US-EU War

BattleBoar

Originally posted by The Corinthian

But we hardly have a monopoly on aggression and empire building.

Don't mistake me, I totally agree with this sentiment. I do think that the US definitely (unfortunately) inherited much of the tendencies of this to some extent. However, I believe history generally shows the US to be much more restrained in its use of military power than Europe. That doesn't mean either is acceptable.

I would strongly disagree with the inference that we are culturally imperialists or militarists. I actually find it disturbing that you would think so.

Oh don't feel disturbed Corinthian, I distrust ALL governments, definitely not excluding my own. And as I have repeatedly stated, I don't necesarily believe that a powerful Europe would lead to war precisely because I think there is reason to believe that there has been an underlying shift in mindset among the general European population. Still, the historical precedent is that throughout the last several centuries, many different European countries with powerful militaries have started wars, pilliaged other countries of their resources, and sought to conquer. While that doesn't absolutely mean it would happen again with a united Europe, it doesn't do wonders for my confidence that it wouldn't either.

As for China, I can say that while China, like all powers, certainly has had its blemishes in history, it has not been terribly imperialistic relative to it's strength when compared to other powers, European or American. Of course, that doesn't mean that it couldn't happen, it just means that if you believe in historical trends, it is probably less likely to happen. For example, I would be shocked if China, with a very strong military 20 years from now, launched attacks to conquer Japan, Australia, Phillipines, and India.

I would be much less surprised if Europe, if it possessed a very strong military 20 years from now, launched attacks to conquer northern africa (suez canal revisited?) and countries that either would not join the EU (ie. Switzerland), or countries that weren't considered for the EU but did not "fall in line" with the predominant policies at the time.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by BattleBoar
However, I believe history generally shows the US to be much more restrained in its use of military power than Europe.

I would disagree. The style of gunboat diplomacy practiced by the USA in the latter half of the twentieth century was different (with an emphasis on client states rather than protectorates), but ultimately not the substance; and certainly not the level of aggression.

On a simple tally of military and covert interventions, the USA matched any of the European powers of the nineteenth century and may have even surpassed them on a combined level. Arguing that Europe would be more aggressive than the USA, is ridiculous in the extreme.

I would be much less surprised if Europe, if it possessed a very strong military 20 years from now, launched attacks to conquer northern africa (suez canal revisited?) and countries that either would not join the EU (ie. Switzerland), or countries that weren't considered for the EU but did not "fall in line" with the predominant policies at the time.

It is quite conceivable that Europe would adopt much the same foreign policies as the USA (Panama canal revisited?), were it in a similar military position; of propping up client states and perhaps facilitating regime changes. While this is not certain by any means, I would not deny that possibility.

However, what you’re suggesting is that Europe is, for the good of the World, better off abdicating it’s security to a foreign power that is just as aggressive as Europe has ever been. This would be well and good if we could trust this other power not to abuse its position in relation to ourselves, but recent events have indicated otherwise.

Since the end of WWII, Europe has been happy to remain relatively demilitarised, ultimately because it trusted America with her interests. Regrettably, the present US administration may have crossed a Rubicon in this regard, in that this confidence, this trust, felt by Europe and by Europeans may have been dealt a mortal blow - even Britain would be a little weary of the special relationship after the manner it was dealt with in the present conflict.

Were this trust regained, Europe would again lose interest in rearming. Smiling and saying, “trust us” won’t cut it, I’m afraid.

BattleBoar

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I would disagree. The style of gunboat diplomacy practiced by the USA in the latter half of the twentieth century was different (with an emphasis on client states rather than protectorates), but ultimately not the substance; and certainly not the level of aggression.

On a simple tally of military and covert interventions, the USA matched any of the European powers of the nineteenth century and may have even surpassed them on a combined level. Arguing that Europe would be more aggressive than the USA, is ridiculous in the extreme.

I think you are losing sight of the fact that the US's interventions, while tragic, were part of a larger (cold)war against another imperialist power that didn't feel the need to fool around with client states, it just annexed them and called them its own territory.

European imperialism, on the other hand, was not motivated by a response to anything other than a desire to conquer lands and steal the wealth of other countries.

[/b]
However, what you’re suggesting is that Europe is, for the good of the World, better off abdicating it’s security to a foreign power that is just as aggressive as Europe has ever been. This would be well and good if we could trust this other power not to abuse its position in relation to ourselves, but recent events have indicated otherwise.

Since the end of WWII, Europe has been happy to remain relatively demilitarised, ultimately because it trusted America with her interests. Regrettably, the present US administration may have crossed a Rubicon in this regard, in that this confidence, this trust, felt by Europe and by Europeans may have been dealt a mortal blow - even Britain would be a little weary of the special relationship after the manner it was dealt with in the present conflict.

Were this trust regained, Europe would again lose interest in rearming. Smiling and saying, “trust us” won’t cut it, I’m afraid. [/B]

I can't argue with the loss of trust issue you raised. As I said, it is a predictable reaction to the horrible diplomacy demonstrated by the Bush administration, but that doesn't mean I'm comfortable. I suppose what I'm saying is simply that I'd be very nervous with such a powerful europe. I just wouldn't trust that it wouldn't lead to another world war. Therefore, I hope it never happens.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by BattleBoar
I think you are losing sight of the fact that the US's interventions, while tragic, were part of a larger (cold)war against another imperialist power that didn't feel the need to fool around with client states, it just annexed them and called them its own territory.

Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were the only states that were actually fully annexed by the Soviet Union (in 1940). All the rest were to one degree or other client states. Some completely controlled puppets, some far less so. The US did the same.

European imperialism, on the other hand, was not motivated by a response to anything other than a desire to conquer lands and steal the wealth of other countries.

Even this difference in motivation was true, last time I checked the Soviet Union no longer existed and US troops were nonetheless guarding another nation’s oilfields. So what is the motivation now?

I can’t help but feel that the move towards a New American Century is a more practical implementation of a Thousand Year Reich...

I suppose what I'm saying is simply that I'd be very nervous with such a powerful europe. I just wouldn't trust that it wouldn't lead to another world war. Therefore, I hope it never happens.

If you’re feeling nervous about a potentially belligerent foreign power threatening war and other consequences against anyone who disagrees with them, then you know how many Europeans feel now.

If you were a European, how would you feel? And there lies our dilemma.

BattleBoar

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Even this difference in motivation was true, last time I checked the Soviet Union no longer existed and US troops were nonetheless guarding another nation’s oilfields. So what is the motivation now?

Can't argue with that. I maintained that cold war foreign policy should have died with the cold war. Unfortunately, Rumsfeld, Cheney and company don't see it my way.

If you’re feeling nervous about a potentially belligerent foreign power threatening war and other consequences against anyone who disagrees with them, then you know how many Europeans feel now.

If you were a European, how would you feel? And there lies our dilemma.

I've already stated how I'd feel...probably the same way. That doens't mean it wouldn't be dangerous, and I'd hope if I were European, I would recognise that danger.

Is it your opinion that a unified Europe with a military equal to America's would result in a more safe, more stable world?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by BattleBoar
I've already stated how I'd feel...probably the same way. That doens't mean it wouldn't be dangerous, and I'd hope if I were European, I would recognise that danger.

Absolutely. But I also recognise the danger of the alternative. That’s what the split in Europe is largely about, from what I can see - which is the bigger danger for us. And frankly I’m undecided on that one too.

Is it your opinion that a unified Europe with a military equal to America's would result in a more safe, more stable world?

Buggered if I know. But I do know that Iraq was more stable under Saddam than it is at present. So it’s not as simple as that, I’m afraid.

Wook

'The UK Premier Tony Blair yesterday warned France that any attempt to create "rival centres of power" to compete with the United States would restore the disastrous divisions of the cold war era.

Today he will hold talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, as part of his efforts to restore relations between Europe and America as attention focuses on Iraq's future.

His comments are a direct attack on the four EU countries participating in a new, EU defence summit - Germany, France, Belgium and Luxembourg. The countries, which were all in the anti-war camp in the EU dispute over Iraq, have insisted though that their intended meeting is not supposed to be anti-American.

"If we do not deal with the world on the basis of partnership between Europe and America, we will in a sense put back into the world divisions we wanted to get rid of when the cold war finished. I think that would be a disaster", the Prime Minister declared.'

(source :http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?sid=9&aid=11042)

To all of you that think this move is Anti-american...think again.
How many people didn't moan and bitch because USA has to 'clean-up' our continental problems ? How many people didn't say that Europeans didn't have the balls to create a possible united-european strike force to (once again) clear out our internal problems ? I for one applaud this move, Americans should be happy that they can stop sending troops... to help our arse..but they're not... why i wonder ? How many times did i not have to hear from american 'media' sources that Europe is not capable of doing military interventions ? I hope this all stops.. (naive).
If we really wanne to be a counter-balance or another super-power against USA.. then we should really start thinking of moving away all the nuclear weapons that belong to the US, but we don't (just yet) so what would that tell us ?

Trebor

Originally posted by Wook

If we really wanne to be a counter-balance or another super-power against USA.. then we should really start thinking of moving away all the nuclear weapons that belong to the US, but we don't (just yet) so what would that tell us ?

don't you mean DO we want to a super-power to balance america

that's the question isn't it?
cause i would rether not have a military power as big as the US we should stick to what we are doing now and keep expanding the EU until it covers every country, but do it by bribing them not forcing them

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wook
"If we do not deal with the world on the basis of partnership between Europe and America, we will in a sense put back into the world divisions we wanted to get rid of when the cold war finished. I think that would be a disaster", the Prime Minister declared.'

Of course what is being neglected in the above statement is that recent events have indicated that if there is a partnership between Europe and America, then Europe is clearly seen as a non-executive partner.

Any potential cold war, arms race or whatever you want to call it, between is not new, btw:

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,51130,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/euro/story/0,11306,627134,00.html

Originally posted by Trebor
cause i would rether not have a military power as big as the US we should stick to what we are doing now and keep expanding the EU until it covers every country, but do it by bribing them not forcing them

I don’t think Germany wants to invade Poland again; so any idle speculation to the resurgence of an imperialistic Europe is exactly that.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Trebor
don't you mean DO we want to a super-power to balance america

that's the question isn't it?
cause i would rether not have a military power as big as the US we should stick to what we are doing now and keep expanding the EU until it covers every country, but do it by bribing them not forcing them

Actually, looking back on your post, what is it you’re trying to say? What connection to you make between the initial question you pose and your comments afterwards? What exactly are you arguing?

Trebor

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Actually, looking back on your post, what is it you’re trying to say? What connection to you make between the initial question you pose and your comments afterwards? What exactly are you arguing?

sorry i said

don't you mean DO we want to a super-power to balance america

ment to say:

don't you mean DO we want to be a super-power to balance america

would not mind being an economical balance to america but not a military one. I belive that we can contuine to expand the EU by offering the support that we have recieved to other countries there by giving each country an incentive to change their ways peacefully in order to comply with EU regulations to get funding and be accepted into the EU.
obviously we won't be able to continue this outside of europe but we could set up trade treaties and/or finanical surpport for countries aslong as they agree to certain conditions i.e. enforcement pf the Human rights charter.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Trebor
would not mind being an economical balance to america but not a military one.

Unfortunately, the “sinews of war are infinite monies”, as Cicero once put it.

Take the present Iraq conflict, for example: No one denies that the US is to benefit from the numerous reconstruction contracts that are being awarded (by the US and, almost exclusively, to the US) that will ultimately be paid for by Iraq. Added to this, Iraq will switch back to the Dollar from the Euro when trading oil - returning to the US another economic advantage. Finally it’s more than likely that the US will be favoured over Europe in future economic dealings with whatever government is installed - given that it will be the US that ultimately vets them and that there will almost certainly be some form of military presence left in Iraq.

Pure capitalism is a fair and equitable system, unfortunately it doesn’t exist - as the use of military force to gain economic advantage goes against the perfect competition that pure capitalism, seeks to establish.

As such, even if Europe were able to economically overcome this disadvantage in attaining economic superpower parity, would she be ultimately be allowed to do so? [edit]- i.e. Nation A trades with Europe for good B, US carries out a regime change, new government switches to trading with the US for good B. Europe economically weakened.[/edit]

Wook

I am not pro war , but sometimes countries need to sort out there issues. If not on a diplomatic basis , then a military one.
But i think that Europe needs to be able to help themselves and not depend on the USA for this. With the enlargement of the EU, who say's we will never have internal conflicts ?

Trebor

if an internal confict where to arise the country that is affected would have their own militay to be able to contain it for a short time giving some of the larger countries time to send in forces but to have a military that is under the control on the EU parlimant on a full time basis would be costly and not needed.
if it did exist then we would want them to do something while there was no internal conflict, and then it just get's more complicated, it's not the way to go IMHO.

re economic interest's, i was talking about being able to invest in countries in which with a little funding could become developed countries and are not under the control of dictator's.
at the moment they are cripled with debt and have no way to surpport thier economies as all their money is spent paying off the interest on their debts. so by helping the country build infstucture and setting up trade agreements that give a fare price we can then out bid america companies that use them for slave labour. We could then lower the import tax so that the prices need not be affected.

i guess i'm just dreaming if i hope this is the way europe will go

bonkey

Originally posted by Trebor
re economic interest's, i was talking about being able to invest in countries in which with a little funding could become developed countries and are not under the control of dictator's.
at the moment they are cripled with debt and have no way to surpport thier economies as all their money is spent paying off the interest on their debts. so by helping the country build infstucture and setting up trade agreements that give a fare price we can then out bid america companies that use them for slave labour. We could then lower the import tax so that the prices need not be affected.

i guess i'm just dreaming if i hope this is the way europe will go

Well - if you think about what the current expansion of the EU is in practical terms, it more or less fits your criteria perfectly except that its far from "a little funding" which is needed in reality.

jc

Trebor

Originally posted by bonkey
Well - if you think about what the current expansion of the EU is in practical terms, it more or less fits your criteria perfectly except that its far from "a little funding" which is needed in reality.

jc

i ment compartivly(sp?) speaking. the amount of money they would need to get somthing built compared to what it would cost in ireland would be a big difference so for the same amount that we get would go a lot further with tham in the begining

Sparks

Wook,
That is a pro-war stance, just not a rabid one.

Havelock

In my opinion it is a certain that such a conflict will arise,

america:
The american government has and does control its media better than most dictator states, its population are educated to a controlled curriculum, conformity is praised, simply put they prooduce human sheep. The american government could easly create any number of fictious reasons to launch a campain in Europe and have the support of its comfort bought, coke and cable populace.

Europe:
Europe while striving to be the leaders of human betterment and universal understanding, are avoiding the thought of any repeated history. It has passed the stage of inter-contential conflict but the american satillite known as the UK is becoming less and less welcome, their reluctance to join the Euro and the Blair administration and the Washington - London axis, are some what unpopuler with the other major league European powers, France and Germany leading the the movement or teh maginlisation of the uk in Europe.

Technologically Speaking :
america would never have developed the bomb before Russia if not fro the work of european physicists (my spelling is appalling, just a warning). Europe invents most of the major technological break throughs in military hard/soft wear but doesn't spend the money on production and development as america does, when the conflict arose, if Europe had prepared the technological edge, which the ameicans are so reliant upon, would most certainaly be to the European forces. amercas stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons (which it keeps only as "defensive" measures, and it is still current american policy only to use nuclear weapons of mass destruction, but for how long?) would be unrivialled as civilied nations sign accords forbiding reseach into WMD's and keep their word.

Movivations:
america wants an empire, they want a cosumer world, full of capitlism for ever and ever (no I'm not a socialist or communist), a world of cheap fuel, fast food and a complient comfortable populace who don't want to chance anything lest life becomes less comfortable. To maintain that they will need to constantly have abundat resources, and what they don't have they take (Iraq). Europe will realise what america wants and will take steps to protect its self against an offencive or might haver the gall to prement american agression (which would be nice, historically speaking they always get caught with their pants down while prepairing fro war and then claim it was an unprovoked attack). Or Europe might (and hopefully will) ask Russia to join the commen market on fairer terms, which would make sense as Russia is still a primary producer in many industries and any economy requires a good supply of raw materials for secondary and terisrary industries to survive and grow. this would weaken the american economy and would be grounds for war under a republican government ( and the current democratic party, they're like diet republicans).

In Conclusion
Anyway unless Korea or China gets the balls to nuke america it will be up to Europe to deal with any major military threat from america, but this may not even occure as they seem intent on economic suidice. Good night to you all.

vorbis

I apologies eomer for considering you the most rabid anti-American on these boards. Havelock quite clearly deserves the award.

america:
The american government has and does control its media better than most dictator states, its population are educated to a controlled curriculum, conformity is praised, simply put they prooduce human sheep. The american government could easly create any number of fictious reasons to launch a campain in Europe and have the support of its comfort bought, coke and cable populace.

thats hilarious. Do you know its possible to receive Al-Jazeera in America? You show no tolerance whatsoever for countries whose philosophy is different to yours. Controlled curriculum??? Which education systems isn't? You can't learn everything.
Id China did nuke America, I can assure you that the world would be a much worse place to live in? I'd suggest that you try and develop your understanding of the world a little better before resorting to petty racism.

Havelock

Racism, no I think not. I have no problem with Americans, just American international policy, hypocracy. The same of which applies to my cinical views of all governments and nations. Its not biased, maybe misogynistic (thats how you spell it?) but definitally not racist.

BattleBoar

Originally posted by Havelock
In my opinion it is a certain that such a conflict will arise,

america:
simply put they prooduce human sheep.

America has the most diverse ethnic and religious population of any country on earth.

Europe:
Europe while striving to be the leaders of human betterment and universal understanding,

:rolleyes:

are avoiding the thought of any repeated history. It has passed the stage of inter-contential conflict but the american satillite known as the UK is becoming less and less welcome, their reluctance to join the Euro and the Blair administration and the Washington - London axis, are some what unpopuler with the other major league European powers, France and Germany leading the the movement or teh maginlisation of the uk in Europe.

Look at what you're saying. Ask yourself: who is leading the charge for this right now? Is it the countries that have caused more damage than any other countries in history, or the countries victimised by those powers? Be wary who you have representing you, lest you be misrepresented.

Technologically Speaking :
america would never have developed the bomb before Russia if not fro the work of european physicists (my spelling is appalling, just a warning).

While this may be true, this tidbit does not apply in any way to the modern field of physics. In fact, it is now quite nearly the opposite.

Europe invents most of the major technological break throughs in military hard/soft wear but doesn't spend the money on production and development as america does, when the conflict arose, if Europe had prepared the technological edge, which the ameicans are so reliant upon, would most certainaly be to the European forces.

At first, I wondered whether you were talking about in history or in modern times? Throughout history, you are definitely correct. However, when you clarified that you were indeed speaking of modern times, I was surprised as I wasn't aware that Europe invented stealth technology, the modern aircraft carrier, the global positioning system and satellite-guided munition, etc...imagine my surprise.

Movivations:
america wants an empire, they want a cosumer world, full of capitlism for ever and ever (no I'm not a socialist or communist), a world of cheap fuel, fast food and a complient comfortable populace who don't want to chance anything lest life becomes less comfortable. To maintain that they will need to constantly have abundat resources, and what they don't have they take (Iraq).

I was certainly no fan against the action in Iraq, but if the US had followed the European model, it would be doing exactly what you say (ie. taking the resources). Unlike European empires of the past, it is not.

Europe will realise what america wants and will take steps to protect its self against an offencive or might haver the gall to prement american agression (which would be nice, historically speaking they always get caught with their pants down while prepairing fro war and then claim it was an unprovoked attack).

So you're suggesting that Europe should pre-emtively attack America? Hmm...perhaps France and Germany don't misrepresent you after all...

Or Europe might (and hopefully will) ask Russia to join the commen market on fairer terms, which would make sense as Russia is still a primary producer in many industries and any economy requires a good supply of raw materials for secondary and terisrary industries to survive and grow. this would weaken the american economy and would be grounds for war under a republican government ( and the current democratic party, they're like diet republicans).

That's a great idea, then Irish boys can sign up to go fight in Chechnya in exchange for the Russians' military alliance! Be wary who represents you...

In Conclusion
Anyway unless Korea or China gets the balls to nuke america

maybe I am mistaken, but you really make it sound as though you believe this would be a good thing

it will be up to Europe to deal with any major military threat from america, but this may not even occure as they seem intent on economic suidice. Good night to you all.

Economic suicide? Hmm...interesting opinion. While I disagree with much of the economic policy currently implemented in the US, there is no doubt that it is Europe's economy that would be the one needing much more major restructuring to build up a large military force. Not that I think it couldn't be done if the wrong people take charge of things.

In any case, you're opinion is exactly what I fear could happen, although I'm surprised to see it come from Ireland. Apparently Havelock, you think that a new cold war would be a good thing, or maybe not since you suggested Europe should just go ahead and start World War IV with America. I really don't think either of those options are very palatable, but hey, to each his own. You aside, however, I don't think anyone would be too concerned if Ireland were the ones running the show, but they won't be. So who will control and deploy this military force? Hmm...Germany is europe's largest economy and most populous EU country, and France is the country that has always been pushing hardest for the force and currently has the largest military in continental EU. So they have military "experience" and will be providing most of the resources and expertise, therefore they should have the right to run the decide how and when to use said military, no? Don't think it can happen? Consider the history of who you're dealing with.

If a great military is ever built, I sincerely hope that the good people of Europe don't wait after it happens to ask who gets to decide when to use it.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Here's a stark and simple truth- Europe spends far too little on defense to have the right to an equal voice on security issues. Just as financial minnows shouldn't have a say on EU spending policy, why should nations unwilling to spend a twentieth of their GDP on defense get a voice in external security issues?

Our government spends more than the next two dozen nations put together on the military, and that's only about 5-6% of GDP. Put two and two together, and European nations can't be taken seriously if they don't back up diplomacy with the threat of force. Sanctions-busting and diplomatic manouvering didn't save the innocents in the Balkans, nor has it brought lasting peace to any one of a dozen regional conflicts in Europe and near-European areas. Indeed, the reason the Russians for example can ignore censures from its neighbours regarding Chechnya and Dagestan is that they are well aware of the lack of any European defense policy, or indeed a common foreign stance.

If Europe wants to maintain NATO as a security structure then it will never be able to stand on its own two feet, always dependent on American might to bail it out when it needs military commitments.

As to what Havelock says about empire- lol? What empire were we building in Kosovo pray tell? What grand economic interest is served by American troops risking their lives across the Atlantic so that the Balkan states and the south of Europe may be at peace with itself? These commitments are ongoing- name one other European country that has made that level of commitment to any nation outside its immediate sphere of influence, & you get a cookie. The scale of our deployments in the Balkans dwarf that of any European nation. Unless Europe re-arms, makes its economy more flexible and sorts out the mainstream of its own left of center politics there will never be a counterweight.

Here's some more food for thought- the last time you had power-blocs in balance, very little of value could be achieved because they were *ALWAYS* at cross-purposes. Vetos were flying around like nobody's business, and only issues that both superpowers had a mutual interest in pursuing were given any real notice. The only way progress can be made across Europe is for market deregulation and defence spending to come to the fore. Regrettably in Germany that is all but impossible- a decaying socialist state determined to hang on to a collapsing labour system married to a desperate psychological need for pacifism isn't a very credible defence partner for the so-called joint Franco-German defence force. The German army is even constitutionally forbidden to deploy significant force outside its borders.

The French economy grew by 0.5% last year, a disastrous result- and with an army that hasn't seen major deployments of division-sized force since 1991, not even on peace-keeping operations, there is little credibility there either. And these are the two nations who purport to be the axis of European strength. I hate Donald Rumsfeld with a burning passion too strong to put into words...yet when he talked about "Old Europe", a part of me understood what he was getting at.

Yes, there is a huge military imbalance in the present climate- and unless European mainstays start to wake up and taste reality for a moment instead of basking in past glories, the future will swallow them whole. There's only so much weight that can be thrown about diplomatically before the illusion evaporates.

Matt Simis

Originally posted by BattleBoar
At first, I wondered whether you were talking about in history or in modern times? Throughout history, you are definitely correct. However, when you clarified that you were indeed speaking of modern times, I was surprised as I wasn't aware that Europe invented stealth technology, the modern aircraft carrier, the global positioning system and satellite-guided munition, etc...imagine my surprise.

I just couldnt let this one go, but.... German V2 rockets are the basis of modern ICBMs, German GOTHA Go 229 "flying Wings" evolved into modern day B2 Stealth bombers. Both of these were "collected" by the US at the end of WW2. The first Air to Ground and Radar based Ground to Air missiles were also invented by the Germans during WW2. Jet Combat Aircraft were first introduced by Germany too. As was Nightvision. German inventions go on and on, so Ill just stop here. The reason we know of so many is of course their secrets were revealed after loosing the war.

The British first implemented Radar to track planes, as well as first to work on Jet technology. Numerous Britsh (and Americans and Russians etc) are credited with inventions that lead to TV. The British also invented Tanks.

The French invented the modern Scuba diving equipment in the early '40s and the first successful Seaplane. The French made many major military (and otherwise) inventions during the 19th Century, which I have omitted (as I did for all).

These are simply some inventions I have came across, there are no doubt many more (documented and otherwise). While Im not saying the US hasnt provided the World with many major inventions, its rather ignorant of you to scoff at the idea Europe was a world leader invention wise for the last hundred years as well as the centuries before that.



Matt

BattleBoar

Originally posted by Matt Simis
I just couldnt let this one go, but.... German V2 rockets are the basis of modern ICBMs, German GOTHA Go 229 "flying Wings" evolved into modern day B2 Stealth bombers. Both of these were "collected" by the US at the end of WW2. The first Air to Ground and Radar based Ground to Air missiles were also invented by the Germans during WW2. Jet Combat Aircraft were first introduced by Germany too. As was Nightvision. German inventions go on and on, so Ill just stop here. The reason we know of so many is of course their secrets were revealed after loosing the war.

The British first implemented Radar to track planes, as well as first to work on Jet technology. Numerous Britsh (and Americans and Russians etc) are credited with inventions that lead to TV. The British also invented Tanks.

The French invented the modern Scuba diving equipment in the early '40s and the first successful Seaplane. The French made many major military (and otherwise) inventions during the 19th Century, which I have omitted (as I did for all).

These are simply some inventions I have came across, there are no doubt many more (documented and otherwise). While Im not saying the US hasnt provided the World with many major inventions, its rather ignorant of you to scoff at the idea Europe was a world leader invention wise for the last hundred years as well as the centuries before that.



Matt

I'm not scoffing at European inventions, Matt. The Luftwaffe was probably the most brilliant military research division in history that we know about. The development of the horton and V2, as you mentioned, were magnificent accomplishments, politics aside. Also, one you left out was very important Colossus machine computer developed by the British to decipher the enigma machine. But I thought I made it clear that I was talking about modern times, and thus modern inventions. And Havelock used that as a basis for saying that Europe would have the technological edge if a modern war were to occur. I specifically brought up examples of post-WWII for a reason. America had its share of inventions pre-WWII as well, but inventing the airplane or revolver doesn't really speak to what the future would hold were there ever to be a conflict.

Matt Simis

Originally posted by BattleBoar
I'm not scoffing at European inventions, Matt. The Luftwaffe was probably the most brilliant military research division in history that we know about. The development of the horton and V2, as you mentioned, were magnificent accomplishments, politics aside. Also, one you left out was very important Colossus machine computer developed by the British to decipher the enigma machine. But I thought I made it clear that I was talking about modern times, and thus modern inventions. And Havelock used that as a basis for saying that Europe would have the technological edge if a modern war were to occur. I specifically brought up examples of post-WWII for a reason. America had its share of inventions pre-WWII as well, but inventing the airplane or revolver doesn't really speak to what the future would hold were there ever to be a conflict.

Ah, I see, I generally took the idea of "modern" in a military sense as stemming from WW2 to the weapons we have now. This seemed to be what you were getting at too as some of the items you mentioned were based on WWII counterparts.

Perhaps you would be able to clarify this too:

america:
simply put they prooduce human sheep.


America has the most diverse ethnic and religious population of any country on earth.

What has being diverse got to do with also being "human sheep"?

Would you also care to comment on your fellow Americans attitude\stance? To be honest Im not entirely sure on the point hes trying to make.


Matt

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Havelock

Thank you.

vorbis

I'd hazard a guess that the stealth bomberis goog bit more advance than the gotha aircraft. Similiarly the ICBM missile have evolved significantly from the v2. The Americans had their own inventions in ww2 such as the long range fighter the mustang. All I'm saying is that America has had its fair share of inventions.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Corinthian

“sinews of war are infinite monies”

Cicero was so right but then what do you think of the relevence (to the US) of Jugurtha's parting shot to the Romans as he left their city to begin a war with them;
"Yonder is a city put up for sale and it's days are numbered if it finds a buyer"

xm15e3

Originally posted by Matt Simis
I just couldnt let this one go, but.... German V2 rockets are the basis of modern ICBMs, German GOTHA Go 229 "flying Wings" evolved into modern day B2 Stealth bombers.

Matt

Not to disparage the European's contribution to warfare at all. But the above is not accurate. If the V2s were the basis of the ICBM, they themselves were based on Goddard's according to Von Braun. The Rocket guys didn't work in a vaccume....yet.

The Horton brother were developing tailess aircraft in parallel with Lipisch (sp) and Northrop. I don't believe Northrop and the Hortons were very familiar with each others work. Although the two approaches are superficially similar, they took very different approaches to stability and control. the Hortons liked a bell shaped lift distributions that allowed for drastic taper, were Northrop pushed for a more elliptical LD and therefore used less taper.

The jury is still out on which approach is better. The B-2 is a completely different bird altogether.

As for the Frechies and SCUBA, Jacque did good work. Although he did discover Ox toxicity in the process. Thanks Jacque!