Comments by "Regis" (@Timbo5000) on "What would a war between US and EU look like? (Part 1/2)" video.

  1.  @flopsinator5817  A Tsar and the Soviet Union cannot be combined. They are mortal enemies
    86
  2.  @123Sander1231  Are you insane? The US can't launch a ground offensive into the EU, they just aren't capable enough for that as the EU combined military is too large. The only way D-day was possible in WW2 was because Germany's army was busy fighting an extremely bloody war int he East. If the EU can fully focus on defending its borders and has huge force concentration there, a land invasion is not possible by a long shot. Especially not if the US has to deal with an EU war industry that pumps out thousands of Leopard tanks per month, all coming to suppress any US land force that may have landed. Can the US land tanks to match this? Not even half, or a quarter for that matter. The EU is going to mass produce the most nasty AA systems they can design to deny the US air force air superiority the best they can, they will mass produce tanks to overwhelm any enemy land force, they will mass produce fighter aircraft to at least try to gain air superiority over EU land and they will conscript millions upon millions into the military. And you can possibly land a few thousand troops and a few hundred tanks to "match" this. Not gonna happen by a long shot. And "pro-US rebels"? Bold of you to assume these people will exist in the first place, considering the US attacks Europe in this scenario. This is about as stupid as assuming there will be "pro-Europe rebels" in the US and merely funding them can win the EU the war. In no stable country on earth will there be pro-enemy rebels if their country is invaded. Maybe in some dictatorships the people will happily see the government defeated, but that's it. Obviously there won't be any pro-US rebels to speak of in the EU. What the actual hell are you thinking?
    23
  3. Germany attempts to invade France and dies, the end
    19
  4.  @maxt9657  I know right... if the German chancellor ordered to invade France the Germans would probably take after French tradition and whip out a guillotine.
    10
  5. EU: wanna burn the White House again, buddy?
    7
  6. 30.000 troops facing an army of 1.5 million: "i'M noT tRaPpED iN HeRE wItH YoU - yOu'RE TrAPPed In hErE WItH mE" This myth of US military supremacy is really getting out of hand...
    7
  7.  Alistair Bolden  That's ridiculous. If the US would invade Europe the UK would obviously not help them.... I think you have a bit too high of an opinion of your SpEcIaL rElAtIOnShIP if you think the UK will actually ever support an aggressor attacking western democracies. UK foreign policy has for half a millennium been to preserve stability and balance of power in Europe. They would never join an aggressor that seeks to control Europe and their allies. Never have and never will. In this scenario, the US is Napoleonic France, the US is the German Empire, the US is Nazi Germany and like always it will be the United Kingdom fighting to stop their aggression. And if you ever wonder who the UK is more closely allied with, just consider that with the rest of Europe they were willing to join into a political and economic union and with the US they wouldn't even consider something as deep as that. You have a close military alliance, sure, but will never have something as deep as what the UK had with the EU. It's obvious who the UK is closer to politically and it isn't the US. Our values are so closely matched that we have European constitutional rights and a European Court of Human Rights that acts like a pan-European supreme court on these matters (this is not related to the EU by the way). The UK would never even consider entering into something like this with the US as your values differ too much.
    6
  8.  @BreadWinner330  May I remind you that the UK was still 40% of the allied force on the western front.....
    3
  9. Bold of you to assume they ever left spectator mode
    3
  10. Yeah, such a shame that we have the highest quality of life on the globe. I surely would love to spend insane amounts of money on the military just so we can be as much of a shithole as the US, but be able to win theoretical wars that never will take place. Also, you ever heard of this thing called the war economy? You switch it on when there is war and then it doesn't matter anymore you didn't spend so much money on the military in the past because now we're producing thousands of Leopard tanks a month and conscripting millions in to the military. Spending too much money on the military is stupid. A standing military should be prepared to stave off any intitial invasion for a few months or so, but in the long run it's the war economy that matters most as you produce insane amounts of tech. You know, like how Russia was losing against the Germans in the beginning of WW2 because they had a terrible military but in the end switched on their massively superior war industry and won anyway. Your standing army is only useful to provide the initial defence against an attacker, holding them off long enough for the war industry to pump out huge amounts of tanks etc.
    3
  11. The UK would probably win the EU the war. Multiple aircraft carriers, a large air fleet... Yeah that'd tip the balance significantly. Fun fact: if you add the UK the combined EU navy actually has more ships than the entire US navy. Realistically they'd join the EU in this scenario anyway.
    2
  12.  @Dan-zc7ut  Shame they can only ship 10% of what they produce over here while the EU would have access to all they can produce. It's pointless.
    2
  13. Well then at least pay us a billion or so when you take it
    2
  14.  @eldricshadowchaser5454  The EU would likely open up to Russia more, maybe even attempt an alliance. This would crash the global market for sure (everyone affected, including economic suicide for the US to even try this), but there would at the same time be much more trade between Russia and the EU.
    2
  15. You're thinking the other way around. The only reason for hostilities between the EU and Russia is the EU's alliance with the US. This would open up a pact between the EU and Russia.
    2
  16. I'm just wondering whether Russia would double team the EU with the US or whether they would join the EU and forge an alliance. My guess is the latter because even though invading the EU might have short term gains for Russia, it also means they'll have the US as their direct neighbour afterwards. And Russia would be next. A powerful ally is more useful for them
    1
  17. You know how US carriers have consistently been sunk by subs in training with allies? Even by outdated 70's subs. Just one. I think aircraft carriers are dead on arrival against any modern military with well trained sub crews. If the location is known and a sub manages to catch a carrier strike group, chances are the carrier will go down. Binkov gives anti-sub warfare WAY too much credit. Subs are extremely difficult to find and highly lethal. In the Cold War Dutch subs even used to surface 1 meter next to Soviet ships in order to spy on them. Never spotted. In fact, once they had intel that a Russian sub was supposed to be somewhere and a Dutch sub lay in wait. They eventually got the Russian sub on sonar and followed them around unnoticed for several days to gather intel. What did that Russian sub do? Sailed straight up to the USS John F. Kennedy (aircraft carrier) and carried out what seemed to be a mock attack. They probably did this more often. You can find subs if you have an idea where they'll be, but otherwise they are extremely difficult to counter and carriers are NOT safe from being sunk.
    1
  18.  @bikes02  What if I told you that the political side of the EU is a direct result from the economic union? All politica powers of the EU come forth from the single market. Things like an EU-wide law on the quality standards for food for example (this takes away the ability of individual nations to make their own laws) are a direct result of the economic union and the fact that in a single market you also need the same food standards everywhere. The EEC aleady "took away powers" before the EU and basically did the same. It's just that the EU does it more openly. All their powers derive from the single market. And I say "their" but the EU literally makes laws by all countries sitting together in a room and voting, so it's not really taking powers away to begin with.
    1
  19. Ikr, Binkov really underestimates subs in general. Subs are insanely powerful and yeah if the US tries this they'll have a few billion dollar seabed decorations afterwards.
    1
  20.  @Joesolo13  And you can use them to attract US forces to a place where you can sink them with subs.
    1
  21.  @Official_Happy_  Not only that, but to think the UK would support ANY aggressor attacking free western democracies that are also its allies is simply insane. Obviously the UK would fight against the US in this scenario. I'm deeply surprised people even consider that the UK might join the US at all. That's completely out of the question.
    1
  22. What the hell...
    1
  23. And the EU itself is also a military alliance with training. What Binkov says here is like saying if Russia invades the Baltic nations NATO would have trouble responding because they're different nations. It doesn't make sense
    1
  24. US military: *uses metric system*
    1
  25. Meh, we can produce them ourselves. And doesn't the EU have its own sattelite system?
    1
  26. Nah, the UK would fight against whoever is the aggressor which is this case is the US. Nobody in their right mind will support an aggressor attacking free western democracies. Of course there will be no split.
    1
  27. EU obviously. UK would never allow an aggressor to take over free western democracies and its closest allies. If the EU attacked the US that'd be another story
    1