BF2S Forums Europe decides, U.S.A. has gone far enough !

Longbow wrote:

Erkut.hv , according to you , this fucken drunk russians achive victory fighting against 7\10 of Vermaht .
You think using stereotypes , nothing more i need to say about this.
You need to add that tigers and bears walk in the srteets of Sibir cityes and my opinion about you will be complete .

If the nukes wasn't created , your dear US wouldn't exist right now . Your politics sux , it is full of egoism . Many countryes hate you , milliards of people hate you .
The only thing , that stops lots of countryes to declare war to US is Nukes. Thats all i wanted to say.

<off topic rant>I'm 1/2 pinko jackass, calm down. I believe I STEREOTYPED EVERYBODY IN MY FUCKING POST.

See, selective reading. I insulted whites, blacks, and overly sensitive Russians in my post. Guess which part you picked up on?

Take a joke man, the fact this is even a topic is laughable.

BTW: ZYR is the best Vodka I have ever drank.

In closing, Ya prastitye. I'll choose my words more carefully next time.... you overly sensitive little bitch. I hope one of those tigers eats you, craps you out, then pisses on the crap that used to be you.
</off topic rant>

<{SoE}>Agamemnar wrote:

Pretty sure even if europe attacked the U.S, Canada would ally with the Americans.

Actually as part of the commonwealth they are as much a part of the UK as Hawaii is part of the USA.
Land invasions are impossible, as neither army if both declared war before trying to move troops could get an army to eithers borders.
Also people seem to be thinking Europe is like 5 countries, Russia is part of Europe so saying Europe and Russia is pointless, but to keep it to just Europe and the USA means no Canada, Australia or any other allies just these 2 going at it.
Personally I think the war would be over before a single missile were fired, to win a war all you need to do is remove those in power, and removing 1 set of leaders is easier than removing 30+ sets of leaders, and with special forces such as the British SAS which is one of the best special forces in the world, they alone I believe would end the war, I don't believe it would be a problem for the SAS to infiltrate the USA in any which way possible and end the war with the assasination of the USA leaders.
If the war didn't go this way then numbers are actually in favour of the Europeans, they have the third largest population of all the continents, beaten only by Asia and Africa, and given the quality of weapons and productions they could churn out they could match the USA gun for gun and plane for plane if they focused on war production.
Either way the war would be bloody and end up crippling the world no matter which side won.

Before I vent my Ire, I wish to note for the record that I understand we are talking about Allies, which in actuality would never fight each other.

JaegerEX wrote:

Land invasions are impossible, as neither army if both declared war before trying to move troops could get an army to eithers borders.

Did you just say that Canada could prevent an American Invasion?  Please tell me I am misunderstanding.  I don't think I am because any EU/US attack wouldn't, by necessity, be a land invasion.  If you are talking about Canada:  Canada has 56,000 men in uniform, the US has 1.4 Million.  You do the math.

JaegerEX wrote:

Personally I think the war would be over before a single missile were fired, to win a war all you need to do is remove those in power, and removing 1 set of leaders is easier than removing 30+ sets of leaders, and with special forces such as the British SAS which is one of the best special forces in the world, they alone I believe would end the war, I don't believe it would be a problem for the SAS to infiltrate the USA in any which way possible and end the war with the assasination of the USA leaders.

Come on, please.  1) The US is not an Autocratic state.  Killing our leaders would result in a prolonged fight.  2) No Special Operations force in the world is capable of doing what you seem to think they can do.  NONE.  They are men, not magicians.  Highly trained, skilled and motivated, but still men.  The fact that you would even say something like that tells me that you have no military experience, and no understanding of what you are saying.

JaegerEX wrote:

If the war didn't go this way then numbers are actually in favour of the Europeans, they have the third largest population of all the continents, beaten only by Asia and Africa, and given the quality of weapons and productions they could churn out they could match the USA gun for gun and plane for plane if they focused on war production.

Here's the thing.  Europe, that is all of the countries of the EU combined, JUST begins to approach the numbers of men and equipment the US has.  Even so, they can't move them.  They have no rapid deployment capability greater than on the Battalion level.  The idea that they could move their men and equipment fast enough to attack the US anywhere is ridiculous...but I have already discussed this in detail.  Go back and read what I wrote a few posts back.

Wasder wrote:

Russia would pwn all single-handedly, but I'd love to see my country join EU.

Whatever.  You do understand that the current Russian army is a crippled shadow of the Red Army, right?  Your conscrips are busy beating up and extorting newer conscripts, and your officers use the troops to build Dachas instead of training.  The quality of the Russian army has declined since the old days, my friend.

I think many of the people here actually have no concept of the numbers of troops and equipment their countries actually have.  These numbers might be a little old, so just consider them a guide...but they should give a snapshot of relative strength of the top armies in the world, as relative military budgets haven't changed much (well, the US's and China's might have grown a bit relative to the others).  I have listed these in order of what I personally believe their combat capabilities to be.  I'd be happy to discuss that if anyone disagrees.

US - 1400K Men, 32,000 Armor, 7600 Aircraft, 200 ships (3,000K tons)
PRC - 2100K Men, 14,500 Armor, 3300 Aircraft, 219 ships (346K tons)
RUS - 850K Men, 18,000 Armor, 2100 Aircraft, 187 ships, (908K tons)
UK - 210K Men, 4100 Armor, 420 Aircraft, 102 ships (510K tons)
GER - 280K Men, 6600 Armor, 400 Aircraft, 110 ships (120K tons)
FR - 250K Men, 5500 Armor, 450 Aircraft, 43 ships (197K tons)
CAN - 56K Men, 2400 Armor, 140 Aircraft, 20 ships (78K tons)
AUS - 50K Men, 640 Armor, 140 Aircraft, 16 ships (57K tons)

I think the aircraft is just combat aircraft (i.e. airlift not included).  The ship numbers should be compared with the tonnage.  Lots of ships + low tonnage = lots of small ships.  Armor includes AFV's.

Please also note that, while the absolute numbers aren't meaningless, they don't tell the whole story either.  Lots of Russian equpment is in poor condition and unservicable, Russian Chinese and EU equipment is not compatible.  And, as I keep saying, the only one of these countries with any real logistical capabilities is the US.

Now that you have a little information, please use some common sense before I hear "Singapore could kick America's Ass" or something equally ignorant again.  Like I said, I'm happy to discuss, but I won't bother commenting on flames or outrageously ignorant comments anymore.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-03-07 10:35:06)

Any military conflict between US and Europe(including Russia) is nearly impossible. Land war is a joke.
    Air/sea, hmmm it is possible but... Even if one side has more planes it does not mean that this side will win. (Countries don't have the same crappy AA like in pre-1.2 BF2).
    Ballistic rockets? Could be, but if you launch one you should know that the same deadly rockets will land on your head in a few minutes. It seems that there is no way for Europe/US to do something.
    But.... US is the world's #1 in import/export. This is the way US economy stands. Economy is strong, but it is a weak point of any country. So if Europe will decide to cut off US from the market, boycott US goods, stop exporting oil/resources to the US...US economy will collapse very soon without import/export. I live in the US and I see how this country depends on resoures (ex. oil). And I'm not afraid to say that Europe can live without US, but US can't live without Europe. No world market = US will have a very hard time.

Last edited by Dr.Battlefield (2006-03-07 12:17:54)

I think once it started, Europe would be too divided to finish anything and Russia would've run out of money to finance the war on its own. The French would immediately surrender, the Swiss would claim neutrality, the Germans would seize their chance and attack France...again, and the Italians would defect to the US side once the tide of the war changed. In the end we would come to the aid of the rest of Europe and Russia because the Germans were kicking everyone's a$$ again. History always repeats itself...

Spy satellites ( the U.S.A. could collect the satellites Europe has of military value with its Shuttle. oh! and no more shuttle Rides for Europeans during War )

wtf russia is part of the eu and the russians have space capabilities as well not the us alone
and china has bases to luanch schuttles

I don't think it would ever be possible for a country to invade and defeat the US. I mean, it just wouldn't work. First, the invaders would need public support in their home countries. A war not backed by the majority of the people is doomed to fail. Second, the invasion force would actually have to get to American soil. Our Navy and Air Force are very strong, and would inflict many casualties. Once an invasion force lands on American soil, they have to duke it out with our military. I would bet that if attacked in mass, our troops would be brought back home to fight. Then we have the possiblity of all of us Americans without gun simply driving down the road to our local Wal-Mart and buying guns and ammo. America has 275+ million people. Even if only 1 in 10 take up arms that is still 27.5 million. That is a hell of a lot of people picking up arms. And I know between my family and some of my friends' families, we are better armed than our local police force. I don't think any combined force has the power to surpress both the United States military and the American people.

if there were no nukes involved, and China and India werent involved, i think the US would win, especially if defending. The only strength Russia had comparatively was the nukes, and they did have much more than the us. in numbers, russia is like the north pole, with only some cities and areas of population where its not so cold. Of course, being American im a little biased but looking past that, America does have a better military. The first move in the war would be to throw Bush at your army as bait, and when you do all sorts of horrible things to him, we sign a peace treaty. That, and no one can beat Chuck Norris.

The UK had the largest navy back in WW1, but it didnt help a whole lot, because the germans had their wolf packs of u boats, and most of the fighting was trench warfare on the western front. On the east front, Russia got it handed to them, but they lost to Japan, so they didn't really have a chance if you think about it.

Dr.Battlefield wrote:

(Countries don't have the same crappy AA like in pre-1.2 BF2).

Aside from everything else, I can't help but comment on this...

You mean to say that countries now have the non-crappy AA that's capable of rapidly orbiting stray heat sources, whilst lying in wait for passing aircraft? Or AA that will spin in tight concentric circles if it bounces off a building or tree? AA that can change directions in complete 180 turns, and repeat the process before exploding? AA that can weave a tight pattern AROUND the chassis of a plane at least 15 times before randomly blowing it up? Or even AA that will touch each piece of countermeasure popped by a fast mover before ramming into its engine? This is what I expect of a missile in 2106, not 2006. As it is, the damn things are more dangerous than a swarm of rabid Contra heroes, if they manage to lock onto you. While I have no problem with increased speed and accuracy, I do question why they decided to install inertial dampeners on these high-tech nerf launchers.

Hmm. Realism has been...markedly improved.

whittsend wrote:

Re: Economy.  Where do people here get their information?  Now that some facts have been posted about troop numbers, people are going to make things up about economics?  The US is 1/5 of the worlds economy all by itself.  The next largest economy (Japan) is less than half the size of Americas.  A ripple in our economy can send waves throughout the rest of the world.  Any nation which 'cuts off' the US from their market loses access to the largest market in the world themselves.  No industrial or partially industrial economy can afford to do that...so basically you are talking crap.  Is the US reliant on oil?  Sure, but so is every industrial economy.  So, again, you are talking nonsense.

Must people sound off on issues about which their knowledge is clearly lacking?

The United States has the largest and one of the most technologically advanced national economies in the world, with a GDP of 12.373 trillion dollars. In this capitalistic, free market-oriented mixed economy, corporations and other private firms make the vast majority of microeconomic decisions, and governments prefer to take a minimal role in the domestic economy.
But... list of countries by GDP: link Japan is 3rd, after EU and US.

List of countries by import: URL
List of countries by export: URL

As you can see US is the biggest importer and  EU is the biggest exporter. Even tho EU is not the biggest tradig partner of the US.

The United States's imports exceed exports by 80%, leading to a real annual trade deficit of $650.3 billion or 5.7% of real gross domestic product. It is the largest debtor nation in the world, with total gross foreign liabilities of over $12,000,000 million as of 2004, and it absorbs more than 50% of global savings annually.

So..... my point is above. And relient on oil in industy during peace is the one side, but during the war is the other.

All I'm trying to say is we will have a HARD time if Europe will do something like I said before. And it is true, like you said US is the 1/5 of the world's economy. Yes, it proves that it will be much harder for us to handle the economic conflict. A group of countries can "get rid of one" without harm themselves too much.

Last edited by Dr.Battlefield (2006-03-07 13:45:06)

Drill Alaska.

Dr.Battlefield wrote:

The United States has the largest and one of the most technologically advanced national economies in the world, with a GDP of 12.373 trillion dollars. In this capitalistic, free market-oriented mixed economy, corporations and other private firms make the vast majority of microeconomic decisions, and governments prefer to take a minimal role in the domestic economy.
But... list of countries by GDP: link Japan is 3rd, after EU and US.

List of countries by import: URL
List of countries by export: URL

As you can see US is the biggest importer and  EU is the biggest exporter. Even tho EU is not the biggest tradig partner of the US.

The United States's imports exceed exports by 80%, leading to a real annual trade deficit of $650.3 billion or 5.7% of real gross domestic product. It is the largest debtor nation in the world, with total gross foreign liabilities of over $12,000,000 million as of 2004, and it absorbs more than 50% of global savings annually.

So..... my point is above. And relient on oil in industy during peace is the one side, but during the was is the other.

Your facts don't fit your argument.  If country A is a net exporter to country B, by cutting off trade relations with country B, country A cuts its own income.  The US is a net importer which means it is currently LOSING money in the trade imbalance.  If a country with a favorable balance of trade cuts off trade with the US that country will lose money, and the US will retain money.

As far as oil goes, both the EU and US are net importers of oil (and not from each other) so it is a neutral issue...peace or war.

Dr.Battlefield wrote:

All I'm trying to say is we will have a HARD time if Europe will do something like I said before. And it is true, like you said US is the 1/5 of the world's economy. Yes, it proves that it will be much harder for us to handle the economic conflict. A grop of countries can "get rid of one" without harm themselves too much.

Of course we'd have a hard time, we sell things to them too, but your own facts show that they sell more to us.  So Europe would lose every penny of profit it makes from being a net exporter to the largest economy in the world.

It does NOT prove that it will be much harder for us to handle the economic conflict than Europe.  In fact, it proves quite the opposite.

herrr_smity wrote:

the one that rules the Atlantic ocean wold win the war (its a matter of force movement and resupply) and taking that into regard the us wold have serious trouble getting that.

Getting control of the Atlantic?  Did you see the numbers I posted above?  The US navy is three times larger than the EU's combined navy (look at tonnage), and it's force projection ability is orders of magnitude greater.  Why do I bother?

Last edited by whittsend (2006-03-07 14:05:29)