Dear FS, 1) you can't work that hard. GV wouldn't like it ;> 2) have you considered that at any time one of our SSGNs can be ripping up all these lovely facilities? We can escalate within non-nuclear means. 400 cruise missiles would devastate your warmaking capabilities on just such critical plants. You could mitigate but not eliminate this threat. And you have no power projection capabilities which would allow you to respond in kind: you couldn't get the CdG within a thousand miles of Bermuda even if the props and everything worked. You have no massive shipborne cruise missile capability. Maybe you have some Aster 30s or Le Laser noir projects surrounding your Valduc plant, but surely you don't think you an do point defense for your entire aerospace industry? Kiss all that sweet sweet FW gear and stocks goodbye. And we can do significant interdiction of your SLOC in general - I don't know if your composites tend to use a lot of chemicals from Japan, like ours seem to, but if they do you won't be getting them. You would never let this scenario happen, for so many reasons. Not the least of which is that you think you're smarter than we are, and this would be such a bonehead play.

You also assume that both subs, or the sub, patrol within range of the US and not Russia or China or Iran. SLBMs don't go forever. And a French sub in the Indian Ocean, say, would never make it to the Atlantic once hostilities were declared.

Part of the problem is that Euro decisionmakers like our friends here don't seem to think we'd do it. Well, if one high-altitude burst wouldn't convince them we meant business without inflicting casualties, I don't know what would.

Hi, sorry if this is a stupid question but i'm not really clued on these things - If U.S. have nukes based in Europe, don't the Europeans have some way of cutting off U.S access to them?

Hi, sorry if this is a stupid question but i'm not really clued on these things - If U.S. have nukes based in Europe, don't the Europeans have some way of cutting off U.S access to them? Most of the delivery platforms are controlled by the Europeans. The nukes are in storage under US control would be handed over in case of WarPac attack.

"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." That show the whole thing as beyond silly. Rural American 'villiages' have not seen violent mobs in more than my fifty one years. The Germans (and what the hell would they be doing in such a place anyway?) might be tortured with lite beer and cake like American pizza. But lynched? No one would make the effort.

The scenario is not even semi realistic for many reasons.Moreover it imply that German governement do the first agressive movement that it would do only if force balance was more equilibrated between EU and USA.Moreover germany would need nuke to confront US.To go war you need more. A more realistic scenario would be for exemple destruction of Galileo network after a Chinese US confrontation.In such a case EU is forced to react. Even in a grave incident between France and US during French revolution with some killed, both countries did not go to war. Even in embassy tasking of hostages in Iran, US did not go to war while they had casus belli for that. Big wars needs a good reason and normally it take years of tense then a single incident to go to war.In these case both countries have improved their preparation.As Europe is lower in spending than US while in the same time stronguer in manufacturing any increase prior to a war would benefit first to Euro to reequilibrate balance.This will be also more evident considering that Europe and especially germany lead TODAY USA in machine tooling production to extend it. If US have currently 5000 planes and Euro 3000 and both 15 years old in average, if both increase their number of 3000 modern, the difference is reduced in percentage.US can benefit of a 3 years technological advance but it is really weak.Moreover US is disavantaged on mass producing because US military technology is more specific and less dual use than in Europe (especially on production ease). We should assume a scenario with a 3 to 5 years ramp up and increasing political tense. A scenario more realistic for years 2025 would be an internal civil EU war where France go dictatorship along with Germany because of muslim problem and etnic tense and made a France-German axis. When you see that attacking Iraq in GW1 need a year of tense, you would understand that for Europe it would take even more as Europeans are not Saddam. Now if we made a scenario we could for exemple extend this one with other later tense as European retaliate by siding China, then being increasely hostile to Israel or an other ally of US like Turkey. Whatever imagine after 3 years of preparation Europe come to a state it would be more confident to engage frankly US we would consider that Europe have for exemple a whoel total of 2000 Eurofighter and 1000 Rafale, 25 nuclear attack subs and 50 classical subs, and 3000 nukes, while US would have produce 600 supplementary F22 and 600 F35 and 5 Virginia to today production schedule, and did not invest more on nukes but only reactivated 4000 more to go 9000.With such a power, deterrent would be as between US and USSR and led to a new cold war. In fact in such a case US would be disavantaged by its insulation in case of naval war while Europe would be connected with exports markets in Asia via Russia and China.Just quick thoughts.