Europe and the Rest of the World - A Military Analysis

[HoreTore]

I love the chauvinism coming from someone living in the worlds number one producer of fat people.

[Vladimir]

Wait...Is this another thread bashing the martial abilities of Western Europe? I thought we covered that.

If Europe thought they needed to, I'm sure they'd have no problem with creating a decent army. The Eurofighter is a good example.

[Centurion1]

lol the eurofighter. the UK wants the JSF anyway.

[PanzerJaeger]

If you were to try and rank the top 10 militaries in the world in terms of effectiveness, European nations would dominate the majority of the list.

There is a danger, though, in letting entitlements (cultural decadence if you will) eat away at a nation's military budget. I would say 3% of GDP is a solid figure not to drop below for proper maintenance of the standing force and R&D for future technology. The US/Euro bond through NATO as well as greater intra-Euro cooperation due to the EU, yield even greater economies of scale in terms of the latter.

Despite years of declining military budgets, the Western World is still very militarily secure.

[Centurion1]

i dont think anyone would debate that. and the vast remainder of those top ten militaries would be dominated by purely western style militaries

[Vuk]

If you were to try and rank the top 10 militaries in the world in terms of effectiveness, European nations would dominate the majority of the list.

There is a danger, though, in letting entitlements (cultural decadence if you will) eat away at a nation's military budget. I would say 3% of GDP is a solid figure not to drop below for proper maintenance of the standing force and R&D for future technology. The US/Euro bond through NATO as well as greater intra-Euro cooperation due to the EU, yield even greater economies of scale in terms of the latter.

Despite years of declining military budgets, the Western World is still very militarily secure.

In terms of size, budget, tech, etc they are ok, but esp. considering that they are small fish in the ocean, they cannot rely on out spending enemy armies and pumping more troops against them. There is a strength that cannot be directly observed or measured, and it is that that, alongside money, is the deciding factor in military engagements; much more important than troop count. History supports me on that. If Europeans are not willing to do that and straighten out as a society (which they probably will never do) it will be to their detriment, as well as to the detriment of the US and the rest of the world.
Looking at the total population, combined GDP, tech, landmass, etc of Western Europe, there is no reason that they should not collectively be far stronger than the US. They are not though, they are completely dependent on the US.

[Greyblades]

The thing is we dont realy need particually powerful individual armies, each country has an army of varying numbers and equipment mainly because of all the alliances criss crossing europe. We dont need any really big armies because if any of us get into a war that could end up with our destruction the entire west half will pitch in to prevent that. Really if you wanted to invade a european country you would have to fight off an entire continent of ticked off first world countries who are likely at any stage it goes badly to drag the USA into it.

Europe and Nato combined could take on the USSR at it's height, realy there isnt anyone that has a chance of doing any conquest in europe. A member country having a big army is realy of no extra benefit except bragging rights.

...I think I repeated "we dont need armies" 3 times, man am I tired.

[Vuk]

The thing is we dont realy need particually powerful individual armies, each country has an army of varying numbers and equipment mainly because of all the alliances criss crossing europe. We dont need any really big armies because if any of us get into a war that could end up with our destruction the entire west half will pitch in to prevent that. Really if you wanted to invade a european country you would have to fight off an entire continent of ticked off first world countries who are likely at any stage it goes badly to drag the USA into it.

Europe and Nato combined could take on the USSR at it's height, realy there isnt anyone that has a chance of doing any conquest in europe. A member country having a big army is realy of no extra benefit except bragging rights.

...I think I repeated "we dont need armies" 3 times, man am I tired.

You are tired? I am sorry, but that is your fault, and not mine. You obviously did not read my posts. My argument had nothing to do with how large a country's military needs to be (that is the subject of an entirely different debate), but that European citizens did not have the potential to be good soldiers.
Europe will only be invincible to attack if it stops having that attitude. Europe will be invincible to attack when it is ready and willing to kick the butt of anyone who invades it. And I am sorry, but the quality and type of citizens Europe is full of really makes me think that without aid from the US (and possibly even then) it would crumple and die under a serious attack from a large power. Reread my post, because I outline why there.

[PanzerJaeger]

In terms of size, budget, tech, etc they are ok, but esp. considering that they are small fish in the ocean, they cannot rely on out spending enemy armies and pumping more troops against them. There is a strength that cannot be directly observed or measured, and it is that that, alongside money, is the deciding factor in military engagements; much more important than troop count. History supports me on that. If Europeans are not willing to do that and straighten out as a society (which they probably will never do) it will be to their detriment, as well as to the detriment of the US and the rest of the world.

How does history support you on that?

Absent environmental factors, the difference between victory and defeat can always be traced to quantifiable differences in morale
, training, planning (tactical & strategic), equipment, and/or technology.

In fact, nations that have relied on that special, intangible 'something' to compensate for other deficiencies have suffered. The Japanese military during the Second World War is a good example.

[Husar]

lol the eurofighter. the UK wants the JSF anyway.

The UK has very short carriers that need VTOL/STOL capable aircraft, the Eurofighter is not such an aircraft as most of the countries in the program didn't need such a thing.
The UK still purchases Eurofighters for their land bases AFAIK.

The point about Germany being purely defensive is a bit funny considering we're in Afghanistan and our navy helped secure the lebanese shore etc.
Our special forces seem to be a bit more involved at times but it's not exactly the kind of thing you read about in newspapers.

I don't really see how you can say western europeans are unwilling to defend themselves as long as they aren't even really threatened.
There have been several attempts to do terror attacks in Germany, some were borked by the terrorists, others prevented by the policem, but well, this whole premise is just laughable anyway.

Europe's wealth comes mostly from trading and technology, once half the world fights over our wealth there is simply no wealth left to fight over so it's entirely pointless.
Then you forgot about nukes, Russia has them too but Russia also has a lot more natural ressources and fertile land, if you think their army is strong, think again.

Pro Tip: The Cold War is over.

[Centurion1]

why are you directing this at me.

[Vuk]

I find it hilarious that you can all have the attitude "We could never stand against Russia/China, the US will protect us" one second, and "Achtung! We have the best military in the world!" the next second. Seriously, if your militaries are so good, then why the dependence on the US, and why the European attitude that it needs the US for protection?

EDIT: Hitting the hay now. I will reply tomorrow to any new posts.

[gaelic cowboy]

I find it hilarious that you can all have the attitude "We could never stand against Russia/China, the US will protect us" one second, and "Achtung! We have the best military in the world!" the next second. Seriously, if your militaries are so good, then why the dependence on the US, and why the European attitude that it needs the US for protection?

I dont think that Russia is even capable of taking on the Baltic countries nowadays, any attempt by Russia to rattle sabres will end badly for them. While europe would be devastated in any continential war that would hardly any different if all the recruits were like klingons or terminators.

The US has troops in european countries because it is part of it's foreign policy, a policy that is there because the USA still needs the ability to project power in Europe, Middle east and North Africa.

[Subotan]

This a complete failure of an analysis.

I guess that my point is that most Western Europeans do not have that will to fight for their country, their family, and their society. They are not proud of themselves, where they came from, or their country. Why would they give their lives after all? Their entire lifestyle is contrary to what makes a good soldier AND citizen.

Absolute rubbish. If there was ever, God forbid, another large war on European soil then Europeans would put everything in to win. The difference is Vuk, not that we are soft, or decadent, or not proud of "where we come from" (I.e. not being a brown Mohammedan amirite?) but that we have put the millennia of constant warfare that has haunted Europe behind us. The nationalism which you so admire and reminisce for was and still is a cancer within Europe, and the weakening and gradual erosion of it is something which should be celebrated as one of the greatest foreign policy successes in the history of mankind, not mourned for causing the loss "of a culture that produces good citizens and good soldiers."

[Vuk]

africa..... middle east....

look western militaries are top dog not only because of technology but because of what our values are . the reason the middle east has (excuse me) such crappy militaries after the medieval period is because they do not know how to respect subordinates or delegate authority. there are numerous essays on this. besides turkey they are all worthless as fighting forces.

Yes, of course life is hard in Africa and the Middle East (probably harder in Africa than any place in the world...though Transylvania is probably on parr with many parts of Africa), but I did not mention them as the chance of any real military thread coming out of them in the next 100 years I see as extremely unlikely. Therefore they are not important to this discussion.

The UK has very short carriers that need VTOL/STOL capable aircraft, the Eurofighter is not such an aircraft as most of the countries in the program didn't need such a thing.
The UK still purchases Eurofighters for their land bases AFAIK.

The point about Germany being purely defensive is a bit funny considering we're in Afghanistan and our navy helped secure the lebanese shore etc.
Our special forces seem to be a bit more involved at times but it's not exactly the kind of thing you read about in newspapers.

I don't really see how you can say western europeans are unwilling to defend themselves as long as they aren't even really threatened.
There have been several attempts to do terror attacks in Germany, some were borked by the terrorists, others prevented by the policem, but well, this whole premise is just laughable anyway.

Europe's wealth comes mostly from trading and technology, once half the world fights over our wealth there is simply no wealth left to fight over so it's entirely pointless.
Then you forgot about nukes, Russia has them too but Russia also has a lot more natural ressources and fertile land, if you think their army is strong, think again.

Pro Tip: The Cold War is over.

The Germans are the ONLY major power in Western Europe with any real sort of military. It is very precise, but again, I don't think that the Germans have the resolve they need for sustained warfare.
The French? Certainly not!
The Cold War is over? Really? Then what is all the fighting in the Middle East? What is the problem in Korea? What is the ongoing cultural war?

[gaelic cowboy]

The Germans are the ONLY major power in Western Europe with any real sort of military. It is very precise, but again, I don't think that the Germans have the resolve they need for sustained warfare.

The French? Certainly not!

Says who?? Dr Phill how do we know what is in the mind of euro recruits obviously if they joined they must want to be there.

The Cold War is over? Really? Then what is all the fighting in the Middle East? What is the problem in Korea? What is the ongoing cultural war?

Well apart form Korea all of that fighting is the USA's problem cos you started it.


I notice you talk about good citizens well in Europe there is a strong tradition now of citizenship engagement with community, enviroment this makes a good citizen blah blah so if they had to join the army for some reason I do not see them reverting to anarchists.

I really don't see this as a problem, now you might have been on better ground in the type of politician europe breeds as they tend to be concensus driven.(but then thats good as war between europe would be a disaster globally )

[Vuk]

Says who?? Dr Phill





Well apart form Korea all of that fighting is the USA's problem cos you started it.

Not really, the Russians had a burn and leave policy in the Middle East. They could not take control of them and their resources, so they decided instead to empower and supply people who would make life difficult for the US and its allies. Yeah, the US played God there a bit, but the main fault of the US was not going to war with Russia and stopping their meddling. It is Russia which is to blame for most of the problems in the Middle East

[Louis VI the Fat]

Edit: Upon reflection, the previous content deemed a bad idea and removed.



Gah! The many sufferings one has to endure for being a moderator! Life's no fun anymore....

[PershsNhpios]

Oooooh my ears are ringing with all this loud noise.

The thread should be called 'America and the Rest of the World'.

[Vladimir]

lol the eurofighter. the UK wants the JSF anyway.

Yea, good luck with that. Problems with the JSF program dwarf those of the Euro.

[Vuk]

Wait...Is this another thread bashing the martial abilities of Western Europe? I thought we covered that.

If Europe thought they needed to, I'm sure they'd have no problem with creating a decent army. The Eurofighter is a good example.

If they thought that they needed to. That is exactly the thing, the attitude of Europeans is such that they never will be able to think that they need to or that it will be worth it. Europeans blur lines between right and wrong while creating their own social concepts of right and wrong where in Peace is right and War is always wrong. War never fixes anything, and as such, there will never be a good reason for Europeans to spill their blood. (unless maybe someone threatens their pensions...)
Even if by a miracle of Go-erh-Mother Earth Europe did mobilize, their armies would have terrible morale, be rank with desertions, and they would have riots at home (riots, the one time when spilling blood and fighting is acceptable in Western Europe). Sure, you got good technology, but the weapon is only a tiny part of the equation. The most important thing is the operator of the machine. I would be far more scared of a marine with a .22 than I would a Frat boy with a P90. You missed the point of my thread, that the two most important requirements for a successful military (and coincidently, therefore any chance of peace) are 1. Money/Tech and 2. Good Citizens! Europe has the wealth/tech, but not the citizens who will be well suited to the military (and believe it or not Horetore, fitness is actually not nearly as important as attitude and a feeling of civic responsibility. And as I argued in a previous thread, having a no fat on you does no good if your turtle neck sweater damages your spine). Thing of 16th Century Italy, that is very much what Europe is like now adays. A right bird for the plucking, only kept safe through the will of others.

The problem with Europe's bad military potential is the most fundamental problem with mankind: A fear that makes us desire dependency. It is what makes us NEED a religion, it is what makes women stay in abusive relationships, it is what makes men live in a country where they are mistreated and robbed by their own government, and do nothing about it. It is the fear of living and dying, rising and falling, being wealthy or being desolate based on our own efforts and nothing else.

[Greyblades]

...Religion? Vuk have you been sniffing paint thinner?

[Centurion1]

where are your from vuk? philly? because in the Us over 60% of our military is made up of good old boys from the south.

[Vuk]

...Religion? Vuk have you been sniffing paint thinner?

No, not at all. It is the reason why when we don't have a religion, we must create one out of our own beliefs (Darwinism, etc). I am not bashing religion, simply the human tendency toward dependence that makes us NEED one. Many people believe in a religion not because they have been genuinely convinced through sound reason, but because it is 'easy' for them, because now the responsibility for their lives is on someone else's shoulders. Which is to say, they have a parent figure (something that humans naturally crave...it is a type of laziness). Whether it is Mother Earth nurturing them, or Allah, or the Christian God, or even the parental figure of a socialist government that keeps them safe and provides for them, like children, they need that nurturing authority figure. It is easier, surer, and less frightening to live a dependent and miserable life than to live a satisfying independent life...or to crash and burn of your own accord. Most of life's problems can be traced to that fear, and that need for a parent figure.

where are your from vuk? philly? because in the Us over 60% of our military is made up of good old boys from the south.

Wisconsin. What is your point? They are by far the most civic minded, and well suited to the military (at least on average), so it makes sense that they make up most of the military. The coasts (and to a lesser extent, parts of the midwest), frankly, are home to a bunch of disgusting filth balls who make bad soldiers and bad citizens. The heart country, the south, and to a lesser extent the midwest is where the best troops will come from (did I forget Alaska?).

[Greyblades]

No, not at all. It is the reason why when we don't have a religion, we must create one out of our own beliefs (Darwinism, etc). I am not bashing religion, simply the human tendency toward dependence that makes us NEED one. Many people believe in a religion not because they have been genuinely convinced through sound reason, but because it is 'easy' for them, because now the responsibility for their lives is on someone else's shoulders. Which is to say, they have a parent figure (something that humans naturally crave...it is a type of laziness). Whether it is Mother Earth nurturing them, or Allah, or the Christian God, or even the parental figure of a socialist government that keeps them safe and provides for them, like children, they need that nurturing authority figure. It is easier, surer, and less frightening to live a dependent and miserable life than to live a satisfying independent life...or to crash and burn of your own accord. Most of life's problems can be traced to that fear, and that need for a parent figure.

Ok it just came realy out of left field is all.

[Centurion1]

the point is half 75% of america is unable to serve for various reasons and that even wisconsin which has decent citizens for the military say compared to NY or california is nowhere like the south. the US doesnt have this magical desire to serve and be successful in the service the south does.

Edit: go Packers btw