Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

america does help alot of places out, but almost if not always, it is for an ulterior motive. take vietnam for example. the main reason the us went in to fight was to prevent the spread of communism. why? because the soviet union was based upon communism and the us was at war with them at the time. if communism in vietnam won, the domino effect would probably have converted most countries in se asia to communism. the us saw democracy in vietnam as demoralizing the ussr.

so in reply to your post, i don't see the us as a super-power, but it does offer help to other nations for a price.

At 11/6/06 01:23 PM, zzzzd wrote: Bunch of nonsense.

zzzzd, You simply don't know what you're talking about. Let me inform you that I major in Military Science and I according to the vast majority of military analysts, war-gamers, and experts in all military/war-related fields, the US would win an conventional war against the combined forces of the EU. Not only would the US win, but the US would win quickly. It wouldn't take more than a few months of air and naval power to defeat Europe. A ground occupation might take longer, but the US would never been in danger of being compromised unless nukes were involved. But that would just end the entire world...

This is a simple fact. You don't understand how modern war works and how overwhelming the US military power is. The US the exponentially more powerful than Europe. Man power would be the smallest factor in a EU vs. US war.

This is what the goals of the possible war would be.

1: Disrupt opponents government and leadership processes
2: Destroy national communications systems of opponent
3: Destroy military command and control of opponent
4: Destroy air defenses of opponent
5: Occupy capitols, and capture leadership.

All of these things the US has the ability to do to Europe by means of 13 functioning aircraft super-carriers (plus 25 Marine amphibious assault ships that are bigger than European aircraft carriers) with over 8,000 strike-aircraft that could operate after Europes air defenses were destroyed by invisible-to-radar long-range stealth aircraft which the US has 30 of, in addition to 300 medium-range stealth strike aircraft.

- Superior naval forces armed with cruise missiles,
- Superior ground forces
- Superior radar, and communcations systems
- continuous situational awareness provided by satellites, unmanned aerial vehicles, and conventional aircraft.

The US would disarm Europes air defenses with stealth bombers, destroy communcations systems, destroy any possible threat to occupying forces. This would all take place while Europe and its miniscule and inferior 4 aircraft carriers would be impotent to reach the US on time to retaliate, then would have no source of command and leadership after their entire military command and control structure was put out of commision.

You simply don't understand the full dynamics of modern conventional warfare. Europe has moderate hard power, but they don't have 1/10 the force projection that the US has. They COULDN'T effectively damage the American military command, US government, or US infrastructure. Meanwhile their entire ability to wage war would be destroyed with only low to moderate America casualties.

The US could destroy Europes ability to actually conduct the war, not just fight and destroy planes, tanks, radar and missile systems, and so forth. The US wouldn't even need to do that if the entire European command center no longer exists and military branches can no longer communcicate.

I suggest you do some research instead of taking my word for it. Europe is far behind the US, and may have more man power, but has less numerous and less advanced aircraft, ships, missiles, radar, satellite, communcations and so forth.

The US is vastly superior and would dominate Europe in a non-nuclear, conventional war. Anyone with ANY knowledge of modern warfare will tell you that. Tens of thousands of American military personnel would die, but Europes entire ability to sustain itself and function would be gone. The US would still exist, and its military power would still be largely unscathed.

You are a fool if you think the USA could successfully invade and hold cities like Paris and Berlin and London, cellar.

We would win in a war against the Europeans simply because we control the oceans. There would be blockades and bombings and we may have some special forces teams go in and try to kill some people but it would be beyond foolish to try and invade Europe over land. Anyways, who cares, we wouldnt fight them. Ever.

At 11/6/06 04:56 AM, LolOutLoud wrote: Hehe, China is moving towards democracy... In fact it's the only way it will completely escape poverty. Once China has set up a fully-functioning Republic, they'll be fine. Right now it's still a bit caught up in comunism... But now the rich parts of China are under a near-total republic.

I think you need to learn the difference between democracy and totalitarianism and communism and capitalism.

At 11/7/06 04:31 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: You are a fool if you think the USA could successfully invade and hold cities like Paris and Berlin and London, cellar.

That is not foolish. Considering the US already has troops in the British isles and mainland Europe in easy striking distance to their capitols.

Also, Europe has very strict gun laws. A gorilla resistance like in WWII would simply be futile. Besides, Europeans throughout history have submitted to occupiers. Once their military is defeated, their people won't organize a sufficient resistance.

We would win in a war against the Europeans simply because we control the oceans.

And the air, and are the sole military power with global reach in all aspects. Its not just our naval power, its our space, air, intelligence, ground, and special forces that are more numerous and more advanced (equal to the SAS in training, but equiped better and more properly supported and more numerous).

There would be blockades and bombings and we may have some special forces teams go in and try to kill some people but it would be beyond foolish to try and invade Europe over land.

There would be no need for a ground invasion except to impose order after major military operations (if that was a goal). The US wouldn't need to "invade" either becuause the US already has more troops in Europe than any single nationa entity and has a vast amount of control over the integrated NATO air defense systems. A post-cold war US force already occupies Europe technically speaking. This force was situated, equiped, and strategically located to ensure a successful defense of Europe against Soviet invasion and still goal of defending Europe. So it is obviously more than capable of defeating military forces of the countries it already occupies, which are incredibly reliant on the US for military aide in the first place!

Anyways, who cares, we wouldnt fight them. Ever.

You have a point there. But the status quo could change in the future. You never know, especially considering how treacherous Europeans tend to be, war between the US and a future EU (if it becomes a REAL country) is very possible considering how alliances shift throughout history. ESPECIALLY when you consider that by 2100 the majority of the inhabitants of the EU will be Muslims from the middle east at their current rate of immigration.

I hope this doesn't happen, but in all reasonable conclusions, it WILL happen eventually, but will that happen in 5,10, 20, 50, 100 years? It depends on how things unfold.

At 11/7/06 05:09 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

That is not foolish. Considering the US already has troops in the British isles and mainland Europe in easy striking distance to their capitols.

They would be easily taken out, they share the bases with British personal, lol It's not as if theyre in there own little world. I live in the East of England, so theres hundreds of RAF bases around and two of them are the largest american bases in England, RAF Mildenhall an RAF Lakenheath. And I know a fair few squaddies both american an British. If war did break out the americans would be swiftly captured.

Also, Europe has very strict gun laws. A gorilla resistance like in WWII would simply be futile. Besides, Europeans throughout history have submitted to occupiers. Once their military is defeated, their people won't organize a sufficient resistance.

Theres always been very succesfull resistances. Britain hasn't been invaded for a thousand years, but mainland has been invaded many a time,In the napoleon wars, many more soldiers of his were killed by gurilla warfare than in battles. In the first and second world war there were resistances everywere howether not very good. Britain was ready for an invasion, All over England theres hundreds of Pillbox's scattered around, and the people were trained to use gurrelia tactics.

We would win in a war against the Europeans simply because we control the oceans.

And the air, and are the sole military power with global reach in all aspects. Its not just our naval power, its our space, air, intelligence, ground, and special forces that are more numerous and more advanced (equal to the SAS in training, but equiped better and more properly supported and more numerous).

I don't think you are thinking this through, Your talking as if the EU are third world countries.
Britain, France,Germany,Italy and Spain are at similar levels to the US, Britain has numerous joint programs with the US, the US and Britain build the most hightech aircraft together in some cases. And the the British army is about as tehcnologically advanced as american,
As soon as the war broke out america would have a load of there own Tomahawks fired at them. As well of course as european equivilents :)

Britain an france can track stealth planes, using passive and low frequency radar. And then eurofighers which are superior in defense than american aircraft would hunt them down.
lol The funny thing is Europe is making plans to sell Stealth detecting technology to all sorts of countries (including middle east) so that stealth aircraft isn't as appealing, So more countries purchase Eurofighters instead of the american counterparts as eurofighters are better as defense aircraft, while american fighters tend to be more about stealth.
It doesnt matter to the EU as they don't want to invade anyone anyway.
It seems america policy is 'Do what we want or we'll invade'
where as EU policy is 'Do what we want or we won't let you join'

There would be no need for a ground invasion except to impose order after major military operations (if that was a goal). The US wouldn't need to "invade" either becuause the US already has more troops in Europe than any single nationa entity and has a vast amount of control over the integrated NATO air defense systems. A post-cold war US force already occupies Europe technically speaking. This force was situated, equiped, and strategically located to ensure a successful defense of Europe against Soviet invasion and still goal of defending Europe. So it is obviously more than capable of defeating military forces of the countries it already occupies, which are incredibly reliant on the US for military aide in the first place!

lol can you imagine it, European an american troops working with each other then suddenly wars declared and they have to fight each other. ITs mental. But Americans would be captured swiftly.

British Control British air defense systems, It wouldn't be aloud to put somehting like that in charge of another country. Same goes with other EU countries.
Also I don't know why you keep goin on about being so Reliant on the US, Europes not. The US personal in EU countries are there because there aloud to be there not because there defending them. There there so they are near the rest of the world.

Anyways, who cares, we wouldnt fight them. Ever.

You have a point there. But the status quo could change in the future. You never know, especially considering how treacherous Europeans tend to be, war between the US and a future EU (if it becomes a REAL country) is very possible considering how alliances shift throughout history. ESPECIALLY when you consider that by 2100 the majority of the inhabitants of the EU will be Muslims from the middle east at their current rate of immigration.

It could change in the futer, especially with how america's goin down the shitter.
Howether I doubt it very much unless wankers like you become president, heaven forbid.
Please don't bring up the Muslims. lol

I hope this doesn't happen, but in all reasonable conclusions, it WILL happen eventually, but will that happen in 5,10, 20, 50, 100 years? It depends on how things unfold.

The futer is going to be weird because of the upcoming super powers, It's more likely USA and EU will be allied against powers such as china. But America will not be the sole super power for very long at all, As the EU is basically one already, china is growing hugely.
Already the EU has as much influence as america

At 11/7/06 06:43 AM, zzzzd wrote:

At 11/7/06 05:09 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Britain an france can track stealth planes, using passive and low frequency radar. And then eurofighers which are superior in defense than american aircraft would hunt them down.
lol The funny thing is Europe is making plans to sell Stealth detecting technology to all sorts of countries (including middle east) so that stealth aircraft isn't as appealing, So more countries purchase Eurofighters instead of the american counterparts as eurofighters are better as defense aircraft, while american fighters tend to be more about stealth.
It doesnt matter to the EU as they don't want to invade anyone anyway.
It seems america policy is 'Do what we want or we'll invade'
where as EU policy is 'Do what we want or we won't let you join'

LOL..you obviously haven't heard of the F-22 Raptor.You cant compare a fucking eurofighter to a raptor.Thats like comparing a Ford to a Lamborghini.

lol can you imagine it, European an american troops working with each other then suddenly wars declared and they have to fight each other. ITs mental. But Americans would be captured swiftly.
We have the most advanced and second largest military on the planet.Good luck with that.

British Control British air defense systems, It wouldn't be aloud to put somehting like that in charge of another country. Same goes with other EU countries.

We create and command most of your air defense systems.That go's for your missile defense systems as well (which Russia does NOT want you to have).

Also I don't know why you keep goin on about being so Reliant on the US, Europes not. The US personal in EU countries are there because there aloud to be there not because there defending them. There there so they are near the rest of the world.

So you think our military is deployed to Europe just to relax,kick-back and enjoy the sunshine?
WRONG!!! History should tell you why we are there.We don't deploy to foreign countries where everything is hunky-dory.Its no vacation.

It could change in the futer, especially with how america's goin down the shitter.
Howether I doubt it very much unless wankers like you become president, heaven forbid.
Please don't bring up the Muslims. lol

Muslims you say huh?Funny considering your country is becoming an Islamic State.
We aren't "goin down the shitter" either.When we lose our super power status and our Huge influence on the world in all aspects,then you can say we're "goin down the shitter".Bushes soon-to-be-over-presidency-alone,will not have any lasting impact on our country in the long run.

The futer is going to be weird because of the upcoming super powers, It's more likely USA and EU will be allied against powers such as china. But America will not be the sole super power for very long at all, As the EU is basically one already, china is growing hugely.
Already the EU has as much influence as america

Upcoming superpowers?China and India appear to have the greatest potential amongst all the other nations of achieving superpower or near-superpower status within the 21st century and are often termed as emerging superpowers.Europe is no longer considered a super power,since after WWII.The European Union has economic power about the same as the United States but lacks a comparable unified military.Mainstream journalists and most of academia holds that only the United States fills this position as superpower(or hyperpower).

Don't be bias.Gather facts from reliable resources before you wanna go and say "LOLZ LIEK EUROPE IS BETTER"

Why doesnt America buy a really big dishwasher tablet (???)

Anyway back to the point at hand. America is nor a savoir or a bully. It has a kind of equilibrium for warfare. Something like keeping the scales steady in helping and making things worse.

i would have to disagree with you on the up and coming super powers of teh world. china and india have one thing but mis another thing. for india they have the heart to be a super-power but dont have the army or economic values that it would need to be a super power. and for china there the oppisite of india, they have the man power and the economic power but they dont have the heart to be a super power.

i think that the next super power would either be russia or the conjoined efforts of china and india.

At 11/7/06 05:12 PM, shrtstff69 wrote: i would have to disagree with you on the up and coming super powers of teh world. china and india have one thing but mis another thing. for india they have the heart to be a super-power but dont have the army or economic values that it would need to be a super power. and for china there the oppisite of india, they have the man power and the economic power but they dont have the heart to be a super power.

India's army is the 3rd largest in the world.
India's economy is the 4th largest in the world (better than most of europes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gdp_2005_b y_PPP_world.PNG

don't respond if you don't bother to dig up some facts.

i think that the next super power would either be russia or the conjoined efforts of china and india.

RUSSIA is going 3rd World.Are you fucking kidding me?Their population has dropped more than half a million over the past years.They only have a population of 150 million,despite being the Largest country.Please tell me you're joking.

At 11/5/06 04:09 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 11/4/06 07:16 PM, SomeNick wrote: NEWS FLASH: "America" isn't a super power anymore. Too many whiners in the USA as of today.

How is America not a superpower? The US has the worlds largest economy, most powerful military and the US wields the most world-wide political influence?

The US military has been taking heavy losses everywhere. Essentially, the USA hasn't won a single war in the past 20 years.

USA has lost a LOT of its influence. USA essentially holds no control over, say, South America. The European Union pretty much has a life of its own so the USA doesn't mean much there. For Africa, its as if the USA didn't even exist. And Asia is very powerful, I will elaborate more on this soon. Oceania is just friendly, thats all.

The US is the worlds ONLY superpower, China and India might usurpe the US as the worlds largest economies, but they won't have the military strength or influence the US has.

Even if China or India overtook the US in military and political influence (which they won't) the US would still be considered a superpower. The US and the Soviet Union were both superpowers simultaneously. So China, India and the US will be 3 superpowers simultaneously.

But the thing is, China and India or both incredibly reliant on American cooperation, the vast majority of the Chinese and Indian economy revolves around American-related business.

And the same is true for the opposite. Nearly everything is manufactured in China. USA economy-capitalism relies HEAVILY on China. If China goes down, or just says "no", the USA will face an unprecedented crisis. True, China may also, but chinese people are used to hardship, much unlike US people.

And India gets alot of civilian aide and much of their workforce are employed by American subsidiaries. India and China's military power is also laughable compared to that of the US.

Keep laughing and under-estimating everyone else and being cocky. Thats how you lose wars.

CHina and india both don't have the ability to project military power outside of their borders, let alone cross oceans with forces.

Yet. But mostly because they havent decided a use for such yet, not because they cant. China has thousands of intercontinental missiles. Keep laughing.

Also, Americans have a very straightforward concept of war, which will ultimately lead to their demise.

The US is the worlds lone superpower, and is therefore a Hyperpower because the US is many times more powerful than the next most powerful countries.

Really? You can't even calm down things in Iraq. I don't want to imagine if you took against a bigger foe.

Ask any EDUCATED, non-biased person and they will tell you the US is the worlds Superpower, has been for a long time, and will continue to be for a long time.

The USA became a joke when it was defeated at Bay of Pigs. Thats when people realized USA wasn't hardass. And today's Iraq further confirms this.

At 11/6/06 02:52 AM, Nylo wrote:

At 11/5/06 11:15 AM, LolOutLoud wrote: I don't see America as a superpower either actually.

When no country will risk going to war with you because they're scared you'll whip their asses back to the stone-age, you're a super power. When no country will risk going to war with another country because they're afraid you'll whip their ass anyways, you're the United States or the UK.

Then you essentially suck. 9/11 proves that. Islamic world took a step forwards and attacked the USA. The USA attacked the Middle East and heaily hit it, but the Middle East is nowhere near defeat and may yet hit again. So you are not a superpower. And you have lost control virtually everywhere. Everyone laughs at the USA as of today.

At 11/6/06 11:15 PM, EternalRabbit wrote: america does help alot of places out, but almost if not always, it is for an ulterior motive. take vietnam for example. the main reason the us went in to fight was to prevent the spread of communism. why? because the soviet union was based upon communism and the us was at war with them at the time. if communism in vietnam won, the domino effect would probably have converted most countries in se asia to communism. the us saw democracy in vietnam as demoralizing the ussr.

so in reply to your post, i don't see the us as a super-power, but it does offer help to other nations for a price.

If the USA so much wanted to stop communism, they should have destroyed Castro. Yet, Castro controlled Cuba for over 45 years pretty much unbothered. By the way, Cuba is only 90 miles away from the USA.

By the way... Didn't the USA lose in Vietnam?

wow your an idiot. first of all your are wronge on how long it has been since America has won a war. in the late 20th centrie around 1990-1992 America attacked the middle east in opperation dessert storm. we won that war because of the abrams we deployed. and the supposed war you are talking about is not a war considered to everybody. so basically we haven't had a war in 16 years.

yes we lost the veitnam war but that is because we really didn't fight. here is a break-down of what we did:
first three years: sent in peacekeepers(people who train soldiers)
middle three years: sent in miminal troups and air support.
last three years: sent hundreds of troups.
and when we did send in all those troups in the first year we pushed vietkong back a whole of a hell lot.

and by then the chinnesse stepped in and helped out vietkong.

At 11/7/06 06:55 PM, SomeNick wrote: By the way... Didn't the USA lose in Vietnam?

Actually the DRVN broke a treaty they signed with South Vietnam. As did the Politburo and China when they supported the DRVN's invasion of South Vietnam.

We did betray them by not supporting them when they were attacked but we in no way lost since we had no military presence in the country for two years.

The Viet Cong, over the course of the war, were demolished to the point of being nonexistent. The DRVN lost every campaign of theirs, even the Tet Offensive, which they staged over a Vietnamese holiday that was traditioinally a time for a ceasefire, backfired tremendously after their initial gains when they were demolished militarily by the American and South Vietnamese counterattack. And since we staged no campaigns north, for fear of Chinese and Soviet involvement, we essentially handicapped ourselves militarily.

At 11/7/06 06:50 PM, SomeNick wrote: The USA attacked the Middle East and heaily hit it, but the Middle East is nowhere near defeat and may yet hit again.

*Sigh*, you are a fool. Terrorists are at war with the United States, not the nations of the Middle East just like we are not at war with the nations of the Middle East.

This really distresses me people think things like this. Kinda depressing in all reality.

At 11/7/06 06:41 PM, SomeNick wrote: USA has lost a LOT of its influence. USA essentially holds no control over, say, South America.

That is one of the most foolish statements I have seen on these boards in a long time. You honestly could use some reading if you think South America has totally escaped the long presence of American involvement in their politics.

Im not saying its right Im just saying you are wrong, period.

At 11/7/06 05:09 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Also, Europe has very strict gun laws. A gorilla resistance like in WWII would simply be futile. Besides, Europeans throughout history have submitted to occupiers. Once their military is defeated, their people won't organize a sufficient resistance.

A lot has changed in 50 years. The Mid East never used to give problems to occupiers and look at them now. And its a lot easier to start guerilla campaigns now since weapons are so deadly and it has been demonstrated throughly how effective they are. People know whats up now and they wont submit to occupiers like they have in the past.

If we are having trouble holding cities like Baghdad and Tikrit there is no way we could hold the whole of continental Europe.

At 11/7/06 08:57 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

If we are having trouble holding cities like Baghdad and Tikrit there is no way we could hold the whole of continental Europe.

American couldn't take europe to start with, Cellardoor6 has some very strange ideas.

America has an immense Millitary which spends far far more than anyother country.
Howether Britain,france an germany spend a similar amount compared to the size of there economy an military man power, those three are near enough as technocology advanced as the US, The European Union together sepnds nearly 3/4 of the amount america spends which is still way off america, it's huge compared to anyother country.#

Stealth planes can be tracked by Britain an france, the EU has the same Cruise missle capability as US. There are european bases around the American Continent just like theres american ones inside europe althrough the US personal would be taken fairly swiftly in europe.

Cellardoor6 I have to point out again that the US personal are in europe because they are aloud to be for there own needs, NOT to protect europe which you seem to think.
They are there so there nearer to the middle east and russia etc. I expect I know more US military personal than you, not only that but US squaddies stationed here, And there not here to protect.

I'm not saying the armies in the EU are equal to the US because there not, far from it, But theres no way the US could take Europe, it's stupid,
If the EU wanted massive armies i could be done , but we have no need for them we don't intend on invading people, and the EU has as much power as the US, whats more the EU has closer relations with Russia, and India.

As for the EU not being a superpower

It as an inncrediby big economy (biggest in the world) making up over 25% of the worlds economy)

Large population -3rd in the world.
Stable currency
large advanced miliaries
Nuclear capabilities
very influential on the rest of the world.

Theres already soldiers from the different countries fighting under the european flag,
it doesn't matter if its not one nation, I'm all for the Union!!

At 11/6/06 11:15 PM, EternalRabbit wrote: america does help alot of places out, but almost if not always, it is for an ulterior motive. take vietnam for example. the main reason the us went in to fight was to prevent the spread of communism. why? because the soviet union was based upon communism and the us was at war with them at the time. if communism in vietnam won, the domino effect would probably have converted most countries in se asia to communism. the us saw democracy in vietnam as demoralizing the ussr.

The USSR did help alot of places out, but almost if not always,it is for an ulterior motive. Take Vietnam for example. The main reason the USSR went in to fight was to promote the spread of communism. Why? Because the USSR was based on communism and the US was at war with them at the time( Cold War, not open hostilities!). If communism in Vietnam won, the domino effect would proably have converted most countries in SE Asia to communism. The USSR saw democracy in Vietnam as demoralizing to the US.

See how duplicitous such a statement can be? I change five words and explained the USSR's role in Vietnam, as opposed to the US'.

Oops! I meant "communism in vietnam". Sorry!

Which SE Asian countries aren't in poverty? The ones that were never under communist rule. North Korea is so poor, its citizens eat their own children. Vietnam was devastated after the end of the war; it has only recently begun to recover. And don't even get me started on Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge!

At 11/10/06 08:08 AM, inclusivedisjunction wrote: Vietnam was devastated after the end of the war;

Vietnam being devastated after the war wasnt from communism it was from all that agent orange an shit.

so long as democrats and republicans remain "in power" (that phrase being so commonly used is just fucking scary) we will continue to be a interventionalist nation. You can thank your progressive movement for this...