Why can't Europe defend itself?

[Rhyfelwyr]

The world was consolidated into two spheres, and now with free market capitalism coming out as the dominant, the world is connected to the point where everyone is supporting each other economies. We support the Chinese, the Chinese support someone else and etc...all the way until it reaches back to us. Anyone who says the Chinese will attack us is wrong. Anyone who says that Russia will attack us is wrong. China needs to sell crap, Russia needs to sell natural gas.

They used this exact same argument about economic interconnectedness making war improbable right before the First World War. Improvements in technology have made states today more capable of being self-sufficient than at any time in the past, there's really no reason to be complacent that a war won't come about over conflicts of interest.

That sounds like a sweet deal. How do I go about applying to be a "crown dependecy"?

There's nothing you can do about it, you blew your chance so it's up to us now if we want to take you back. And we're still in a huff with you after 1776, so don't get your hopes up...

[Louis VI the Fat]

http://www.rydercup.com/2010/europe/

[Husar]

They used this exact same argument about economic interconnectedness making war improbable right before the First World War. Improvements in technology have made states today more capable of being self-sufficient than at any time in the past, there's really no reason to be complacent that a war won't come about over conflicts of interest.

The problem here seems to be that the two states that could threaten us the most finance their armies by selling stuff to us. If they attack us, they will run into great financial problems. And if you look at history, many times when Europe as a whole was under attack, it managed to work together and fend of the attackers, the Austrians alone didn't drive the Ottomans back for example, neither did the spanish do their reconquista solely with spanish soldiers. Except the USA perhaps, I don't see anyone successfully invading a Europe that stands united unless they use nukes. Another question would be why? What ressources? Since when has Europe got any ressources left? Russia surely doesn't need any more land than it has right now, China could find a lot of easier targets to expand, so why would either of them attack the hand that pays them? The results would be devastating, first they'd lose their army, then they'd go bankrupt and to top it off, some 12 US carriers and 3 european ones might start bombarding their homeland if they hadn't already surrendered at that point.not to forget that other countries might side with Europe, I'm not sure China has all that many friends in Asia either, some wannabe-autonomous regions could rebel, some neighbors try to side with Europe to get a piece of the Chinese cake. Russia isn't even as much a threat as China, the cold war is over, i wouldn't even think they have any interest in attacking Europe at all, they want to be influential and get a say in this or that, but I think they're too clever to actually bite. We also helped them out when they're in trouble, maybe that doesn't do a lot to a pragmatic leader, but can such a leader start a very dangerous war against the will of a large part of the citizentry?

Europe isn't half as defenseless as few here seem to think, next I'm going to open a thread called "Is america unable to build decent guns or why does the Abrams tank use a 120mm Rheinmetall gun from Germany?"

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't see why we are talking about europe being able to defend itself or whether anyone is going to attack it (although the OP starts on that point it seems like we can leap beyond that...). It seems like the more contentious issue has to do with being able to project power around the world and contain aggressive dictators. Does anyone have an idea what the world would look like if the US didn't have that ability? What would south korea look like? That's the only concrete thing I can think of. So the question seems to be, should Europe shoulder its share of that, or can they just shrug it off as "world domination aspirations"?

Whether you agree with the US's current attempts is irrelevant, unless you want to argue that all such attempts are necessarily bad in the way you argue they are.

[Husar]

Well, there are people even in the US who think an isolationist policy and letting other states deal with their own matters without interference is the best way to go. The world would look different, for example less people in South America would be angry at the US for installing puppets in their country, there would be no Palestinia-Israel conflict ( ) and less people in Arabia would turn to terrorism to oppose US bases in Arabia, South Korea might be North Korea now, Vietnam might be North Vietnam now but then how is that any of our business? If the soldiers of Korea want to worship their "great" leader while their families starve, that's their decision. As Afghanistan shows, some people just don't value their freedom a lot when you force it onto them.

[Rhyfelwyr]

@Husar: Much of what you said is circumstancial. There is real competition for resources and China is pushing its weight in the new scramble for Africa. As for the practicality of war, that has been shown to be a very changeable thing throughout history, depending on various changes in relations between society/politics/the military, which are far too complex to predict. I agree the circumstances right now make war unlikely, but so what, things change more than ever these days, only seventy years ago we had the first truly total war. Things might have reversed since then but there's no reason to assume that trend will continue.

It seems like the more contentious issue has to do with being able to project power around the world and contain aggressive dictators. Does anyone have an idea what the world would look like if the US didn't have that ability? What would south korea look like? That's the only concrete thing I can think of. So the question seems to be, should Europe shoulder its share of that, or can they just shrug it off as "world domination aspirations"?

While such measures might protect western strategic interests, I'm not convined they will spread democracy and create a lasting peace. The strength/roots of democracy lie in society, not in the political system itself. There are many social preconditions for democracy, like a strong middle class, an industrialised economy,centralised government etc. There can't be created overnight, and they weren't created overnight in South Korea either.

Of course, you could point out the state of affairs in North Korea, which was historically always one with the south, but I would argue that things have only been able to get the way they have done there because of international influence, artificially propping up the regime. Unfortunately things are now so bad you can't take away the food aid without everybody dying, but again that's because of foreign influence, hindering the natural deveopment of the state.

Having American troops running round having 'regime changes' seems superficial to me.

[Husar]

Things might have reversed since then but there's no reason to assume that trend will continue.

So you think there will be a nuclear war over ressources and we'll all die in the end? Because that's kinda the only way for China to beat the US, and incidentally will lead to destruction of China as well, it's a MAD scenario, also incidentally a lot of western nations are moving away from ressource-based economies. Whether that is a good or a bad idea is for another topic, but at the moment we don't seem to have a lot of incentive to compete with China over steel, in fact we're selling them our steel production facilities. Oil may be a factor but sooner or later electric cars are going to become more normal I hope and some guys in Saxony or so have found a way to make plastic from wood, hah! I just think there are many factors to such things and there isn't all that much of a reason to assume things will change as well.
In a nuclear war, having a huge armed force won't help Europe either. And if we actually need a huge force, we can still stock up, at the moment though a lot of nations have a tendency to go for smaller, better equipped and more specialized force, of course you can claim to know better than the defense minister of Germany for example, but I'm not sure I would believe you.
Those smaller forces are also meant for things like proxy wars, but I doubt we'll get something like a carrier anytime soon, more likely the forces would be flown into a friendly country nearby.

[gaelic cowboy]

I remember reading a paper on the internet some while back about the likely senario of a China/USA nuclear war and how it might end.

The author came to the conclusion that while China would lose but they could deal a crippling blow to the USA with less than a dozen nukes and USA would crumble due to her reliance on the major population centers for economic and industrial strength.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Does anyone have an idea what the world would look like if the US didn't have that ability? What would south korea look like? That's the only concrete thing I can think of.

And what would Iraq look like? Or Vietnam, or the middle east at large? See for every good there's also a bad to mention there. You are forgetting that this was not just the USA being generous in supporting the “good cause” it was (certainly later on) as much if not more the USA acting in what it believed to be its self interest.

So the question seems to be, should Europe shoulder its share of that, or can they just shrug it off as "world domination aspirations"?

Europe does not have to act in the USA's best interests. Just like the USA does not have to assist the UK either. And for what it's worth Europe is plenty often involved in “its share of that” at the USA's request. But why should we buy into this whole “big armies” thing now? For simply projecting force it is sufficient to have a few highly trained corps and some relatively expensive kit; loads of grunt power is not necessary.

Whether you agree with the US's current attempts is irrelevant, unless you want to argue that all such attempts are necessarily bad in the way you argue they are.

I'm not even saying the current situation is that bad. What I'm saying that there are alternatives which so far seem to work equally well or equally bad but do not require as much day to day management of scrapheaps and are cheaper due to that. So why should we copy the USA to no gain?

[rory_20_uk]

It's worse than not necessary - a large conventional army is expensive to move around, liable to cause bad press (killing locals or dying) and often ineffective. Intel-led special forces along with high tech backup isn't the silver bullet but is comparatively cheaper, harder for the enemy to hit and a lot easier to withdraw.

America and Americans appear to be incapable of understanding that their wants may not be the best for the rest of the world.

[InsaneApache]

Europe can defend itself and does. One of the reasons that euro-weenies don't project power is a hangover from empire. One of the consequences of the USA entering WWII was their insistence on the colonial powers dismantling their empires.

You're asking to have it both ways.

Then there's the economic situation at the moment. The difference between Europe and the USA is that our political systems evolved over centuries, whilst the USA got a brand new shiny one from the off. That's why the USA is broadly more right wing than Europe.

As an aside, during the American Revolution, Paul Revere would never have said "The British are coming", as he would have considered himself British. Strange I know to the modern American ear but there we are. Rather he said "The Regulars are out".

The colonialists considered themselves the true heirs of the English Civil War a hundred years earliier.

Makes more sense if you think about it.

[Vladimir]

Europe can defend itself and does. One of the reasons that euro-weenies don't project power is a hangover from empire. One of the consequences of the USA entering WWII was their insistence on the colonial powers dismantling their empires.

You're asking to have it both ways.

Then there's the economic situation at the moment. The difference between Europe and the USA is that our political systems evolved over centuries, whilst the USA got a brand new shiny one from the off. That's why the USA is broadly more right wing than Europe.

As an aside, during the American Revolution, Paul Revere would never have said "The British are coming", as he would have considered himself British. Strange I know to the modern American ear but there we are. Rather he said "The Regulars are out".

The colonialists considered themselves the true heirs of the English Civil War a hundred years earliier.

Makes more sense if you think about it.

I nominate this for the Post of the Thread award.

Oh and:

Quote Originally Posted by Andres View Post

It doesn't matter to you anyway, because you'll burn at the stake tonight for falsely accusing me of having a cellar filled with dishwater "Heineken" (I hope you payed your 75 $ or it'll be the last time you insulted me that way ) When will you learn that "Heineken" is not beer, let alone good beer. My cellar is filled with Ciney, Leffe, Floreffe, Quintine, Kriek Boon, the finest French and Spanish wines, champagne and a delicious bottle of Spumante.



I was offended by this as well.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

And what would Iraq look like? Or Vietnam, or the middle east at large? See for every good there's also a bad to mention there. You are forgetting that this was not just the USA being generous in supporting the “good cause” it was (certainly later on) as much if not more the USA acting in what it believed to be its self interest.

What kind of self interest? Well that's a big tangent probably. But you are shooting yourself in the foot here. If the US is doing a bad job, then Europe should step up.

Europe does not have to act in the USA's best interests. Just like the USA does not have to assist the UK either. And for what it's worth Europe is plenty often involved in “its share of that” at the USA's request. But why should we buy into this whole “big armies” thing now? For simply projecting force it is sufficient to have a few highly trained corps and some relatively expensive kit; loads of grunt power is not necessary.

I'll leave the military argument aside because saying what kind of force is needed is too big a question for me

But how is this about Europe acting in the USA's interests? Surely it is about Europe acting in the worlds best interest. You have to answer up to that.

I'm not even saying the current situation is that bad. What I'm saying that there are alternatives which so far seem to work equally well or equally bad but do not require as much day to day management of scrapheaps and are cheaper due to that. So why should we copy the USA to no gain?

What alternatives work well?

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

How is it about "ruling the world"? If some muscular guy said he was going to try and stop a woman being raped would you say that you were too busy going on vacation in your unburnt house with a cellar full of heinaken?

The EU has the golden opportunity to let the USA handle the fire zones and get the ill will, while Europe lean back and take the morale upper ground while still getting the better of the financial outcome.

Yes, that is the accusation made of Europe. It may be a golden opportunity economically, but is it justifiable?

***********

Bear in mind we're discussing a theoretical point in which large western militaries are an important preventative and policing force. The question of whether it is good or possible in reality is kind of hardcore.

[al Roumi]

What kind of self interest? Well that's a big tangent probably. But you are shooting yourself in the foot here. If the US is doing a bad job, then Europe should step up.

But how is this about Europe acting in the USA's interests? Surely it is about Europe acting in the worlds best interest. You have to answer up to that.

Bear in mind we're discussing a theoretical point in which large western militaries are an important preventative and policing force. The question of whether it is good or possible in reality is kind of hardcore.

There are cases where the US has arguably intervened in the interests of "world peace" and global good. These are arguably thinner on the ground of late. I would say the more positive examples lie around 50+ years ago, with the possible recent exception of Balkan missions e.g. Kosovo.

Do you really think the prime motivational factor for the US' adventurism since WW2 has been anything other than in its own interest, or that of its ideology? If it has and continues to claim the motive of "world peace", it has always been world peace on the USA's terms.

[caravel]

Do you really think the prime motivational factor for the US' adventurism since WW2 has been anything other than in its own interest, or that of its ideology? If it has and continues to claim the motive of "world peace", it has always been world peace on the USA's terms.

Unfortunately though the war in Iraq was clearly all about oil, there are still those that think that the US, UK, etc, went in there to "liberate" people from an evil dictator with (nonexistent) WMD.

[Andres]

How is it about "ruling the world"? If some muscular guy said he was going to try and stop a woman being raped would you say that you were too busy going on vacation in your unburnt house with a cellar full of heinaken?

Some would argue that that woman is not being raped but merely enjoying kinky sex and that the muscular guy is calling it "rape" because he's a macho who thinks kinky sex is wrong and who's also wanting to show the bystanders that he has muscles.

It doesn't matter to you anyway, because you'll burn at the stake tonight for falsely accusing me of having a cellar filled with dishwater "Heineken" (though luck if you forgot to pay your 75 $ ) When will you learn that "Heineken" is not beer, let alone good beer. My cellar is filled with Ciney, Leffe, Floreffe, Quintine, Kriek Boon, the finest French and Spanish wines, champagne and a delicious bottle of Spumante.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

There are cases where the US has arguably intervened in the interests of "world peace" and global good. These are arguably thinner on the ground of late. I would say the more positive examples lie around 50+ years ago, with the possible recent exception of Balkan missions e.g. Kosovo.

Do you really think the prime motivational factor for the US' adventurism since WW2 has been anything other than in its own interest, or that of its ideology? If it has and continues to claim the motive of "world peace", it has always been world peace on the USA's terms.

This argument is self defeating like tellos's unless you are just talking about the tangent or arguing for a "power corrupts..." kind of thing.

Is it in the USA's self interest to live in a world with less dictatorships? That's why I don't get arguing for "self interest". Do you mean "selfish interest"? i.e. it's bad for other people but good for us?

Listen if we can wage a 40 year moral war on drugs, you don't think morals are a big part of our foreign policy too?

Some would argue that that woman is not being raped but merely enjoying kinky sex and that the muscular guy is calling it "rape" because he's a macho who thinks kinky sex is wrong and who's also wanting to show the bystanders that he has muscles.

It doesn't matter to you anyway, because you'll burn at the stake tonight for falsely accusing me of having a cellar filled with dishwater "Heineken" (I hope you payed your 75 $ or it'll be the last time you insulted me that way ) When will you learn that "Heineken" is not beer, let alone good beer. My cellar is filled with Ciney, Leffe, Floreffe, Quintine, Kriek Boon, the finest French and Spanish wines, champagne and a delicious bottle of Spumante.

Clearly you've been brainwashed. What kind of totalitarian regime do you have in belgium? Why haven't the other European countries liberated you? I guess it'll be the US's job again

[Kagemusha]

The original question of the thread is already wrong. Europe can defend itself from any regional threats. China is too far away to be a threat and Russia being a trade partner and with a GDP similar of Spain is not a serious threat to Europe anymore. In conventional forces Europe is stronger then Russia and the Nuclear arsenal of France and UK will assure that Nuclear war would mean the end to Russia also. So the only country that could hypothetically be a military threat to Europe is USA. Are you suggesting we should start a arms race with US? The truth is that Europe doesnt need a bigger military spending we already have and even those costs could be reduced by cutting off overlapping spending via more integrated military structure on EU level.

[Vladimir]

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010...te-penetrator/

Europe's deep penetrator.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Oh, well then, any minute now world peace will break out. 'Cause the Israelis and Palestinians are such reasonable people.

I said the solution is simple: get a peaceful end to the conflict. I didn't say that implementing it would be simple. Getting a peaceful solution will be the most difficult diplomatic achievement in human history.

They used this exact same argument about economic interconnectedness making war improbable right before the First World War. Improvements in technology have made states today more capable of being self-sufficient than at any time in the past, there's really no reason to be complacent that a war won't come about over conflicts of interest.

1. The level of economic interconnectedness wasn't on the same level as we see today.
2. I would think that having your empire encompassing enough land across the world to be roughly the size of Europe itself would make you pretty damned self sufficient as well. Today, countries do not have such an advantage to the same extent.

[Rhyfelwyr]

1. The level of economic interconnectedness wasn't on the same level as we see today.
2. I would think that having your empire encompassing enough land across the world to be roughly the size of Europe itself would make you pretty damned self sufficient as well. Today, countries do not have such an advantage to the same extent.

1. True, but why do you presume that we are heading in a straighforward direction of increasing economic interconnectedness? History shows that it seems to fluctuate wildly. After the development of free trade in the 16th century, the absolute monarchs restricted it with mercantilism with the political desire for self-sufficiency. Then you had Adam Smith and the free market 18th century etc. But then there was enlightened despotism and a revival of protectionism even in more liberal states like Britain. And then there was the free market again, but then there was the First World War, and the concept of fascism brought the heyday of economic self-sufficiency and the obliteration of international trade with the far-left/far-right. And fair enough we know are in a period of more economic interconnectedness, but so what, who says this time it will last?

2. You would be surprised, there's an emerging consensus among historians that imperialism was actually purely fuelled by abstract values eg nationalism, and colonies were in fact quite a financial drain on their imperial overlords. Furthermore, the nature of production in the colonies would make them pretty irrelevant to the resources demanded for warfare.

[a completely inoffensive name]

1. True, but why do you presume that we are heading in a straighforward direction of increasing economic interconnectedness? History shows that it seems to fluctuate wildly. After the development of free trade in the 16th century, the absolute monarchs restricted it with mercantilism with the political desire for self-sufficiency. Then you had Adam Smith and the free market 18th century etc. But then there was enlightened despotism and a revival of protectionism even in more liberal states like Britain. And then there was the free market again, but then there was the First World War, and the concept of fascism brought the heyday of economic self-sufficiency and the obliteration of international trade with the far-left/far-right. And fair enough we know are in a period of more economic interconnectedness, but so what, who says this time it will last?

2. You would be surprised, there's an emerging consensus among historians that imperialism was actually purely fuelled by abstract values eg nationalism, and colonies were in fact quite a financial drain on their imperial overlords. Furthermore, the nature of production in the colonies would make them pretty irrelevant to the resources demanded for warfare.

1. Modern economics arguably didn't start until Adam Smith. So the 16th century wasn't learned from due to the fact economics as a social science had not progressed to the point where people were actively discussing it on the level needed to improve human knowledge about economies. From the 18th century until the 19th the despots and enlightened states alike didn't know that economics wasn't a zero sum game, the influence of economists wasn't where it should have been. Rulers learned from that in time. Then in in the twentieth century, rulers put ideology and nationalism above economic theory, twice. They have now learned from that as well. Now there has been 70 years of uninterrupted free trade between the US and the EU and about 25-30 years of relatively uninterrupted free trade across the entire world, including Russia and China and the overall world economic has been growing at an incredible rate (until recently). Leaders know this. Nothing says this time will last if we elect people who put their ideologies above what is actually practical. (unrelated)This is why the Tea Party scares me on some level.(/unrelated) However, by simply putting in people who do listen to the economists, we can be assured that protectionism won't be advocated ever again.

2. I will need to read more about that consensus before I can comfortably comment on your statement.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

2. I will need to read more about that consensus before I can comfortably comment on your statement.

iirc, the argument is that countries who invested at home rather than abroad ended up doing better.

@rhyf: I don't know if it's even so much about spreading democracy...as in preventing aggressive wars. Like north korea attacking south korea.

[a completely inoffensive name]

iirc, the argument is that countries who invested at home rather than abroad ended up doing better.

Britain's and France's empire were much larger then Germany's at the beginning of WW1 and they certainly spent more effort in making and maintaining an empire abroad then Germany did. Why did Germany lose?

Not attacking you, just putting forth questions popping in my head. Which is why I should probably read about it before commenting.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Britain's and France's empire were much larger then Germany's at the beginning of WW1 and they certainly spent more effort in making and maintaining an empire abroad then Germany did. Why did Germany lose?

Not attacking you, just putting forth questions popping in my head. Which is why I should probably read about it before commenting.

Why was Germany able to compete at all? Because they invested more at home? Wasn't one of the causes of the American Revolution the fact that parliament was trying to actually get some money out of the colonies? I have to think the British profited a lot from India though...