Posts: 1,088
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA, MI
IGN: MStevens24
Server: Lawolf
Guild: Illuminati
06-09-2008, 07:34 AM
REGISTER TO REMOVE THIS AD
I think it would be safe to say any US invasion of europe would fail. I mean we had problems with iraq and vietnam. Even if we could defeat the combined forces of europe, controling the country after take over would be immpossible.
However, any European invasion of the U.S would also fail. Theirs no way and of your military would make it past the U.S naval forces.
Not to mention you all foget one thing, THe U.S has enough naval submarines to blow the world up serveral times over, which all the U.S would have to do is to threaten you with this reality, and you would have no choice but to risk nuclear war, and no country would risk that.
Also thiers no way Europe would ever unify in that matter, Im sure england would have a problem, and as much as you guys may say europe hates america, in the end the goverments of europe have strong ties with the U.S.
Take it how you will, the world relies on each other. Europe leans on america, and america leans on europe.
It would be stupid to ever go to war agianst each other, as hurting the U.S economy hurts the European econmy. And vice versa.
Really I would be more afraid of a India/china/japan/russia deal, as they have the manpower and the military might to challenge the world.
However what we have now is nuclear weapons, so any locigal country would not use military to defeat its foe, but an economical one.
Mark my words the U.S will never be taken over by militray force, but I can see it happening econimicaly.
Last edited by MStevens24; 06-09-2008 at 07:37 AM.
so according to wikipedia (which cites various sources)... the military expenditures are like this (2007/2008):
the US spent 583 billion dollars
the EU spent 311 billion dollars
China: 59.0
Japan: 41.7
Russia: 41.1
India: 26.5
...
btw. talking about large scale war is totally unrealistic. not even if EU and US are enemies. you've all seen the cold war. having nukes ruins the fun of war.
Last edited by guorbatschow; 06-09-2008 at 07:56 AM.
not really. you are saying that china/japan/russia/india are threats.
1. china, india russia have nukes. which prevents war according to what you say.
2. they all combined have lower expenditures than the EU
i wonder why people still think military warfare is predominant in today's world just because the US has troops everywhere when actually economical and media warfare are already used and way more effective.
Last edited by guorbatschow; 06-09-2008 at 08:22 AM.
Posts: 1,088
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA, MI
IGN: MStevens24
Server: Lawolf
Guild: Illuminati
06-09-2008, 08:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by guorbatschow
not really. you are saying that china/japan/russia/india are threats.
Because their econmys are the fastest growing econmies out their. India and china make up 1/3 of the total world population. Combine that with russia and japans technoligical achievements. Chinas huge workbase, and indias, you have one huge economic machiene.
How many of things that you buy say "made in china"
Quote:
Originally Posted by guorbatschow
1. china, india russia have nukes. which prevents war according to what you say.
2. they all combined have lower expenditures than the EU
The key point is their population, and their mere size, However your jsut repeating what i said, war between nuclear nations will never happen, but possibly on another playing field. Aka vietnam.
Quote:
Originally Posted by guorbatschow
i wonder why people still think military warfare is predominant in today's world just because the US has troops everywhere when actually economical and media warfare are already used and way more effective.
Also repeating what i said, the U.S will never get taken over militarly, if anything it will happen econimically or through media warfare, as you said.
Last edited by MStevens24; 06-09-2008 at 08:36 AM.
wow. so just because you *think* your post covered it all other people arent supposed to voice their opinions?
and still. i disagree about india/russia/china. population doesnt mean shit in modern military warfare. in economy, yes. not in military.
also, your "military might" contradicts the numbers i listed. if we leave out the nukes, aircraft carriers come in second. china and japan dont have any, india and russia have one each. the US has 11 and the EU 7.
no idea where you got your information about those four countries being military threats. they have neither motive nor power.
Last edited by guorbatschow; 06-09-2008 at 09:11 AM.
Posts: 1,088
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA, MI
IGN: MStevens24
Server: Lawolf
Guild: Illuminati
06-09-2008, 09:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by guorbatschow
wow. so just because you *think* your post covered it all other people arent supposed to voice their opinions?
and still. i disagree about india/russia/china. population doesnt mean shit in modern military warfare. in economy, yes. not in military.
also, your "military might" contradicts the numbers i listed. if we leave out the nukes, aircraft carriers come in second. china and japan dont have any, india and russia have one each. the US has 11 and the EU 7.
no idea where you got your information about those four countries being military threats. they have neither motive nor power.
The point im trying to make is that your trying to put couterpoints to my post, yet your saying the same damn thing.
You posted after mine and said and I qoute
"btw. talking about large scale war is totally unrealistic. not even if EU and US are enemies. you've all seen the cold war. having nukes ruins the fun of war"
But i said before your post
"However what we have now is nuclear weapons, so any locigal country would not use military to defeat its foe, but an economical one."
Its the same damn thing yet you posted it after mine as to seem like I didnt relize that.
The only thing we disagree with is the china/japan/russia/india example. Which I already stated my reasons, if you wanna diasgree with that, go ahead.
Also I never said you couldnt post your oppininon. Go ahead and post all you want to I couldnt give a rats ass if you did.
No where did I post that you couldnt post your oppinion. Its just fustrating when you say something, then someone else says the same thing after your post, trying to controdict you with something you already agreed with.
Also to go with your military numbers, I am looking at the future, and comparing the fact that india and china make up 2.5 billion people, to the united states 400 million.
Not to mention thier econmies are catching up really fast, obviously, atm, thier military might isnt enough to challenge us. But its the future, not the present that this discussion is about.
Last edited by MStevens24; 06-09-2008 at 09:36 AM.
Posts: 1,088
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA, MI
IGN: MStevens24
Server: Lawolf
Guild: Illuminati
06-09-2008, 09:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by guorbatschow
"looking at the future" when it concerns something irrational and shortsighted like war?
all war is irrational and shortsighted, I for one hope that we grow out of all this crap of trying to be the country that has "power" or coutries looking out for themselves without reguard for each other.
I mean to be cultraly diverse is needed, and should be preserved. But people take it to far.
Posts: 5,020
Join Date: May 2006
Location: MS, USA
Guild: Lolicon
06-09-2008, 09:53 AM
China/Japan/India/Russia ideal? Are you out of your mind?
I know for a fact Japan wouldn't take any stance in a war. They'd most likely stay nuetral and would only attack if attacked. India and China....I don't know if I can see them allied. China's military is huge, no doubt, and India has more than enough manpower to fight.
However, they lack in weapons, technology, and availability of resources. China may have 500 Million ready soldiers, but may only have less than 2,500 vehicles and planes. They may also not have enough guns and ammo to supply all 500 million with adequate firepower. Unless they pull a Stalingrad and the unarmed soldiers take weapons from the dead, they can't do much.
Economically, India and China provide a lot for both America and the EU. To stop making things for us would cripple both ecnomies. But at the same time, China and India's business owners rely on the American and EU markets for sales. Without the sales from the American and EU markets, China and India's economies would also be hurt.
i just have the feeling that you are mentioning russia/china/india/japan because obviously there wont be any war between NATO members, the US and EU. but to make things interesting, just mention a few other countries that are supposed to be up for war
Posts: 1,088
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA, MI
IGN: MStevens24
Server: Lawolf
Guild: Illuminati
06-09-2008, 10:09 AM
OK maybe I should clarify, what I am trying to say is that I would be more afraid of those asian countries coming together, than the E.U coming together.
I mean just their proximity to each other says to me that eventually they will come to some sort of terms themselves.
I mean on one hand you have the U.S coming together with Nafta.
You have O.P.E.C with the middle east.
You have the E.U with europe.
Eventaully the asain countries will look at what the europeans are doing, and say to themselves why cant we do this?
Obviously atm, china isnt going to be allies with anyone, and japan is more likely to ally with the U.S, and russia is more apt to stay alone.
However if the E.U turns out to be more of a success, will the come together out of pure need?
I mean it makes sense, you want to be on good terms with neighbors.
Last edited by MStevens24; 06-09-2008 at 10:24 AM.
06-09-2008, 07:34 AM
Linear Mode
