Who would win in a war between the USA and the EU?

Question

what if russia was to help the eu? then the yanks would be toast! lmao!

haha imagine then india n china both come in n nuke the US aswell lol that would be jokes!

Answer 1

If the British stopped trying to tap dance down the middle of the Atlantic and joined the EU for real, and a centralized, federalized EU with a unified military was developed?

Such an EU could win a war with the U.S. -just BARELY. If the Russians threw in with them, that alliance would definitely win.

Unfortunately, this IS a likely scenario. There are elements in the U.S. ruling class who think THEY could win and are already drooling over the prospect. They started anti-European propaganda during the beginning of Gulf War 3 (the U.S. attack on Iraq and the current occupation) with the "freedom fries" and other anti-French nonsense, along with the occasional swipes at the Germans.

In fact, it can be argued that the attack on Iraq was REALLY an attack on Europe. Saddam was about to start doing his oil dealings in euros rather than dollars. And while American companies never used any of Iraq's oil, their competitors in Europe DID. Now the U.S. controls the oil spigot that Europe needs.

Perhaps the recent oil and natural gas deals between the EU and Russia show how Europe plans to deal with that problem.

Sooner or later, the failing U.S. empire will have to make a try at direct domination of Europe.

If Europe went socialist (NOT "Social Democrat" or "Labour" but Marxian socialist) and the U.S. did NOT, that might even speed up the process.

A unified EU military in alliance with Russia, and/or a socialist reconstruction in the U.S., are the ONLY things that can stop it for certain.

If this scenario were to take place with a capitalist EU, the aftermath of such a war might be a reversal of the US-Europe relationship during the old "Cold War" (which was really World War 3) - a world-dominant European empire with a defeated U.S. as its side-kick, fighting its former Russian allies.

The progress of the process that could lead to a conflict that would actually be World War 4 can already be seen on the world currency markets, as the euro eclipses the dollar and there are rumblings about "trade war."

China and India, both nuclear powers, introduce another factor into the equation. A "1984"-type scenario of a huge three-way war (Eurasia vs. Eastasia vs. Oceania) is also possible. My guess is that, contrary to Orwell's "1984," Japan would be in the "Oceania" alliance with the U.S., and Britain would end up in the EU/Russia alliance ("Eurasia").

A new world war, no matter WHAT the line-up of alliances was, would be an unparalleled act of barbarism.

So once again, we are presented with the choice for the future that was first written of by Rosa Luxemburg in 1915, during World War 1 --

"Socialism, or barbarism."

Answer 2

I would like to ask Herodotus if he was born yesterday. Warfare may have changed but the belief that superior ship and plains number alone wins a war is idiotic. The EU has more men than the US, and these are trained soldiers not mercenary grunts of the US who are used to fight peasants with rifles and no vehicle. Second France and Britain at least do have a few carriers. Thirdly the US wouldn't be able to make a blockade since the Russian wouldn't allow the US to position troops on their territories to blockade the EU. You also forget that the British Intelligence would give the EU a tremendous advantage. Plus you are assuming that the EU armies are primitive well let me remind you that most of the military technologies the US use were invented by Europeans, like the missiles who were invented by the Germans, so assure that the EU military technologies and thinkers are more than capable of surpassing the US's since Europeans actually know the technologies work not just how to use, even an ape can learn how to shoot a pistol. Also EU has a bigger GDP than the US, so while it is true that the US has more planes and ships that advantage would only be temporary since EU would eventually match those numbers and have an easier time than the Us replacing those they've lost.
In EU history many wars have been won thanks to the brilliance of strategists, while the US has won most of its wars either through numbers or by fighting non-professional armies, like in Iraq, even then with difficulty and in the world wars 2 they had allies, Britain and French resistance in Europe, China in the pacific along with a few British forces, so sorry to say but when it comes to war strategies the EU would outthink the US, plus Europe´s unique geography makes it excellent for defense against any sort of attack from the Atlantic, even if managed to secure a safe landing it would result in heavy casualties, casualties the Us couldn't afford in order to take Europe's cities and capitals, while the US east coast is wide open and Washington and New York are right next to the Atlantic all it would take would be a quick and precise attack, something Europeans excel at.
So in the future mister Herodotus should have a better argument than simply USA number one, because in a war if the US employs the same kind of short-sighted and childish thinking has he does than the US would probably lose the war in weeks instead of years, at that pace.

Answer 3

Conventional war? America. Reasons why. Don't feel because our military is over extended it won't be effective. We are the only nation has the largest blue water navy. Combine the eu carriers and it's no match. Our submarine fleet is by far superior and more advanced than the eu and russia. Russia has nuke subs but they still deploy diesels. Our navy and air force will blast them back to.the stone age. I'm not saying it won't be bloody or costly, but long term all we have to do is blockade their oil and the eu war machine grinds to a hault.

Ok now for India and china. Their ground army is massive. But that's infantry.

No nation can match the abrams.

Answer 4

Obviously most people who answered were American who dont know about Euro Fighter Jets and French Raffele jets or the fact Britain and France are the most successfull armies ever along with Frances huge nuclear arsenal and Navy. To say the EU other than Britain is a hugely misguided comment and in conventional war the EU would either have USA surrendering of launching nuclear weapons in months because if the poorly trained morraly corrupt US armed forces proven by constant "blue on blue" incidents and Americas tenancy to rape and murder civilian populations like in WW2 with French preferring to be under Nazi control cause although targets were different they treated most with respect. Add that to Vietnam, 2nd Gulf War and Afghanistan showing the top brass have no control of the grunts at all. Poluted by GM crops and meat America needs to dominate another continent unpoluted by GM theyll either quickly drop status and totally dependant on non GM food at unsustainable prices or die out.

Answer 5

teterboro: ''the country of direction. between different motives because of the fact this is have been given lots practice so some distance as wars are worried.'' the country don't have lots practice with finished out wars the place each and every guy over sixteen or 18 ought to combat and die for their united states of america. yet fairly small conflicts with minor skirmishes, and a protection stress outfitted up by potential of volunteers. Like international conflict 2 the country relies upon on different international locations donning their enemy out in the past they enter themselves. besides it quite is an no longer likely difficulty.

Answer 6

If it were a conventional, the US has vastly stronger forces. They could impose a blockade and completely cut off oil to the EU and its allies.

One fact to consider is that the USA's military R&D buget has been several times greater than that of the combined efforts of the nations you just mentioned. The EU and Russia have no truly modern aircraft in service at this time. Their combined navies lack a singel fleet strength carrier. None have a tank that can match the Abrams, eccept a hand full on British tanks. In training and personel preparidness, only the British would match the US levels. Both the EU and Russia have almost no capacity to fight exstended conflicts beyound their boarders. It would be a onesided conflict.

Answer 7

I think that would be definite, end times(AKA end of the world.) There's just too much military and armory power between the two of them.

Answer 8

Is this a religious question or US bashing???? You are so very funny!
If Europe and the US goes to war, there will be no winners; it will be the end of civilization as we know it.

Answer 9

It's not a war with bombs, it's a war with dollars, and we're losing. Sorry. I'm an American, and we could win this, but we're being badly mismanaged. Does this have anything to do with religion?

Answer 10

We'd bring in China.


Game, set, match.