Europe and the Rest of the World - A Military Analysis

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.

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).

~:cheers:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

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 :stare:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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. :shrug:

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

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.

lol the eurofighter. the UK wants the JSF anyway.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?).

Quote:

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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. ~;))

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

south americans? bwahahaha do they get siestas?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

south americans? bwahahaha do they get siestas?

---

You are simply stereotyping, and not accurately. Tough life's make tough people. Their main problem is crime and instability. They have potential to be good citizens and soldiers if they get that sorted out.

they have a good military and a mandatory draft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

they have a good military and a mandatory draft.

---

Who?

and you are doing the same exact thing. you think life in finland is easy? or poland? life in America is easier than anywhere else (unless your retired in western europe)

Edit: norway

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

and you are doing the same exact thing. you think life in finland is easy? or poland? life in America is easier than anywhere else (unless your retired in western europe)

Edit: norway

---

I never said that life in Poland was easy. Life in most of Eastern Europe is very hard. Trust me, I know how lucky I am to be American. Life in Norway though is nothing compared to the hell that life in a 3rd world South American country is. Norway has a good military system and enough good citizens to keep it working, but I still think that you are over rating them. Eastern Europe, South America, and most of East Asia are probably amongst the hardest places to live on earth.

Ok then I'm obivously tired and I'm going to bed soon but I will ask afew questions:

Do you know any Europeans? Face to face instead of inside a forum? What about our potential soldiers, have you met one? How about our millitaries, have you got some special access to our recruiting figures? Our medical records? Specifically our reports on the viability of new recruits? Have you gotten some information that indicates what you are saying?

In other words: Do you know what you are talking about?

africa..... middle east....

look western militaries are top dog not only because of technology but because of what our values are . the reason the middle east has (excuse me) such crappy militaries after the medieval period is because they do not know how to respect subordinates or delegate authority. there are numerous essays on this. besides turkey they are all worthless as fighting forces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

lol the eurofighter. the UK wants the JSF anyway.

---

The UK has very short carriers that need VTOL/STOL capable aircraft, the Eurofighter is not such an aircraft as most of the countries in the program didn't need such a thing.
The UK still purchases Eurofighters for their land bases AFAIK.

The point about Germany being purely defensive is a bit funny considering we're in Afghanistan and our navy helped secure the lebanese shore etc.
Our special forces seem to be a bit more involved at times but it's not exactly the kind of thing you read about in newspapers.

I don't really see how you can say western europeans are unwilling to defend themselves as long as they aren't even really threatened.
There have been several attempts to do terror attacks in Germany, some were borked by the terrorists, others prevented by the policem, but well, this whole premise is just laughable anyway.

Europe's wealth comes mostly from trading and technology, once half the world fights over our wealth there is simply no wealth left to fight over so it's entirely pointless.
Then you forgot about nukes, Russia has them too but Russia also has a lot more natural ressources and fertile land, if you think their army is strong, think again.

Pro Tip: The Cold War is over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Ok then I'm obivously tired and I'm going to bed soon but I will ask afew questions:

Do you know any Europeans? Face to face instead of inside a forum? What about our potential soldiers, have you met one? How about our millitaries, have you got some special access to our recruiting figures? Our medical records? Specifically our reports on the viability of new recruits? Have you gotten some information that indicates what you are saying?

In other words: Do you know what you are talking about?

---

I have been to several European countries, been on military bases (in Europe and the US), befriended many Europeans, read lots of research, seen lots of news...yeah, I do think I know what I am talking about.

why are you directing this at me.

Have you ever talked to or even seen a european soldier, or are you just basing this on some op-ed in a US newspaper.??

I have never heard of any recruitment problems in any Western European armies ever. Ireland has a microscopic army with a tiny budget but they never have a recruitment problem I ever heard of, usually the only way to get in is through a cadetship from university(officer programme). I think this idea that somehow people are incapable mentally of serving in an army is rubbish, if we had the money even more people would join cos we can be just as patriotic as you Vuk

The real problem for any military is money, how and where it is spent(in our case if we even have any), all of that impacts on training which affects the ability of the troops to fight but the potential recruits are prob still pretty much the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

africa..... middle east....

look western militaries are top dog not only because of technology but because of what our values are . the reason the middle east has (excuse me) such crappy militaries after the medieval period is because they do not know how to respect subordinates or delegate authority. there are numerous essays on this. besides turkey they are all worthless as fighting forces.

---

Yes, of course life is hard in Africa and the Middle East (probably harder in Africa than any place in the world...though Transylvania is probably on parr with many parts of Africa), but I did not mention them as the chance of any real military thread coming out of them in the next 100 years I see as extremely unlikely. Therefore they are not important to this discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

The UK has very short carriers that need VTOL/STOL capable aircraft, the Eurofighter is not such an aircraft as most of the countries in the program didn't need such a thing.
The UK still purchases Eurofighters for their land bases AFAIK.

The point about Germany being purely defensive is a bit funny considering we're in Afghanistan and our navy helped secure the lebanese shore etc.
Our special forces seem to be a bit more involved at times but it's not exactly the kind of thing you read about in newspapers.

I don't really see how you can say western europeans are unwilling to defend themselves as long as they aren't even really threatened.
There have been several attempts to do terror attacks in Germany, some were borked by the terrorists, others prevented by the policem, but well, this whole premise is just laughable anyway.

Europe's wealth comes mostly from trading and technology, once half the world fights over our wealth there is simply no wealth left to fight over so it's entirely pointless.
Then you forgot about nukes, Russia has them too but Russia also has a lot more natural ressources and fertile land, if you think their army is strong, think again.

Pro Tip: The Cold War is over.

---

The Germans are the ONLY major power in Western Europe with any real sort of military. It is very precise, but again, I don't think that the Germans have the resolve they need for sustained warfare.
The French? Certainly not!
The Cold War is over? Really? Then what is all the fighting in the Middle East? What is the problem in Korea? What is the ongoing cultural war?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

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.

---

France has no potential fo breeding soldiers, would this be the same France with bases all over North Africa and plenty youth unemployment, I bet the french army has no problem recruiting stout lads.

Germany is no joke that is plain for all to see.

Spain, I recall reading recently they had a new recruitment drive and it was easily oversupplied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Have you ever talked to or even seen a european soldier, or are you just basing this on some op-ed in a US newspaper.??

I have never heard of any recruitment problems in any Western European armies ever. Ireland has a microscopic army with a tiny budget but they never have a recruitment problem I ever heard of, usually the only way to get in is through a cadetship from university(officer programme). I think this idea that somehow people are incapable mentally of serving in an army is rubbish, if we had the money even more people would join cos we can be just as patriotic as you Vuk

The real problem for any military is money, how and where it is spent(in our case if we even have any), all of that impacts on training which affects the ability of the troops to fight but the potential recruits are prob still pretty much the same.

---

The Irish produce some of the best soldiers in the world, and you fight like demons for the British Crown so I hate to think how you'd fight to defend Ireland.

Vuk is also wrong about the French military, it is operationally very good but badly used by its political masters.

I'm sorry Vuk, but what you are saying doesn't jive with anything I have EVER read about military power. The consensus I have always seen is that america is top dog because it has the best gear, but it has historically suffered from dicipline and moral problems.

Oh, you know who else make great soldiers?

The Swiss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Have you ever talked to or even seen a european soldier, or are you just basing this on some op-ed in a US newspaper.??

I have never heard of any recruitment problems in any Western European armies ever. Ireland has a microscopic army with a tiny budget but they never have a recruitment problem I ever heard of, usually the only way to get in is through a cadetship from university(officer programme). I think this idea that somehow people are incapable mentally of serving in an army is rubbish, if we had the money even more people would join cos we can be just as patriotic as you Vuk

The real problem for any military is money, how and where it is spent(in our case if we even have any), all of that impacts on training which affects the ability of the troops to fight but the potential recruits are prob still pretty much the same.

---

No, you are wrong. Money is only half the problem. First of all, when I am talking about Europe, I am not including the Britain or Ireland, as they are not (to the best of my knowledge) part of political or geographical Europe.
The only military (major military that is) in Europe with even close to the type of discipline that makes good soldiers is Germany, and they are still far, far off the mark. Good military discipline makes good citizens. Good citizens make good soldiers. I highly doubt that there are enough citizens in any major country in Europe that would allow that country to fight a sustained war. Right now their militaries are at a tiny standing level, and they are still rank with discipline problems. Even disregarding that, the non-military population also is not suited to wartime conditions (or willing to endure them).

Have I ever seen or talked to European soldiers? Yes, I have. I have friends in both the German military, and the Hungarian military. (I actually got to attend a seminar in Hungary by a guy who teaches Hungarian specialists hand-to-hand combat) I also know several people in Nato intelligence who have been to many military bases in Europe, and I have talked to them extensively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

The Germans are the ONLY major power in Western Europe with any real sort of military. It is very precise, but again, I don't think that the Germans have the resolve they need for sustained warfare.

The French? Certainly not!

---

Says who?? Dr Phill how do we know what is in the mind of euro recruits obviously if they joined they must want to be there.

Quote:

---

The Cold War is over? Really? Then what is all the fighting in the Middle East? What is the problem in Korea? What is the ongoing cultural war?

---

Well apart form Korea all of that fighting is the USA's problem cos you started it.


I notice you talk about good citizens well in Europe there is a strong tradition now of citizenship engagement with community, enviroment this makes a good citizen blah blah so if they had to join the army for some reason I do not see them reverting to anarchists.

I really don't see this as a problem, now you might have been on better ground in the type of politician europe breeds as they tend to be concensus driven.(but then thats good as war between europe would be a disaster globally )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The Irish produce some of the best soldiers in the world, and you fight like demons for the British Crown so I hate to think how you'd fight to defend Ireland.

Vuk is also wrong about the French military, it is operationally very good but badly used by its political masters.

I'm sorry Vuk, but what you are saying doesn't jive with anything I have EVER read about military power. The consensus I have always seen is that america is top dog because it has the best gear, but it has historically suffered from dicipline and moral problems.

Oh, you know who else make great soldiers?

The Swiss.

---

America has the best gear? Bollox! We cannot afford to equip our guys with the best gear. Germans, Belgians, etc have far better gear, and yet these countries still would fear US Marines. It is not the machine, but the operator.
You see, everything you are going after, tech, etc. is all very good, but it does not matter if it is given to the wrong people. Could you imagine if the US Marines were drawn mostly from New York and Mass? What a joke!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Says who?? Dr Phill





Well apart form Korea all of that fighting is the USA's problem cos you started it.

---

Not really, the Russians had a burn and leave policy in the Middle East. They could not take control of them and their resources, so they decided instead to empower and supply people who would make life difficult for the US and its allies. Yeah, the US played God there a bit, but the main fault of the US was not going to war with Russia and stopping their meddling. It is Russia which is to blame for most of the problems in the Middle East

I find it hilarious that you can all have the attitude "We could never stand against Russia/China, the US will protect us" one second, and "Achtung! We have the best military in the world!" the next second. Seriously, if your militaries are so good, then why the dependence on the US, and why the European attitude that it needs the US for protection?

EDIT: Hitting the hay now. I will reply tomorrow to any new posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I find it hilarious that you can all have the attitude "We could never stand against Russia/China, the US will protect us" one second, and "Achtung! We have the best military in the world!" the next second. Seriously, if your militaries are so good, then why the dependence on the US, and why the European attitude that it needs the US for protection?

---

I dont think that Russia is even capable of taking on the Baltic countries nowadays, any attempt by Russia to rattle sabres will end badly for them. While europe would be devastated in any continential war that would hardly any different if all the recruits were like klingons or terminators.

The US has troops in european countries because it is part of it's foreign policy, a policy that is there because the USA still needs the ability to project power in Europe, Middle east and North Africa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

lol the eurofighter. the UK wants the JSF anyway.

---

Yea, good luck with that. Problems with the JSF program dwarf those of the Euro.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

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.

---

How does history support you on that?

Absent environmental factors, the difference between victory and defeat can always be traced to quantifiable differences in morale
, training, planning (tactical & strategic), equipment, and/or technology.

In fact, nations that have relied on that special, intangible 'something' to compensate for other deficiencies have suffered. The Japanese military during the Second World War is a good example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

America has the best gear? Bollox! We cannot afford to equip our guys with the best gear. Germans, Belgians, etc have far better gear, and yet these countries still would fear US Marines. It is not the machine, but the operator.
You see, everything you are going after, tech, etc. is all very good, but it does not matter if it is given to the wrong people. Could you imagine if the US Marines were drawn mostly from New York and Mass? What a joke!

---

Can't afford? Rubbish, your defence budget is higher in millions of dollars, Per Capita and GDP wise.

F-22 Raptor, able to target and engage even before they show up on enemy raidar.

Yanks get all the Guccii battlefield control tech, it's what gives you the ability to direct your soldiers. Everything else is pretty much on par, we all use the same basic infantry weapons, only Britain uses an individual tank gun... etc.

what does Germany have that is better than US gear?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

what does Germany have that is better than US gear?

---

The G36. :grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

what does Germany have that is better than US gear?

---

We have better beer. ~;)

I'm not entirely sure but I think our vehicles also have better protection against mines and IEDs.

Pretentious OP followed by back pedals camoflouged by more pretentious posts and claims of being misunderstood yet peppered with moral and intellectual superiority. This thread made my day, thanks for the effort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

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

---

And good soldiers have always come from training and in modern times good equipment and logistics helps too.

Quote:

---

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..

---

I cannot say if you have lost your mind but you are far away from having a good take on things. Nuff said.

Edit: Upon reflection, the previous content deemed a bad idea and removed.



Gah! The many sufferings one has to endure for being a moderator! :wall: Life's no fun anymore....

Oooooh my ears are ringing with all this loud noise.

The thread should be called 'America and the Rest of the World'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

No, you are wrong. Money is only half the problem. First of all, when I am talking about Europe, I am not including the Britain or Ireland, as they are not (to the best of my knowledge) part of political or geographical Europe.

---

Britain and Ireland are both politically and geographically very much part of Europe... Europe stretches from Scandinavia to Bosphorus (north-south) and from Iceland to the Urals/Caucasus (west-east).

Nothing wrong with European armies. I wonder how resiliant these socalled good citizens are when it's war comming to them, when a town is whiped from the map as retaliation or an entire village rounded up and executed because of militia activity. That terror also comes from your own army, good citizens killing their own, Europeans will expect that to happen.

This a complete failure of an analysis.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Absolute rubbish. If there was ever, God forbid, another large war on European soil then Europeans would put everything in to win. The difference is Vuk, not that we are soft, or decadent, or not proud of "where we come from" (I.e. not being a brown Mohammedan amirite?) but that we have put the millennia of constant warfare that has haunted Europe behind us. The nationalism which you so admire and reminisce for was and still is a cancer within Europe, and the weakening and gradual erosion of it is something which should be celebrated as one of the greatest foreign policy successes in the history of mankind, not mourned for causing the loss "of a culture that produces good citizens and good soldiers."

Quote:

---

Britain and Ireland are both politically and geographically very much part of Europe... Europe stretches from Scandinavia to Bosphorus (north-south) and from Iceland to the Urals/Caucasus (west-east).

---

Eh... I dont think that we see it like that. See "with europe but not of it" in tvtropes.

Quote:

---

The nationalism which you so admire and reminisce for was and still is a cancer within Europe, and the weakening and gradual erosion of it is something which should be celebrated as one of the greatest foreign policy successes in the history of mankind, not mourned for causing the loss "of a culture that produces good citizens and good soldiers."

---

Eh I gotta disagree with this nationalism should not be removed but restricted, national pride shouldnt be shunned unless it results in violence or intolerance. I'm looking at you BNP.

As for vuk, now that I am rested and recharged this seems more like trolling against europeans than anything else.

I want to hug you, Subotan.

Vuk,

I think that you are the victim of a misperception, possibly born of American insulation from broader views of the world.

Much of Western Europe suppresses their patriotism and nationalism, seeing it as the cause of two world wars, particularly in Germany.

I wouldn’t want to say that their armies are of any less quality than that fielded by the US.

Yes, many of them are tiny but it is because they though they could get away with that as the US was covering their backs, to a great extent.

It is more a matter of governments than of individuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

This a complete failure of an analysis.



Absolute rubbish. If there was ever, God forbid, another large war on European soil then Europeans would put everything in to win. The difference is Vuk, not that we are soft, or decadent, or not proud of "where we come from" (I.e. not being a brown Mohammedan amirite?) but that we have put the millennia of constant warfare that has haunted Europe behind us. The nationalism which you so admire and reminisce for was and still is a cancer within Europe, and the weakening and gradual erosion of it is something which should be celebrated as one of the greatest foreign policy successes in the history of mankind, not mourned for causing the loss "of a culture that produces good citizens and good soldiers."

---

Could not agree more. I think what Vuk is underestimating is the still very much prevalent national pride. Just one reason that 'Project Europe' is a task that will stretch over many generations if it ever were to succeed fully. Of course, it is true that Europe does not concentrate on military might as it has done in the past. There is no need. There is no imminent threat. However, as soon as there were just such a threat, be assured, the Europeans would be up in arms in no time. We are, and always have been, a divided continent. Animosity towards others and fierce national pride does not disappear in just a few generatinos.

Quid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Britain and Ireland are both politically and geographically very much part of Europe... Europe stretches from Scandinavia to Bosphorus (north-south) and from Iceland to the Urals/Caucasus (west-east).

---

and yet, britain as a society appears far more warlike in that it is 'happy' to engage in military 'adventures'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

and yet, britain as a society appears far more warlike in that it is 'happy' to engage in military 'adventures'.

---

Blame it on the Scotts

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

and yet, britain as a society appears far more warlike in that it is 'happy' to engage in military 'adventures'.

---

The UK has more of a military culture, count the proverbs you casually use that can be traced back to things military (same for Americans). Likewise for us when it comes to trade and the sea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Eh... I dont think that we see it like that. See "with europe but not of it" in tvtropes.

---

You can not ''see'' geography. A mountain is a mountain and a lake is lake. Deciding that mountain is a lake will not change reality. If people of Britain and Ireland see themselves as distinct and different than other Europeans, that's another issue. Vuk mentioned geography and politics, the former I already explained and the latter is easily proved by looking at how many European organizations Britain and Ireland are a part of from small and insignificant ones to CoE and EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

and yet, britain as a society appears far more warlike in that it is 'happy' to engage in military 'adventures'.

---

Current circumstances, still doesn't change what I explained above.

Oh I know that, I just dont think most of us Brits see it that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Current circumstances, still doesn't change what I explained above.

---

fine, as long as you are not referring to the difference in broad cultural acceptance of military action between Britain and the continent, which is what i was referring to, because otherwise we disagree very significantly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Eh... I dont think that we see it like that. See "with europe but not of it" in tvtropes..

---

To paraphrase Porfirio Diaz, "Poor Britain, so far from Europe and so close to the United States"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Eh I gotta disagree with this nationalism should not be removed but restricted, national pride shouldnt be shunned unless it results in violence or intolerance. I'm looking at you BNP

---

Well, the kind of national pride easiest to do that with is the celebration of common values held by Britons, such as our history of democracy, tolerant nature, culture etc. It so happens that we share a lot of these values with Europeans. Blood and Soil nationalism is vile though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I want to hug you, Subotan.

---

*Hug*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quid

Could not agree more. I think what Vuk is underestimating is the still very much prevalent national pride. Just one reason that 'Project Europe' is a task that will stretch over many generations if it ever were to succeed fully. Of course, it is true that Europe does not concentrate on military might as it has done in the past. There is no need. There is no imminent threat. However, as soon as there were just such a threat, be assured, the Europeans would be up in arms in no time. We are, and always have been, a divided continent. Animosity towards others and fierce national pride does not disappear in just a few generatinos.

Quid

---

Remember of course that the kind of war Vuk declares that we would be crap at i.e. a full-scale industrial war between the great powers would almost certainly involve nuclear weapons, so there's not much of an incentive for anyone with the kind of power to threaten Europe to the degree that Vuk says that we can't resist to attack us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

You can not ''see'' geography. A mountain is a mountain and a lake is lake. Deciding that mountain is a lake will not change reality. If people of Britain and Ireland see themselves as distinct and different than other Europeans, that's another issue. Vuk mentioned geography and politics, the former I already explained and the latter is easily proved by looking at how many European organizations Britain and Ireland are a part of from small and insignificant ones to CoE and EU.

---

Britain and Ireland are both island nations we have a fundamentally different way of viewing the world because every direction is "out there" never "over the border".

So we are not the same as mainland Europeans, no matter how many times you try to tell us we are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

fine, as long as you are not referring to the difference in broad cultural acceptance of military action between Britain and the continent, which is what i was referring to, because otherwise we disagree very significantly.

---

I dont see it as clear cut as that, after all I bet certain states in US have different attitudes to the army too.

I think the difference is the political arena not on an individual scale, I mean lots of people marched against Iraq in the US and UK does that mean the people are soft mentally.

I dont buy this idea that certain people are bred for war, once you join you get trained and have to forget all your preconceptions blah blah cos whatever you think you know on joining the reality is they soon set you straight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Britain and Ireland are both island nations we have a fundamentally different way of viewing the world because every direction is "out there" never "over the border".

So we are not the same as mainland Europeans, no matter how many times you try to tell us we are.

---

I agree we do both see the world differently but were still not going to let europe bang away without being involved.

After all this is Totalwar.org the way to win the early games like MTW or Rome was to ensure no one got too powerful in Europe if you were Britain.

I did also think we had dealt with Vuk's fevered giberring musings on the decadence of Europe. To my mind, he basicaly thinks that only a staunchly militaristic society is strong enough to survive in the world as he sees it: i.e. one in which a perpetual state of "total war" exists, or where we are all two steps from tipping into one.

I think you should lay off the Fox news Vuk.

I could also organise a small collection round the forum, to finance the purchase of a club and bridge for you to act out your vocation.

Anyway who says that people who are more martial are suitable for service today, your as likely to be taken on with an arts degree as having a black belt. If everyone in the army all looked at the world the same way there would be no innovation etc etc and eventually you would stagnate.

Our tiny army recruits officers from all disciplines from engineering to the arts basically in order that the army does not become trapped in a particular worldview.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

I dont see it as clear cut as that, after all I bet certain states in US have different attitudes to the army too.
I think the difference is the political arena not on an individual scale, I mean lots of people marched against Iraq in the US and UK does that mean the people are soft mentally.

I dont buy this idea that certain people are bred for war, once you join you get trained and have to forget all your preconceptions blah blah cos whatever you think you know on joining the reality is they soon set you straight.

---

granted, but this is a representative democracy, just like the rest of western europe, so the political arena is ultimately the public arena.

nor would i buy the idea that people (individual) are bred for war, after all our military is tiny and largely invisible to society, and yet that society is composed of a people (collective) who have a cultural ambivalence to the use of military adventurism that obviously isn't considered tolerable on the continent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

[British] society is composed of a people (collective) who have a cultural ambivalence to the use of military adventurism that obviously isn't considered tolerable on the continent.

---

I think you have Tony Blair to thank for that. From a liberal/lefty stand point anyway, his arguments for interceding in Bosnia, then Sierra Leone are what set the scene for Afghanistan and then...Iraq. Don't you right wingers all salivate explosively when it comes to the notion of waging anyway? :wink: