>>>This isn't about opinions, countries dont fight other countries with nukes, it's never happened before (came very close numerous times) and there is not ONE single point in launching them due to the economic and political costs, let alone the military costs of not... Opportunity costs mate... :)<<<--Fallout ---This is idealism at its best. This kind of thinking would get any SAO or General fired. You really really need to read NSPD-17 and then all the supporting documents. And there are a hundred thousand+ troops in Europe, some with nuclear weapons. Think about that. Here is an OFFICIAL REFERENCES: ************************************************************************************** (1) Geographic combatant commanders may request Presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons for a variety of conditions. Examples include: (a) An adversary using or intending to use WMD against US, multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations. (b) Imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy. (c) Attacks on adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons or the C2 infrastructure required for the adversary to execute a WMD attack against the United States or its friends and allies. (d) To counter potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces, including mobile and area targets (troop concentration). (e) For rapid and favorable war termination on US terms. (f) To ensure success of US and multinational operations. (g) To demonstrate US intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD. (h) To respond to adversary-supplied WMD use by surrogates against US and multinational forces or civilian populations." ***************************************************************************************** >>>Well, it may be true that my knowledge about American doctrine as well as the abiltiy of their Nuke assets to strike when hostile forces are in the door is far from perfect, however, which would be the nicer outcome: A) Have several thousands pow in pretty neat camps (I am quite sure that the EU/USA war would be the one with the best pow threatment ever)<<< ---See above to find out why this cant happen. >>>B) have these thousands killed by your own Nuclear wepaons, receive severe hits by nukes on your own soil, with the good thing beeing that Europe would be toast. Oh, you would also be the worlds new phariah.<<< ---Our nukes arent going to kill our own troops. This statement by you suggest that you are unfamiliar with nuclear weapons effects. Google this word, STRIKEWARN. That no one else mentioned this to you should suggest that you are having this discussion with unqualified people. Also, the U.S. would not become a Pariah for defending itself. >>>However, I do wonder how a convientional aerial attack by the US carrier flett on the Mediterran would work out<<< ---It would not happen under your scenario because the CSF would move out of the Med Prior to hostilities. If it didnt, it would fight its way out. >>>, I wonder wether the EU would be able to block the Suez channel,<<< ---No. >>>and I am also unsure about the level(if any) of Turkish resistance should the American Irak force push northwards.<<< ---Push North? For what? >>>These are things significantly more fruitfull discuss than a Nuclear exchange.<<< ---You dont have any idea what constitutes a fruitful discussion. The nuclear aspect of this crisis will define its nature as it has every other conflict since 1945. >>>It would be also intersting to evaluate the ability of the US to beat indivudal EU countries (like f.e. Italy or Greece) in a very fast conventional way to induce a domino effect.<<< ---No EU country could survive a conflict with the United States longer than 180 days and in most cases 30 days. >>>Another question, does anyone have the number of North sea Oil rigs as well as their importance to the EU?<<<---mightypeon ---Becareful who you talk to about this. THERE ARE LOTS of misguided people here. Start with this: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/contents.html >>>Mith... why is it that your points talk only of France firing nukes at US and then say EU destroyed? EU implies UK involved... you toss nukes at the EU involving the UK and they would have to fire them back.... may even have Russian involvement from how others have moved the scenario... a first strike would be detected and responded to before it hits home as both sides will be looking for the buildup for it and planning for it. your dud ratio is a bit high for western tech? also since the scenario has a build up period it is safe to assume

If Iraq dissolves, expect a stronger Turkey & Iran, expect nuclear armed Turkey & Iran. Now there is no reason, but Islam could go West. Start with Greece & Bulgaria.

Wow! Former pacific region commonwealth educational standards have really slipped, haven't they? Fine short order cooks and retail workers though, I suppose. v^2 :(

How many US Posters on this thread agree to launch a Nuclear attack on Europe and be exposed to retaliation ? Cheers .

if there was to be a conflict with the US attacking the EU then there would need to be a significant buildup to it with all sides changing policies and structures... those who had nukes are going to use them tactically. in the case of France (since France always seems to be the target on this board) if this provokes a US strike on mainland France (as is suggested my many) then France would strike mainland USA. some say that the French strike will not ammount to much damage and the US can recover..(I call 10-20 biggest cities gone a lot of damage but that is just me) if it is even possible to recover from.... it will take a very long time in which the US would not be the number 1 world player and may never regain its position. now this scenario is with current the arms level.... France under increasing failing relations with the US that looks like it is going to end up with a US attack will build up arms. so there will be more nukes.... now France cannot hope to outgun the US as they do not have the lauch capacity and any new land based lauch capacity would be subject to first strike/sabotage. no reliable hit ratio from these or SSBN in a conventional (hah!) nuclear exchange as there may be some effective NMD in place on the east coast by the time of the scenario. so not only will they increase ICBMs and other missiles but they would make SADMs as fast as they could. this gives the ability to ignore NMD completely.... these would be placed where they fancy in the last months of the breakdown in relations and be used when needed in response to a strategic strike by the US. basically there is very little that can be done to counter highly trained operatives who will be bringing in these SADMs as the US borders are not impregnable even in this time of hightened security with regards to terrorism. whether they come over via Mexico, Canada or into main US ports as "legitimate" cargo... thoughts????

after absorbing a full nuke release by even the french alone much less the british contribution it's really hard to see how the US is going to be able to invade anyone for some years at least. the damage to the logistics systems alone would collapse the economy in a heartbeat. if you've ever watched Dark Angel that would be a fairly optimistic view of things for years after the war. given the amount of damage done only gixx is going to think of invading someone else at that point.

Just for $hits and giggles I'll list for you 20% (conventionial) 250 F16's, 150 F15's,20 B52's,5 B2's, 20 B1's, 150 F18's, 5 F22's, 3 carriers, 7 LA class, 10 F117's. you can have the biggest hammer in the world and if you cannot bring it to the fight it's worth approximately nada. most of those aircraft don't have the range to reach europe without a base a whole lot closer than new york.

Wow! Former pacific region commonwealth educational standards have really slipped, haven't they? Fine short order cooks and retail workers though, I suppose. v^2 speak about slipping standards hehe. "former" gee did they move australia out of the pacific lately? you should try sticking to one posting name OW.

First of all this stupid as I said before.As far as range goes, it is unlimited when you are the US miltary.(or damn close)England will not ally with France/Germany in a attack on the US military.Who do you think has more clout with NATO huh?If ...and I do mean if.. we want to hit you, we can.. don't fool yourself...please! What is range of a cruise missle???huh?? Crash

You have made the point many times that you know more than we do regarding nearly every aspect of military studies, so surely it is better to let us stew in our own ignorance rather than spend a frankly phenomenal amount of time online trying fruitlessly to cure us of our European inferiority complex? I don't say this out of any kind of rancor, as you seem to me to be quite a nice - if misinformed - person, but aren't you wasting you time? You disagree with us, we disagree with you, can't we just let every (and I mean every) future US v EU thread alone for the trolls, while concentrating our attentions on interesting debate that might actually have some relevance? Let's abandon these threads, shake our heads ruefully about the stupidity of our respective cousins across the pond and try our best to bring Strategypage back to the glory days of yore ;) many regards Norvicension