Europe and the Rest of the World - A Military Analysis

[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.