U.S.A vs. Europe

[GuerrilaWarfare 39]

I've heard a lot of answers from my friends but i want to take this discussion further then just 4 drunk

friends and I. Who would win in a great war, The United States (Canada & Mexico too) or all European Nations, excluding any Nukes.

 I personally think the U.S would win but not by a long shot.

[astronelson 339]

An interesting concept. Let's see... I think Europe would win quite handily, personally.

We shall assume, for the purposes of this discussion, a unified Europe.

The US has a population of 307,000,000 or so, Canada about 33,300,000, Mexico around 106,400,000, making a total population of 446,700,000. Europe has a population of 731,000,000. By population, Europe is ahead.

Europe can also call India, Australia, and various other nations into play through the Commonwealth of Nations, raising its effective population to around 2.7 billion.

Canada, incidentally, has Queen Elizabeth the Second as its head of state, who is also head of state of the United Kingdom.Their alliance would be shaky at best. I wouldn't be at all suprised if they joined forces with the Europeans.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Actually, the Commonweath would probably stay out of this, and mop up the victor.  The United States of America would have a tough time enlisting Mexico, let alone us, in such an adventure.

This is a rather neat way to re-establish the British Empire and to get the New World territories back into the fold.  We could finally deal with the rebellion of 1775 as it should have been.

[Meastro444 1]

o.0 A Canadian who wants to go back to the times of the Empire?

[Duke87 1,070]

Yup, this sounds like the sort of dscussion that would crop up between four drunk guys alright.

At the risk of actually engaging.... whose turf are we fighting on? Europe or US? That could very well be the deciding factor right there. Modern warfare tends to have a home field disadvantage. It really hinders fighting efforts when stuff is getting blown up in your country and your people are all fleeing for the hills. This is a key part of what allowed the US such a huge role in WWII - no fighting was happening over here.

[GuerrilaWarfare 39]

the likely hood of any other country besides Mexico and Canada entering the U.S during a war is most likely not going to happen and since not all European countries are fully developed i'd say the war would take place in places like Albania, Serbia, Macedonia, etc. But on who's turf it's on wouldn't really change the concept of war.

[Meastro444 1]

Originally posted by: GuerrilaWarfare

the likely hood of any other country besides Mexico and Canada entering the U.S during a war is most likely not going to happen and since not all European countries are fully developed i'd say the war would take place in places like Albania, Serbia, Macedonia, etc. But on who's turf it's on wouldn't really change the concept of war.quote>

That would be pretty hard to get to for the us since it has to cross roughly 60% of the Mediterreanian. It would have to conquer Europe to get there.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: Meastro444

o.0 A Canadian who wants to go back to the times of the Empire?quote>

You bet.  If it wasn't for the French Revolution and the Americans, all the colonies and dominions would still be intact.  Remember, I am a child of the empire, and have watched its dismemberment over my lifetime.

As far as the locale of the war is concerned, it would be world wide.  Nukes may have been ruled out, but not missles.  Guidance systems being what they are, I would expect some bunker busters to land in Washington, DC, and all the capitals of the participants.  So you could wave goodbye to places such as Rotterdam, Amsterdan, Copenhagen, Berlin, Hamburg, Rome, Vienna, etc.

Drunken stupidity.  Everyone loses, except us since we would not participate even if someone blew up Ottawa.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Meastro444

Originally posted by: GuerrilaWarfare

the likely hood of any other country besides Mexico and Canada entering the U.S during a war is most likely not going to happen and since not all European countries are fully developed i'd say the war would take place in places like Albania, Serbia, Macedonia, etc. But on who's turf it's on wouldn't really change the concept of war.quote>

That would be pretty hard to get to for the us since it has to cross roughly 60% of the Mediterreanian. It would have to conquer Europe to get there.quote>

Which wouldn't necessarily be that difficult.  The US is researching a bomb that is theoretically capable of defeating France in a single blast.  (The US is currently researching weapons that make the US nuclear arsenal look weak.)

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: hym

Which wouldn't necessarily be that difficult.  The US is researching a bomb that is theoretically capable of defeating France in a single blast.  (The US is currently researching weapons that make the US nuclear arsenal look weak.)

quote>

Ok I wont make a joke about how you would not even need a bomb to defeat france

[GuerrilaWarfare 39]

although the war is afflicted with major world powers, such as the U.S, U.K, France, etc. I guess in all fairness all alies of either side of the fight are allowed to support their sister country. For example if the U.S needed help, " maybe" Russia would help out a little. Just an example.

[un1 40]

Canada would not participate, relations are to high and if I know my country well enough we try to improve them, not destroy them.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Originally posted by: hym

Which wouldn't necessarily be that difficult.  The US is researching a bomb that is theoretically capable of defeating France in a single blast.  (The US is currently researching weapons that make the US nuclear arsenal look weak.)

quote>

Ok I wont make a joke about how you would not even need a bomb to defeat france

quote>

Just because they have a bad track record doesn't mean something hasn't sunk in to those steel-trap intellects, even if they are rusted shut.  France will never be much until they restore the monarchy of the Bourbons.  They have been going through editions of their republic like cookies at a kids party.  Too many old men.

I have never been in a country more conservative.  They seem to think the world still revolves around L'Arc de Triomphe.

[Duke87 1,070]

I dunno, this idea that back when kings ruled we somehow had the "glory days" seems rather romanticized to me. An awful lot of advances have been made in the post-monarchal (western) world. And any time someone has risen to dictatorial status since then it hasn't ended well.

[astronelson 339]

While the discussion of the pros and cons of monarchies and the restoration of the British Empire is a rather interesting topic, it is not within the scope of this thread.

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: Meastro444

Originally posted by: GuerrilaWarfare

the likely hood of any other country besides Mexico and Canada entering the U.S during a war is most likely not going to happen and since not all European countries are fully developed i'd say the war would take place in places like Albania, Serbia, Macedonia, etc. But on who's turf it's on wouldn't really change the concept of war.quote>

That would be pretty hard to get to for the us since it has to cross roughly 60% of the Mediterreanian. It would have to conquer Europe to get there.quote>

Which wouldn't necessarily be that difficult.  The US is researching a bomb that is theoretically capable of defeating France in a single blast.  (The US is currently researching weapons that make the US nuclear arsenal look weak.)quote>

Would that be a nuclear fusion device? I thought those had already been developed. I find it hard to believe it would defeat France in a single blast in any case.

[sneakeypete 16]

Originally posted by: hym

Which wouldn't necessarily be that difficult.  The US is researching a bomb that is theoretically capable of defeating France in a single blast.  (The US is currently researching weapons that make the US nuclear arsenal look weak.)

quote>

I'm sure everyone is reasearching one. and a fair few other superweapons too. However, history seems to show that gradual improvement of current ideas is the wy military technology will go, (with the excpetion perhaps of the nuclear bomb, yet even then that's just a bigger version of a regular bomb).

[Meastro444 1]

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: Meastro444

Originally posted by: GuerrilaWarfare

the likely hood of any other country besides Mexico and Canada entering the U.S during a war is most likely not going to happen and since not all European countries are fully developed i'd say the war would take place in places like Albania, Serbia, Macedonia, etc. But on who's turf it's on wouldn't really change the concept of war.quote>

That would be pretty hard to get to for the us since it has to cross roughly 60% of the Mediterreanian. It would have to conquer Europe to get there.quote>

Which wouldn't necessarily be that difficult.  The US is researching a bomb that is theoretically capable of defeating France in a single blast.  (The US is currently researching weapons that make the US nuclear arsenal look weak.)

quote>

What I meant was actually landing people and fighting vehicles and such. Not nuke everything into oblivion.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Meastro444

What I meant was actually landing people and fighting vehicles and such. Not nuke everything into oblivion.

quote>

I wasn't talking about nuking anything either.  Due to the fact that the political climate is one of promoting international nuclear disarmament, the US is researching replacement weapons.  These new weapons (in theory) actually carry more destructive power than their nuclear cousins.  Some are even designed to use the Earth as a weapon.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

hym, it is not nice to cause earthquakes!  If all the money that goes into advanced methods of killing people went into hunanitarian causes, the world would be a better place.  Just remember that the last time the U.S. had a bicker with the Empire, now Commonwealth of Nations, we had to give you back Detroit in the peace treaty.  War sucks.

Our friend guerrillawarfare needs to grow up.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: astronelson

Would that be a nuclear fusion device? I thought those had already been developed. I find it hard to believe it would defeat France in a single blast in any case.quote>

Actually, no.  It's a traditional fission bomb used to drive an EMP device.  Detonate one at high altitude and not only do you get the effects of a high altitude nuclear explosion (which are quite terrifying by themselves), but you've coupled that with a device designed to harness the power of the nuclear blast and turn it into an EMP blast so powerful that the resulting voltage spike across the nation's electrical grid turns every electrical device into a bomb.

The US has already developed a nuclear EMP device with an effective radius believed to be several hundred miles.  However, high altitude nuclear blasts have some nasty side effects, so the US is researching how to achieve the same EMP blast without using a nuke to power it.

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

hym, it is not nice to cause earthquakes!quote>

Earthquakes are only part of the research.  DARPA has expressed interest in learning how to use the ionosphere as a weapon also.  Environmental warfare is being looked at very seriously as the future of weaponry in a post-nuclear world.

Our friend guerrillawarfare needs to grow up.quote>

Let's avoid talking about the other members, eh?

[Meastro444 1]

Cheaters! I tell you! Cheats!

[iuri99 48]

"Eye by eye, and everybody will be blind."

Human destroing humans... Families destroing families...

God will never allow it.

[sneakeypete 16]

Originally posted by: hym

, but you've coupled that with a device designed to harness the power of the nuclear blast and turn it into an EMP blast so powerful that the resulting voltage spike across the nation's electrical grid turns every electrical device into a bomb.

quote>

Care to explain that one mate?

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: sneakeypete

Originally posted by: hym

, but you've coupled that with a device designed to harness the power of the nuclear blast and turn it into an EMP blast so powerful that the resulting voltage spike across the nation's electrical grid turns every electrical device into a bomb.

quote>

Care to explain that one mate?quote>

I'm not totally sure on the physics about how the nuclear blast to EMP blast conversion process works (it took the US roughly 60 years to figure it out using the services of people who know more about this than I do), but the basic process goes something like this: A nuclear bomb is released high in the atmosphere above the target country and detonated.  Inside the bomb is a special EMP bomb designed to withstand the nuclear blast.  Furthermore, this bomb is designed to harvest the energy of the nuclear blast and use it to charge the EMP weapon.  Once the EMP weapon is at the desired range from target, the device releases it's electrical charge.  The resulting electric potential differential is so extreme that the electrical grid of the target nation is overwhelmed by the voltage of the current traveling along it.  The highest voltage that most electrical grids are equipped to handle is roughly 525 kilovolts.  In contrast, it is believed that the voltage of a nuclear-powered EMP could be as high as several terravolts.  Voltages like that destroy everything in their path, and the affected electrical devices literally explode as they fail.

[iuri99 48]

WTF ??

Electrical charge, are u crazy ?

No , no, no. Nuclear energy aren't electrical charge, and the power shutdown when bomb explodes i'ts because high magnetism.

Magnetism shutdown the power, at the same way the electrical energy are "created" by magnetism.

Bomb haven't electrical potential dispositive, however if the bomb had, it's stupidly.

Because air its a electrical isolant.

525 Kv are nothing in belic vision, every 1 cm of air isolates 10Kv.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

A giant EMP blast is bound to have side-effects a.k.a. collateral damage.  This is the kind of paranoid weapon only a madman would even consider.  Why can't we have peace without all the stupid theats.

I take you now to Mr. H.G. Wells "Shape of Things to Come".  How about somethng like a Gas of Peace?  Better to knock everyone out than to kill them.

[iuri99 48]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

A giant EMP blast is bound to have side-effects a.k.a. collateral damage.  This is the kind of paranoid weapon only a madman would even consider.  Why can't we have peace without all the stupid theats.

I take you now to Mr. H.G. Wells "Shape of Things to Come".  How about somethng like a Gas of Peace?  Better to knock everyone out than to kill them.

quote>

EXCELENT IDEA, and Honor Behavior, but Utopic at this time.

For me, nations do not care about others... Peace can't be found  in a human government.

And knock people cause several damages too:

Hidrelectrical operators, train controlers, air trafic controllers...

No peacefull how as it seems.

[morriswalters 16]

Read this article if your interested in EMP weapons.  EMP eapons do not have to kill anyone as for maximum effect they happen at high altitude.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse

In terms of a conflict between The US and Europe, ain't gonna happen, I don't care how drunk the four guys are.  During WW2 fleets could disappear at sea, not today.  Nobody in their right mind would attempt an invasion without secure lines of supply and in a general conflict there would be no such animal.  To many eyes in the sky.  Think what you might of the French they have some very dangerous air to sea missiles as do the Brits.  Don't bank to much on the superiority of the American Submarine fleet either.  Remember the Chinese Sub Skipper who surfaced in the middle of one of our Carrier Groups?  The invasion at Normandy during WW2 could have easily failed and the gap was just , what, 20 miles, not the width of the Atlantic.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: iuri99

Bomb haven't electrical potential dispositive, however if the bomb had, it's stupidly.

Because air its a electrical isolant.

525 Kv are nothing in belic vision, every 1 cm of air isolates 10Kv.quote>

That doesn't stop lightning.

You're right, though: EMPs aren't electricity. They are pulses of electromagnetic radiation (gamma rays, x-rays, microwaves, radio waves, etc.). That's why it's called an ElectroMagnetic Pulse.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

hym, it is not nice to cause earthquakes!  If all the money that goes into advanced methods of killing people went into hunanitarian causes, the world would be a better place.  Just remember that the last time the U.S. had a bicker with the Empire, now Commonwealth of Nations, we had to give you back Detroit in the peace treaty.  War sucks.

Our friend guerrillawarfare needs to grow up.

quote>

you think they would take Detroit back?