2d ago

Fellow Eurobros, I know it's unlikely, but if it came to this which front would you rather fight at?

🫸🫷

You're viewing a single thread.

62 comments

This map forgets that the US have direct access to bases in NATO countries.
Trump could just send troops in the open to the bases, and then turn around on the local forces.
US taking over NATO countries will not be a Normandie style sea landing, they would break out of our own bases having disabled them first.
- And they have a kill switch for a lot of NATO tech
- People coming up with scenarios like that forget that the US would have huge supply lines to keep those bases going while the other country is literally right there. And it is not as if you would need to besiege a modern military base for months to starve them out.
  
  While it's inaccurate to pretend the US would just steamroll the EU in a land war in the EU, we also shouldn't pretend like the bases wouldn't be problematic. Everywhere the US operates requires huge supply lines, so it's not the absolute deal breaker it would be for most nations.
  Starting with places to land and manage supplies would be a big advantage.
  The biggest issue would be that usually they use the bases to house troops during the lengthy process of getting them into place for deployment, so there would be a lot of questions about how to actually move the people over fast enough, but getting the supplies there would be relatively routine.
  There's no way the US could take or hold Europe without an aggreable civilian population. Given the differences in expenditures, military size, experience, and developed tools and logistics there's also no real way any European nation is going to be able to effectively stop them. Basically a significantly worse Vietnam type situation, from the perspective of both sides.
- The EU has 500+ million population. Do you you think that the few thousands of american troops in Europe can fight against that? Even if the EU had no military, it would be an impossible fight. And the EU has a lot of military, vastly outnumbering american military stationed in Europe.
  
  You're years out of date
  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20240711-1
  Are you from the future?
  
  Close enough. Especially if you add Norway, Switzerland and the UK.
  
  What?
  Population means very little when we have to fight tanks, boats, planes and missiles.
  We have few military weapons outside of military bases, the US only needs to take control of a few bases to cripple us
  
  Population means very little when we have to fight tanks, boats, planes and missiles.
  Those things cant automatically teleport to european soil. Aircraft carriers can only do so much and they also cant teleport. Numbers are still relevant, especially when backed by existing european military. Morale is also relevant.
  Europe is a giant place, with shitload of people, that have a strong desire to defend against invaders. Look what happened to Vietnam or Ukraine. As long as you have a large enough group of people, with decent equipment and morale, you can do great things.
  
  You do know that the US maintains a supply of tanks and equippent in many countries on their bases the world over?
  If you have one tank, it is easier to get another one.
  
  Do you think european nations dont have any tanks?
  
  We absolutely do have tanks, really good tanks, but we don't have recent combat experience with using them, sure we have run exercises with them, but the US have active combat experience using their tanks.

62 comments