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

^^ Yes, EU will lose money, alot of money. I agree. But we won't get any resources. I'm not trying to make myself right. This is just the way I see it. In my opinion during the war the material things is more important than the money. And I don't know how it is possible to "retain" money during the war. War changes everything. I dont know what % of EU gods are going to the US. If it is a low %, then, well, then you're right. Iguess.

Btw... Good way to solve it: Setup a Super Server for about 10000 people and play 500 v 500 in BF2 lol. (not sure if it is posible with today's technologies).

EDIT: Do not forget that topic says Europe, which includes Russia. Sure today's military in Russia isn't that  good. But this country could be a good resupplier.

Last edited by Dr.Battlefield (2006-03-07 14:14:27)

russia is in asia not europe..

whittsend wrote:

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?

hawing a bigger fleet isn't always having a better. the us import a shit load of hardware for European countries.
The US need to fight some of the best navies in the world that has some of the most advanced  subs missiles and torpedoes

Jepeto87 wrote:

Why do people always give France a hard time? The whole French are pussies thing is the most inaccurate generalization I have ever heard ( well all generalization is inaccurate as you Americans would have to agree since many of you fall back on that when someone says claims you are all fat, ignorant and stupid, not that I agree with that statement! ) it really annoys me as I love studying history!

In WW1 no other country suffered as many casualties than French as a percentage of population, this shows they have spines as opposed to another country in the past fighting to halt communist expansion..... ( low blow sorry! )

During Operation Yellow(WW2) the French army lost more men that America in Vietnam and Korea and surrendered because the Germans had cut off the majority of there army in Belgium, they really had little left to fight with as the British decided to "depart" at this stage. Its a fair assumption to say that if the British Isles where a peninsula England to would have surrendered ( No offense to any British out there, I think any  country bordering Germany at this time would have been defeated at this time. )

Just to show that not all American's hate the French...I would also throw in that most of Europe was unprepared for the German onslaught.  The French suffered from the same thing the American's did at the beginning of WWII, they were not prepared for war.  If the USA bordered Germany, the German's would have gone through the United States like SHIT THROUGH A GOOSE.  The USA was totally unprepared during the early days of WWII, it wasn't even until the very late 30s that the US started even preparing for war and upgrading the military machine.  This is one of the reasons the US has kept a fairly large standing military since the end of WWII, besides the pesky cold war thing.  The Atlantic and Pacific oceans were what saved the US, and in turn most of Europe from becoming part of the German empire.  It gave the US time to get the military machine moving and support the UK, then finally aid in the liberation of Europe.

Jepeto87 wrote:

Finally onto  my opinion of the topic question! I believe Europe as a whole would certainly win as its been fighting wars for centuries and it can still dig deep when it has to. Russia on our side would be a real advantage as it doesn’t seem to suffer from a condition sweeping western societies, "body bag syndrome" (as seen in Chechnya!! ) a fear of losing military personal. Europe could simply ( maybe a little harder than simple! )  re-equip the Russian air force, provide cash to re-launch to relanch  its submarine fleet( combined with the English navy this could be a real threat. )  and spare parts for its armored forces. Combined with existing European armies it would be probably win.... Not conquer, land mass, logistics etc make that impossible but they might win a conventional war.

Pity nobody would be around to see what with the nuclear winter on all..

Sorry for the extremely long post, im broke and couldn’t head out tonight.

If nukes were not used, I just don't see how EU/RU could invade the US if the US was fighting the war from a defensive position.  We would probably loose Hawaii and all of our posessions but you would pretty much have to kill every American citizen to win the war.  You couldn't get a landing force that would be big enough to the US coastline so that leaves you land routes through Canada via Alaska or from Mexico.  The US could easily destroy any landing forces that came in to Mexico via the Gulf or the Pacific side so I'm just not seeing it.  Things would have to get real bad in the US for an invasion force to ever succeed.

Also, I recently saw a Discovery channel show on the Russian Sub Fleet.  Those ships will never return to sea.  Most of them have had large chunks of hull removed for salvage.  The great Russian Navy has been turned into a scrap yard.

Dr.Battlefield wrote:

chitlin wrote:

russia is in asia not europe..

Actually it is Eurasia or Eastern Europe.

rofl so eurasia is eastern europe huh ? eurasia is a refrence to the continents of europe and asia.. 2 seperate continents ...

east europe is former russian countries like ukraine or latvia estonia etc.. and east of those ..is asia...

maybe you should look at a map sometime...

Rathji wrote:

The only point here to debate is if a coalition of multinational forces including all of Europe, Russia and China tried to invade the continental US and occupy it would they win or lose?

Assuming there is no nukes, if by some reason they did manage to defeat the Armed Forces. No country in in the world would ever be able to occupy the US with enough force to actually be able to consider the war 'won'.

300million North American(because Canada would be drawn in due to the need for landing sites) citizens are sure not going to sit on thier hands and let it happen. Even China would not have a hope of garrisoning enough troops in large population centers to make such an occupation possible.

A good point you have there if you look at the troubles the US are having in Iraq. but you must remember that winning a war and occupying the country after is two different things, besides there are always some that will fight for a occupying force either for political or personal reasons

This entire debate is irrelevant because when the U.S. soldiers find out that someone pissed their whole pay check up the wall, and took out every loan and credit card they could get until they were literally on the point of bankruptcy with no way of paying off the interest, let alone the actual debts, then I doubt they'd fight for free.  Well, they might, but without the constant flow of cash required to keep an army going they'd get slaughtered.  No Cash = No Fuel = No Battleships/jets/choppers/tanks = Creamed.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Just think: If America was a person who owed that much money the baliffs would have broken every finger, thumb, leg, arm, tooth and nail and be standing on their head holding a pair of bolt cutters working out what to chop off next. 

Just think: If you could spend all your money on new toys to the point where you had to declare bankruptcy without the people who lent you the money asking for the toys back (assuming you didn't hide them in an offshore toybox), would you expect to keep them when you have the slate wiped clean? 

Money.  Lack of income compare to debt/interest payments.  That's the way that America will fall, even Bin Laden knows this, if you care to read the transcripts of what he actually states as his mission objectives.

IMAO.

Of course if war was like BF2, then America would start losing tickets quite quickly as Europe got an early the foothold, but eventually the Europe army would overstretch itself and lose control...  12-0 victory... next round... 0-11... next round 142-12...   because wars are faught by soldiers, not economics.  Really.  (edit: let me know if you want to help me make the 'European versus America' mod when euroforce comes out, assuming noone else has started work on it... i'll check later...)

rathji wrote:

No country in in the world would ever be able to occupy the US with enough force to actually be able to consider the war 'won'.

The word you are looking for is 'liberate' not 'occupy'.  And whether or not the citizens are happy or not with the new regime doesn't matter as long as you get your mates supplying all the food, medicine, fresh water and electricity they can just shut up or die freezing while you sell of all the 'liberated' government property and businesses you aquired when you 'took over' from the Whitehouse.  Screw the people, war is about getting what you can out of a situation until you get fed up and go home taking all the cake and leaving crooked government behind so you don't have to go back and do it again a few years later like the first time round...

Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-03-07 15:36:02)

nuttah you know abosolutely nothing about economics .. simply look at our gdp and know america economically is stronger than ever and only getting stronger .. thinking the deficit means that much is ignorant

Last edited by chitlin (2006-03-07 16:00:05)

Dr.Battlefield wrote:

^^ Yes, EU will lose money, alot of money. I agree. But we won't get any resources.

What resources do we get from Europe?  Europe has hardly any natural resources we can't get at home or elsewhere.

Dr.Battlefield wrote:

And I don't know how it is possible to "retain" money during the war. War changes everything.

Money that is not spent on European goods will be spent on the same goods in the US or elsewhere.  If you went to the store to get a pair of jeans, and the shopkeeper said, "You may not shop here," Would you say, "Gee, I guess I'll do without the jeans"?  Probably not.  You'd probably just go somewhere else for them.  There aren't many goods we get from Europe that we can't get at home or elsewhere, and that is where the money would go.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

This entire debate is irrelevant because when the U.S. soldiers find out that someone pissed their whole pay check up the wall, and took out every loan and credit card they could get until they were literally on the point of bankruptcy with no way of paying off the interest, let alone the actual debts, then I doubt they'd fight for free.  Well, they might, but without the constant flow of cash required to keep an army going they'd get slaughtered.  No Cash = No Fuel = No Battleships/jets/choppers/tanks = Creamed.

Um, where have you been?  The US has been deficit spending Billions for decades.  Hasn't stopped us yet.

herrr_smity wrote:

hawing a bigger fleet isn't always having a better. the us import a shit load of hardware for European countries.
The US need to fight some of the best navies in the world that has some of the most advanced  subs missiles and torpedoes

Are you seriously suggesting that European torpedoes and Subs are so good, so much better than US subs and missiles, that they can overcome being outnumbered by three to one?  Sorry, but that is a Fantasy.

herrr_smity wrote:

the russians have one and weapon in its navy that can be used effectivly against other war ships and that is  the Shkval. and of used effectivly it will go right tru a US aircraft carriar

I'm sure it's lovely. 

Now, how are you going to deploy it?  You have to get through Several Frigates, A couple Destroyers, and a couple of Cruisers (all with Aegis), a couple Squadrons of F-14's (which can take out an air target from 100 miles away with a phoenix missile), a couple Squadrons of F-18s, Anti Sub coverage provided by a squadron of Vikings, a submarine pickett, and a surveillance blanket provided by E-2 Hawkeyes, all of which are tied together and to a central CIC electronically.

I'm not saying it's impossible...I'm just saying you can try it, I'll watch.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-03-07 16:22:56)

herrr_smity wrote:

I'm not saying it will be easy I'm saying it it possible. but there are other weapons that are more suited for a first strike like a nsm fired from a skjold ( very class low radar signature) or swedish made Torpedo 2000 deployed from a gotaland class(super silent) submarine.

Um, the Skjold is a littoral craft...and you want to put it against a carrier group?  Like I said, I'll just watch.

As far as the Gotland class is concerned, it is quiet...when compared with other Diesel Electric Subs.  In any case, the US Navy has trained against them already (I wasn't able to find the results):

Remarks as delivered by Admiral Gary Roughead
Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet
Royal Australian Navy Sea Power Conference 2006
Sydney, Australia
2 February 2006

...In cooperation with partners and allies, we regularly conduct training and exercises to ensure that our ability to dominate any submarine threat is sustained. In fact, we are currently benefiting greatly from the Swedish submarine HMS Gotland which is participating in anti-submarine warfare training with us in our Southern California operating and training areas...

chitlin wrote:

Dr.Battlefield wrote:

chitlin wrote:

russia is in asia not europe..

Actually it is Eurasia or Eastern Europe.

rofl so eurasia is eastern europe huh ? eurasia is a refrence to the continents of europe and asia.. 2 seperate continents ...

east europe is former russian countries like ukraine or latvia estonia etc.. and east of those ..is asia...

maybe you should look at a map sometime...

Either way, the recognized boundary is the Ural mountains which seperate the European segment of Russia from the Asian one. In most matters, Russia is considered a part of Europe anyway ever since Alexander II's initial "window on the West" approach and Russia's itchy trigger finger regarding expansion and being involved in the economics of Western Europe. Sorry for the OT.

whittsend wrote:

herrr_smity wrote:

I'm not saying it will be easy I'm saying it it possible. but there are other weapons that are more suited for a first strike like a nsm fired from a skjold ( very class low radar signature) or swedish made Torpedo 2000 deployed from a gotaland class(super silent) submarine.

Um, the Skjold is a littoral craft...and you want to put it against a carrier group?  Like I said, I'll just watch.

As far as the Gotland class is concerned, it is quiet...when compared with other Diesel Electric Subs.  In any case, the US Navy has trained against them already (I wasn't able to find the results):

Remarks as delivered by Admiral Gary Roughead
Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet
Royal Australian Navy Sea Power Conference 2006
Sydney, Australia
2 February 2006

...In cooperation with partners and allies, we regularly conduct training and exercises to ensure that our ability to dominate any submarine threat is sustained. In fact, we are currently benefiting greatly from the Swedish submarine HMS Gotland which is participating in anti-submarine warfare training with us in our Southern California operating and training areas...

do not mistake size for power. but you are right about it if it is in open water its meant for coastal defense primarily. but if necessary they can leave the coast.
I'm pretty sure that the figher planes and bombers will be beasy fighting euro fighters and jas gripen.
but you cannot look past the fact that they have to go into coastal areas, and that's were they ar exposed to smaller faster crafts.

chitlin wrote:

Dr.Battlefield wrote:

chitlin wrote:

russia is in asia not europe..

Actually it is Eurasia or Eastern Europe.

rofl so eurasia is eastern europe huh ? eurasia is a refrence to the continents of europe and asia.. 2 seperate continents ...

east europe is former russian countries like ukraine or latvia estonia etc.. and east of those ..is asia...

maybe you should look at a map sometime...

When I said Eurasia I didnt mean a continent. I mean a country. I didnt know how to call it right, so I said Eurasia.Eurasian state. lol. Sure biggest part of Russia is in Asia, but the other, most developped part, is in Europe. It isnt separate continents rofl. And Russia is a part of Eastern Europe aswell as Ukraine and Baltic states.
Sorry, no offences man

Last edited by Dr.Battlefield (2006-03-07 19:26:56)