Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Can Europe depend on America in 21century?
TankU    10/18/2009 1:50:16 AM
Can Europe depend on America in 21century?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
WarNerd       10/18/2009 4:13:35 AM

Depends on what you mean by "depend".

 
Quote    Reply

smitty237       10/19/2009 12:28:41 AM
I agree with WarNerd, but the fact that would should have to seek clarification on this question should tell you a lot......  Ironically, the answer could very well be that "it depends."  The Obama Administration has already demonstrated that it's not willing to stick its neck out for our NATO allies (Poland and the Czech Republic) if it means ticking off Russia, and we've demonstrated to some of the former Russian Republics (such as Georgia) that we will not go to war to protect them should Russia decide to take them back against their will.  Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, et al., certainly have a right to wonder about this as well.  I sure as hell can't blame them.  Would the Netherlands, France, and/or Great Britain be able to count on us should they find themselves in an military entaglement in Aruba, Chad, or Belize?  I would like to think so, but currently the Obama Administration is currently made up of people who believe that war never solves anything, and as such they would probably try to do everything they can to prevent a military resolution to just about any crisis.  That could mean the Dutch might have to go it alone if Hugo Chavez decides to take Aruba, or worse, they could be forced to accept the loss of their Caribbean territory.  The same could go for the rest of Europe, at least until an new Administration is in power. 
 
Quote    Reply

Parmenion       10/19/2009 9:48:12 AM
 
I don't believe the Obama administration isn't ready to go to war if America's interests or their principles are threatened.
I believe they are more realistic and pragmatic than the Bush administration. The Polish interceptors you mentioned would not have actually been avle to defend Poland, but only chunks of western europe. A network of upgraded AEGIS ships is more flexible and can cover a wider area- or simply hit the missiles while they are still in the first stage of their trajectory.
 
Annoying Russia is stupid. A Russia that is included economically, politically, culturally and strategically with the West is a potential counterweight to China, and moves towards proper deomcracy. An isolated and agressive Russia is a potential world menace that could supply terrorists with Nukes and would be militarliy impossible to stop without even worse consequences.
 
War with Iran is stupid. They are twice as nationalistic as the Afghans. Yes the USA could easily flatten the countries military. But you would create a new generation of terrorists across the middle east worse than anything we could imagines. There would be bombs not just in airplanes and landmarks but in every Starbucks and McDonalds, and to stop it western security services would have to curtail our freedoms massively. The nukes are quite frankly the thing that scare me least about Iran.
Engage Iran and you may be able to pacify it to the point where it will eventually overthrow the religous state on it's own. We buy their oil and give them thorium or some kind of nuclear tech without easy military applications. In the meantime build a defense network with the AEGIS destroyers as a hedge if the nuclear talks fail.
 
Then when the Iranian people finally decide enough is enough, as always happens in history eventually, we give them money, training and weapons.
 
Meanwhile the Obama administration puts the US on track for a carbon-neutral economy and gets China and India to do the same thing. Then we can leave the Arabs to blow themselves up if they want to.
 
As for Europe- continental Europe needs to increase defense spending and develop a joint defense posture and pool R&D.
The UK should increase defence spending to around 3-3.5% and act as a bridge between the US and EU. In reality though I think that Europe with the UK included if Cameron gets in will simply decline into irrelevancy glorbally. In times of scarce resources, which is what the next century will be, a country or union is only as strong as it's military.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

smitty237    Parm   10/21/2009 1:22:08 AM
I don't believe the Obama administration isn't ready to go to war if America's interests or their principles are threatened.
I believe they are more realistic and pragmatic than the Bush administration.
 
There's a double negative in that first sentence, but I think I know what you are saying.  There are a lot of people that say that we shouldn't go to war unless America's interests are directly threatened, but that is wide open for interpretation.  Every President that has ever ordered troops to go to war did so believing he was doing so to protect the country's interests.  United States territory has only been attacked by a foreign force three times in the last hundred years.  The first time was when Pancho Villa crossed the border and shot up a town in New Mexico in 1916, the second was when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and occupied land in Alaska, and the third was on 9/11 when Al Qaeda terrorists flew jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.  Only one of those attacks was orchestrated by a foreign government.  The other two were terrorist attacks that were planned on foreign soil with at least the complicity of a foreign government.  I've heard some leftists say that the only war that they would have sent troops to fight in was WWII, but when you point out that it was the Japanese that attacked us and not the Germans, they claim that war with Germany was justified because of the Holocaust.  The fact that the full scope of the Holocaust was not fully realized until after the war is usually ignored.  The second point you made about going to war if our principles are threatened is on even shakier grounds since those principles seem to change according to your political views.  Folks that were against going to war with Iraq in 1991 had no problem with Clinton sending troops to Somalia or Kosovo and vice versa.  People that are demanding that we withdraw from Afghanistan are some of the same people that were demanding we send troops to Darfur.  As far as the Obama Administration being more pragmatic than the Bush Administration........well, I beg to obviously differ, but we'll have to agree to disagree.
 The Polish interceptors you mentioned would not have actually been avle to defend Poland, but only chunks of western europe. A network of upgraded AEGIS ships is more flexible and can cover a wider area- or simply hit the missiles while they are still in the first stage of their trajectory.
 
If that is the case, then why were a lot of Polish politicians screaming that America had betrayed them?  Unless you keep AEGIS ships in the region on a permanent basis, I fail to see how they are a better option than a ground base ABM system.
 
Annoying Russia is stupid. A Russia that is included economically, politically, culturally and strategically with the West is a potential counterweight to China, and moves towards proper deomcracy. An isolated and agressive Russia is a potential world menace that could supply terrorists with Nukes and would be militarliy impossible to stop without even worse consequences.
 
Are you serious?  Why is Russia so special?  They have been thumbing their nose at the world, especially the United States, for the better of a century.  They are regional bullies, and the United States' vast nuclear arsenal was the only thing that kept the Soviet Union from spreading communism all over the world.  Not only that, but it was the West's willingness to meet force with force is what kept the Russians at bay and eventually resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc.  I would agree that it is foolish to unnecesarily provoke Russia, but as long as guys like Putin are still running the show over there Russia should be regarded as a potential enemy and a threat.  We should work for good relations with Russia, but we should prepare for Russian agression. 
 
War with Iran is stupid. They are twice as nationalistic as the Afghans. Yes the USA could easily flatten the countries military. But you would create a new generation of terrorists across the middle east worse than anything we could imagines. There would be bombs not just in airplanes and landmarks but in every Starbucks and McDonalds, and to stop it western security services would have to curtail our freedoms massively. The nukes are quite frankly the thing that scare me least about Iran.
Engage Iran and you may be able to pacify it to the point where it will eventually overthrow the religous state on it's own. We buy their oil and give them thorium or some kind of nuclear tech without easy military applications. In the meantime build a defense net
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Wrong Question   10/21/2009 10:43:01 AM
The USA liberated Western Europe in WWII, rebuilt it, then led the effort to defend Europe for the next 45 years during the Cold War.  When the USA needed European support it's been lacking, specific nation exceptions aside.
 
The real question is thus can the US depend on Europe with the unqualified answer being no.  NATO can not be bothered to send enough troops, helicopters, and other kit to Afghanistan.  Most NATO nations are spending far below the 2% agreed upon level of GDP on defense- some are at 1%.  This website constantly puts up articles listing the UK and France having severe spare parts issues.
 
Europe seems unwilling to do much of anything including not only defending themselves militarily but seem quite happy to see Europe entirely dependent on Russia and OPEC for energy while losing their cultural identity through demographic changes.  Europe seem perfectly happy to let themselves be overrun.  When the welfare states become the welfare continent it is then that we get questions like can Europe depend on the US when clearly Europe can not depend on itself.  The question makes me ill.
 

 
Quote    Reply

Parmenion       10/21/2009 10:50:21 AM
 
Firstly let me thank you for your maturity and decency in replying. Those things should come as standard but on this forum of late it sometimes feels more like getting the bus back when the 12 year olds are going home than a debating chamber.
 
Now for my responses:
 
I don't believe the Obama administration isn't ready to go to war if America's interests or their principles are threatened.
I believe they are more realistic and pragmatic than the Bush administration.
 
There's a double negative in that first sentence, but I think I know what you are saying.  There are a lot of people that say that we shouldn't go to war unless America's interests are directly threatened, but that is wide open for interpretation.  Every President that has ever ordered troops to go to war did so believing he was doing so to protect the country's interests.  United States territory has only been attacked by a foreign force three times in the last hundred years.  The first time was when Pancho Villa crossed the border and shot up a town in New Mexico in 1916, the second was when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and occupied land in Alaska, and the third was on 9/11 when Al Qaeda terrorists flew jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.  Only one of those attacks was orchestrated by a foreign government.  The other two were terrorist attacks that were planned on foreign soil with at least the complicity of a foreign government.  I've heard some leftists say that the only war that they would have sent troops to fight in was WWII, but when you point out that it was the Japanese that attacked us and not the Germans, they claim that war with Germany was justified because of the Holocaust.  The fact that the full scope of the Holocaust was not fully realized until after the war is usually ignored.  The second point you made about going to war if our principles are threatened is on even shakier grounds since those principles seem to change according to your political views.  Folks that were against going to war with Iraq in 1991 had no problem with Clinton sending troops to Somalia or Kosovo and vice versa.  People that are demanding that we withdraw from Afghanistan are some of the same people that were demanding we send troops to Darfur.  As far as the Obama Administration being more pragmatic than the Bush Administration........well, I beg to obviously differ, but we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
The double-negative was probably sleep-deprivation I just got back from a long trip.
 
Your points about the hypocrisy of many left wingers are well made. Personally I think It's only surpassed by the Hypocrisy of someone who supports big wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, but can't find the time to intervene against Genocide in Darfur and Rwanda when they happen to be a military superpower. I support intervention in all the conflicts you mentioned.
 
I don't believe war is always a failiure or any such philosophy, I belive it can be just and that in it human beings find both their worst evils and finest glories. If I had my way the western world would go into a WW2 metality in terms of fighting climate change and poverty, raise military spending to 10-20% of GDP, reintroduce a draft and organise volunteer groups to build wind turbines and solar panels.

A new crusade would wash over every part of the world blighted by ignorance and poverty and we would stay there forever, building schools and roads and making sure every child could be born into a world where the only ceiling on acheivement was their dreams. Then we would come for the PRC and Russisa. Our wrath would be terrible, our acheivments magnificent, and every living thing on earth would feel the thunder and terror of the lords of the west and their machines. And within a hundered years of starting the species would be united and we could begin colonising the solar system, combined with geo-engingeering and jurassic-park style projects to get the planet to the way it was 10,000 years ago, with humans living in kilometre high cities, virtual worlds, and beautiful rural communities.

That's my dream. Not a purpose for peace or a promise for hope or whatever buzz-words the Obama spin-doctors have come up with. But I can't have that, because people are too weak, and too selfish. So I'll settle for the next best thing, and at the moment I think Obama is a fairly good example of the next be
 
Quote    Reply

Alexis       10/21/2009 11:41:50 AM

Can Europe depend on America in 21century?

Assuming that your question means "depending on America to defend (Western) Europe against potential future wars", the answer is obviously a big NO.
 
Depending on another country for one's defense is a very bad idea for two main reasons:
- Because of the consequences of political dependence in terms of freedom of setting one's foreign policy and international negociations (trade, etc.)
- Even more important, because history has demonstrated time and again that international relations are non-linear and crises can lead to very surprising realignments. In a time when a country can be mortally wounded in less than an hour, dependence is very imprudent
 
Dependence however may be a forced choice, for lack of alternative. Such countries as Poland, the Baltic states or Romania may be in such a position now towards the US. However, other European countries are not, and they maintain forces able to defend them. Regarding nuclear weapons, only two Western European nations have an operational deterrent, but many European countries could build some in a rather short timeframe if the international situation deteriorated severely.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Alexis       10/21/2009 12:17:53 PM
I've heard some leftists say that the only war that they would have sent troops to fight in was WWII, but when you point out that it was the Japanese that attacked us and not the Germans, they claim that war with Germany was justified because of the Holocaust.  The fact that the full scope of the Holocaust was not fully realized until after the war is usually ignored.
 
Just like Japan had started the war against America by attacking Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941, Germany started the war against America by a formal declaration of war on December 11th, soon followed by attacks against US shipping by U-Boote. The US merely responded in kind to these twin war declarations.
Whether America would have declared war on Germany had she not declared and waged war first is a great Whaf-If scenario. We will never know the answer.
Anyway, this had indeed nothing to do with the Shoah.
 
why were a lot of Polish politicians screaming that America had betrayed them? 

Not all Poles supported installation of a US missile basis on their soil. The motive of those who did was probably the desire to get some concrete guarantee of US help in case of war, which the physical presence of US troops would provide by making it more difficult for Washington not to intervene if Poland was attacked.
The traditional problem of Poland for several centuries is that it's a country with middle power standing between two powerful nations - Germany and Russia. The Poles have had to learn more than once about the danger of such a situation. And I would not assume that the present concern was solely about Russia...
All of this had nothing to do with missile defense.
 
It may come to the point that the only way to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is to attack her nuclear facilities.  I certainly would avoid a ground war in Iran at all costs, but I think the "war is never the answer" crowd are flat wrong on this one.
 
That slogan is wrong of course. That being said, while Iran not obtaining nuclear weapons is a desirable goal, why would it be worth an extended war leading between other things to interruption of oil shipment through Hormuz during an extended time, hence one more big nail in the coffin of world economy?
If Iran builds a nuclear deterrent, she will remain susceptible to nuclear deterrence, just like Pakistan e.g. is deterred by India, or like the larger nuclear powers deter one another.
If it's possible to avoid having one or several more nuclear-weapon countries, so much the better. Carrot - normalization of relations with the U.S. - and stick - secret warning that another Gulf country probably the UAE would be "helped" to develop a nuclear deterrence - can be used.
Not the stick of a large scale war against Iran, which is just not worth the stakes.
 
In reality though I think that Europe with the UK included if Cameron gets in will simply decline into irrelevancy glorbally. In times of scarce resources, which is what the next century will be, a country or union is only as strong as it's military.
 
I can't see why we would decline so much. In the present configuration of world security, Western European countries plan to have ten years from now four "real" aircraft carriers (that is with capability to control their extended airspace), that is two French units + two British ones. That level of expeditionary warfare capability is adequate to the present peaceful world order, and it's more than any other country, union or regional block, save of course the US.
If world stability was to degrade, nothing would prevent European countries to increase these forces, either France / Britain as independent nations, or some combination of several European nations. Certainly not technology, nor finance: Western Europe has a marginally larger economy than the United States, not to speak of Japan or China, not to speak of India or Russia.
 
Quote    Reply

Alexis       10/21/2009 1:18:44 PM
Sorry in advance if you were speaking tongue-in-cheek. I will assume you are serious, though I don't know for sure.


If I had my way the western world would go into a WW2 metality in terms of fighting climate change and poverty, raise military spending to 10-20% of GDP, reintroduce a draft and organise volunteer groups to build wind turbines and solar panels.

I have trouble understanding how such military spending and such vast programs could be financed, even in a normal situation, not to speak of the economic depression which began last year. I would imagine one of the consequences would be to increase poverty, either because of the massive taxes or because of hyperinflation resulting from massive monetary creation.
I also don't understand exactly how a "volunteer" group can build anything, or else I shudder to understand. If it's not a team of people with salaries, it means these "volunteers" have been drafted.
This sort of things has been tried of course, but the only way to make it work (in some measure) has been convincingly demonstrated to be fortifying the volunteers' motivation with the help of a Lead Administration of Camps (Ãëàâíîå Óïðàâëåíèå Ëàãåðåé, abbreviated in ÃÓËÀÃ, which is spelled "Gulag")
A new crusade would wash over every part of the world blighted by ignorance and poverty and we would stay there forever, building schools and roads and making sure every child could be born into a world where the only ceiling on acheivement was their dreams.

Somewhat akin to Soviet efforts to develop Central Asia or European colonialist projects of yore (not all of whose motivations were selfish, far from it)
About the "stay there forever", I would suggest to modify it to the time-honored formulation of "Thousand-Year", which was spelled "Tausendjährige" in the German original version.

Then we would come for the PRC and Russisa. Our wrath would be terrible, our acheivments magnificent, and every living thing on earth would feel the thunder and terror of the lords of the west and their machines.

It is sometimes said that "the Russians are paranoids alright, but even paranoids have enemies". Your political program is enough of a demonstration.
Of course this wording "the lords of the west" makes one doubt whether you're serious. But even if you're not, somebody else could be in your place: the Hitler, Staline and Mao nightmares resulted from the application of programs no more unreal than yours, which were followed and believed by millions. The next totalitarian adventure could very well be born of the ecologist imperative, combined of course with the usual toxic overdose of well-meaningery.
That's my dream. Not a purpose for peace or a promise for hope or whatever buzz-words the Obama spin-doctors have come up with. But I can't have that, because people are too weak, and too selfish. 
 
"Weak-willed indeed", and selfish. In a word... too darn conservative.
No need for you to despair though: in some circumstances, particularly dire economic crises, entire countries have been made to join political movements promising the triumph of the will... "Triumph des Willens" in the original.
One more modest suggestion, about the colour of the shirts: I would propose green, which would suit the environmental concern. Plus, brown and black are already taken.
 
imperialistic moves like Georgia and Chechnya
 
The Russian war in Chechnya is debatable, but Chechnya is a part of the Russian Federation. If this is an imperialist war, what should be said about America's war in Iraq (which was not the 51st State last time I looked it up)
 
About Georgia, the August 2008 war was started by a brutal heavy artillery attack by Georgian President Saakashvili's forces on a little city in a disputed zone which left hundreds of civilians dead along with 10 Russian soldiers. The Russian government would have been completely foolish not to defend against agression, and they are not foolish.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Parmenion       10/21/2009 4:54:39 PM

Sorry in advance if you were speaking tongue-in-cheek. I will assume you are serious, though I don't know for sure.


I'm being tongue in cheek in that I know it will never happen. I'm not advocating anything. I was just discussing a dream of a mass democratic movement to stamp out poverty and save ecosystems for really nice stuff like salmon and clean air we depend on from systemic failiure.

A few wars would probably happen but they would not be the big swinging d*ck wet dreams. It would just be well, normal messy warfare, with professional soldiers on one side and moslty armed teenagers on another. It's the economics and education that would do it.


If I had my way the western world would go into a WW2 metality in terms of fighting climate change and poverty, raise military spending to 10-20% of GDP, reintroduce a draft and organise volunteer groups to build wind turbines and solar panels.



I have trouble understanding how such military spending and such vast programs could be financed, even in a normal situation, not to speak of the economic depression which began last year. I would imagine one of the consequences would be to increase poverty, either because of the massive taxes or because of hyperinflation resulting from massive monetary creation.

Did WW2 increases poverty in the US? Done the right way it could transform our economies. One generation haing to buy expensive petrol and not being able to buy their favourite brand of biscuits would pay for a united species and and an end to poverty.

I also don't understand exactly how a "volunteer" group can build anything, or else I shudder to understand. If it's not a team of people with salaries, it means these "volunteers" have been drafted.

Have you ever worked on abuilding site? Think that the guys there have degrees? Building a brick wall actually takes alot of skill if you don't want it to be worth a damn. But it is not rocket science, and I know this because I have done both. A month's training and we could have people putting up IKEA style infrastructure, designed by the best and brightest to be foolproof and reliable. Give the guys at DARPA three months to design a cheap wind turnine or solar plant or whatever that can be slotted together by fairly unskilled workers. Get one good engineer to supervise each crew. Target the unemployed. Give them bonuses, praise and education. For many of these people it will make them feel valued and be the best time of their lives.

And yes as someone with a 7 at International Baccalaureate in history before I went into physics, I see the similarity to the Nazis and the Soviets. The Nazi construction programs to eliminate unemployment and the Soviet electrification and 5 year plans were the only positive things they did. It's the one part of those regimes that wasn't objectionable and horrible- and it wasn't unique to them- the New Deal is another good example.
 

This sort of things has been tried of course, but the only way to make it work (in some measure) has been convincingly demonstrated to be fortifying the volunteers' motivation with the help of a Lead Administration of Camps (Ãëàâíîå Óïðàâëåíèå Ëàãåðåé, abbreviated in ÃÓËÀÃ, which is spelled "Gulag")

It has been tried before, in the US when labour was mobilised to win the war and in Britain, and yes the Soviet Union who managed to indutrialise their country in 12 years. Imagine what the Russsins could have acheive
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics