Europe and the Rest of the World - A Military Analysis

[Vuk]

The sinews of war are infinite money - Marcus Tullius Cicero


Western Europe used to be full of men who were ideal to the ways of war, and the only thing that could hold a European military back was a lack of funding or good military technology.
The problem with Western European militaries TODAY is not their lack of funding or sophisticated weaponry, but the lack of good citizens, and therefore the lack of effective fighting men available to them. The rest of the world (the USA, most Asian countries, most South American countries, and most Eastern European countries, and many African countries) has no shortage of able bodied and minded men who have been raised in a culture that produces good citizens and good soldiers.

The sinews of war are not gold, but good soldiers - Niccolò Machiavelli


It will be the countries who have both the good citizens/soldiers AND the economy to support large scale organized warfare that will shape the future of the world. Wealthy countries with no means of guarding their wealth will simply be juicy prizes for those countries who have BOTH the elements needed to be great. Western Europe will simply be a fatted duck for Russia, China, India, the U.S., etc to fight over.


That is my take on the military situation of Western Europe. The world always tends toward disorder, and the longer countries exist, the more corrupt they will become. The more corrupt countries are, the larger a chance for war. If history has shown one thing, it is that humans will ALWAYS go to war with each other. Everytime they devise a way to avoid war through alliances, economic control, etc, it either backfires, or simply delays war a little. Countries not willing to fight will be swallowed up or brought under the direct control of those who are. Depressing? Sure, but that is human nature, and that is why it is important for yourself and your fellow citizen to be vigilant participants in your society to prevent this from happening, AND to be willing to fight if a war does happen. I guess that my point is that most Western Europeans do not have that will to fight for their country, their family, and their society. They are not proud of themselves, where they came from, or their country. Why would they give their lives after all? Their entire lifestyle is contrary to what makes a good soldier AND citizen.

Am I right? Am I being too harsh? Do I not have a good take on things? Have I just lost my mind? You tell me.

[Andres]

As long as the good US citizens are willing to defend us and to pay taxes for it, we Europeans can use the money we save for frivolities like social security and healthcare. Which gives you in turn more reasons to be on our backs, call us eurowheenies and to feel superior.

Everybody happy! You pay for us and feel superior; we're happy to waste our money on silly things.

I'll have a beer, being the decadent European I am, while you, able bodied as you are, can have a glas of water (it's all you can afford anyway since you need to pay for my protection).

[Greyblades]

Do you actually have any proof of any of this, or is it all conjecture, guesswork and opinion?

[Andres]

Do you actually have any proof of any of this, or is it all conjecture, guesswork and opinion?

You're clearly a decadent European in need of some iron military discipline

[Greyblades]

How quaint, to your idea of iron millitary discipline, I refer you to this

[Furunculus]

Do you actually have any proof of any of this, or is it all conjecture, guesswork and opinion?

western europe is post war by and large, as a society britain is probably the most warlike of the lot, for good or bad.

[Vuk]

western europe is post war by and large, as a society britain is probably the most warlike of the lot, for good or bad.

I would decidedly for the good. My point is Furunculus that as much as a society tries to avoid war, it is highly likely it will find them, and it is important for their sakes that they will be able to face whatever challenges they are up against. I think that it is in this sense more than any other that some Americans are afraid of Americans becoming more like Europeans.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The sinews of war are infinite money - Marcus Tullius Cicero


Western Europe used to be full of men who were ideal to the ways of war, and the only thing that could hold a European military back was a lack of funding or good military technology.
The problem with Western European militaries TODAY is not their lack of funding or sophisticated weaponry, but the lack of good citizens, and therefore the lack of effective fighting men available to them. The rest of the world (the USA, most Asian countries, most South American countries, and most Eastern European countries, and many African countries) has no shortage of able bodied and minded men who have been raised in a culture that produces good citizens and good soldiers.

The sinews of war are not gold, but good soldiers - Niccolò Machiavelli


It will be the countries who have both the good citizens/soldiers AND the economy to support large scale organized warfare that will shape the future of the world. Wealthy countries with no means of guarding their wealth will simply be juicy prizes for those countries who have BOTH the elements needed to be great. Western Europe will simply be a fatted duck for Russia, China, India, the U.S., etc to fight over.


That is my take on the military situation of Western Europe. The world always tends toward disorder, and the longer countries exist, the more corrupt they will become. The more corrupt countries are, the larger a chance for war. If history has shown one thing, it is that humans will ALWAYS go to war with each other. Everytime they devise a way to avoid war through alliances, economic control, etc, it either backfires, or simply delays war a little. Countries not willing to fight will be swallowed up or brought under the direct control of those who are. Depressing? Sure, but that is human nature, and that is why it is important for yourself and your fellow citizen to be vigilant participants in your society to prevent this from happening, AND to be willing to fight if a war does happen. I guess that my point is that most Western Europeans do not have that will to fight for their country, their family, and their society. They are not proud of themselves, where they came from, or their country. Why would they give their lives after all? Their entire lifestyle is contrary to what makes a good soldier AND citizen.

Am I right? Am I being too harsh? Do I not have a good take on things? Have I just lost my mind? You tell me.

You're wrong.

Western Europeans do not, by and large, currently feel threatened, and therefore are not very bellecose. The cultural malaise you identify does exist, but it is only really pronounced in Germany, where the country has adopted an apparently permenant defensive posture. France has a good military, capable, well trained and well motivated, ditto Britain, the Netherlands, Norway.... the list goes on.

Don't mistake a reluctance to bleed in some God forsaken sand trap as a lack of national pride.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Besides, if we have a need for a large force capable of effectively wrecking a country in a fortnight, we'll just send in a boatload of English/Scottish hooligans. Works every time.

[HoreTore]

I love the chauvinism coming from someone living in the worlds number one producer of fat people.

[Vladimir]

Wait...Is this another thread bashing the martial abilities of Western Europe? I thought we covered that.

If Europe thought they needed to, I'm sure they'd have no problem with creating a decent army. The Eurofighter is a good example.

[Centurion1]

lol the eurofighter. the UK wants the JSF anyway.

[PanzerJaeger]

If you were to try and rank the top 10 militaries in the world in terms of effectiveness, European nations would dominate the majority of the list.

There is a danger, though, in letting entitlements (cultural decadence if you will) eat away at a nation's military budget. I would say 3% of GDP is a solid figure not to drop below for proper maintenance of the standing force and R&D for future technology. The US/Euro bond through NATO as well as greater intra-Euro cooperation due to the EU, yield even greater economies of scale in terms of the latter.

Despite years of declining military budgets, the Western World is still very militarily secure.

[Centurion1]

i dont think anyone would debate that. and the vast remainder of those top ten militaries would be dominated by purely western style militaries

[Vuk]

Wait...Is this another thread bashing the martial abilities of Western Europe? I thought we covered that.

If Europe thought they needed to, I'm sure they'd have no problem with creating a decent army. The Eurofighter is a good example.

If they thought that they needed to. That is exactly the thing, the attitude of Europeans is such that they never will be able to think that they need to or that it will be worth it. Europeans blur lines between right and wrong while creating their own social concepts of right and wrong where in Peace is right and War is always wrong. War never fixes anything, and as such, there will never be a good reason for Europeans to spill their blood. (unless maybe someone threatens their pensions...)
Even if by a miracle of Go-erh-Mother Earth Europe did mobilize, their armies would have terrible morale, be rank with desertions, and they would have riots at home (riots, the one time when spilling blood and fighting is acceptable in Western Europe). Sure, you got good technology, but the weapon is only a tiny part of the equation. The most important thing is the operator of the machine. I would be far more scared of a marine with a .22 than I would a Frat boy with a P90. You missed the point of my thread, that the two most important requirements for a successful military (and coincidently, therefore any chance of peace) are 1. Money/Tech and 2. Good Citizens! Europe has the wealth/tech, but not the citizens who will be well suited to the military (and believe it or not Horetore, fitness is actually not nearly as important as attitude and a feeling of civic responsibility. And as I argued in a previous thread, having a no fat on you does no good if your turtle neck sweater damages your spine). Thing of 16th Century Italy, that is very much what Europe is like now adays. A right bird for the plucking, only kept safe through the will of others.

The problem with Europe's bad military potential is the most fundamental problem with mankind: A fear that makes us desire dependency. It is what makes us NEED a religion, it is what makes women stay in abusive relationships, it is what makes men live in a country where they are mistreated and robbed by their own government, and do nothing about it. It is the fear of living and dying, rising and falling, being wealthy or being desolate based on our own efforts and nothing else.

[Greyblades]

...Religion? Vuk have you been sniffing paint thinner?

[Centurion1]

where are your from vuk? philly? because in the Us over 60% of our military is made up of good old boys from the south.

[Vuk]

If you were to try and rank the top 10 militaries in the world in terms of effectiveness, European nations would dominate the majority of the list.

There is a danger, though, in letting entitlements (cultural decadence if you will) eat away at a nation's military budget. I would say 3% of GDP is a solid figure not to drop below for proper maintenance of the standing force and R&D for future technology. The US/Euro bond through NATO as well as greater intra-Euro cooperation due to the EU, yield even greater economies of scale in terms of the latter.

Despite years of declining military budgets, the Western World is still very militarily secure.

In terms of size, budget, tech, etc they are ok, but esp. considering that they are small fish in the ocean, they cannot rely on out spending enemy armies and pumping more troops against them. There is a strength that cannot be directly observed or measured, and it is that that, alongside money, is the deciding factor in military engagements; much more important than troop count. History supports me on that. If Europeans are not willing to do that and straighten out as a society (which they probably will never do) it will be to their detriment, as well as to the detriment of the US and the rest of the world.
Looking at the total population, combined GDP, tech, landmass, etc of Western Europe, there is no reason that they should not collectively be far stronger than the US. They are not though, they are completely dependent on the US.

[Greyblades]

The thing is we dont realy need particually powerful individual armies, each country has an army of varying numbers and equipment mainly because of all the alliances criss crossing europe. We dont need any really big armies because if any of us get into a war that could end up with our destruction the entire west half will pitch in to prevent that. Really if you wanted to invade a european country you would have to fight off an entire continent of ticked off first world countries who are likely at any stage it goes badly to drag the USA into it.

Europe and Nato combined could take on the USSR at it's height, realy there isnt anyone that has a chance of doing any conquest in europe. A member country having a big army is realy of no extra benefit except bragging rights.

...I think I repeated "we dont need armies" 3 times, man am I tired.

[Vuk]

...Religion? Vuk have you been sniffing paint thinner?

No, not at all. It is the reason why when we don't have a religion, we must create one out of our own beliefs (Darwinism, etc). I am not bashing religion, simply the human tendency toward dependence that makes us NEED one. Many people believe in a religion not because they have been genuinely convinced through sound reason, but because it is 'easy' for them, because now the responsibility for their lives is on someone else's shoulders. Which is to say, they have a parent figure (something that humans naturally crave...it is a type of laziness). Whether it is Mother Earth nurturing them, or Allah, or the Christian God, or even the parental figure of a socialist government that keeps them safe and provides for them, like children, they need that nurturing authority figure. It is easier, surer, and less frightening to live a dependent and miserable life than to live a satisfying independent life...or to crash and burn of your own accord. Most of life's problems can be traced to that fear, and that need for a parent figure.

where are your from vuk? philly? because in the Us over 60% of our military is made up of good old boys from the south.

Wisconsin. What is your point? They are by far the most civic minded, and well suited to the military (at least on average), so it makes sense that they make up most of the military. The coasts (and to a lesser extent, parts of the midwest), frankly, are home to a bunch of disgusting filth balls who make bad soldiers and bad citizens. The heart country, the south, and to a lesser extent the midwest is where the best troops will come from (did I forget Alaska?).

[Greyblades]

No, not at all. It is the reason why when we don't have a religion, we must create one out of our own beliefs (Darwinism, etc). I am not bashing religion, simply the human tendency toward dependence that makes us NEED one. Many people believe in a religion not because they have been genuinely convinced through sound reason, but because it is 'easy' for them, because now the responsibility for their lives is on someone else's shoulders. Which is to say, they have a parent figure (something that humans naturally crave...it is a type of laziness). Whether it is Mother Earth nurturing them, or Allah, or the Christian God, or even the parental figure of a socialist government that keeps them safe and provides for them, like children, they need that nurturing authority figure. It is easier, surer, and less frightening to live a dependent and miserable life than to live a satisfying independent life...or to crash and burn of your own accord. Most of life's problems can be traced to that fear, and that need for a parent figure.

Ok it just came realy out of left field is all.

[Centurion1]

the point is half 75% of america is unable to serve for various reasons and that even wisconsin which has decent citizens for the military say compared to NY or california is nowhere like the south. the US doesnt have this magical desire to serve and be successful in the service the south does.

Edit: go Packers btw

[Vuk]

The thing is we dont realy need particually powerful individual armies, each country has an army of varying numbers and equipment mainly because of all the alliances criss crossing europe. We dont need any really big armies because if any of us get into a war that could end up with our destruction the entire west half will pitch in to prevent that. Really if you wanted to invade a european country you would have to fight off an entire continent of ticked off first world countries who are likely at any stage it goes badly to drag the USA into it.

Europe and Nato combined could take on the USSR at it's height, realy there isnt anyone that has a chance of doing any conquest in europe. A member country having a big army is realy of no extra benefit except bragging rights.

...I think I repeated "we dont need armies" 3 times, man am I tired.

You are tired? I am sorry, but that is your fault, and not mine. You obviously did not read my posts. My argument had nothing to do with how large a country's military needs to be (that is the subject of an entirely different debate), but that European citizens did not have the potential to be good soldiers.
Europe will only be invincible to attack if it stops having that attitude. Europe will be invincible to attack when it is ready and willing to kick the butt of anyone who invades it. And I am sorry, but the quality and type of citizens Europe is full of really makes me think that without aid from the US (and possibly even then) it would crumple and die under a serious attack from a large power. Reread my post, because I outline why there.

[Greyblades]

the point is half 75% of america is unable to serve for various reasons and that even wisconsin which has decent citizens for the military say compared to NY or california is nowhere like the south. the US doesnt have this magical desire to serve and be successful in the service the south does.

You have 300 million citizens, I think you have enough to justify not having more than 25% in the millitary.

[Centurion1]

greyblades........ more than 25% of our population should be ABLE to serve and not be too fat or crazy or dumb or criminal or addicted or etc.

[Vuk]

the point is half 75% of america is unable to serve for various reasons and that even wisconsin which has decent citizens for the military say compared to NY or california is nowhere like the south. the US doesnt have this magical desire to serve and be successful in the service the south does.

Edit: go Packers btw

lol, I am hoping the Pack gets smashed (sorry, not a fan).
I never said that all of the US has good citizens, but we have enough to still be a power. (In fact, I was talking about Europe's problem, and never claimed that the US did not have one. It is rather irrelevant in fact to my argument)
The point is that the only country in Western Europe of any size that perhaps has the types of citizens that make good soldiers are Spain, and it is too racked with problems right now to do anything. America is great, America sucks, whatever! It is not important to my argument about Europe. The only part of my argument that concerns America is that the US DOES have troops who make good soldiers (whether they come from the South or not). Particularly, I think that we should nuke our East coast and give our west coast a stern warning and one chance before we nuke them too. :P (oh yeah, and Illinois. )

[Centurion1]

England has good troops. Australians make good soldiers. The Germans military mind set was ruined to some extent after losing two world wars but they have (or at least used to) have a militaristic culture. spain is a joke. Norway has decent soldiers as does finland

[Vuk]

greyblades........ more than 25% of our population should be ABLE to serve and not be too fat or crazy or dumb or criminal or addicted or etc.

That is true, it should be closer to 80% of the male population of enlistment age, but that is a US problem, and not the subject of this thread. The US citizenry has begun a degradation process, that is a given, but we still have a high enough percentage of our population who make good soldiers, and just as importantly, who make good war time citizens (though not as high a percentage as could be hoped for). The problem with Europe is that they don't. The Chinese, Eastern Europeans, South Americans, etc are tough nuts and would make good citizens. If they enjoyed a stable government and the budget of Europe, they would destroy Western Europe and probably would be able to destroy the US. They have far greater potential to be good citizens and soldiers than Western Europeans.

Not meaning to insult any one person in particular, but most Western Europeans just stink. :P

[Centurion1]

south americans? bwahahaha do they get siestas?

[Vuk]

England has good troops. Australians make good soldiers. The Germans military mind set was ruined to some extent after losing two world wars but they have (or at least used to) have a militaristic culture. spain is a joke. Norway has decent soldiers as does finland

England has some potential for good soldiers and citizens. Australia has a lot (quite possibly a lot more than the US does). The Germans are a joke. The French are pathetic. Spain is ruined. etc.
I gotta disagree with you about Norway. I have a lot of Norwegian heritage, and such they hold a special place in my heart, but I think it would be generous to say that they have a little potential.