Why can't Europe defend itself?

[Tellos Athenaios]

All of your self-entitlement programs don't help match ethiter.

Match who or what and why? There's just no compelling military threat to Europe. Our armed forces are quite capable; we simply do not have world domination aspirations just yet.

[Vuk]

Match who or what and why? There's just no compelling military threat to Europe. Our armed forces are quite capable; we simply do not have world domination aspirations just yet.

Capable of what? Smoking cigarettes, being out of shape, shooting their allies, and running at the first sign of resistance? You say that Russia would not be able to invade Europe...that is BS. Russia has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world, and it would only take the threat of using them to bring all of Europe quivering to its knees. Russia could probably take most of Europe in a few months, and it would be a great opportunity for them to get American armies (coming to aid their worthless European allies) onto the European mainland, so that they could do considerable damage without having to seriously fight the American Navy. Of course if that did happen, they would no doubt have China as an ally, which would really ruin America and Europe's day. If such a scenario, the only serious hope that America would have would be in getting India as a military ally. With such a large population, and funded and aided by America, it could prove to be quite a distraction to the Chinese.
You are out of your minds if you really think that Russia is not a threat to Europe. They are extremely capable, have experience, and have a lot of nukes.
When it gets down to it, it really does not matter per say how big the military is, but the quality of the citizenry (from which military personnel and decision makers will be drawn). Strong people will hold out, weak people will not. Western Europe could be taken over by a rabid 100 year old grandmother with a butter knife.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

.... Western Europe could be taken over by a rabid 100 year old grandmother with a butter knife.

Clearly, I would not enjoy Thanksgiving dinner at your house....




Couldn't resist.

[CBR]

The Russians a threat? I heard the Poles are developing a new weapon that will stop any Russian invasion: Cluster Vodkas. Of course some pesky Islamic countries are trying to ban it for being a Weapon of Mass Consumption.

Or something like that...

[Tellos Athenaios]

Capable of what? Smoking cigarettes, being out of shape, shooting their allies, and running at the first sign of resistance?

Huh, sounds like much the same old “I'm of nationality $x. The $x army is the only model of an army in the world worth considering. These heretics are not following the One True Model, therefore they are weak and useless.” cue being proven wrong time and again.

As for the rest, may I borrow your time machine some day? It's almost a copy of the 20's-50's military thinking. That's been debunked so thoroughly before now, but in case you hadn't noticed: we live in the 21st century. The big Russian army contains 3 components:
(1) New Russian high tech. Start ups from the 1990s/early 2000s now making a splash. Good but nothing exceptional, and given the lack of money in the Russian army nothing that will wow us.
(2) Thoroughly corrupt military chain of command, and a lot of young people who simply join the army for the food and shelter; lot's of typical bootcamp “games”. Not really an effective fighting force, just a large one.
(3) Lots of old equipment. Lots and lots of it. No money to maintain it. Kursk.

Don't believe me? Believe the utter military fiasco (in terms of time, money and people required) that is Chechen. A few people with AK's and some home-grown DIY bomb tech manage to occupy the Russian army for how long now?

Western Europe could be taken over by a rabid 100 year old grandmother with a butter knife.

No we bought her off: she's been Queen of the United Kingdom for some time now. It's you who must fear the rabid 100 year old grandmother now.

[Vuk]

Huh, sounds like much the same old “I'm of nationality $x. The $x army is the only model of an army in the world worth considering. These heretics are not following the One True Model, therefore they are weak and useless.” cue being proven wrong time and again.

As for the rest, may I borrow your time machine some day? It's almost a copy of the 20's-50's military thinking. That's been debunked so thoroughly before now, but in case you hadn't noticed: we live in the 21st century. The big Russian army contains 3 components:
(1) New Russian high tech. Start ups from the 1990s/early 2000s now making a splash. Good but nothing exceptional, and given the lack of money in the Russian army nothing that will wow us.
(2) Thoroughly corrupt military chain of command, and a lot of young people who simply join the army for the food and shelter; lot's of typical bootcamp “games”. Not really an effective fighting force, just a large one.
(3) Lots of old equipment. Lots and lots of it. No money to maintain it. Kursk.

Don't believe me? Believe the utter military fiasco (in terms of time, money and people required) that is Chechen. A few people with AK's and some home-grown DIY bomb tech manage to occupy the Russian army for how long now?



No we bought her off: she's been Queen of the United Kingdom for some time now. It's you who must fear the rabid 100 year old grandmother now.

First of all, history shows what makes a good military and what doesn't. Technology changes over time, but basic principles generally do not.
Second of all, you are completely forgetting Russians two main advantages:
1. A stockpile of nukes so big they could obliterate Europe.
2. They know that Europe is scared of conflict, and would cave in at even the threat of a full scale nuclear war. They on the other hand are very willing to fight.

[rory_20_uk]

Nukes are good to have a few of, but frankly their unlikely to be ever used in a state to state setting as the gains are less than the losses.

Europe has enough nukes to make MAD a reality. In total there's a couple of hundred warheads.

The principles of warfare have been radically altered over the last 100 years, unless you're using very vague principles. WW1 especially shows the fallacy of "nothing has altered". One modern destroyer could single-handedly smash entire fleets from only a few decades ago; nice big tank collections can be scrapped within hours with weaponry mounted on troops / planes / hum-vees / helicopters. Nothing can be made heavy enough any more, which was certainly far less the case not so long ago.

[al Roumi]

First of all, history shows what makes a good military and what doesn't. Technology changes over time, but basic principles generally do not.

Indeed. All Ivan needs to do is show Marius, Marcel and Franz some Cold steel and they'll run crying to the atlantic.

What time machine have you stepped out of? What on earth is all that guff verging on "superior races"...

[Vuk]

Well, if we can have more or less the same level of freedom and wealth under whatever new overlords, then, frankly, I don't care about which macho type tries to tell me he is ruling the world and that I'm a weakling. If that's what makes him happy, let him. I'm happy with my house, my car, my fridge full of food, my cellar full of wine and beer, some money on my savings accounts, firefighters nearby and enough free time and money to go on a holiday every once in a while.

If working your butt off with no holidays and no social security to maintain an awfully expensive army that needs to wage war every once in a while to justify its' existence is what makes you happy, then by all means, carry on. As long as you keep said army out of here (unless for defending me on your expenses), it's all fine by me

lmao, that is the attitude that I am talking about! If someone does not value Freedom, then they will not fight to keep it.
I hate to break it to you Andres, but that is hardly what most places in the Soviet Bloc looked like. If Russia conquers Europe, it will be to control them and exploit their resources. Life will not longer be a box of chocolates for you as others work and fight so that you can enjoy your Freedom and high-standard of living.

Indeed. All Ivan needs to do is show Marius, Marcel and Franz some Cold steel and they'll run crying to the atlantic.

What time machine have you stepped out of? What on earth is all that guff verging on "superior races"...

As I said, I am not talking about weapon specific principles.
"superior races"? I would love to see how you came up with that considering that I never mentioned race. (and in fact, majority of Europeans are of the same race as majority of Americans)
The difference is simply in values and character. Most Europeans do not believe that Freedom is sacred and would not be willing to fight for anything but their right to strike, get free health care, or in some other way avoid work and leave things to the more industrious. Europeans are for the most part lazy, and cowardly. No one likes work, and no one likes fighting, but the difference is that some realize that they need to be done and have the courage and industry to step up and do them for their own good, and others like living in a dream world where they think that everything will take care of itself with no effort from themselves.
I am sorry to say it, but I have no respect for someone who is not willing to work and for someone who does not believe that somethings are worth fighting for. Such a person is a willing slave, and as such, does not ask for respect and is not worthy of it.
I am not saying this about you or anyone in particular, and I understand that there are many Europeans who do value work and are willing to fight for things they hold sacred, but they are a minority.
How can a society unused to work and unused to fighting ever hope to survive the horrors and hardships of a sustained war that would test the resolve of the toughest?

[rory_20_uk]

How many wars have Europeans fought to the bitter end from the start?
How many wars have Americans fought to the bitter end from the start?

Hmmm.......

[al Roumi]

The difference is simply in values and character. Most Europeans do not believe that Freedom is sacred and would not be willing to fight for anything but their right to strike, get free health care, or in some other way avoid work and leave things to the more industrious. Europeans are for the most part lazy, and cowardly. No one likes work, and no one likes fighting, but the difference is that some realize that they need to be done and have the courage and industry to step up and do them for their own good, and others like living in a dream world where they think that everything will take care of itself with no effort from themselves.
I am sorry to say it, but I have no respect for someone who is not willing to work and for someone who does not believe that somethings are worth fighting for. Such a person is a willing slave, and as such, does not ask for respect and is not worthy of it.
I am not saying this about you or anyone in particular, and I understand that there are many Europeans who do value work and are willing to fight for things they hold sacred, but they are a minority.
How can a society unused to work and unused to fighting ever hope to survive the horrors and hardships of a sustained war that would test the resolve of the toughest?

Have you ever been to Yur'p? I think you'd be surprised how similar t

Sorry to finish so abruptly, it's just that I've now done my 35 hours for the week/its time for my siesta/time to make cheese and wine/eat cabbage/make love like a dirty venerialy infected latin.

[Andres]

lmao, that is the attitude that I am talking about! If someone does not value Freedom, then they will not fight to keep it.
I hate to break it to you Andres, but that is hardly what most places in the Soviet Bloc looked like. If Russia conquers Europe, it will be to control them and exploit their resources. Life will not longer be a box of chocolates for you as others work and fight so that you can enjoy your Freedom and high-standard of living.

So, you're saying my cellar is filled thanks to your insanely expensive army shooting some starved Arabs in some far away country?

Thank you, Vuk

And I do value freedom, not so sure about Freedom (tm), though.

Also, last time I watched the news, there weren't Russian tanks driving through the streets of Paris or Brussels, so I guess your information about an ongoing Russian invasion is incorrect.

[Husar]

Capable of what? Smoking cigarettes, being out of shape, shooting their allies, and running at the first sign of resistance? You say that Russia would not be able to invade Europe...that is BS. Russia has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world, and it would only take the threat of using them to bring all of Europe quivering to its knees. Russia could probably take most of Europe in a few months, and it would be a great opportunity for them to get American armies (coming to aid their worthless European allies) onto the European mainland, so that they could do considerable damage without having to seriously fight the American Navy. Of course if that did happen, they would no doubt have China as an ally, which would really ruin America and Europe's day. If such a scenario, the only serious hope that America would have would be in getting India as a military ally. With such a large population, and funded and aided by America, it could prove to be quite a distraction to the Chinese.
You are out of your minds if you really think that Russia is not a threat to Europe. They are extremely capable, have experience, and have a lot of nukes.
When it gets down to it, it really does not matter per say how big the military is, but the quality of the citizenry (from which military personnel and decision makers will be drawn). Strong people will hold out, weak people will not. Western Europe could be taken over by a rabid 100 year old grandmother with a butter knife.

So you think Europe is full of weak people? So what? America is full of fat people, and China is becoming fat, too. No challenge for a healthy european population.
If you think nukes are a problem for Europe, then what about nukes being a problem for Russia? The UK and France have nukes, Germany and possibly others have US nukes stationed on their territory(I don't really need to explain why we don't have our own, do I?), it's not completely one-sided.
Another question is who will Russia extort with their gas prices after nuking all their customers?

[Vuk]

So you think Europe is full of weak people? So what? America is full of fat people, and China is becoming fat, too. No challenge for a healthy european population.
If you think nukes are a problem for Europe, then what about nukes being a problem for Russia? The UK and France have nukes, Germany and possibly others have US nukes stationed on their territory(I don't really need to explain why we don't have our own, do I?), it's not completely one-sided.
Another question is who will Russia extort with their gas prices after nuking all their customers?

Weak, both mentally and physically. How can a people who hate themselves and despise the idea of defending themselves ever stop a serious invasion? Russia won't have to nuke Europe into a waste land, it only has to threaten Europe and make a few examples, and I guarantee you that most of Europe would surrender. After that, Europe becomes part of the new Bloc, and can only buy Russian goods.

[Andres]

After that, Europe becomes part of the new Bloc, and can only buy Russian goods.

Well, if we can have more or less the same level of freedom and wealth under whatever new overlords, then, frankly, I don't care about which macho type tries to tell me he is ruling the world and that I'm a weakling. If that's what makes him happy, let him. I'm happy with my house, my car, my fridge full of food, my cellar full of wine and beer, some money on my savings accounts, firefighters nearby and enough free time and money to go on a holiday every once in a while.

If working your butt off with no holidays and no social security to maintain an awfully expensive army that needs to wage war every once in a while to justify its' existence is what makes you happy, then by all means, carry on. As long as you keep said army out of here (unless for defending me on your expenses), it's all fine by me

[al Roumi]

Weak, both mentally and physically. How can a people who hate themselves and despise the idea of defending themselves ever stop a serious invasion? Russia won't have to nuke Europe into a waste land, it only has to threaten Europe and make a few examples, and I guarantee you that most of Europe would surrender. After that, Europe becomes part of the new Bloc, and can only buy Russian goods.

This is hilarious.

[caravel]

Funniest thread of the day.

[gaelic cowboy]

Weak, both mentally and physically. How can a people who hate themselves and despise the idea of defending themselves ever stop a serious invasion? Russia won't have to nuke Europe into a waste land, it only has to threaten Europe and make a few examples, and I guarantee you that most of Europe would surrender. After that, Europe becomes part of the new Bloc, and can only buy Russian goods.

Your serious about this guff right Russia has not a hope of conquering Europe.

Russia would seem to go well early on but thats because the terrain is flat and ideal for invasion in Eastern Europe but the more southerly sector would present a far more easily defendable frontier for European armies. This would send Russian forces into a drive through Germany as they would follow the easiest terrain for there armour but then Britain could act as an unsinkable aircraft carrier to hit back with airpower at the Russian rear. Finally France and Spain would then push into Western Germany to meet the invasion while Russia would have to divide its forces to ensure Scandinavian forces did not sweep into Finland and threaten Russian baltic ports.

I would lay a hundred at the bookies that a straight fight just between either France or Britain against Russia would end with Russian defeat.

[Fragony]

Europeans being scared of conflict, probably, also much better at war because of it, nobody wants to die. Europe is a continent with an insanily bloody history, the US a place of peace.

[al Roumi]

the US a place of peace.

Perhaps, it certainly does a good job of fighting its battles on foreign soil, thereby avoiding the need to do so at home.

[rory_20_uk]

The US is a place of historical peace as all the locals were slaughtered in relatively quick order by invaders / current populace and have left scant records of their history. What there was of it indicates they were not peaceful per capita.

Domestic deaths in the USA from weaponry would put the death tolls of some minor conflicts to shame.

[Beskar]

Capable of what? Smoking cigarettes, being out of shape, shooting their allies, and running at the first sign of resistance?

Why are you bringing the American military up?