Why can't Europe defend itself?

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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...

[a completely inoffensive name]

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...

Idk about how much Germany spent at home, I just know they didn't have the empire England and France did and didn't have to spend nearly the amount of money and effort like they did trying to keep control over 1/4th of the worlds land.

The problem in America wasn't getting the money, the problem was not giving them representation.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Idk about how much Germany spent at home, I just know they didn't have the empire England and France did and didn't have to spend nearly the amount of money and effort like they did trying to keep control over 1/4th of the worlds land.

Yeah, that fits in with "not profiting that much off of empire building". And I think germany became an economic powerhouse through industrializing.

The problem in America wasn't getting the money, the problem was not giving them representation.

The british trying to pull a profit or stop their losses (can't remember which) from the colonies was the driving force I'm pretty sure. America couldn't be represented...their interests were too separate from the british interests. They would have had no power in parliament even with representatives.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yeah, that fits in with "not profiting that much off of empire building". And I think germany became an economic powerhouse through industrializing.

So again, I am just wondering if that consensus has answer for why Germany still lost even though it focused on itself. Is the general idea that if the war happened later, Germany would have surpassed Britain and France enough to defeat them?

The british trying to pull a profit or stop their losses (can't remember which) from the colonies was the driving force I'm pretty sure. America couldn't be represented...their interests were too separate from the british interests. They would have had no power in parliament even with representatives.

I don't get it, they would have no power in Parliament anyway but we can't have been represented because their different interests are going to mess up the direction Britain wanted to go in?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So again, I am just wondering if that consensus has answer for why Germany still lost even though it focused on itself. Is the general idea that if the war happened later, Germany would have surpassed Britain and France enough to defeat them?

That consensus idea is about economic and monetary benefit. And it's two against one besides...

I don't get it, they would have no power in Parliament anyway but we can't have been represented because their different interests are going to mess up the direction Britain wanted to go in?

If they had given the US a few representatives they would not have had enough votes to repeal the taxes.

[CBR]

I don't think the industrial decline seen in Britain had much to do with its colonies. It seems more like the newcomers being more competitive and innovative and the old dog not being able to learn new tricks.

The modern global economy is doing more importing/exporting than ever so we rely more on each other. The wildest China has done recently was to cut off Japan from some rare minerals and that lasted a few days IIRC. Among the greater powers no one is saber rattling like we saw a hundred years ago in Europe.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That consensus idea is about economic and monetary benefit. And it's two against one besides...

Well that's true. Either way you will have to excuse me that I am not just going to go along with your statement about this consensus without looking into it first. You are probably right though, but I'm not one to just run my mouth without having some knowledge/research on the subject.

If they had given the US a few representatives they would not have had enough votes to repeal the taxes.

So why deny them the votes? If they can't stop the taxes anyway then give them representatives and prevent a rebellion over no representation from breaking out.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well that's true. Either way you will have to excuse me that I am not just going to go along with your statement about this consensus without looking into it first. You are probably right though, but I'm not one to just run my mouth without having some knowledge/research on the subject.

I have only heard the theory in passing. Seems plausible though.

So why deny them the votes? If they can't stop the taxes anyway then give them representatives and prevent a rebellion over no representation from breaking out.

It wouldn't have prevented anything...they would have just (rightly) said that they weren't truly represented. Besides with the revolution you have that weird thing where the british became convinced that we were going to rebel so they clamped down and then we became convinced they were going to become tyrannical and acted rebellious and then that further convinced them etc and so on. Not the most logical time period.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It wouldn't have prevented anything...they would have just (rightly) said that they weren't truly represented. Besides with the revolution you have that weird thing where the british became convinced that we were going to rebel so they clamped down and then we became convinced they were going to become tyrannical and acted rebellious and then that further convinced them etc and so on. Not the most logical time period.

Well I think that is a bit extrapolating. I'm sure there would have been moderates who would have been pacified by the gesture and that the only ones left would have been the ones who were looking for a reason in the first place. Would those die hard people have rallied everyone anyway? Possibly. All I know is that there would have been no harm in giving them the representatives if it was a rebel or rebel situation and the benefit would have been the ability to keep taxing a rich region for while longer.

[Fragony]

Nukes kinda made standing army's absolete.

[gaelic cowboy]

I don't think the industrial decline seen in Britain had much to do with its colonies. It seems more like the newcomers being more competitive and innovative and the old dog not being able to learn new tricks.

Indeed there is the real reason the colonies cost Britain money it was because of tarriffs levied against it's own colonies never mind France or Germany.


No wonder it cost Britain money to have colonies they were trying to tax colonial industry to be more expensive than at home

[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.

[Shibumi]

This topic seems to have grown a bit, so time for a more in-depth reply.

The question of Europes to do, and not to do in world politics is imho closely attached to USA's.

USA have by now a long and quite often not so proud history of meddling in world affairs. Colonies has been mentioned, and that is of course also tied in.

Europe has, contrary to USA, a long history. And as luck has it, we once in a while learn from it. We have long since learnt the cost of having colonies, and now do what we can to cut our losses. "Fortress Europe" has been mentioned as the new EU policy in world affairs, right or wrong I do not know.

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.

When the US is to stupid to understand that they are on a down hill tendence, there really is no need for Europe to spend much on defense. Could this come back and beat the EU in the behind? Well, possibly. But the world would have to change a lot, and rapidly, for that to be a problem. Attacking the EU as a whole has never really been done, and it would be extremly hard. One big benefit the EU have is that various regions are very well suited for defense, with an army that both will have high morale, as well as good gear and local knowledge.

Thus, the EU has no need to spend much on defense, and even less on offensive military power as the US is doing the job for them.

[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.

[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.

[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.