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.

[Furunculus]

Only corrupt countries - state power used for private gain - spend more than 2% on defense. Such as the basket cases of socialist Greece, mobster-ran Bulgaria, and neoliberal America.

needless to say i disagree with you.

2.0% should be the minimum a country spends, at least if they are a NATO member.

[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.

[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.

[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"...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[rory_20_uk]

The USA had NO problem with dictatorships as long as they leant towards the right direction. Latin America to the Middle East through Asia dictators were feted as long as they didn't go red.

USA liberating Europe again? Do we have to wait 4 years this time too?

[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.

[al Roumi]

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.

I'm not sure I see how this is a self-defeating position. I just said that the US is, despite the beliefs of some (mostly its citizens) out to help itself as best it can -not the world as a whole.

Is it in the USA's self interest to live in a world with less dictatorships?

Yes, as long as the dictators are replaced with capitalist "democracies", not (shudder) socialists. Capitalist democracies will get on much better with the US and be better markets & trading partners for the US.

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?

I'll grant that it doesn't have to be against other peoples' interests, but the prime motivator for US intervention is not to make the world a better place for everyone, but primarily US citizens.

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?

hmm, how to do this without opening a can of worms re the morality of the war on drugs... I'll side step it and say: The "war on drugs" is most certainly mostly about the US self interest. Surely you'd agree the "morality" of the endaevor is based on a US focused consideration?

[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

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'm not sure I see how this is a self-defeating position. I just said that the US is, despite the beliefs of some (mostly its citizens) out to help itself as best it can -not the world as a whole.

Oh, just because we are discussing whether such intervention can do good. If it can, and the US is doing a bad job, then Europe should step up and do a good job. But shibumi et al are arguing that it is better for Europe to save their cash and let the US do it.

Yes, as long as the dictators are replaced with capitalist "democracies", not (shudder) socialists. Capitalist democracies will get on much better with the US and be better markets & trading partners for the US.

I think the sheer cost of war belies any attempt to make it "all about the [money]".

I'll grant that it doesn't have to be against other peoples' interests, but the prime motivator for US intervention is not to make the world a better place for everyone, but primarily US citizens.

Why do you think that? I think if that were true, we would be more isolationist. Indeed that seems to be Europe's idea. 3 trillion on the war or something? Or it might be 1 trillion directly spent with another 2 in costs, I don't remember.

hmm, how to do this without opening a can of worms re the morality of the war on drugs... I'll side step it and say: The "war on drugs" is most certainly mostly about the US self interest. Surely you'd agree the "morality" of the endaevor is based on a US focused consideration?

I wasn't very clear...I don't think the war on drugs is just. I meant it is moral in the sense that moral beliefs are the driving force. If you think it is about the US self interest then I'm confused about what you mean by self interest

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Strike For The South]

Because they like soccer