involves nukes is because the EU had NO WAY to question the US given that they had no nuclear weapons. This is when France decided tp develop its own weapons. In 1956 the Soviets were in no way able to fight a Nuclear war. In 1956 the US had about 2100 warheads and 1000+ bombers while the Soviets had 120 warheads and about 40 bombers that were short ranged. There is no way the USSR could win with a lop sided situation of that magnitude. But France and UK with 0 weapons literally were at the mercy of the US/USSR. Nuclear weapons decided the day.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    RE:Oh my god I have created a monster.....mightypeon   9/22/2005 2:39:56 PM
>>>I consider the experiment of getting a reasonable and civil discussion on such a highly hypothetical matter as failed.<<< ---What failed is your logic in creating this scenario. You have created a scenario that could never take place because you have failed to account for the nuclear possibilities. Probably due to a lack of experience or research. Scroll through the thread. Its not just me saying that to you. And you have hardly created any monsters. I've been debunking myths here long before you posted.
 
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