Upload
Login or register

Endofzeeworld

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:1/15/2010
Last Login:9/26/2016
Stats
Comment Ranking:#1498
Highest Content Rank:#5597
Highest Comment Rank:#793
Content Thumbs: 59 total,  92 ,  33
Comment Thumbs: 12872 total,  16038 ,  3166
Content Level Progress: 0% (0/5)
Level 1 Content: New Here → Level 2 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 88.8% (444/500)
Level 310 Comments: Wizard → Level 311 Comments: Wizard
Subscribers:1
Content Views:6480
Times Content Favorited:4 times
Total Comments Made:4749
FJ Points:11161

latest user's comments

#127 - You're the one who brought up the US. I was just arguing again…  [+] (9 replies) 05/28/2016 on Holy shit I live in The... 0
User avatar
#128 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
Numbers isn't everything, Russia has more tanks, tank destroyers, artillery pieces, multiple rocket launch systems, attack aircraft and attack helicopters than the EU. I still don't see who would supply the EU's oil considering Russia could forcefully cut off the oil from any countries in the Middle East or Africa.
User avatar
#129 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
Which would then bring those countries into the war, stacking the numbers even more into the EU's favor. And you're just assuming that Russia could cut off those supply lines with no say from the EU. It would be a fight, not something Russia could just do.
User avatar
#135 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
I'm not saying that Russia would win the war, I'm just saying that any war would be indecisive, and the the EU wouldn't "easily shit-stomp the Russians", while Russia wouldn't be able to invade and occupy Europe, the EU wouldn't be able to invade and occupy Russia either, that's damn near impossible. There'd be no winning on any side.
User avatar
#136 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
Oh. Well then I think we're done here. I thought you were arguing for a Russian victory.

There are many variables in war. To say that Europe would shit-storm them was a bit of Hyperbole. If I was a betting man, I would bet on Europe, but you are correct in that it is a far from sure thing.
User avatar
#133 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
While Russia does have a weaker economy, their military equipment is cheaper overall, while an F-22 would cost around $150 million USD, a Russian fighter jet of similar quality would cost only around $50 million USD. And while economy is important, it isn't decisive, look at what happened in Vietnam, and the Soviet-Afghanistan.
User avatar
#134 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
Again, Russia having a "Weaker Economy" is a VAST understatement. A russian jet may cost a third of what a western one does, but the EU's economy is nine times the size.

The reason the US lost in Vietnam is because we weren't willing to continue to escalate the engagement (correctly, IMO). But if the US wanted to win the war enough, they could have. I can't speak to Soviet-Afghanistan, but that was a very complicated situation in any case.
User avatar
#131 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
Plus, I don't see countries like Nigeria and Saudi Arabia being much of a problem for Russia.
User avatar
#130 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
I think the war would start off with the invasion of Europe, due to Russia's larger army at the beginning of the war, and while they're there they can just cut the oil pipelines, I don't see how a nation could play that as an attack on them. Plus, most of the imports are from the middle east, Russia could just go through the Balkans and cut them.
User avatar
#132 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
Clearly I can't convince you of the importance of Economic strength, but I'll just leave you with this.
Russia has a GDP of about 2.1 Trillion.
The EU has a GDP of 18.5 Trillion.
That is the measure of the economic disparity. That is the measure of Europe's ability to produce. Cut it by 28%, you still have 13 Trillion. Cut it by 50%, you still have 9 Trillion. Cut it by 75%, and the EU's economy is still more than TWICE the size of Russia's. They would fall to pieces.
#125 - 1. Should the Russians sink a US ship bringing oil to Europe, …  [+] (11 replies) 05/28/2016 on Holy shit I live in The... 0
User avatar
#126 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
The US isn't even self-sufficient in oil production, so I don't see them importing oil to anyone anytime soon.
User avatar
#127 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
You're the one who brought up the US. I was just arguing against that point.

I guess my main point here is that Oil is not everything in winning a war. Its important, but not the sole factor. Russia's economy is tiny compared to the rest of Europe. Beyond reserve military personnel there is also manpower reserves, and Europe has that in spades as well.
User avatar
#128 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
Numbers isn't everything, Russia has more tanks, tank destroyers, artillery pieces, multiple rocket launch systems, attack aircraft and attack helicopters than the EU. I still don't see who would supply the EU's oil considering Russia could forcefully cut off the oil from any countries in the Middle East or Africa.
User avatar
#129 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
Which would then bring those countries into the war, stacking the numbers even more into the EU's favor. And you're just assuming that Russia could cut off those supply lines with no say from the EU. It would be a fight, not something Russia could just do.
User avatar
#135 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
I'm not saying that Russia would win the war, I'm just saying that any war would be indecisive, and the the EU wouldn't "easily shit-stomp the Russians", while Russia wouldn't be able to invade and occupy Europe, the EU wouldn't be able to invade and occupy Russia either, that's damn near impossible. There'd be no winning on any side.
User avatar
#136 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
Oh. Well then I think we're done here. I thought you were arguing for a Russian victory.

There are many variables in war. To say that Europe would shit-storm them was a bit of Hyperbole. If I was a betting man, I would bet on Europe, but you are correct in that it is a far from sure thing.
User avatar
#133 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
While Russia does have a weaker economy, their military equipment is cheaper overall, while an F-22 would cost around $150 million USD, a Russian fighter jet of similar quality would cost only around $50 million USD. And while economy is important, it isn't decisive, look at what happened in Vietnam, and the Soviet-Afghanistan.
User avatar
#134 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
Again, Russia having a "Weaker Economy" is a VAST understatement. A russian jet may cost a third of what a western one does, but the EU's economy is nine times the size.

The reason the US lost in Vietnam is because we weren't willing to continue to escalate the engagement (correctly, IMO). But if the US wanted to win the war enough, they could have. I can't speak to Soviet-Afghanistan, but that was a very complicated situation in any case.
User avatar
#131 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
Plus, I don't see countries like Nigeria and Saudi Arabia being much of a problem for Russia.
User avatar
#130 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
I think the war would start off with the invasion of Europe, due to Russia's larger army at the beginning of the war, and while they're there they can just cut the oil pipelines, I don't see how a nation could play that as an attack on them. Plus, most of the imports are from the middle east, Russia could just go through the Balkans and cut them.
User avatar
#132 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
Clearly I can't convince you of the importance of Economic strength, but I'll just leave you with this.
Russia has a GDP of about 2.1 Trillion.
The EU has a GDP of 18.5 Trillion.
That is the measure of the economic disparity. That is the measure of Europe's ability to produce. Cut it by 28%, you still have 13 Trillion. Cut it by 50%, you still have 9 Trillion. Cut it by 75%, and the EU's economy is still more than TWICE the size of Russia's. They would fall to pieces.
#123 - I disagree with your science here on a few points 1. Altho…  [+] (13 replies) 05/28/2016 on Holy shit I live in The... 0
User avatar
#124 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
1: From which partners? The US, hard to see that happening considering Russia could just sink any ships coming to EU waters.
2: I'm pretty sure no imports from Russia would hurt the EU significantly, oil is very important for an economy. Plus, the Russia gets medicine and agricultural products from the EU. And Russia can rely on China for more imports.
3: I didn't reduce it for personnel, that would be stupid.
4: You'd need oil to power factories, and you'd need factories to produce more ammunition, weapons, tanks, aircraft etc. And the EU couldn't win in a prolonged engagement, again, they'd run out of oil.
User avatar
#125 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
1. Should the Russians sink a US ship bringing oil to Europe, US enters the war. Scenario over.
2."EU exports to Russia are dominated by machinery and transport equipment, chemicals, medecines and agricultural products" All important for winning a war.
3. Just checking.
4. Combustible fuels, which includes Oil and Coal, make up about 50% of energy generation in Europe. I dont know what fraction of that is Oil (presumably a small amount of Oil based factories could be converted to Coal factories), but again, a reduction of 28%, while sizable, is not game-breaking
User avatar
#126 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
The US isn't even self-sufficient in oil production, so I don't see them importing oil to anyone anytime soon.
User avatar
#127 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
You're the one who brought up the US. I was just arguing against that point.

I guess my main point here is that Oil is not everything in winning a war. Its important, but not the sole factor. Russia's economy is tiny compared to the rest of Europe. Beyond reserve military personnel there is also manpower reserves, and Europe has that in spades as well.
User avatar
#128 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
Numbers isn't everything, Russia has more tanks, tank destroyers, artillery pieces, multiple rocket launch systems, attack aircraft and attack helicopters than the EU. I still don't see who would supply the EU's oil considering Russia could forcefully cut off the oil from any countries in the Middle East or Africa.
User avatar
#129 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
Which would then bring those countries into the war, stacking the numbers even more into the EU's favor. And you're just assuming that Russia could cut off those supply lines with no say from the EU. It would be a fight, not something Russia could just do.
User avatar
#135 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
I'm not saying that Russia would win the war, I'm just saying that any war would be indecisive, and the the EU wouldn't "easily shit-stomp the Russians", while Russia wouldn't be able to invade and occupy Europe, the EU wouldn't be able to invade and occupy Russia either, that's damn near impossible. There'd be no winning on any side.
User avatar
#136 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
Oh. Well then I think we're done here. I thought you were arguing for a Russian victory.

There are many variables in war. To say that Europe would shit-storm them was a bit of Hyperbole. If I was a betting man, I would bet on Europe, but you are correct in that it is a far from sure thing.
User avatar
#133 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
While Russia does have a weaker economy, their military equipment is cheaper overall, while an F-22 would cost around $150 million USD, a Russian fighter jet of similar quality would cost only around $50 million USD. And while economy is important, it isn't decisive, look at what happened in Vietnam, and the Soviet-Afghanistan.
User avatar
#134 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
Again, Russia having a "Weaker Economy" is a VAST understatement. A russian jet may cost a third of what a western one does, but the EU's economy is nine times the size.

The reason the US lost in Vietnam is because we weren't willing to continue to escalate the engagement (correctly, IMO). But if the US wanted to win the war enough, they could have. I can't speak to Soviet-Afghanistan, but that was a very complicated situation in any case.
User avatar
#131 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
Plus, I don't see countries like Nigeria and Saudi Arabia being much of a problem for Russia.
User avatar
#130 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
I think the war would start off with the invasion of Europe, due to Russia's larger army at the beginning of the war, and while they're there they can just cut the oil pipelines, I don't see how a nation could play that as an attack on them. Plus, most of the imports are from the middle east, Russia could just go through the Balkans and cut them.
User avatar
#132 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
Clearly I can't convince you of the importance of Economic strength, but I'll just leave you with this.
Russia has a GDP of about 2.1 Trillion.
The EU has a GDP of 18.5 Trillion.
That is the measure of the economic disparity. That is the measure of Europe's ability to produce. Cut it by 28%, you still have 13 Trillion. Cut it by 50%, you still have 9 Trillion. Cut it by 75%, and the EU's economy is still more than TWICE the size of Russia's. They would fall to pieces.
#118 - But Oil is still not the only factor in war. The EU has over 5…  [+] (18 replies) 05/28/2016 on Holy shit I live in The... 0
User avatar
#121 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
Also, considering which countries make up the EU's oil importers, Russia could cut off the imports by force.
User avatar
#122 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
Most of them, not all, but most.
#120 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
While the EU has a larger population, Russia has more reserve personnel, and even with oil imports, most EU countries wouldn't be able to have all their military equipment active at once, even if they are, an absence of Russian imports would severely effect their ability to. Now since I am autistic, I made an excel chart that shows numbers between Russia and the EU, I subtracted 28% from all EU numbers, and it considerably tipped the favor to Russia.
Source on numbers: www.globalfirepower.com/
#119 - videogamehippey has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#123 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
I disagree with your science here on a few points
1. Although Russia makes up 28% of Oil Imports to the EU, that is simply how the market exists in its current forms. There is nothing stopping the EU from importing more oil from its other partners at a higher price.
2. Russia's economy also is based largely on imports/exports with the EU. The EU's economy would still be strong without Russia. The reverse, however, is largely unlikely.
3. I can't tell if you did this here, but 28% oil reduction should have no effect on personnel.
4. Again, although Russia has a larger standing army, the industrial and economic superiority of the EU tips the scales far into their favor in a prolonged engagement.
User avatar
#124 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
1: From which partners? The US, hard to see that happening considering Russia could just sink any ships coming to EU waters.
2: I'm pretty sure no imports from Russia would hurt the EU significantly, oil is very important for an economy. Plus, the Russia gets medicine and agricultural products from the EU. And Russia can rely on China for more imports.
3: I didn't reduce it for personnel, that would be stupid.
4: You'd need oil to power factories, and you'd need factories to produce more ammunition, weapons, tanks, aircraft etc. And the EU couldn't win in a prolonged engagement, again, they'd run out of oil.
User avatar
#125 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
1. Should the Russians sink a US ship bringing oil to Europe, US enters the war. Scenario over.
2."EU exports to Russia are dominated by machinery and transport equipment, chemicals, medecines and agricultural products" All important for winning a war.
3. Just checking.
4. Combustible fuels, which includes Oil and Coal, make up about 50% of energy generation in Europe. I dont know what fraction of that is Oil (presumably a small amount of Oil based factories could be converted to Coal factories), but again, a reduction of 28%, while sizable, is not game-breaking
User avatar
#126 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
The US isn't even self-sufficient in oil production, so I don't see them importing oil to anyone anytime soon.
User avatar
#127 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
You're the one who brought up the US. I was just arguing against that point.

I guess my main point here is that Oil is not everything in winning a war. Its important, but not the sole factor. Russia's economy is tiny compared to the rest of Europe. Beyond reserve military personnel there is also manpower reserves, and Europe has that in spades as well.
User avatar
#128 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
Numbers isn't everything, Russia has more tanks, tank destroyers, artillery pieces, multiple rocket launch systems, attack aircraft and attack helicopters than the EU. I still don't see who would supply the EU's oil considering Russia could forcefully cut off the oil from any countries in the Middle East or Africa.
User avatar
#129 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
Which would then bring those countries into the war, stacking the numbers even more into the EU's favor. And you're just assuming that Russia could cut off those supply lines with no say from the EU. It would be a fight, not something Russia could just do.
User avatar
#135 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
I'm not saying that Russia would win the war, I'm just saying that any war would be indecisive, and the the EU wouldn't "easily shit-stomp the Russians", while Russia wouldn't be able to invade and occupy Europe, the EU wouldn't be able to invade and occupy Russia either, that's damn near impossible. There'd be no winning on any side.
User avatar
#136 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
Oh. Well then I think we're done here. I thought you were arguing for a Russian victory.

There are many variables in war. To say that Europe would shit-storm them was a bit of Hyperbole. If I was a betting man, I would bet on Europe, but you are correct in that it is a far from sure thing.
User avatar
#133 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
While Russia does have a weaker economy, their military equipment is cheaper overall, while an F-22 would cost around $150 million USD, a Russian fighter jet of similar quality would cost only around $50 million USD. And while economy is important, it isn't decisive, look at what happened in Vietnam, and the Soviet-Afghanistan.
User avatar
#134 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
Again, Russia having a "Weaker Economy" is a VAST understatement. A russian jet may cost a third of what a western one does, but the EU's economy is nine times the size.

The reason the US lost in Vietnam is because we weren't willing to continue to escalate the engagement (correctly, IMO). But if the US wanted to win the war enough, they could have. I can't speak to Soviet-Afghanistan, but that was a very complicated situation in any case.
User avatar
#131 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
Plus, I don't see countries like Nigeria and Saudi Arabia being much of a problem for Russia.
User avatar
#130 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
I think the war would start off with the invasion of Europe, due to Russia's larger army at the beginning of the war, and while they're there they can just cut the oil pipelines, I don't see how a nation could play that as an attack on them. Plus, most of the imports are from the middle east, Russia could just go through the Balkans and cut them.
User avatar
#132 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
Clearly I can't convince you of the importance of Economic strength, but I'll just leave you with this.
Russia has a GDP of about 2.1 Trillion.
The EU has a GDP of 18.5 Trillion.
That is the measure of the economic disparity. That is the measure of Europe's ability to produce. Cut it by 28%, you still have 13 Trillion. Cut it by 50%, you still have 9 Trillion. Cut it by 75%, and the EU's economy is still more than TWICE the size of Russia's. They would fall to pieces.
#116 - And I still think you overestimate exactly how powerful Russia…  [+] (20 replies) 05/28/2016 on Holy shit I live in The... 0
User avatar
#117 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
While their GDP is considerably less than the EU, they still have an oil monopoly in Europe, which would tip things in their favor in case of a war.
#118 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
But Oil is still not the only factor in war. The EU has over 500 million inhabitants, while Russia only has 150 million. Population matters intensely in times of war. In addition, while Russia does make up 28% of EU Oil imports, which is a large amount, it is not all. It is not even a third. The EU war machine with 28% less oil could still easily shitstomp the Russians.
User avatar
#121 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
Also, considering which countries make up the EU's oil importers, Russia could cut off the imports by force.
User avatar
#122 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
Most of them, not all, but most.
#120 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
While the EU has a larger population, Russia has more reserve personnel, and even with oil imports, most EU countries wouldn't be able to have all their military equipment active at once, even if they are, an absence of Russian imports would severely effect their ability to. Now since I am autistic, I made an excel chart that shows numbers between Russia and the EU, I subtracted 28% from all EU numbers, and it considerably tipped the favor to Russia.
Source on numbers: www.globalfirepower.com/
#119 - videogamehippey has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#123 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
I disagree with your science here on a few points
1. Although Russia makes up 28% of Oil Imports to the EU, that is simply how the market exists in its current forms. There is nothing stopping the EU from importing more oil from its other partners at a higher price.
2. Russia's economy also is based largely on imports/exports with the EU. The EU's economy would still be strong without Russia. The reverse, however, is largely unlikely.
3. I can't tell if you did this here, but 28% oil reduction should have no effect on personnel.
4. Again, although Russia has a larger standing army, the industrial and economic superiority of the EU tips the scales far into their favor in a prolonged engagement.
User avatar
#124 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
1: From which partners? The US, hard to see that happening considering Russia could just sink any ships coming to EU waters.
2: I'm pretty sure no imports from Russia would hurt the EU significantly, oil is very important for an economy. Plus, the Russia gets medicine and agricultural products from the EU. And Russia can rely on China for more imports.
3: I didn't reduce it for personnel, that would be stupid.
4: You'd need oil to power factories, and you'd need factories to produce more ammunition, weapons, tanks, aircraft etc. And the EU couldn't win in a prolonged engagement, again, they'd run out of oil.
User avatar
#125 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
1. Should the Russians sink a US ship bringing oil to Europe, US enters the war. Scenario over.
2."EU exports to Russia are dominated by machinery and transport equipment, chemicals, medecines and agricultural products" All important for winning a war.
3. Just checking.
4. Combustible fuels, which includes Oil and Coal, make up about 50% of energy generation in Europe. I dont know what fraction of that is Oil (presumably a small amount of Oil based factories could be converted to Coal factories), but again, a reduction of 28%, while sizable, is not game-breaking
User avatar
#126 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
The US isn't even self-sufficient in oil production, so I don't see them importing oil to anyone anytime soon.
User avatar
#127 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
You're the one who brought up the US. I was just arguing against that point.

I guess my main point here is that Oil is not everything in winning a war. Its important, but not the sole factor. Russia's economy is tiny compared to the rest of Europe. Beyond reserve military personnel there is also manpower reserves, and Europe has that in spades as well.
User avatar
#128 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
Numbers isn't everything, Russia has more tanks, tank destroyers, artillery pieces, multiple rocket launch systems, attack aircraft and attack helicopters than the EU. I still don't see who would supply the EU's oil considering Russia could forcefully cut off the oil from any countries in the Middle East or Africa.
User avatar
#129 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
Which would then bring those countries into the war, stacking the numbers even more into the EU's favor. And you're just assuming that Russia could cut off those supply lines with no say from the EU. It would be a fight, not something Russia could just do.
User avatar
#135 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
I'm not saying that Russia would win the war, I'm just saying that any war would be indecisive, and the the EU wouldn't "easily shit-stomp the Russians", while Russia wouldn't be able to invade and occupy Europe, the EU wouldn't be able to invade and occupy Russia either, that's damn near impossible. There'd be no winning on any side.
User avatar
#136 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
Oh. Well then I think we're done here. I thought you were arguing for a Russian victory.

There are many variables in war. To say that Europe would shit-storm them was a bit of Hyperbole. If I was a betting man, I would bet on Europe, but you are correct in that it is a far from sure thing.
User avatar
#133 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
While Russia does have a weaker economy, their military equipment is cheaper overall, while an F-22 would cost around $150 million USD, a Russian fighter jet of similar quality would cost only around $50 million USD. And while economy is important, it isn't decisive, look at what happened in Vietnam, and the Soviet-Afghanistan.
User avatar
#134 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
Again, Russia having a "Weaker Economy" is a VAST understatement. A russian jet may cost a third of what a western one does, but the EU's economy is nine times the size.

The reason the US lost in Vietnam is because we weren't willing to continue to escalate the engagement (correctly, IMO). But if the US wanted to win the war enough, they could have. I can't speak to Soviet-Afghanistan, but that was a very complicated situation in any case.
User avatar
#131 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
Plus, I don't see countries like Nigeria and Saudi Arabia being much of a problem for Russia.
User avatar
#130 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
I think the war would start off with the invasion of Europe, due to Russia's larger army at the beginning of the war, and while they're there they can just cut the oil pipelines, I don't see how a nation could play that as an attack on them. Plus, most of the imports are from the middle east, Russia could just go through the Balkans and cut them.
User avatar
#132 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
Clearly I can't convince you of the importance of Economic strength, but I'll just leave you with this.
Russia has a GDP of about 2.1 Trillion.
The EU has a GDP of 18.5 Trillion.
That is the measure of the economic disparity. That is the measure of Europe's ability to produce. Cut it by 28%, you still have 13 Trillion. Cut it by 50%, you still have 9 Trillion. Cut it by 75%, and the EU's economy is still more than TWICE the size of Russia's. They would fall to pieces.
#114 - It wouldn't be that hard to switch over purchasing oil from th…  [+] (22 replies) 05/28/2016 on Holy shit I live in The... 0
User avatar
#115 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
The US isn't even self sufficient in oil production, while Canada and the UAE is, it's not as easy as you think to switch oil imports, you'd need to either build pipelines, or transport it by sea, which isn't the safest or efficient method considering there would be a war going on.
User avatar
#116 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
And I still think you overestimate exactly how powerful Russia is. It's large, and it has a large military, but having all the oil in the world still wouldn't change just how poor they are.
User avatar
#117 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
While their GDP is considerably less than the EU, they still have an oil monopoly in Europe, which would tip things in their favor in case of a war.
#118 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
But Oil is still not the only factor in war. The EU has over 500 million inhabitants, while Russia only has 150 million. Population matters intensely in times of war. In addition, while Russia does make up 28% of EU Oil imports, which is a large amount, it is not all. It is not even a third. The EU war machine with 28% less oil could still easily shitstomp the Russians.
User avatar
#121 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
Also, considering which countries make up the EU's oil importers, Russia could cut off the imports by force.
User avatar
#122 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
Most of them, not all, but most.
#120 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
While the EU has a larger population, Russia has more reserve personnel, and even with oil imports, most EU countries wouldn't be able to have all their military equipment active at once, even if they are, an absence of Russian imports would severely effect their ability to. Now since I am autistic, I made an excel chart that shows numbers between Russia and the EU, I subtracted 28% from all EU numbers, and it considerably tipped the favor to Russia.
Source on numbers: www.globalfirepower.com/
#119 - videogamehippey has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#123 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
I disagree with your science here on a few points
1. Although Russia makes up 28% of Oil Imports to the EU, that is simply how the market exists in its current forms. There is nothing stopping the EU from importing more oil from its other partners at a higher price.
2. Russia's economy also is based largely on imports/exports with the EU. The EU's economy would still be strong without Russia. The reverse, however, is largely unlikely.
3. I can't tell if you did this here, but 28% oil reduction should have no effect on personnel.
4. Again, although Russia has a larger standing army, the industrial and economic superiority of the EU tips the scales far into their favor in a prolonged engagement.
User avatar
#124 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
1: From which partners? The US, hard to see that happening considering Russia could just sink any ships coming to EU waters.
2: I'm pretty sure no imports from Russia would hurt the EU significantly, oil is very important for an economy. Plus, the Russia gets medicine and agricultural products from the EU. And Russia can rely on China for more imports.
3: I didn't reduce it for personnel, that would be stupid.
4: You'd need oil to power factories, and you'd need factories to produce more ammunition, weapons, tanks, aircraft etc. And the EU couldn't win in a prolonged engagement, again, they'd run out of oil.
User avatar
#125 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
1. Should the Russians sink a US ship bringing oil to Europe, US enters the war. Scenario over.
2."EU exports to Russia are dominated by machinery and transport equipment, chemicals, medecines and agricultural products" All important for winning a war.
3. Just checking.
4. Combustible fuels, which includes Oil and Coal, make up about 50% of energy generation in Europe. I dont know what fraction of that is Oil (presumably a small amount of Oil based factories could be converted to Coal factories), but again, a reduction of 28%, while sizable, is not game-breaking
User avatar
#126 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
The US isn't even self-sufficient in oil production, so I don't see them importing oil to anyone anytime soon.
User avatar
#127 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
You're the one who brought up the US. I was just arguing against that point.

I guess my main point here is that Oil is not everything in winning a war. Its important, but not the sole factor. Russia's economy is tiny compared to the rest of Europe. Beyond reserve military personnel there is also manpower reserves, and Europe has that in spades as well.
User avatar
#128 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
Numbers isn't everything, Russia has more tanks, tank destroyers, artillery pieces, multiple rocket launch systems, attack aircraft and attack helicopters than the EU. I still don't see who would supply the EU's oil considering Russia could forcefully cut off the oil from any countries in the Middle East or Africa.
User avatar
#129 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
Which would then bring those countries into the war, stacking the numbers even more into the EU's favor. And you're just assuming that Russia could cut off those supply lines with no say from the EU. It would be a fight, not something Russia could just do.
User avatar
#135 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
I'm not saying that Russia would win the war, I'm just saying that any war would be indecisive, and the the EU wouldn't "easily shit-stomp the Russians", while Russia wouldn't be able to invade and occupy Europe, the EU wouldn't be able to invade and occupy Russia either, that's damn near impossible. There'd be no winning on any side.
User avatar
#136 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
Oh. Well then I think we're done here. I thought you were arguing for a Russian victory.

There are many variables in war. To say that Europe would shit-storm them was a bit of Hyperbole. If I was a betting man, I would bet on Europe, but you are correct in that it is a far from sure thing.
User avatar
#133 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
While Russia does have a weaker economy, their military equipment is cheaper overall, while an F-22 would cost around $150 million USD, a Russian fighter jet of similar quality would cost only around $50 million USD. And while economy is important, it isn't decisive, look at what happened in Vietnam, and the Soviet-Afghanistan.
User avatar
#134 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
Again, Russia having a "Weaker Economy" is a VAST understatement. A russian jet may cost a third of what a western one does, but the EU's economy is nine times the size.

The reason the US lost in Vietnam is because we weren't willing to continue to escalate the engagement (correctly, IMO). But if the US wanted to win the war enough, they could have. I can't speak to Soviet-Afghanistan, but that was a very complicated situation in any case.
User avatar
#131 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
Plus, I don't see countries like Nigeria and Saudi Arabia being much of a problem for Russia.
User avatar
#130 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
I think the war would start off with the invasion of Europe, due to Russia's larger army at the beginning of the war, and while they're there they can just cut the oil pipelines, I don't see how a nation could play that as an attack on them. Plus, most of the imports are from the middle east, Russia could just go through the Balkans and cut them.
User avatar
#132 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
Clearly I can't convince you of the importance of Economic strength, but I'll just leave you with this.
Russia has a GDP of about 2.1 Trillion.
The EU has a GDP of 18.5 Trillion.
That is the measure of the economic disparity. That is the measure of Europe's ability to produce. Cut it by 28%, you still have 13 Trillion. Cut it by 50%, you still have 9 Trillion. Cut it by 75%, and the EU's economy is still more than TWICE the size of Russia's. They would fall to pieces.
#109 - In the opening phases of a war, current standing military powe…  [+] (24 replies) 05/28/2016 on Holy shit I live in The... 0
User avatar
#113 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
Also, doesn't the EU rely on Russia for their oil? EU wouldn't be able to fuel their war machine.
User avatar
#114 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
It wouldn't be that hard to switch over purchasing oil from the UAE, USA, and Canada. Especially if the Republicans control the US government and frakking is allowed to continue unfettered.
User avatar
#115 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
The US isn't even self sufficient in oil production, while Canada and the UAE is, it's not as easy as you think to switch oil imports, you'd need to either build pipelines, or transport it by sea, which isn't the safest or efficient method considering there would be a war going on.
User avatar
#116 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
And I still think you overestimate exactly how powerful Russia is. It's large, and it has a large military, but having all the oil in the world still wouldn't change just how poor they are.
User avatar
#117 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
While their GDP is considerably less than the EU, they still have an oil monopoly in Europe, which would tip things in their favor in case of a war.
#118 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
But Oil is still not the only factor in war. The EU has over 500 million inhabitants, while Russia only has 150 million. Population matters intensely in times of war. In addition, while Russia does make up 28% of EU Oil imports, which is a large amount, it is not all. It is not even a third. The EU war machine with 28% less oil could still easily shitstomp the Russians.
User avatar
#121 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
Also, considering which countries make up the EU's oil importers, Russia could cut off the imports by force.
User avatar
#122 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
Most of them, not all, but most.
#120 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
While the EU has a larger population, Russia has more reserve personnel, and even with oil imports, most EU countries wouldn't be able to have all their military equipment active at once, even if they are, an absence of Russian imports would severely effect their ability to. Now since I am autistic, I made an excel chart that shows numbers between Russia and the EU, I subtracted 28% from all EU numbers, and it considerably tipped the favor to Russia.
Source on numbers: www.globalfirepower.com/
#119 - videogamehippey has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#123 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
I disagree with your science here on a few points
1. Although Russia makes up 28% of Oil Imports to the EU, that is simply how the market exists in its current forms. There is nothing stopping the EU from importing more oil from its other partners at a higher price.
2. Russia's economy also is based largely on imports/exports with the EU. The EU's economy would still be strong without Russia. The reverse, however, is largely unlikely.
3. I can't tell if you did this here, but 28% oil reduction should have no effect on personnel.
4. Again, although Russia has a larger standing army, the industrial and economic superiority of the EU tips the scales far into their favor in a prolonged engagement.
User avatar
#124 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
1: From which partners? The US, hard to see that happening considering Russia could just sink any ships coming to EU waters.
2: I'm pretty sure no imports from Russia would hurt the EU significantly, oil is very important for an economy. Plus, the Russia gets medicine and agricultural products from the EU. And Russia can rely on China for more imports.
3: I didn't reduce it for personnel, that would be stupid.
4: You'd need oil to power factories, and you'd need factories to produce more ammunition, weapons, tanks, aircraft etc. And the EU couldn't win in a prolonged engagement, again, they'd run out of oil.
User avatar
#125 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
1. Should the Russians sink a US ship bringing oil to Europe, US enters the war. Scenario over.
2."EU exports to Russia are dominated by machinery and transport equipment, chemicals, medecines and agricultural products" All important for winning a war.
3. Just checking.
4. Combustible fuels, which includes Oil and Coal, make up about 50% of energy generation in Europe. I dont know what fraction of that is Oil (presumably a small amount of Oil based factories could be converted to Coal factories), but again, a reduction of 28%, while sizable, is not game-breaking
User avatar
#126 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
The US isn't even self-sufficient in oil production, so I don't see them importing oil to anyone anytime soon.
User avatar
#127 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
You're the one who brought up the US. I was just arguing against that point.

I guess my main point here is that Oil is not everything in winning a war. Its important, but not the sole factor. Russia's economy is tiny compared to the rest of Europe. Beyond reserve military personnel there is also manpower reserves, and Europe has that in spades as well.
User avatar
#128 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
Numbers isn't everything, Russia has more tanks, tank destroyers, artillery pieces, multiple rocket launch systems, attack aircraft and attack helicopters than the EU. I still don't see who would supply the EU's oil considering Russia could forcefully cut off the oil from any countries in the Middle East or Africa.
User avatar
#129 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
Which would then bring those countries into the war, stacking the numbers even more into the EU's favor. And you're just assuming that Russia could cut off those supply lines with no say from the EU. It would be a fight, not something Russia could just do.
User avatar
#135 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
I'm not saying that Russia would win the war, I'm just saying that any war would be indecisive, and the the EU wouldn't "easily shit-stomp the Russians", while Russia wouldn't be able to invade and occupy Europe, the EU wouldn't be able to invade and occupy Russia either, that's damn near impossible. There'd be no winning on any side.
User avatar
#136 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
Oh. Well then I think we're done here. I thought you were arguing for a Russian victory.

There are many variables in war. To say that Europe would shit-storm them was a bit of Hyperbole. If I was a betting man, I would bet on Europe, but you are correct in that it is a far from sure thing.
User avatar
#133 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
While Russia does have a weaker economy, their military equipment is cheaper overall, while an F-22 would cost around $150 million USD, a Russian fighter jet of similar quality would cost only around $50 million USD. And while economy is important, it isn't decisive, look at what happened in Vietnam, and the Soviet-Afghanistan.
User avatar
#134 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
Again, Russia having a "Weaker Economy" is a VAST understatement. A russian jet may cost a third of what a western one does, but the EU's economy is nine times the size.

The reason the US lost in Vietnam is because we weren't willing to continue to escalate the engagement (correctly, IMO). But if the US wanted to win the war enough, they could have. I can't speak to Soviet-Afghanistan, but that was a very complicated situation in any case.
User avatar
#131 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
Plus, I don't see countries like Nigeria and Saudi Arabia being much of a problem for Russia.
User avatar
#130 - videogamehippey (05/28/2016) [-]
I think the war would start off with the invasion of Europe, due to Russia's larger army at the beginning of the war, and while they're there they can just cut the oil pipelines, I don't see how a nation could play that as an attack on them. Plus, most of the imports are from the middle east, Russia could just go through the Balkans and cut them.
User avatar
#132 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
Clearly I can't convince you of the importance of Economic strength, but I'll just leave you with this.
Russia has a GDP of about 2.1 Trillion.
The EU has a GDP of 18.5 Trillion.
That is the measure of the economic disparity. That is the measure of Europe's ability to produce. Cut it by 28%, you still have 13 Trillion. Cut it by 50%, you still have 9 Trillion. Cut it by 75%, and the EU's economy is still more than TWICE the size of Russia's. They would fall to pieces.
#23 - I meant Italy has a GDP comparable to Russia. And I used Italy…  [+] (2 replies) 05/28/2016 on Holy shit I live in The... +2
User avatar
#25 - amuzen (05/28/2016) [-]
Oooooh ok I misinterpreted they as still talking about the EU and didn't realize you switched to talking about Russia. hooray words.
User avatar
#24 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
Or rather, Russia has a GDP comparable to Italy.
#21 - That's my point. All of the EU combined could easily **** on Russia.  [+] (4 replies) 05/28/2016 on Holy shit I live in The... +7
User avatar
#22 - amuzen (05/28/2016) [-]
I mean yeah I agree with that I was just wondering why you think Italy's GDP is comparable to the EU's. Or why Italy was even mentioned for that matter.
User avatar
#23 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
I meant Italy has a GDP comparable to Russia. And I used Italy because that's the example that was used when I first heard the argument.
User avatar
#25 - amuzen (05/28/2016) [-]
Oooooh ok I misinterpreted they as still talking about the EU and didn't realize you switched to talking about Russia. hooray words.
User avatar
#24 - Endofzeeworld (05/28/2016) [-]
Or rather, Russia has a GDP comparable to Italy.