War USA vs EU which would be stronger?

[LezginMBD]

South Africa had a joke arsenal, the whites never were the mayority, it was internationally isolated, suffered under sanctions and abolished Apartheid and gave up their silly nuclear arsenal due to international and national pressure.

None of those factors apply to the USA

Go play with Legos Mohammed

Nonetheless they were a minority(as will be USA in 2044), so that does play a precedent in what might become.

[Teutone]

Nonetheless they were a minority(as will be USA in 2044), so that does play a precedent in what might become.

They always were a minority

They were even a minority when they created your claimed great army and nuclear weapons.

In 1911 only 20% of the South African population were white.

The thing is, you just point out your complete previous argument is invalid, but you dont even notice this. Therfor its pointless to talk to you, you dont even realize when you being destroyed.

Teach an Gorilla how to play Chess is easier than make you realize how dumb you are.

[LezginMBD]

They always were a minority

They were even a minority when they created your claimed great army and nuclear weapons.

In 1911 only 20% of the South African population were white.

The thing is, you just point out your complete previous argument is invalid, but you dont even notice this. Therfor its pointless to talk to you, you dont even realize when you being destroyed.

Teach an Gorilla how to play Chess is easier than make you realize how dumb you are.

Alright Herr Himmler, tell me what you think will happen once USA becomes white minority? And in regards to my argument being invalid, your opposite numbers at stormfront would beg to differ.

[Böri]

Rothschild banker Macron was supported by Globalists in the election process that made him president.
Yet Macron angered his masters as he dared to talk about an 'European Army,...
He acted like De Gaulle.

When Macron left France, his country was on fire by Yellow Vests. Government lost control of France.
Looking at the picture, it seems that elements from French Army, Police and Intelligence are silent. Silence in this situation means support to Yellow Vests.

As Macron landed in Argentine, he was welcomed by Yellow vests too



Strong message at him.

That's what happens when you don't follow the pre-set track for you and try to act by your own wish

France is on fire now.
Cars are set ablaze.
Government buildings are arsoned.
Luxury goods shops are looted.
Crowds of tens of thousands are clashing with police.

Macron isn't even as powerful as De Gaulle who lost his struggle for independent France. Macron's chances are very low.
He will probably be ousted soon, or will be granted the right to end his current presidency period if he strongly apologizes for what he dared to tell.
For sure he will never be elected again.

[Ruggery]

They always were a minority

They were even a minority when they created your claimed great army and nuclear weapons.

In 1911 only 20% of the South African population were white.

The thing is, you just point out your complete previous argument is invalid, but you dont even notice this. Therfor its pointless to talk to you, you dont even realize when you being destroyed.

Teach an Gorilla how to play Chess is easier than make you realize how dumb you are.

Currently the white South African population represents only 8% of the total population and continues to decline, in 100 years the white population decreased by 12%.

[Sarmatian]

The Bank of England controls not just Europe but the world.

No it doesn't. Financial establishment has been mixed US/UK for a few decades but recently there was split. Anyway banks are losing their powers because their capacity to fuel economic growth through emission has reached its culmination. That's basically the main reason Trump was brought to power to dismantle old system and build a new one.

[Sarmatian]

1) yeah, I'm the ignorant one
2) mate, all the luck in the world couldn't stop an Abrams or a challenger will an RPG. Even if you fired one inside the turret the vehicle wouldn't suffer serious damage (obviously the crew would die). Yes I saw you write kornet, but it's funnier to focus on the more obviously wrong answer you gave which you are still, hilariously, and very ignorantly defending

From Wiki article about performance of Abrams in Iraq:

Some Abrams were disabled by Iraqi infantrymen in ambushes employing short-range antitank rockets, such as the Russian RPG-7, during the 2003 invasion. Although the RPG-7 is unable to penetrate the front and sides, the rear and top are vulnerable to this weapon. Frequently the rockets were fired at the tank tracks. Another was put out of action in the Battle of Baghdad after being struck by numerous medium caliber weapons, including 12.7mm rounds which ruptured a fuel bladder stored on an external rack. This started a fire that spread to the engine.

By December 2006, more than 530 Abrams tanks had been shipped back to the U.S. for repair.

Don't get me wrong, it's good piece of machinery, one of the best in the world. Poses great threat on battlefield. Yet there are variety of ways to disable or destroy it completely. RPG would probably be least efficient of them but still doable.

[Sarmatian]

I provided plenty facts about the quantity and quality of the US Arsenal.

What has my nationality to do with this question? Why should I be biased or "patriotic" to answer a question? If you ask me who will win in a match German Fortuna Düsseldorf or Spanish Real Madrid, I will say Real Madrid.

You speak with me about 1941 and Wehrmacht to make me biased? I call that pathetic.

And me praising the USA? I have countless threads criticizing them when there was a reason to, just like admiting them when there is a reason. This is called being reasonable. Something RT ereased from your mind.

Just for the record: I do not watch RT or any other television. I've studied in University which developed some of high-tech military hardware. I've also have basic training in AA systems such as infamous BUK.

Forgive me my skepticism but I can't really see the stories "about the quantity and quality of the US Arsenal" as credible. So far I have observed US forces performing extremely effective individual strikes with high-tech weapons against targets of far lower technical level. I also observed relatively well planned and performed military operations using similar high-tech equipment on larger scale but again against opponent of lower technical and organizational level. Then I watched ground troops performing in some operations (see Black Hawk Down for example) and I was not impressed at all.

So I have serious doubts shall it come to open conflict US army will outperform the opponent who is known to be leading the world in missile development for decades. Their problem is numbers. Sure they have excellent elite troops but too few to make any difference on large war theater. Sure they have high-tech toys but in conflict against Russia they will need tens of thousands of them just to overwhelm Russian defenses and US simply don't have the numbers because these toys are too expensive.

In a way they have made same mistake as Hitler did when he decided to produce heavy and expensive Tigers. He could've had focused on Panthers and field 3 of them in place of each one Tiger. That would allow him to build a mass of very agile and effective machines and who knows how then war would've played out. Similar thing with US developments, in 1980's they decided to focus on precise and very expensive missiles instead of producing mass of slightly inferior but far cheaper and still effective ones. Now they simply don't have enough hardware to penetrate Russian AA shield. They sure could do some serious damage but the losses they will suffer during the process are too great to afford.

At the end your praises for US strength seems weird to me. They sure excel in some areas but for most part they don't possess anything that would make them unbeatable. That's big difference between you and me. You've given up already but an average Russian is willing to try his chances with what he got at hands.

[Sarmatian]

They don't. Aircraft carriers are but a tool, a very effective tool. Are they vulnerable to new developments such as hypersonic missiles? Sure, there are new threats on the battlefield, as well as new ways to meet and address those threats.

Would you also say that tanks belong to the last century? If so, your country has tens of thousands of them, most of them obsolete garbage. I'll just sit here and wait for you guys to send them all to the scrap yard, since they belong to the last century.

Missed that reply for some reason.

Carriers only serve one goal - projecting force on small entities around globe. They can't do much against large landmass. Especially as large as Russia. In a big war they won't be as effective: with right tools it's too easy to disable for such big and expensive piece of equipment.

I have no illusions about tanks either. For now they are still relevant but slowly becoming obsolete. Hence the reason why Russia is working towards development of unmanned vehicles of various size.

[Grace O'Malley]

USA of course. I think that's a given.