Why can't Europe defend itself?

[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.......

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Europe only fought WWII because it was in their self interest

[caravel]

Hey, don't let such trivialities as facts get in the way of the gung-ho rhetoric being spouted in this thread.

[Vuk]

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.......

You are talking ancient history now Rory. Europeans used to be tough, hard working people, but that is not the case now.
I already talked about personality and European posters in this thread have just confirmed what I said. Even physically though, when I was in Europe I was shocked by how pathetically weak and unused to any type of manual labour people were. The average person in the US is a LOT more fit, a lot stronger, and a lot better suited to the hardships of enduring a war. The average European is fit for neither combat nor factory work.
Try shopping for a shirt in France as an American. The necks on them are all so tiny that your struggle will be just finding one that fits and American neck. :P

[rory_20_uk]

The rates of obesity and general ill-health are far greater in the USA than anywhere in Europe.

Americans mentally have never had hardship in war since probably the American Civil War, and even then it was sporadic.

Most weaponry does not require a 18 stone wall of muscle to use. AKs can even be used by children effectively. I think one of the German Emperors was the last person to try to get giants to fight as a unit (the father of Peter the Great). They were useless and slaughtered by cannon and shot. Things have advanced since then.

Although as I say above, the wide neck is more usually going to be encircling a vast amount of fat.

[Vuk]

The rates of obesity and general ill-health are far greater in the USA than anywhere in Europe.

Americans mentally have never had hardship in war since probably the American Civil War, and even then it was sporadic.

Most weaponry does not require a 18 stone wall of muscle to use. AKs can even be used by children effectively. I think one of the German Emperors was the last person to try to get giants to fight as a unit (the father of Peter the Great). They were useless and slaughtered by cannon and shot. Things have advanced since then.

Although as I say above, the wide neck is more usually going to be encircling a vast amount of fat.

Do you really think that strength and physical fitness are not important to combat? Combat tests your body's limits to the max, and the limits of American bodies are a lot higher than that of European bodies. The average European probably could not even carry a wounded comrade off the field.
Just as important is the work on the homefront to support the war effort. Large size and strength is not only a product of hard work, but essential for the type of work that needs to be done in the case of a sustained war.
The Russians, Chinese, Indians, and Americans are tough people who can cope with hardships, but Europeans who do not even work half of the year would shrivel up and die.
I hate hurt your feelings Rory, but size does matter.

[Kagemusha]

You are talking ancient history now Rory. Europeans used to be tough, hard working people, but that is not the case now.
I already talked about personality and European posters in this thread have just confirmed what I said. Even physically though, when I was in Europe I was shocked by how pathetically weak and unused to any type of manual labour people were. The average person in the US is a LOT more fit, a lot stronger, and a lot better suited to the hardships of enduring a war. The average European is fit for neither combat nor factory work.
Try shopping for a shirt in France as an American. The necks on them are all so tiny that your struggle will be just finding one that fits and American neck. :P

Have you ever even been in Europe or are just talking about your imaginative stereotypias concerning Europeans?

[Tellos Athenaios]

@Sasaki: you are confusing me. Anyway it's fairly simple:

- If the USA acts in its self interest good. If the USA acts for “the good of the world”, even better.
- Ditto for Europe.
- There's no requirement on either to act for “the good of the world”, so self interest is what you are going to get.
- There's no requirement for Europe to assist the USA or vice versa. So common interest is as much as you can ask for.
- Observably, both the USA and Europe primarily act in their self interest and not for “the good of the world” or even some championed “ideal”. There's always that self-interest,
even if it sometimes is mixed with a genuine belief in ideals.

- The USA has taken the approach of having a worldwide network of military bases to interfere where they want to.
- Europe has taken an approach of bilateral economic ties/strings which can be leveraged after the colonies were dismantled (so military bases were out of the question to begin with). In addition Europe maintains a military of similar technological capabilities as that of the USA, but far smaller in raw numbers. (Incidentally a lot of the USA budget on military expenses ends up in Europe due to the USA's main suppliers of some of the tech being European.)
- Primary threats to Europe are gone, so the cold war style armies are too. We find it saves us a lot of money, and collectively time that we can spend on something worth doing.
- Neither can don the cloak of moral righteousness and expect the world to follow their every word. Neither can intimidate far smaller parties into complying with demands either.
- Apart from that it's laughable that either China or Russia should invade their primary export markets.
- Especially when China and Russia are perfectly content focusing on eroding the power of the USA.

Now tell me where the need for Europe arises to have more of an army? Now tell me how Europe cannot defend itself?

[gaelic cowboy]

The average person in the US is a LOT more fit, a lot stronger, and a lot better suited to the hardships of enduring a war. The average European is fit for neither combat nor factory work.

not according to your own CDC your not

Average adult Americans are about one inch taller, but nearly a whopping 25 pounds heavier than they were in 1960, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The bad news, says CDC is that average BMI (body mass index, a weight-for-height formula used to measure obesity) has increased among adults from approximately 25 in 1960 to 28 in 2002.
The report, Mean Body Weight, Height, and Body Mass Index (BMI) 1960-2002: United States, shows that the average height of a man aged 20-74 years increased from just over 5'8" in 1960 to 5'9½" in 2002, while the average height of a woman the same age increased from slightly over 5'3" 1960 to 5'4" in 2002.

Meanwhile, the average weight for men aged 20-74 years rose dramatically from 166.3 pounds in 1960 to 191 pounds in 2002, while the average weight for women the same age increased from 140.2 pounds in 1960 to 164.3 pounds in 2002.

Though the average weight for men aged 20-39 years increased by nearly 20 pounds over the last four decades, the increase was greater among older men:

Men between the ages of 40 and 49 were nearly 27 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.
Men between the ages of 50 and 59 were nearly 28 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.
Men between the ages of 60 and 74 were almost 33 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.
For women, the near opposite trend occurred:

Women aged 20-29 were nearly 29 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.
Women aged 40-49 were about 25½ pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.
Women aged 60-74 were about 17½ pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.
Meanwhile, the report documented that average weights for children are increasing as well:

The average weight for a 10 year-old-boy in 1963 was 74.2 pounds; by 2002 the average weight was nearly 85 pounds.
The average weight for a 10-year-old girl in 1963 was 77.4 pounds; by 2002 the average weight was nearly 88 pounds.
A 15-year-old boy weighed 135.5 pounds on average in 1966; by 2002 the average weight of a boy that age increased to 150.3 pounds.
A 15-year-old girl weighed 124.2 pounds on average in 1966; by 2002 the average weight for a girl that age was 134.4 pounds.
According to the report, average heights for children increased as well over the past four decades. For example:

The average height of a 10-year-old boy in 1963 was 55.2 inches; by 2002 the average height of a 10-year-old boy had increased to 55.7 inches.
The average height of a 10-year-old girl in 1963 was about 55.5 inches; by 2002 the average height of a 10-year-old girl had increased to 56.4 inches.
In 1966, the average height of a 15-year-old boy was 67.5 inches or almost 5'7½"; by 2002 the average height of a 15-year-old boy was 68.4 or almost 5'8½".
In 1996, the average height of a 15-year-old girl was 63.9 inches; by 2002 the average height of a 15-year-old girl had not changed significantly (63.8 inches).
Average BMI for children and teens has increased as well:

In 1963, the average BMI for a 7-year-old boy was 15.9; in 2002 it was 17.0. For girls the same age, the average BMI increased from 15.8 to 16.6 over the same period.
In 1966, the average BMI for a 16-year-old boy was 21.3; in 2002, it was 24.1. For girls the same age, the average BMI increased from 21.9 to 24.0 over the same period.
The BMI is a single number that evaluates an individual's weight status in relation to height. BMI is generally used as the first indicator in assessing body fat and has been the most common method of tracking weight problems and obesity among adults.

[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.

[Strike For The South]

Because they like soccer

[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.