usa vs continental europe and china, two front war

[Smiling Bandit]

Face the EU directly and make it costly for them very quickly. i don;t think the population is ready to gut out a long protracted war where their getting hammered by air every day

But that bombing devastated Berlin's morale during the selfsame war. Partly depends on the political situation.

In any event, are you goin to keep piling on the opposition till we break? AT this point you'll have to start giving the enemy countries free star destroyers...

[Knife]

Without nukes, China is not a real threat to the US main land. Any war with them would be about US interests in Asia. With current bases in Japan and Korea, the US could mount a sufficent campaign agaist Chinesse territory. Even if the Chinesse could mount a invasion, it would have to be directed at the above mentioned or even posibly Central, or South America in a attempt to widen the conflict and spread American forces out more than they where.
The war in Europe would not be that different, the EU does not have the assets or the ability to produce assets in one year to land a large enough invasion force on American soil. Unlike Europe, there is no foreign millitary bases in America. Sure foreign millitary forces train with our forces, but with war coming I do not think they would be invited to stay. Meanwhile, using advance bases in Europe and the Middle East a spear head of American ground troops plus using amphibious landings, could be used to drive a wedge between the allies in Europe.
The actual tatics could vary, but the inability of threat nations to actualy invade America coupled with our ability to invade would spell a short end to the idea.

[Stravo]

Let's remember that in my scenario England is on our side, as is her commonwealth countries, so we have a good forward base to deploy air craft and ships in the British Isles.

Also the one year buildup time I kind of ignore, I say look at each nation's assets NOW as they are, giving the EU a little extra because they are semi fascist and have been building up for awhile just to oppose the US fro France's goal of a dominant EU and now the US is deployed in and around Iraq fresh from a big win.

[Cpt_Frank]

With England and the Commonwealth on America's side, that is extremely unfair. We should add England to Europe and make the Commonwealth countriess neutral.

[Stravo]

With England and the Commonwealth on America's side, that is extremely unfair. We should add England to Europe and make the Commonwealth countriess neutral.

I don't know about that, the EU has all of mainland Europe, Russia, THEN you have China and North Korea, a pretty large bloc of powers, but if it makes things a little harder, we can say Canada, Australia and the other commonwealths have declared neutrality.

I just don't think it is realistic to believe that England would side against the US almost under any circumstances. If there is a resurgance of right wing power in mainland Europe, I think England would cozy up even MORE to the US to balance off against the growing mainland's power and aggressiveness.

[Cpt_Frank]

Germany would also most likely not enter war with the US. No EU country would actually.
Btw how are the US going to conquer Russia? Will be difficult.

[Azeron]

we will beat russia, by attacking them. We have been thinking about it for about 50 years, I am sure we got a plan to do it.

They would get their butts kicked, I read recently a dreakdown on the russian army. they have only about 150k proffessional soilders. Thats less than our marine core, and they have 2 ends to defend, and can't possibly win an attack.

We would win in a souple of months I bet.

[Cpt_Frank]

Another commander who greatly underestimates the russians, and the size of their rough land.
We had those before.
1. scorched earth: occupied territory will be wortless
2. russian winter and vast territorries
3. taking cities - difficult at best

[Admiral Piett]

we will beat russia, by attacking them. We have been thinking about it for about 50 years, I am sure we got a plan to do it.

They would get their butts kicked, I read recently a dreakdown on the russian army. they have only about 150k proffessional soilders. Thats less than our marine core, and they have 2 ends to defend, and can't possibly win an attack.

We would win in a souple of months I bet.

Probably these plans exist but they require to use the EU as base of operations.If you want to try to invade them by Vladivostock you may try.
Keep in mind however that there are 9000 Km from there to Moscow.It is a long,long,long way.There are no decent roads, only a railroad that will be put out of operation as soon as the US troops advance.I foresee a lot of american asses frozen...

[Crown]

You people are debating like it is open to interpretation. It's not. The United States Navy is the most powerfull deep blue sea navy in the world. No country, even the EU (if it were one country), can ever hope to match this in one year. The US is the only qualified state which can continue to wage a war far from home. The US wins hands down.

It will have to start with a fast strike limiting both China's and the EU's ability to wage war far from home, ie crippiling their navies, then just sit back and bomb them both, easily accomplished.

The Russia scenario, Azeron you are right the US does have a plan going to war with Russia, it's called MAD. So nukes are out. Russia just stays where it is 'cause it knows no matter what both the US and it cannot allow this to esculate to nuclear. I for one sure as hell don't since I unlike others here, realise that a nuclear war has the annoying habit of not only fucking up the countries who participate, but the entire world!

In short, EU is fucked, China might survive with it's original borders intact (it possess enough of a deterent to justify this statement) Russia survives with borders intact, since Putin (IIRC) already stated that any military aggression towards Russia, by any nation will be met with nuclear retaliation.

Love it or hate it people, but the US is the only superpower in every sense of the word on this planet.

[Stuart Mackey]

With England and the Commonwealth on America's side, that is extremely unfair. We should add England to Europe and make the Commonwealth countriess neutral.

Britain has, historicly, opposed any dominant power on the continant. Particuly if said power supports principles that are the opposite of Britains traditional rights and privlidges.
The commonweath as it stands is composed of independent nation states with different values and customs, as such those nations will act in accordance with their percived national interest.Africa will probably be nutual, and could do nothing even if they had a mind to.
Also the actual millitary support the English speaking part of the commonweath can provide is so small/old as to be a liability. Also, the english speaking commonweath will not likley mobilise fully unless directly threatend.

[Cpt_Frank]

Yep that was GB's policy that GB and the second-strongest nation on the continent should still be able to defeat the currently strongest continental power. And they always wanted the naval superiority (see below).

[Admiral Piett]

You people are debating like it is open to interpretation. It's not. The United States Navy is the most powerfull deep blue sea navy in the world. No country, even the EU (if it were one country), can ever hope to match this in one year. The US is the only qualified state which can continue to wage a war far from home. The US wins hands down.

It will have to start with a fast strike limiting both China's and the EU's ability to wage war far from home, ie crippiling their navies, then just sit back and bomb them both, easily accomplished.

Love it or hate it people, but the US is the only superpower in every sense of the word on this planet.

Bombings may not be enough to force a country to surrender.

[Cpt_Frank]

Oh well the US can't be defeated anyway, the question here is can the defeat EU and China, and the answer is no.

[Azeron]

Of course we can beat china and the EU. Why? Because your weak, and we are strong. its that simple. Not even the cominbed navies of the world stand a chance against the US navy.

Maybe you call this arrogence, but every decade we invest over 1.5 trillion dollars in our navy. we spend about as much on our army, and airforce. we constantly train and strive to improve our doctrine, givng our people what they need to win wars. Most armies in the world are for show, using crapy russian tanks, and equipment. What does europe do? talks ral tough but when push comes to shove, they hae less than 50k deployable troops between the lot of them. Most of the million plus troops on the continient are either poorly trained or poorly euiped or both. It would take over 10 years and an investment of about 2 trillion dollars to bring europe close to the US on Naval forces alone.

As for china, what kind of detterent do they have? Their ICBMs take over 3 hour just to fuel up. We could wipe the entire country off the face of the planet any day we choose, and there would be nothing they could do to stop us. Even if they did manage to fire off one, they would be sputtering off fuel as it approached cali and thier guidence systems would probably veer the missle off course far enough to hit some deserted strip of land in cali.

Once we start getting this missle sheild in place, china will lose its deterrent.

[Admiral Piett]

Of course we can beat china and the EU. Why? Because your weak, and we are strong. its that simple. Not even the cominbed navies of the world stand a chance against the US navy.

Maybe you call this arrogence, but every decade we invest over 1.5 trillion dollars in our navy. we spend about as much on our army, and airforce. we constantly train and strive to improve our doctrine, givng our people what they need to win wars. Most armies in the world are for show, using crapy russian tanks, and equipment. What does europe do? talks ral tough but when push comes to shove, they hae less than 50k deployable troops between the lot of them. Most of the million plus troops on the continient are either poorly trained or poorly euiped or both. It would take over 10 years and an investment of about 2 trillion dollars to bring europe close to the US on Naval forces alone.

As for china, what kind of detterent do they have? Their ICBMs take over 3 hour just to fuel up. We could wipe the entire country off the face of the planet any day we choose, and there would be nothing they could do to stop us. Even if they did manage to fire off one, they would be sputtering off fuel as it approached cali and thier guidence systems would probably veer the missle off course far enough to hit some deserted strip of land in cali.

Once we start getting this missle sheild in place, china will lose its deterrent.

The problem is not what your navy can or cannot do.The problem which you obviously ignore is that you cannot invade entire continents with an army that has more or less... what, 13 divisions?.You can send the European navies to the bottom,inflict devastating damage to some key industries but at the end if the population is not willing to surrender you need to invade the country.And you simply do not have enough forces invade a 200 millions of people country defended by armies that may be of 2nd choice but have large numbers.But I suppose that you think that the entire french army will collapse at the only sight of a single platoon of marines...
By the way, nuking China and the EU would have probably some nasty effects on the world climate.And the USA is still in this world.

[Azeron]

I don't want to nuke anyone...for now.

Anyhow, the EU has nukes, so the EU is more of a threat nuclear wise, and militarily. we can just blockade Chinese ports and burn thier crops, and watch them starve until they overthrow thier government, and surrender.

Hey war isn't pretty.

Europe would fall in similair fashion in a non nuke fight. Once deprived of a certain standard of living, no power, no plumbing, falling medical supplies, air raid sirens going off all night long, food shortages from gas rationing. It won't be long, maybe 6 months before Europe sues for peace.

Look am not against europe, I don't particularily care for the criticism they throw our way about how we should do things in the world, when the current state of the world represents thier meddleing in the first place. If europe wants to talk to us about anything, or talk shit, go ahead and field your own god dam amy and navy, and then ou can do what you want. Till then mind you manners, "Client states should be seen, not heard".

[Nick]

If europe wants to talk to us about anything, or talk shit, go ahead and field your own god dam amy and navy, and then ou can do what you want. Till then mind you manners, "Client states should be seen, not heard".

Hey Az, you ever heard the term 'Noblesse Oblige'? Or perhaps "With great power, comes great responsibility"? Long accepted principles of the common law? Shared by countries such as the UK, the US, Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, etc? No-one's saying the US isn't militarily powerful. They're just saying that, by the principles of the common law the US respects, that doesn't give you the right to do whatever the fuck you feel like.

Anyway, back to the hypothetical - the US might not 'conquer' as such (it doesn't have sufficient ground forces to take and hold the amounts of territory we are talking about), but it would almost certainly end up in a position to dictate terms when things finally make it to the negotiating table.

And in Stravo's scenario, Australia would probably be coming in on the US side (a militarily active China is NOT something we would want to see encouraged!). However, as Mackey said, the military contribution would not be likely to significantly affect the outcome.

[Guardsman Bass]

-France: Following the release of an airborne virus that causes symptons similar to the bubonic plague(but much quicker), the French army attempts to relocate a large part of the growing ethnic north african population to special designated areas for an attempt to find out the source group for the virus. The findings are shocking; the virus is from Al-Qaeda, but it was developed IN FRANCE. A major biotech company, setting up its labs in France after the end of strict biotech laws in a desperate attempt to attract economic development, developed the virus for sale to the US.

-US: The finding scandalizes the Bush Administration, with many democrats howling for "Deadly Dubya" to be impeached. With PR running full blast, they attempt to blame it on a russian set up. However, in reality, the US has created the virus in case of a last chance use against the Russians, because of the PLAN.

-Russia, following the collapse of the Putin government 2 years previously because of its inability to cope with Chinese "Development" of Siberia, A hard liner is set in power. He launches an attack on Chinese territory, in the name of national defense(known as the PLAN to US intel), but the invasion is failing and the army on the verge of revolt because of a lack of funds to pay for the recent rapid militarization. So, in a last desperate chance to make money, he announces a threat: if $125 Billion are not sent to Russia in 90 days, he will launch nuclear missiles at the middle east, completely collapsing the world's main source of oil, creating huge demand and prices for the only other true source available: Caucasian oil.


Britain, suspicious of the US following the Virus Debacle, cautiously agrees with discreet French and German insistence, and launches an intelligence "blitz" on the US. They find that a paranoid Russiaphobe from the Cold War has been siphoning off national defense funds with discreet military approval in an attempt to simultaneouly get Russia knocked out of the world arena and the Chinese to overplay their hand, giving America the excuse to have all Chinese-made products heavily tariffed in a misguided attempt to boost the faltering economy.

Seeing his demands come up empty, the Russian president orders all transcontinental missile targeting systems re-established, causing worldwide panic and the resulting steep drop in the world economy. Although the missiles are never fired(and he is discredited because his counter attack against the Chinese ends, with the Chinese all the stronger and in control of the resources of Siberia) nearly 2 years pass with strong economic depression in Europe, causing a drastic raise in taxes in an attempt to pay for the welfare state. Tax levels briefly reach 94% of all income before tax revolts take place all over western Europe, and the welfare state caves in. The depression also leaves many North Africans on the verge of starvation, due to the links their economies had to Europe, and they begin to move on mass, compounding the problem and joining the mass of already unemployed migrant laborers. Those with money move into private compounds, and cower. Those without try to survive in the pit of vipers.

Although this would normally result in the end of internationalism, instead it results in a pseudo-fascist pan-European continental government, centred around France, Germany, and Northern Italy. Although desperate for money, they use what little U.S. aid they can get from the depressed USA for military purposes, and with an outcry from the UN, begin to drive the penurious Immigrant population from Western Europe into the East and South.


(THIS ENDS PART 1. EITHER USE YOUR IMAGINATION, OR WAIT FOR PART TWO)