ITT: US vs Europe and Russia.
>NO NUKES ALLOWED
Magically the entire US population supports invading Europe and Russia.
Nukes aren't allowed for magic reasons.
The United States plans to invade Europe, Russia as well and make them states and enforce their laws.
Who would win?
Oh and ignore Canada.
Like we do normally :^)
>>29311601
Las malivinas son argentinas
>>29311694
>>29311601
unless its straight out of WW2/cold war US loses.
Current day US still loses because the US army even with a draft or a very supportive and willing to join population still wouldn't be enough to take/hold all that land.
>>29311829
Think longer term. Sure trying to hold it all in one go will end badly, but the bulk of the military threat could be defeated in relatively short order, then it would be a case of creeping across the map. Much of western europe could be held fairly easily, sure there will be problems but very few people there are going to go full insurgency on you. Once you can gain and maintain air supremacy over the rest of eastern europe and russia you just make sure no real threat can be massed to attack and turtle eastwards. Faced with an unwinnable war and even shittier than normal living conditions even the slaviest of slavs will eventually decide things will be better under US rule. We're talking a 50 year campaign at least to the whole job done, but frankly that's pretty much the starting timeframe for any effective colonisation.
>>29311938
>50 year campaign
Thats alot of Russian winters...
And after the first decade i can see it turning our population back into "War is bad" mode, Unless the population stays magically oblivious to it and is still full Gung-ho then maybe 20 years. I dont really see it being the kind of conflict that would pass onto the next generation when WE are the ones invading from both sides and for every factory we destroy, every tank they cant rebuild the war gets a little closer to victory, because even if UK/EU/Russia where all magic population mode too i dont think they could compete on a manufacturing and recruitment standpoint (considering the US alone is more nationalist and supports its military more than any of those countries do theirs.)
>>29311601
Neither side wins because nobody has robust enough logistics to support a transatlantic invasion.
The US pulled it off in WW2 because Britain wasn't conquered, and the current day US military sea-lift capabilities are not as good as they were in WW2.
If a magical land bridge connected say, the US eastern seaboard to the cost of france and spain, US would probably roll over the Euros pretty quickly. The NATO countries are completely dependent on the US for logistics and command/control. CCC on the Euro side wouldn't as much fall apart quickly as never got started in the first place.
>>29312065
Regarding that, surely both America and Europe could mobalize towards Alaska/Far-east Russia, as the distance across the northern pacific is far shorter. Or even across the north pole.
>>29311694
The ride never ends
Are you kidding?
The US -IS- Europe's defense. Without the US all Europe has left are those fruity Swiss guards and they're all busy watching the Pope's house.
Russia... pfft. Why bother? We oil now. Why would we want a huge expanse of nothing when we already have a Montana?
>>29312132
Just because it's over land doesn't mean it's easy. Russian infrastructure past the Urals is very poor. The Tran-Siberian railway is the main artery for logistics, and it doesn't go near the bearing straight.
The situation on the US side supplying a large force in Alaska is better but not by that much.
>>29312012
I'm thinking more 50 years of creeping subdual until there's little to no insurgency left. Conventional fighting should be well under a year, once the British/French navies (in particular subs) are dealt with and the bulk of the USN can cruise up unchallenged they just have to grind through for air supremacy, once they get that we've seen how badly that ends for any opposing regular force.
>>29312132
The distance may be short on a map but there's precious little infrastructure to support a large force from either side.
>>29311609
So euro countries get their colonies, but the USA doesn't?
If my calculations (and autism) are correct the US would be up against a combined;
>817 ships
>5,907 aircraft
>22,395 main battle tanks (including reserves)
>2,322,038 personnel (not all combat soldiers)
Quite a sizeable force to be up against, with a population of 742M to back it up.
This thread is going places
>>29311938
>We're talking a 50 year campaign
No public will support a 50 year campaign, 50 years defending their homeland yes, but not 50 years fighting a war across the ocean.
>>29313747
I don't know much about tonks, but I'm not sure French Leclercs and German Leopards are quite operational.
>>29313747
Are you counting all German equipment or just the few pieces that actually work?
>>29312153
praise chile
>>29311601
>inb4 US invades my country because it's a tax haven
We've got about 30 reservists, no artillery or vehicles besides minibuses.
>>29314321
>>29314345
No one on /k/ has first hand knowledge of how many are operational at any one time. So I just counted how many tanks they have, both in active service and reserve. If some of them aren't operational I assume they will be made so very quickly given a direct threat to their respective countries.
>>29314304
Remember the hundred years war?
>>29314618
>No one on /k/ has first hand knowledge of how many are operational at any one time
Frenchfag would probably know.
> If some of them aren't operational I assume they will be made so very quickly given a direct threat to their respective countries
German forces have been under-funded for years. You can't just pull a tank from storage and have it running in two days without a lot of money and a lot of man-hours.
>>29314618
are we talking bout Germany?
if so 2 battalions of leo 2 are active of roughly 44 each in total we have 200 or so leo that are in working or could be reasonably quickly put in working order (limited readiness )
maybe 100 leos 2 that are cannibalized as well
as of few years ago we have not a single mbt in a reserve
