Why can't Europe defend itself?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yes fine, and I agree: sometimes countries should show that they, collectively, got something of a “soul” as well as a wallet or a gun.

But a large army doesn't come into it.

Doesn't military force come into it sometimes? In the case of south korea as mentioned. I lack knowledge needed to say anything about other countries...but it is a potential at least in other places.

So it looks so far like Shibumi had it right, that Europe lets the USA pay for the policing, and spends their money on themselves.

[Andres]

So it looks so far like Shibumi had it right, that Europe lets the USA pay for the policing, and spends their money on themselves.

Maybe Europe thinks policing isn't necessary

Or maybe they think policing by using a big, expensive army and constantly sending it to expensive armed conflicts isn't the way to go

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Maybe Europe thinks policing isn't necessary

Or maybe they think policing by using a big, expensive army and constantly sending it to expensive armed conflicts isn't the way to go

Why do they think that? Sticking with south korea as my example...is policing necessary there? It seems so.

Now, I think the EU has more soldiers than the US, so perhaps we can ignore the part about "big army". Then we have two more questions...

1) is an expensive army with aircraft carriers and submarines and innovative weapons important? I think part of the use of innovation is that it allows for attacks that kill fewer civilians. I don't have much military knowledge though...

2) are expensive armed conflicts the way to go? I guess, in other words, is the afghanistan war a good war to be fighting. Probably beyond the scope of the thread...

But Shibumi's suggestion still seems very possible. I think we would have to take a close look at all the countries in the world and see which have (or had, or might have...) military dictator types that would attack their neighbors and possibly commit genocides.

[Andres]

I think visiting some cemeteries in Europe would explain why we're not so keen on waging war anymore far better than a long post written by me, Sasaki.

When is a regime bad enough that war is a better option?

How about the possiblity that Europe actually learned something from those two major conflicts that destroyed our continent and made countless Europeans, soldiers and civilians, suffer? Not so long ago, we were all at each other's throats, killing and destroying each other. Maybe, just maybe, we euro weenie pacifists afraid of policing the world by force, have been doing something right the last few decades? The mere fact that you, an American, are now talking about "Europe" and "Europeans" says a lot more than you can possibly imagine. Apparently, people who were murdering each other as a hobby not longer than 65 years ago, are, in the world outside Europe, seen as a homogeneous group.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

'Course. Does that mean you need to maintain an overly large army? No.

Is the US army overly large? It is smaller than the EU combined armies, and similar in proportion to france and italy...we just spend much more money, percentage wise.

I think visiting some cemeteries in Europe would explain why we're not so keen on waging war anymore far better than a long post written by me, Sasaki.

When is a regime bad enough that war is a better option?

How about the possiblity that Europe actually learned something from those two major conflicts that destroyed our continent and made countless Europeans, soldiers and civilians, suffer? Not so long ago, we were all at each other's throats, killing and destroying each other. Maybe, just maybe, we euro weenie pacifists afraid of policing the world by force, have been doing something right the last few decades? The mere fact that you, an American, are now talking about "Europe" and "Europeans" says a lot more than you can possibly imagine. Apparently, people who were murdering each other as a hobby not longer than 65 years ago, are, in the world outside Europe, seen as a homogeneous group.

I've been to gettysburg :p

I don't think the europeans are afraid of policing the world. I think they would rather let the US deal with the expense and the messy (and often unpopular) business of deciding whether a situation justifies war.

[CBR]

I don't think the europeans are afraid of policing the world. I think they would rather let the US deal with the expense and the messy (and often unpopular) business of deciding whether a situation justifies war.

The French have been doing policing in their former colonies several times. But for true global power projection one needs a fleet that has 10+ carriers with the airpower, amphibious and support elements that goes along with such big ships. No European power is capable of doing that plus they have priorities that USA does not have like needing "brown water" ships for local defense.

Also having a bunch of smaller nations all wanting to have a well-rounded defense might also not be the most cost effective way. But if a nation does not want to be completely dependent of other nations for basic stuff, then that problem is not going away.

But changes are happening e.g. the Dutch and Danish navies are phasing out smaller ships and replacing them with larger and more capable ships. The Danish Navy no longer have any subs, missile boats or corvettes: the good old Cold War scenario of Danish and West German navies fighting in the western Baltic and local Danish waters no longer makes sense.

[Husar]

Well, to make the Americans surrender the Russians will just have to flash some boobies.

But I have to say this is the funniest thread I've read here in a while.

So you think if these really healthy people from smogland support the Russians they will conquer Europe together because Europeans are just a bunch of surrender monkeys? You accuse us of underestimating the Russians, yet claim to know that we would just surrender at the sight of the mighty russian army, that's pretty hilarious.
And concerning weapon developments, Europe is not all that far behind the US, in some areas we're even ahead, you may have stealth fighters, but Norway and Sweden have stealth ships for quite some time already, the US only has some prototypes in that regard, and a planned destryer that is so expensive that even with your big budget you can only afford a few, not really enough to replace all the other carrier escorts. Then there is all the "waste" of money going on in the US, the Comanche program was cancelled after many years, some submarine program was cancelled after many years, your army still uses M-16s whereas the german army has already replaced the G-3 with the G-36. We have our delays and screwups as well, but you're still using european armour and guns on your only main battle tank, quite surprising since I thought you have the best stuff in everything?

This is not some america bashing, I'm just saying that the budget alone does not make your scientists any more creative or clever than ours and being able to eat more burgers or drink more vodka does not make one more battle hardy than someone else in a modern war. Maybe the US thinks policing in Arabia is necessary but then again to a large extent the whole terrorism thing is based on the resistance against US influence in the region, that is why they bombed the twin towers and not the Eiffel tower, isn't it?

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

What is the mean collar size of US Trolls? Do they tend to be more "warlike" than Trolls of other ethnicities?

Because we do the work of Europe for them.

- 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.)

And allow Eastern Europe to be boss around because they can suffer rising heating costs in the winter if Russia plays hard ball?
- 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.

Like retiring when you 50 years old and crying when you have to go back to work when you bankrupt your nation?




- Apart from that it's laughable that either China or Russia should invade their primary export markets.

Ever think of China invading Taiwan to control that part of the sea?

And why was it when the Dutch and Belgians I believe had the chance to stop the genocide in Rwanda, Kofi Annan and the French told them to back off, and meanwhile the French was supplying the Murderers. Check out the Worse then War book, might learn something.


Where was Europe's strong handing when the Balkan wars broke out? Took many years before anything remotely got done.

When Geogria got invaded in 2008, All the European nations complained....... But no help. Not from Germany, England, France, Italy, Poland, Ukraine..... That's really nice. .

[gaelic cowboy]

When Geogria got invaded in 2008, All the European nations complained....... But no help. Not from Germany, England, France, Italy, Poland, Ukraine..... That's really nice. .

Hmm seem to remember the USA did not start WW3 over Georgia either or maybe I missed the bulletin on Sky News.

It amazes me that Americans cant see that US troops are in Europe to further American interests not European despite what right wing US politiians might say your army chiefs are quite happy to be the lynchpin of European security through NATO.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

And you Europeans are different how again?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Doesn't military force come into it sometimes?

'Course. Does that mean you need to maintain an overly large army? No.