Could Europe survive a war against the US?
The unpredictability of President Elect Donald Trump is making a great deal of people around the world extremely nervous. He has previously expressed both his approval for ‘mad dog’ posturing on the international stage and reviewing traditional alliances. With this in mind, if the worst were to happen and the US and Europe were to go to war, would the armed forces of the old continent stand a chance? We spoke to Justin Bronk, a Research Fellow specialising in combat airpower and technology in the Military Sciences team at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) and Editor of the RUSI Defence Systems online journal to find out more.
“To be honest there would be absolutely no contest – the US, even with a five year warning period – could take on all of Europe twice over without breaking much of a sweat in the military arena…”
Despite politically-motivated complaints to the contrary, the US military remains supremely well funded and well equipped.
“Even without the nuclear option, Europe has no ability outside the UK (and at a pinch Germany) to deploy division scale ground forces – far less command them and support them, nor to move heavy equipment fast at scale. The US can deploy multiple divisions with heavy armour support and full combat enablers (e.g. dynamic targeting support, SATCOMs etc). Without the US, we in Europe have almost no access to SATCOM, GPS targeting, strategic mobility etc etc.”
Non-US NATO forces are also essentially ancillary parts of the US war machine, dependent on US support to fight large wars and tied to US-made and supported equipment to function.
“In air force terms, the US have a large advantage in relevant frontline types, whilst European fighter forces are chronically dependent on US tanker, AWACS, ELINT and EW support. What’s more, even the few top-tier European air forces have no answers to the F-22, B-2 or the high-end jamming that the US deploys with the Growler, B-52 etc.”
If the air offers Europe a chance, the sea does not. “In naval forces…. It’s around 15 nuclear attack submarines, mostly British and French capability, with a smattering of littoral-based but capable electric boats from Sweden and Germany vs 57 nuclear attack boats from the US. The surface combatant ratios are even worse and doesn’t even contain the 10 CVN’s with associated air wings.”
Even the US’ Navy’s army is the match for two of the most powerful European nations: “Then there’s the USMC which alone can field almost as much combat power as Britain or Germany…”
In summary, Bronk declares it- “No contest”
We must all hope that this subject remains firmly in the armchair.
You may also enjoy B-52 pilot chooses Top 10 Cold War bombers, Flying & Fighting in the Mirage 2000: a pilot interview, The World’s Worst Air Force, 10 most formidable dogfight missiles, The ten coolest cancelled airliners, Ten incredible cancelled Soviet fighter aircraft, Ten worst Soviet aircraft, Ten incredible cancelled military aircraft, Fighter aircraft news round-up, 11 Cancelled French aircraft or the 10 worst British military aircraft, Su-35 versusTyphoon, 10 Best fighters of World War II , Su-35 versus Typhoon, top WVR and BVR fighters of today, an interview with a Super Hornet pilot and a Pacifist’s Guide to Warplanes. Flying and fighting in the Tornado. Was the Spitfire overrated? Want something more bizarre? Try Sigmund Freud’s Guide to Spyplanes. The Top Ten fictional aircraft is a fascinating read, as is The Strange Story and The Planet Satellite. The Fashion Versus Aircraft Camo is also a real cracker. Those interested in the Cold Way should read A pilot’s guide to flying and fighting in the Lightning. Those feeling less belligerent may enjoy A pilot’s farewell to the Airbus A340. Looking for something more humorous? Have a look at this F-35 satire and ‘Werner Herzog’s Guide to pusher bi-planes or the Ten most boring aircraft. In the mood for something more offensive? Try the NSFW 10 best looking American airplanes, or the same but for Canadians. 10 great aircraft stymied by the US.
Hush-Kit 
Kinda like how – on paper – USA vs North Vietnam was no contest. There’s more to “victory” than pure brute force and numbers of combatants / ships / aircraft and technological advantage of said vehicles and troops.
France has enough nuke stockpile to erase the US and the rest of the planet as flat as a Wall Mart parking lot.
You have a crystal clear understanding of reality, but are being supercilious. The article as clearly stated is a comparison of conventional forces.
From the UK, I sincerely hope any war – between NATO and Russia, between the US and non-Russian Europe (or even the US and a Europe which inculdes Russia – that’s a thought, not beyond the possibility of historic geo-politics in time) – indeed remains firmly ‘in the armchair’, but perhaps puts the EU concept of a European army, separate from NATO, into context, i.e. independence from the US.
Couple that with Trump’s desire to make Europe pick up more of the bill – why indeed should the US pay for us? – and the dynamics change again,
However, the fact that Europe relies on so much US militiary equipment and technology (Britiish nuclear missles are US, British drones are flown from the US, US transport aircraft, AEW, anti-submarine, heavy helicopters, F35 to come, etc, etc.) would seem to negate the possibility of a war, but is perhaps a spur to Europe to become more self-reliant over time, if that is possible, politically and financially. Airbus did it with airliners – perhaps it is possible with defence?
– the US can keep “paying for you,” because we are really paying ourselves, or rather our defense contractors, who would be reaping the rewards for increased European military spending. It’s a shakedown.
– Europe is already “self sufficient” in that it can more than adequately repulse any current credible threat to it’s borders. There is no ideological divide between “West” and “East” any more, especially as both Russian and American rabid-right wingers are finding more common ground each day. Nigel Farage called Putin the world leader he most admires. So why does Theresa keep scaring children with stories of Russkies overrunning Dover Castle without her Trident?
Please remember, unlike Airbus, Lockheed Martin doesn’t produce a single usable aircraft. But they are the largest government contractors in the US, and thus the world. Where do you want your tax receipts going? Arm-chair battles, or the NHS?
In an ideal world I’d much rather defence spending was zero everywhere, and health, welfare, education, housing, environment etc. were priorities for spend, but failng that, then the appropriate spending Iwhich is what?) on miltary programmes should be nearer to home, and that means europe, as those programmes are simply too big for a nation like the UK (and even more so if/when it breaks up!) alone.
I take the point I think you are making that increased european defence spending would probably still get back to US defence contractors, even if the US didn’t pay, hence my thoughts on reiliance on european equipment.
As to who would we be likely to fight – between the 1st and Seond World Wars, the UK had to have an assumed enemy, and that was, I believe, France (until Germany re-armed) – the US was considered too! Britian and France have been in conflict on and off for 900 years! Spain and Britain fought for years. Britain and fhe Dutch fought for years (then Britain got a Dutch King!), France took on most of europe in the Napoleonic era. Britain, France and the Ottomans fought Russia in the Crimean. Prussia and Austria-Hungary fought each other, then Germany and Austria united (for a while) in 1938. Cold War we stared across eastern europe. And so it goes on. There has to be a potential enemy, in order to justify spend and development.
However, if the UK ends up (however unlikely!) toe-to-toe militarily with the Spanish over Gibraltarian sovreignty in Brexit, it will be fascinating to contemplate a Spanish carrier moored in Algeciras/Gibraltar (take your pick) bay with a complement of Harriers (of Anglo-German-US origins, powered by a French concept engine), with Spanish escort vessels of US origins, whilst the emerging British carriers still await the F-35, and the power systems of the escorting British destroyers break down – again. And all Nato.
It’s a funny old world…
All this article does is prove exactly how right Trump is about how much NATO takes advantage of the US to spend the lion’s share of money and troops to protect Europe. This alliance has turned into a fleecing of the American tax payer, while European members with the exception of the UK hardly contribute at all to their own defense.
What a stupid irresponsible premise for an article! The US, regardless of who the President is, has no interest or motivation to even consider a war with Europe. This irrational paranoia over Trump needs to stop. Ever hear of self fulfilling prophecy?
Hi David K, thanks for your point. I think you raise some interesting questions: articles that compare US military assets with Russian or Chinese equivalents are uncontroversial, yet straying outside of these nightmarish scenarios to other, equally nightmarish, subjects garner more attention. The reasons for this should be discussed. Regarding your final point: if the more alarmist prophecies did come true, then the ‘paranoia’ would be rational. Thanks for getting involved, HK
Interesting idea. It’s at the very least an effective lampshade on the usual European theater wargame. Honestly, though, I actually think there’s even less chance of a large scale conflict than we’ve had in nearly two decades- you finally have a guy, obnoxious and pig as he might be, who didn’t make his money off of defense contractors or oil. For the first time in almost 2 generations, there might not be a major money incentive for an administration to go to war.
All wargaming aside, though, the one thing I really wonder about with Trump is if, outside of posturing, he could actually ever take on the F-35 project….
I think europeans would wipe out the aircraft carriers very quickly (as demonstrated by the germans ans swedes often in exercises) and france would nuke ny city, the brits nuke los angeles (destroying the mexican wall as well).
As j’y showed in actuel French army, quantity don’t allow availability. U.S. can erase Europe with a massive blow. .. certainly but in actually, U.S. air carrier are unavailable. For the first time since 1945…
Most likely true on paper, but napkin calculaltions about sonething like this are pointless.
Same military might has been 15 years in Afghanistan and still trying to win that one. Good luck trying same with Europe.
In the B-52 community we feared “Blue/Grey” threats like the Mirage and Roland both because of their quality and the fact that our electronic countermeasures were optimized to go against Soviet-made systems.
Interesting. Makes me wonder if French aircraft would have an advantage against Russian types trained to counter AMRAAM carriers. I think a Roland took down an A-10 (and a Tornado) over Iraq. French kit proved devastatingly effective against British forces in the Falkland’s War.
In the words of that famed military pragmatist Private James Frazer of Walmington-on-Sea Home Guard ‘We’re doomed, I tell you. All doomed!’
Well, there is an argument to be made that the roles were reversed in WW2. At the beginning of WW2 the USA were a industrial powerhouse with a tiny army, facing 2 super militarized giants with weak, industrial legs. It defeated them by ramping up military production, raising a giant, well equipped army withing a few years and drowning both enemies in material.
In a way the roles are reversed now. Now the USA are the military giant that pretty much gave up its manufacturing industry, while Japan and Germany are giant factories with tiny skeleton crew armies. With a warning time of 5 years and true determination, Germany could churn out a lot of stuff.
Consider that those thousands of Leopard 2 tanks that were supplied to all those NATO partners and other allies (like Switzerland), all were produced by a tiny company somewhere in Bavaria, which employed like 2000 people or so and they were all built within a few years.
If Germany would switch its industrial capacity to military production the way the USA did in WW2 for 5 years, they alone could build more tanks, missiles and aircraft than the rest of Europe could provide crews for.
I like your industrial approach of this tread !
Sound right for tanks and ground stuff, in France we also have Airbus and Dassault !
The first one can produces thousands of plane per year, and with the A350 program, they now mastered the art of delicate fully-composite airframes. They have 30 000 employee only in Toulouse for their productions line.
The second one can design and produce state of the art fighter (Rafale my love…) and also produce and maintain hundreds of business jet per year.
Give me five year and we will turn this formidable potential into giant military industry, who can produce thousands of warplane and highly adaptable converted airliner per mouth.
This 5 year plan change everything, we delay and money, we can adapt A380 for heavy lift task, we can build dozens of A400m or A330 MRTT, design and produce A330 AWACS derivative, who are cutting-edge machines. and we can combine this capacity with the British Rolls-Royce Company, who can design and built everkind of aero engines.
You forget the Poland Army, who can raise 500 000 soldiers in some months and had very strong military culture.
1. We should build 2 engine plane with 3 level .air Craft with New Gemini first stage rocket bosster in part of this new combination aircraft an space craft to crused above earth’s atmosphere about 100 miles up too.I t should fly towards the space station too. An entered earth atmosphere with special units like the space shuttle too. Do you agree? Sir? Or Mam? What public say about new Aritle. We like to know your answer too! By writhing to U.S. !!!