Are the US the strongest country?

[Acriku]

No, but like I said, if they get there industry rolling, it won't take long to catch up to the US and everyone else. That means in every way, military tech included. They'l be just as advanced, but with there huge population they'l have mroe of everything: larger air forces, navies, etc. And with 1.5 billion people feuling a healthy, industrial economy, they'l slow down when they catch up to the States, but they won't stop, and will prety much become the worlds economic leader.

That sounds reasonable, but weren't you the one that just said that the world isn't as simple as A causes B causes C? ;)

[Mahdi]

So what, people 20 years ago wanted to dominate the world but people now are more evolved than that?

That little thing that happened on 9/11 helped calm it down jsut a wee little bit. And it was a minor thing. It shouldn't ahve had near the results it did, it's because of mishandling that it blew up as big as it did. Now, take a bigger incident, and you'l have bigger results, especially if it's handled as poorly.

Take Taiwan. What would happen if the States officially recognized it? What would happen if China invaded it? Nothing good.

[Mahdi]

No, but like I said, if they get there industry rolling, it won't take long to catch up to the US and everyone else. That means in every way, military tech included. They'l be just as advanced, but with there huge population they'l have mroe of everything: larger air forces, navies, etc. And with 1.5 billion people feuling a healthy, industrial economy, they'l slow down when they catch up to the States, but they won't stop, and will prety much become the worlds economic leader.

That sounds reasonable, but weren't you the one that just said that the world isn't as simple as A causes B causes C? ;)

That isn't A causes B casues C, thats just A. You can't take a little peice of the economy and say "Here, this is military technology. It is completly independant of everythign else in the economy." It's part of the economy. If their technology rises, all of tehre technology rises. If there economy rises, all of their economy rises. You don't have factory workers suffering from a depression and the factory cafeteria ladies having a huge economic upturn.

[Mahdi]

Btw, Acriku, next time you use something I say in an arguement, don't forget to prefix it with "A wise man once said...".

[Acriku]

A = China's current economical status

B = China's economical growth spurt

C = China's military growth spurt

:)

Ah yes, forgot that one part, next time ;)

[GhostHunter]

   I’m an American, and even with the small amount of inevitable bias (due to the fact I actually reside in the country) I can pretty much say that we couldn’t take North Korea with all of our military might.

   What proof do I have? What proof do you have to say otherwise? You must look at the facts here: we couldn’t win fifty years ago. And what makes this even worse was we were the most militaristically advanced and most powerful nation on Earth even back then. The fact was that any probable U.S victory was brought upon by a force not just made up of the U.S but that of the U.N and the South Korean fighters all together.

   When the Chinese came into the conflict we lost ground and ended up exactly where we started. So let’s look at it like this; 15 countries (or somewhere around that, 13 supporting U.N countries were involved in an actual military attack on North Korea if recollection serves me correctly, if not please correct me) vs. North Korea and China. So we’re looking at a 15vs2 here, and that didn’t even bring upon anything remotely close to resembling a victory.

   However, you can simply say “well China supplied a huge amount of men”, well didn’t the U.S? And even if the U.S didn’t put in enough men there were plenty of other countries involved in the conflict to assist, plus we had the advantage of military strength in not only brute force, but as I mentioned, technologically also. This huge advantage the U.S had was boggled down to a crawl from what you ask? The landscape. You cannot defeat these countries in these insane landscapes where they can hide and plot so well. It’s a simple fact that they are just too good in these circumstances. This wouldn’t be any different with a U.S attack on North Korea currently, we’ve advanced today and so have they. They also have the tactics that won them the last war and they can avoid and even counter our new technology and moves with the same concepts that defeated the U.S fifty years ago.

[Acriku]

50 years can make a whole lot of difference in technology, technique, skill, tactic, strategy, and attitude.

The 5th largest army in the world, and it's taken out in about a day or two. I think it's safe to say we can take on North Korea and win.

[Seal89999]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Couldent have said it better myself,

I completely agree.......

[GhostHunter]

The 5th largest army in the world, and it's taken out in about a day or two. I think it's safe to say we can take on North Korea and win.

Funny, because that sounds so fimiliar to what we thought in that one war 30 years ago...What was it called again?

[exatreide]

The US wasnt trying a all out war in North Korea at the time, Their were almost no ww2 scale battles in Korea, it was battalion against battalion, We never mobilized like we did in WW2, we never did everything we could have it was a half war for us, if we wanted to we could have easily crushed the north Koreans into powder, hell we did, we crushed them so badily that we drove them to the chinease boarder, the fact that the chinease were fighting with ww2 amounts of men against us was the only reason they drove us back sheer human wave attacks.

Had we mobolized all of our national army, our national gaurd, everything we had and wanted to have and could have had we would have won.

[Gobalopper]

GhostHunter the idea was that it was the US vs North Korea. That was it, just those two countries, and no one else helping. You have to remember that North Korea can't even feed its own citizens and actually relies on countries like the US and China for food.

As for China attacking other countries it is unlikely in todays economic climate because so much of China's economy is tied to other countries. Global economies will be what holds back the large countries from attacking each other, granted they will still spy on each other. It is the smaller rogue nations or those with crazy leaders that you will have to worry about, the Middle East is far more troubling then China in my opinion.

[Dude_Doc]

Which means the US would have won over NK?

[Sneakgab]

Well, according to what Iv'e heard, Vietnam was basically a military victory, but a meaningless one because the USA had to go along with many withdrawals, ''cease fires'', treaties e.t.c. due to political reasons From what Iv'e heard:D, America was on the verge of taking Vietnam but pressure from lousy politicians and other countries got them out after they made serious ground

Lol, some of you people act as if the USA would have no chance against NK. I mean, saying that their chances of victory being 50%-50% would be a reasonable statement, but any lower than that (on America's side) is not a reasonable statement. I think that some of you are taking this ''non-biased'' idea a little to far, lol. America has the greatest economy in the world while NK has a very poor economy. As you people keep on saying, military is almost totally dependent on economy... no economy = no military, good economy = good military.

I don't see what progress has been made militarily in NK, in stark comparison; The USA are probably pretty close to finishing development of the f-22 next gen fighters for heavens sake (for example)

You say that they NK will beat America despite the fact that America's is on the verge of next gen military tecknology (and is already way ahead anyway) and the NK's are probably still using AK's from the cold war (like most similar countries) because they get to fight in their own territory.

Funny, that didn't stop the Taliban from getting a good spanking now did it?

Sure, they're not really a proper nation (although they were given what could be called a small country in terms of territory), but they were beaten with barely noticeable effort from America in a very short time. Just an example.

When superpowers fight in such countries, the kill:loss ratios are often astounding. In the afghan/Russia war (where Russia wasn't even really a superpower anymore) it was something like 15:1 and in Vietnam (and in this case the congs were getting outside support, so they had more up to date guns (relatively speaking) than the NK's would have in a war with America(where rest of world is not involved) (excl. nukes of course, with no serious production capabalities NK would not magically be update to update their weapons)it was even higher, so take that into account when considering the huge armies of Eastern countries. Also, NK has no serious AA to speak of, so eventually they would be defeated by constant bombardment from sea and air, sure, they don't have much to bomb, but you could pretty much say goodbye to any mass-scale nuclear development. At best they would be able to produce non-launching nukes (as any launching center would be destroyed, and if they managed to launch a nuke, how far would it get when it's path has land and ship based anti-nuke systems and fighters on it?). Maybe 50 years ago, bombers and the like were not very effective in such conditions, but with new avionics tecknology they probably wouldn't be dettered very much unless they were targeting inf (though I guess that's pretty much all the NK would have for offenses, but their supplies would pretty much be non-existent because any trucks would be destroyed, and air and sea supplies would obviously be impossibe. This leaves only tunnels, and that's what bunker buster bombs and the special the f-16 is for lol.)

The NK inf (basically all they would have), could be pretty difficult to take out, but eventually they'd die of starvation if nothing else. If America was in full-out war with NK with no politics or morals in the way... well let's just say those paddie fields and villages wouldn't exist for long... (though they wouldnt be enough to maintain an all out war with a 100% focused America for longer than a decade anyway)

Even if these villages and farms remained intact, how would NK be able to mass produce weapons for it's vast army? Mass production is a must for such a large quantity and low quality army because it is cheap and efficient. But for mass production, you need facs and for that you need cities (which would not last enough in light of bombardment). Even without cities, unless the bomber pilots were blind, destroying the defenseless factories would not be much of a problem. And EVEN if they were blind and/or the congs became a subterranean race of moles and could build cities and factories underground, you need a good industrialized economy for mass-production and NK's poor agrarian economy would not be able to start up an industrial economy sufficent for factories in many years to come (especially with a war going on and all)

The best the congs would be able to manufacture would therefore then be you're hand made weapons and ammo (which would probably not be of very high quality despite not being mass-produced due to lack of materials) and would pretty much be the opposite of mass-production and therefore not suitable for their army... perhaps the congs could all make their own guns but what about ammo? to make enough ammo for a full-scale no holds barred war with a focused America (therefore using national army e.t.c) mass productions would be a must

The best thing (and only) thing going for the congs economy wise would be that their might be enough food due to their argrarian economy...

If all else fails, after a decade or two of continous bombardment, their would simply be little left of the NK countryside...

Like I said, Americas economy is just to strong for a country with as weak an economy as NK to be able to challenge it. America is a truly stinking rich country... some people don't realize just how stinking rich it is... ;D it is amazingly stinking rich ;D ;D. NK is stinking poor... perhaps not amazingly stinking poor but still stinking poor:D.

Besides all this, how much will to fight do the NK's have? If you were poor all you're life to you're corrupt and oppresive goverment would you really fight for them when given the chance to fight for America (perhaps not a 100% moral country in some people's opinions but better than NK) and perhaps increase you're level of living a decade or two after the war?

You might say: But these people will never get a chance to join America or give up because they will be to afraid of their opressors.

Yet this was said about Iraq to and around 70% or the Iraqi army (or some such number) simply gave up at the sight of the Americans because they had little will to fight for the people who had horribly opressed them (don't expect the dog that you slapped with you're hand to defend you lol/ bite the hand that has been slapping you if you are that dog). Additionally, even if the NK peasent (farmers would probably make up most of army, and these are the worst opressed people in NK)army got permanently on sake and thus forgot about how they have been oppressed, their would also be the factor of simply not wanting to fight in horrible conditions against suggestive odds... although the huge number of NK troops could bring a false sense of the odds being on the side of the NK's for the NK troops...

[GhostHunter]

The US wasnt trying a all out war in North Korea at the time, Their were almost no ww2 scale battles in Korea, it was battalion against battalion, We never mobilized like we did in WW2, we never did everything we could have it was a half war for us, if we wanted to we could have easily crushed the north Koreans into powder, hell we did, we crushed them so badily that we drove them to the chinease boarder, the fact that the chinease were fighting with ww2 amounts of men against us was the only reason they drove us back sheer human wave attacks.

Had we mobolized all of our national army, our national gaurd, everything we had and wanted to have and could have had we would have won.

Against an army supported by China, are you mad? We couldn’t have possibly won once China joined against us even if we shoved every single fighting man, women, and child into the conflict. You must consider Ex, that China simply outnumbered us, and both forces knew how to fight better in the conditions (like in normal circumstances against the USA), it wouldn’t have mattered if the other U.N countries sent in all their men either, North Korea finally had the support they needed, though the tides were still against them they had no chance of lose when China issued their support.

GhostHunter the idea was that it was the US vs North Korea. That was it, just those two countries, and no one else helping. You have to remember that North Korea can't even feed its own citizens and actually relies on countries like the US and China for food.

We’re not talking about that. If you want to look at USA vs. NK then the food is not an issue. You must look at it now; this would be another Vietcong militia except with the enemy having an incredible increase in manpower.

Well, according to what Iv'e heard, Vietnam was basically a military victory, but a meaningless one because the USA had to go along with many withdrawals, ''cease fires'', treaties e.t.c. due to political reasons From what Iv'e heard.

Vietnam was about as decisive an American victory as Pearl Harbor…

America has the greatest economy in the world while NK has a very poor economy. As you people keep on saying, military is almost totally dependent on economy... no economy = no military, good economy = good military.

They can easily resort to the methods that got them to the 4th biggest military power and just do that in surplus.

I don't see what progress has been made militarily in NK, in stark comparison; The USA are probably pretty close to finishing development of the f-22 next gen fighters for heavens sake (for example)

You say that they NK will beat America despite the fact that America's is on the verge of next gen military tecknology (and is already way ahead anyway) and the NK's are probably still using AK's from the cold war (like most similar countries) because they get to fight in their own territory.

Funny, that didn't stop the Taliban from getting a good spanking now did it?

It didn’t stop the Somalian’s either, did it?

If America was in full-out war with NK with no politics or morals in the way... well let's just say those paddie fields and villages wouldn't exist for long...

Nor would anything else…No morales = NK Nukes…

Even if these villages and farms remained intact, how would NK be able to mass produce weapons for it's vast army?

Let’s just ignore the fact that the Russians love selling anything to everyone…

The best the congs would be able to manufacture would therefore then be you're hand made weapons and ammo (which would probably not be of very high quality despite not being mass-produced due to lack of materials) and would pretty much be the opposite of mass-production and therefore not suitable for their army... perhaps the congs could all make their own guns but what about ammo?

You forget that some of the most deadly things in Vietnam were booby-traps made out of string and other various small item(s).

Like I said, Americas economy is just to strong for a country with as weak an economy as NK to be able to challenge it. America is a truly stinking rich country... some people don't realize just how stinking rich it is...

Oh yes, with our lower then a good amount of European country living standards and our failing stock market?

   You must also remember that the two biggest defeats were brought upon the USA by 3rd world countries..

Besides all this, how much will to fight do the NK's have? If you were poor all you're life to you're corrupt and oppresive goverment would you really fight for them when given the chance to fight for America (perhaps not a 100% moral country in some people's opinions but better than NK) and perhaps increase you're level of living a decade or two after the war?

Well gee, let’s go back in time and ask the Russians in World War II if they will fight Germany despite them being the world super power and the people being oppressed…

[Acriku]

Nor would anything else…No morales = NK Nukes…

What makes you think that morality is what is keeping the NK from launching now? Oh, and they would never have time to retaliate. Send a submarine near the coast of Asia, launch a missile or two with eight warheads each, and North Korea wouldn't know what hit it - because it doesn't exist anymore.

You forget that some of the most deadly things in Vietnam were booby-traps made out of string and other various small item(s)

With our more advanced air force, that's kind of moot.

Oh yes, with our lower then a good amount of European country living standards and our failing stock market?

You must also remember that the two biggest defeats were brought upon the USA by 3rd world countries..

Stop talking about the past and talk about the present. If we go into an allout war, the United States would withhold funds for a lot of programs that are unnecessary at the moment, and direct them towards the war. If we need the money, we can find it. It's not much of a problem, especially since a couple ICBMs will do the job anyway.

[GhostHunter]

What makes you think that morality is what is keeping the NK from launching now? Oh, and they would never have time to retaliate. Send a submarine near the coast of Asia, launch a missile or two with eight warheads each, and North Korea wouldn't know what hit it - because it doesn't exist anymore.

A press of a button is a press of a button, how fast they press it is quite irrelevent...

With our more advanced air force, that's kind of moot.

You can't exactly take over land without ground forces..

Stop talking about the past and talk about the present. If we go into an allout war, the United States would withhold funds for a lot of programs that are unnecessary at the moment, and direct them towards the war. If we need the money, we can find it. It's not much of a problem, especially since a couple ICBMs will do the job anyway.

One who does not learn from their past is condemned to repeat it..

If we launched an ICBM America would flash as combined Chinese and Russian nuclear warheads hit the Earth, incinerating the population...

[Acriku]

A press of a button is a press of a button, how fast they press it is quite irrelevent...

Trouble for them is, they don't have mobile ICBM launchpads. They don't even have mobile nuclear launchpads. We do. They can't destroy what they cannot see or know where it is coming from. Now, as for shooting down a nuclear warhead on its way to United States, that may be a problem. But, that still won't take out the entire country. If we can send in our fighters (they can reach NK in less than 20 minutes) before it happens, then that's a big bonus.

You can't exactly take over land without ground forces..

Who said taking over land was a priority? Blow the hell out of the ground, and that's that. Then send in the troops.

One who does not learn from their past is condemned to repeat it..

Sure, but I was referring to past mistakes related to inferior technology and strategy in comparison to today.

If we launched an ICBM America would flash as combined Chinese and Russian nuclear warheads hit the Earth, incinerating the population...

I thought this was a NK only fight? Anyways, no nuke is large enough to take out the entire earth. Not to mention that our nuclear warhead defense programs are getting better, with prototype planes with ultra-heated lasers to wipe them out in the atmosphere.

[Andrew]

I thought there were enough nukes/WMD to destroy earth 4 times over?

And the U.S. isn't all that, Canada has some diesel submarines and helicopters that crash(which could be loaded with Timbits). ;)

[Acriku]

Perhaps, but that sounds like a little exaggeration to me.

[Sneakgab]

Well, according to what Iv'e heard, Vietnam was basically a military victory, but a meaningless one because the USA had to go along with many withdrawals, ''cease fires'', treaties e.t.c. due to political reasons From what Iv'e heard.

Vietnam was about as decisive an American victory as Pearl Harbor…

America has the greatest economy in the world while NK has a very poor economy. As you people keep on saying, military is almost totally dependent on economy... no economy = no military, good economy = good military.

’’They can easily resort to the methods that got them to the 4th biggest military power and just do that in surplus.’’

The first war with NK didn’t last that long, if NK resorts to the same methods to get such man-power they will run out of food very quickly. + basic living conditions and requirements in NK have worsened over the years as most of the governments funds have been put into things like nuclear development

Quote:

I don't see what progress has been made militarily in NK, in stark comparison; The USA are probably pretty close to finishing development of the f-22 next gen fighters for heavens sake (for example)

You say that they NK will beat America despite the fact that America's is on the verge of next gen military tecknology (and is already way ahead anyway) and the NK's are probably still using AK's from the cold war (like most similar countries) because they get to fight in their own territory.

Funny, that didn't stop the Taliban from getting a good spanking now did it?

’’It didn’t stop the Somalian’s either, did it?’’

America’s history in Somalia is something I’m unfamiliar with, so no comment. From what I’ve heard though the problem in Somalia was civ casualties (and therefore very bad publicity) not defeat that caused the Americans to pull out, but like I said, I’m unfamiliar with America’s history in Somalia so no comment

Quote:

If America was in full-out war with NK with no politics or morals in the way... well let's just say those paddie fields and villages wouldn't exist for long...

’’Nor would anything else…No morales = NK Nukes…’’

I was referring to aerial bombardment, but Acriku has already awnsered this anyway

Quote:

Even if these villages and farms remained intact, how would NK be able to mass produce weapons for it's vast army?

’’Let’s just ignore the fact that the Russians love selling anything to everyone…’’

Let’s just ignore the fact that this is supposed to be an America Vs NK fight only…

Quote:

The best the congs would be able to manufacture would therefore then be you're hand made weapons and ammo (which would probably not be of very high quality despite not being mass-produced due to lack of materials) and would pretty much be the opposite of mass-production and therefore not suitable for their army... perhaps the congs could all make their own guns but what about ammo?

’’You forget that some of the most deadly things in Vietnam were booby-traps made out of string and other various small item(s).’’

Like, Acriku said, after bombardment from bombers, ICBM’s,e.t.c (And long-range sea vessels which he not mention) their would be little left of NK. Remember that because NK is only a piece of a country (Korea before split) it does not have much territory

Quote:

Like I said, Americas economy is just to strong for a country with as weak an economy as NK to be able to challenge it. America is a truly stinking rich country... some people don't realize just how stinking rich it is...

’’Oh yes, with our lower then a good amount of European country living standards and our failing stock market?

You must also remember that the two biggest defeats were brought upon the USA by 3rd world countries..’’

Lower than a good amount of European country living standards? That is because those countries have some socialist implementations in their government such as free-health care, more money spent keeping country clean, e.t.c., so of course the average citizen in such countries enjoys better living conditions than the average citizen by an extremely capitalized and corporation based country like America. Overall though, America is a richer country when you take into account the fat cats (the pop that is resultingly poor brings down the average heavily). America has the highest GNP of any country by far anyway.

My big brother who has been to Veneuzela, Portugal, London and South Africa (lived most of his life in SA, a second world country) said that London was nice but nothing compared to NY and that America overall was amazing. Of course he didn’t visit the slums but you get the idea…

Which defeats were these? I hope you’re not inclu Vietnam as one of them

Quote:

Besides all this, how much will to fight do the NK's have? If you were poor all you're life to you're corrupt and oppresive goverment would you really fight for them when given the chance to fight for America (perhaps not a 100% moral country in some people's opinions but better than NK) and perhaps increase you're level of living a decade or two after the war?

Well gee, let’s go back in time and ask the Russians in World War II if they will fight Germany despite them being the world super power and the people being oppressed…

The oppression of the Russian in WW2 and the oppression of the congs today were of a very different nature. The Russians were oppressed because of debts and the like… also they were mislead to believe that their government had their best interests in mind. Maybe 50 years ago most congs were also mislead by their government but after so much conflict with SK, publicity and time passed they are bound to know the truth (just speculation though, admittedly). Also, Russia being a commie country at the time, thus had a much larger propoganda and pratiotism effect than NK. As the Russian soldiers were fighting so far from Russia they had little info from the mother land and therefore may have believed that government was doing well their. The NK’s on the other hand just have to look around to see how much their gov cares about them. Additionally, The Russians were fighting against most certainly evil foes (Well, foes led by an evil/insane person anyway) and a foe against which they had decent odds of defeating. With the NK’s they would be fighting against a far more moral foe(relatively speaking) (or atleast news tells us, but if the propoganda is perfect enough to mis-inform people all around the world even those who live in fairly civil areas, then surely the NK’s would also be mis-informed). Of the congs gov could try to lie to them but like I said the congs would have gained info due to 50 years of contact with the rest of the world. Even if they didn’t, just look at the pyscological propoganda/info the Americans were able to deliver to the Iraqis. Also, their would be the effects of fear, desire (for better living conditions that would be offered, even as POWS captured by America, bribes,e.t.c),e.t.c

[ordos45]

About the F-22...it enters full service in 2005.

Somalia...we were there to help the UN Food Programs distribute food. All the UN food shipments were being taken by warlords to feed their armies. The American public pretty much told the government to intervene.

Then one mission to capture a warlord's Leutenant went wrong. 2 of the 16 black hawk helicopters were shot down, the American special forces took casualties (and some dead were drug through the streets). The angry mobs of armed people took casualties.

The worst thing for the US, in my opinion at least, in Somalia was the fact we were transmitting footage live from the cameras in the black hawks when things went wrong.

[alchemi2]

America could cream NK army but what then as in Iraq they creamed army and now have more casualities than in the actual war.

Military might is no good against geurilla tactics as has been proven time and time again they only way to win is either total irradicate the population or win the hearts and minds of the people through eductation. you can bring liberty at the point of a gun because at some point you must give them the gun to prove they are truely free and thats when you get shot.

[Sneakgab]

True, but this war is supposed to have no politics or morals involved.

If this is more Americka Vs NK than Americkan army Vs NK army I'd still say Americka would win. In the end NK pop(population) would join them or be reduced to groups of tribes as all their villages,towns,farms e.t.c would be destroyed and all their supplies would be taken/destroyed (Lol, no war neccesary, super capitalism will suck all the rescources the NK'ers have:D j/k) or perhaps the entire populace would eventually be wiped out by horrible American bio and chem warfare methods... Even if some of the NK population survived in some primitive form of existence after having any form of civilization they know being eradicated (Areas of gathering. ie: towns,cities,e.t.c) along with all the rescources that they couldn't carry with them, nukes which would cause destruction, cause genetic defection and death and make large areas un-inhabitable along with bio-warfare that would add to the devestated land that the NK would become, the remnants of the NK pop would probably split up and therefore NK would no longer be considered a country:D. Even if they didn't, most fauna and flora in NK would be unable to survive and therefore the pop would have not be able to gain any more food (The only place remaining with food would be America as in this imaginary conflict the world is made up of just America and NK) and eventually the pop would join America or die

Of course you could mention that the NK army has a nuke or two, but that/those would not be able to completely wipe out the American pop if the NK army managed to launch it/them and they succesfully hit Americka

[Acriku]

America could cream NK army but what then as in Iraq they creamed army and now have more casualities than in the actual war.

Military might is no good against geurilla tactics as has been proven time and time again they only way to win is either total irradicate the population or win the hearts and minds of the people through eductation. you can bring liberty at the point of a gun because at some point you must give them the gun to prove they are truely free and thats when you get shot.

Why would US remain afterwards in North Korea after we've won? This about a war, not reconstruction of the post-action.

[SpiceGuid]

Of course US the strongest, i do not see anything bad in that.

Would be great if Europe could be second.