Who'd you think win between both of them?
I'd take for the EU as they have already a great common share in common security with over 1,551,038 active personel in 2012 and 546 ships, 2,448 aircraft & 7,695 battle tanks, I couldn't imagine if they throwed in all of their military power and budget. The budget at a 1,55 percent GDP base on the military is over 192 Billion euros. This debate includes only conventional weapons. And plus, the ennemies of the US would take pleasure in joining the war. (china, north korea, russia, etc.)
@IlluminatiOverseer War with rifles and nukes? I don't think so. Both sides know what a real war could cause. It would be more a Third cold war (second is already happening between Russia and EU). War with informations, secret agencies...
Well, I said only conventional weapons, and since there's only conventional weapons included, as the US-EU war was only stopped by the Risk of total mutual destruction (Nukes launched at each other) no one took the risk to go to war with the other camp, so It's a 100 percent sure that it would still include intelligence, but not primarly.
A few things that need to be clarified. Most importantly, what do you mean by 'conventional weapons'? Nukes certainly aren't conventional - in the sense that they have rarely been used. But what about modern technologies like drones? Modern, highly potent and highly accurate weaponry seems to be an arena in which the US has a decisive advantage.
But there's also a bit of a contradiction here. You've posed the question in terms of an EU vs US war. This doesn't include Chine, Russia or North Korea. If we're allowing the possibility of them entering the war and fighting against the US, then there's just no contest. We'd basically be talking about a world war that is the US vs everyone else. My suggestion would be to ignore this possibility in order to make the question more compelling.
I think you have to consider other issues as well; the location of the fighting, force multipliers, etc. There is more than meets the eye in military matters other than the quantity and quality of armies.
For one, the US army would be much more centralized, unified and integrated as a force compared to any EU army. The EU might have special regional commands covering a few countries who have trained and deployed together, but that doesn't mean they can cooperate fully across all member states. I think the fact that the EU has a separate issue of interstate coordination might potentially be a fatal flaw. Furthermore, the quality and quantity of their own forces are diverse and varied as well.
If you're still game for it, let's develop it further haha. And welcome to the Forums!
@Moegreche I mean conventional weapons such as weapons wide in use that are certainly not mass destruction weapons that the US holds plenty. Small arms, light weapons, sea and land mines, bombs, shells, rockets and cluster munitions. (ammunitions powered by chemical energy contrary to nuclear energy.) but maybe not cluster munitions as they are unauthorized by many treaties as the Ottowa treaty but are accepted by the Geneva Convention. Also for technology, missile technology and delivery systems such as aircraft and ballistic missiles could be labeled as WMDs. And, I will ignore the possibilty of the entrance of other countries, you're right on that. And for the drones, the EU does have a lot, they have the Heavy Airlift wing, the Air command etc. that holds a very large amount of aircrafts and drones.
@nichodemus The EU's military is actually extremly well coordinated, they have battlegroups composed of 1,500 soldiers with combat supports elements that can easily assemble in a powerful figthing force. Those groups actively rotates, so for peacekeeping missions, two can be deployed at a time and for a the Defense and Protection protocol, over 32 battlegroups can be deployed instantly for a certain defence while the other get ready to battle. The EU also have a strong policy and established a permanent structed Co-operation, all members are supposed to contribute in any ways.
Yep, I've heard about the EU battlegroups, though information about them is sparse, probably due to their relative newness and lack of actual deployment. However at any one time, only two are actually ready for instant deployment, so I wonder about their effectiveness. Furthermore, they've never actually been field-tested. On the other hand the US has a much more unified command and army which has rather vast experience from its recent deployments.
I think the EU has great military ideas and formations on paper, but the dysfunctional spirit of the EU also extends to its military plans as well. The idea of EU battlegroups took a long time to lift off, and even now it's down rather half-heartedly. This is before any problems over political and military command emerges. I think coordination is one of the biggest challenges for the EU. If it comes to the crunch, who will dictate military strategy? The larger and more influential nations, or will it be a democratic vote? Will the EU actually coordinate itself properly, or will nations be more cautious in using troops to defend their local borders? In any case, this isn't entirely clear, which might give the US an advantage in the hypothetical scenario.
I think this is interesting because whenever we talk about NATO it's going to be an effort dominated by the Americans. This scenario probably gives us food to chew over whether Europe as a whole can stand by itself in any conflict.
The EU has welcomed increased U.S. military presence in its East because Russia has been puffing out its chest again.
So?
The U.S. is the de facto world superpower, which has been the case since World War II when America took global leadership away from Great Britain.
No, it hasn't, nor was Britain ever in a position of global leadership.
The EU has not a chance in hell of invading the CONUS whereas the U.S. is the only country on the planet capable of successfully landing an invasion force anywhere on the planet.
Are you kidding? Invasion is the easy part. The U.S. can't even prevent the rampant invasion of unarmed immigrants from Mexico.
The last thing the EU wants or needs is to rile up the Americans enough that small town U.S.A. men and women want to come over and kick the **** out of them.
What gives you the idea that any member state of the E.U. should be in any way concerned about the ire of some small town U.S.A. men and women? Any man or woman engaging in acts of international terrorism has more to fear from the target than it has to fear from them. The U.S. should be more concerned, as it could provoke retaliation.
