US-EU War

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!

Éomer of Rohan

As to what Havelock says about empire- lol? What empire were we building in Kosovo pray tell?

Well it sure as hell wasn't a humanitarian mission - the US killed more people in it's bombing campaign than the Serbians did as part of their ethnic cleansing, not to mention the fact that the US allies (KLF) indulged in their own ethnic cleansing with US knowledge given that the US supplied the arms and that Slobodan Milosevic was not removed by the US but by his own people - before the US had a chance, something so analysts say would have resulted from the disaffection within Serbia major even had their been no war.

As for US empire building, here are the casualty lists for what CIA officer John Stockwell accounts as "though the US promotes itself as a peace-loving nation, the United States has in fact a history of constant warfare.... we have put our military into other countries to bend them to our will about two hundred times, or on average once a year"
Angola 1,000,000
Indonesians 800,000
Cambodians 600,000
Laotians 350,000
East Timorese 200,000
Guatemalans 150,000
Nicaraguans 80,000
Salvadorans 75,000

plus tens of thousands killed by US approved dictators in Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and elsewhere. Between 1976 and 1983, at least 30,000 civilians were murdered by the US installed dictatorship. And of course the 3 million civilians murdered in Vietnam, some after brutal raping. Any classical trained historians here would have a field day with the comparisons between these and the 'amici' of Rome c300-44BC.

Éomer of Rohan

(Source for that was John Stockwell "In Search of Enemies: A CIA story" and "The Praetorian Gaurd" plus "Instances of the Use of the US Armed Forces abroad 1798 to 1995" by a Senate Committee

vorbis

eomer by what reasoning do you blame the US fro the deaths of 200,000 East Timorese? Also Milisosevic would not have been removed were it not for the defeat in Kosivo. Btw are you suggesting that it would have been better to leave the Serbs brutalise the Kosovars?

Éomer of Rohan

eomer by what reasoning do you blame the US fro the deaths of 200,000 East Timorese?

7 December 1975; Indonesia invades East Timor.
The UN General Assembly and the UNSC came out in resolute support of the East Timorese except for the US whose support for General Raden Suharto of Indonesia, cited by Amnesty International as 'one of the world's worst mass murderers this century' (AI also provided the 200,000 figure btw) prevented Sanctions and even humanitarian relief for East Timor. The US also co-financed the arms deals of General Suharto, one of their 'allies.' The US ambassador to the UN went on record boasting of how "The United States wished everything [in East Timor] to turn out exactly as it did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the UN prove ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me and I carried it through with no inconsiderable success." President Reagan praised this man as "most responsible in world affairs."

I would like to see you 'spin' that one.

Also Milisosevic would not have been removed were it not for the defeat in Kosivo.

Professor Ricard Dumas of the International Committee on Civil Unrest would disagree.

Btw are you suggesting that it would have been better to leave the Serbs brutalise the Kosovars?

No, I am saying that the US, had it had the courage of its convictions and really believed what the propaganda machine spouted would have sent in ground troops immediately regardless of the minimal casualties they would incur rather than bomb Serbia into the ground killing a few thousand innocent Serbians not to mention bombing sovereign Chinese territory and a packed bus of children.

vorbis

You'll always find someone to disagree with everything. Don't know much about the 1975 conflict. Will need to look up facts about it. As for Kosovo, its a bit rich saying the US should have sent in ground troups when we Europeans were barely able to do anything about it. Why should the Americans risk their lives when a safer option for them existed? That opinion really takes the biscuit. NO other country in the world would have acted differently given their position. Indeed Iraq showed that with greater precision bombs, the Americans were able to do just that as it reduced the risk of sending in ground troops.

Éomer of Rohan

Yes, the European Countries did nothing - but I agree that they should have done something. The US (especially given that it wears the mask of world's de facto policeman, though generally this is to cloak it's own purposes) should not have taken the cowardly option that DID cost thousands of civilian lives rather than submit itself and its government to the scrutiny of the public still in the throes of the Vietnam Syndrome for fear it might lose the next election. However, having looked into the matter a little more, the US did have an underhand reason in entering into a conflict in Serbia major - the Serbian military was making Greece nervous especially since trade relations between Turkey and Serbia were really flourishing at this point in time. As for the interest of the US in halting genocide, that is disproved by history - I didn't see the US trying to halt the butchery of the killing fields (in Cambodia) - not to mention that they can be held accountable for provoking it.

vorbis

éomer, are you incapable of saying a good thing about the US? The fact is, they were the ONLY country to do anything about the Kosovo situation. Whatever their reasoning, it was still a good thing. France and Germany were quite content to maintain the status quo and allow many more innocent civilians to die. Again, why shoud the US risk its OWN troops? Generally when fighting a war, you look after your own side first. Also a final comment, don't read so much into motives. Try to judges countries and people on their actions.

Éomer of Rohan

Try to judges countries and people on their actions.

Oh I do that as well and when I see three million Vietnamese murdered for no reason, I think "Hmmm something wrong there" same goes for almost every war that the US has been involved in since the inception of the state - though that is not to say the same cannot be said of other nations, the US is simply the most powerful of those and therefore the one doing most damage since it gained that situation - which was probably since 1945.

Again, why shoud the US risk its OWN troops?

Because a country fighting from a moral point of view does not needlessly kill thousands of innocent civilians and second, the soldiers that were going in knew that they were soldiers and that in a war, for a soldier, it is kill the enemy or be killed furthermore, all of the troops going on such a peacekeeping mission should have been volunteers. Had the troops gone in without the bombers and thus the collateral damage and willingly submitted to the higher risk of casualty that this imposed, I would have called them heroes.

Sparks

are you incapable of saying a good thing about the US?

Vorbis, are you a goldfish or something? YES, we can say good things about the US (and have done so) but NOT about the areas of foreign policy we're talking about.

Also a final comment, don't read so much into motives. Try to judges countries and people on their actions.

Sweet zombie jesus. Vorbis, have you even started school yet? Motive is damn near everything.

Éomer of Rohan

Vorbis, are you a goldfish or something? YES, we can say good things about the US (and have done so) but NOT about the areas of foreign policy we're talking about.

LMAO!!!
Yes I often feel the same way but come on, don't want to get banned I am sure Sparks - I'd have to go back to fighting the pro-US lobby on my own LOL.

Sparks

I know Eomar, but when you specifically state a list of things that you do like about the US, when you argue rationally, when you provide sources and references, and when the end result is "gee man, are you, like, anti-american or something?", well, I'm wearing a hole in my wall from banging my keyboard off it at this point...

Éomer of Rohan

I know Eomar, but when you specifically state a list of things that you do like about the US, when you argue rationally, when you provide sources and references, and when the end result is "gee man, are you, like, anti-american or something?", well, I'm wearing a hole in my wall from banging my keyboard off it at this point...

Tell me about it - you should honestly read some of the threads I was involved in earlier - some people are just not up for intelligent debate. I always found it ironic that some of the people who allowed me to lighten up were the ones I would have ranked about 4th in the Right Wing Irritation scale LOL

bonkey

OK - look this is another thread degenerating into a one-on-one, (or thereabouts), where the topic is becoming secondary to the other poster's ideology.

Can we all give it a rest?

jc

GavinS

Seems you are right there Bonkey, its all gone a bit offtopic. But I dont mind, it has been a great debate. Im glad to get the insight of other people.

Personally I think a war between a future United Europe and the US is a distinct possibility. Some on here have agreed, some have disagreed.

Thanks to all - i think this topic is about to die, unless anyone has any further thoughts on future EU expansion and how this will impinge on US imperialism?

Wook

all hail to all countries standing by their decision to have 'no flight zones' all hail to all countries respecting their voters decision not to support the war, all hail to all countries not kissing USA ass to get some contracts or 'aid' funds... long live Europe !


ahum... well is this the final word ?

BattleBoar

Originally posted by Wook
all hail to all countries standing by their decision to have 'no flight zones' all hail to all countries respecting their voters decision not to support the war, all hail to all countries not kissing USA ass to get some contracts or 'aid' funds... long live Europe !


ahum... well is this the final word ?

I hope not, since it's prattle that has not absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

Wook

and euh ...why not ? why does this has nothing to do with the topic ? is the topic not to challenge US foreign policy and the EU one ? Is this not about the bully technic and the response to it ?

Topic : US-EU War
(for your info.. there isn't one, just an 'if' case ?)

vorbis

just to Sparks, actions are much more important than motives
back on topic.
In a US-EU war the US would defeat the Eu in any type of war (nuclear/non nuclear) during the next 30 years (at least). Most European armies are in a state of decay. France, I doubt would be able to project serious force outside its borders. Germany legally is not allowed deploy troops outside its borders. (I think according to international law). So we shouldn't want an inter-continental war as we would be destroyed.
A rapid response force would be useful for solving Kosovo like situations.

Éomer of Rohan

just to Sparks, actions are much more important than motives

And in both the US have acted in contravention of human decency and international law on countless ocassions - wee have already gone over this and all you have done is to level accusations of anti-americanism so just drop it.

In a US-EU war the US would defeat the Eu in any type of war (nuclear/non nuclear) during the next 30 years (at least).

What nonsense. The point of nuclear weapons is that between two nuclear powers, no one wins. As to a non nuclear war, if France and Britain at the head of the EU fought a war against the US, if they were defeated conventionally (IF and it is a big IF given the near impossiblity of a land sea invasion from across the Atlantic given that the US would find no suitable bases in Europe not to mention the number of nations which would flock to the side of the EU), the war would turn nuclear and billions would die - no one wins.

vorbis

i really don't want to descend to insults.
A few points, all european nuclear storage sites are presumably known by the US. In a pre-emptive strike (i.e. cruise missiles from missile subs, they could take out Europes entire nuclear arsenal. At the very least, the EU would have no long range missiles left.
As for the conventional war, there is generally no contest. I don't know if you have ever read any tom clancy books. Generally, he is an over descriptive boring writer. Factual to a fault(imo), any conflict he describes with US involvement has the US winning easily. Now I'm NOT saying that the US would win becasue tom clancy said so. What he recognises is technological supremacy. Our fighter planes cannot shoot down theirs. Their navy is vastly superior to ours. Their tanks can fire farther than ours. Their weapons are generally more accurate and reliable. In essence it would be like playing a video game with invulnerabiity on.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by vorbis
In a US-EU war the US would defeat the Eu in any type of war (nuclear/non nuclear) during the next 30 years (at least).

Boy, that’s presumptuous there... Are we that incompetent?

Or had you perhaps forgotten that the last time Europe had to rearm it took us twenty years..?

vorbis

he he :rolleyes:
I'd say though that we are. Fundamental attitudes to the military have changed. Its now seen as an expensive luxury. Part of the reason for the EU inactivity over Kosovo was the inability of any country to deploy sufficient force to the area. Most European armies are simply decaying. Our weapons technology is also several years behind the US. Put simply, about 20 US tanks destroyed 200 Iraqi tanks in the first gulf war (as far as I can remember). We wouldn't be doing much better.

The Corinthian

Still presumptuous - or more correctly my presumption is no better than yours.

I’m not disagreeing that Europe is presently way behind the US militarily, just that it is jumping to conclusions to believe that she cannot rearm relatively quickly again given the right stimulus - that recent events are this stimulus is what we’ve been debating here.

After all, as BattleBoar correctly pointed out, we do have a good history for it

BattleBoar

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Still presumptuous - or more correctly my presumption is no better than yours.

I’m not disagreeing that Europe is presently way behind the US militarily, just that it is jumping to conclusions to believe that she cannot rearm relatively quickly again given the right stimulus - that recent events are this stimulus is what we’ve been debating here.

After all, as BattleBoar correctly pointed out, we do have a good history for it

Indeed, there is certainly no way to predict 30 years into the future. Do you think the French envisioned Hitler accepting French surrender in Paris a little over 20 years after the treaty of varsailles was signed?

Obviously I'm not saying that such an analog is likely in this case, however, there is no doubt in my mind that Europe does have the industrial base and scientific institutions to build a military force to rival the US *if* they underwent massive changes in the socialist goverment economies that are stiffling economic growth. The question is not whether Europe is technologically or scientifically capable, but rather. will the public accept it as a priority? And, if so, will they offer tacit support or will there be more vocal support to include large numbers of necessary recruits willing to sign up. If not, would the population accept massive conscription?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by BattleBoar
The question is not whether Europe is technologically or scientifically capable, but rather. will the public accept it as a priority? And, if so, will they offer tacit support or will there be more vocal support to include large numbers of necessary recruits willing to sign up. If not, would the population accept massive conscription?

With regard to conscription, please note that with the exception of the UK and Ireland almost all of Europe imposes it. Admittedly, most governments have been phasing it out in recent years and many European citizens make a point of avoiding it (including myself), but conscription is still indeed the norm for most of Europe.

Nonetheless, since the close of the Cold War, Europe has been attempting to weaken its dependence upon NATO (or more correctly the US). Given this, most of this has been piecemeal to date (e.g. the Galileo project) and more orientated towards military logistics and intelligence. This reticence to re-militarise is hardly surprising given that Europe lost somewhere in the region of 60 million last time the continent went to war.

However, I have noticed that recent events have done two things in the minds of Europeans; the first is to engender a certain level of pride for Old Europe for standing up against the World’s only remaining Superpower as well as a sense of offence as being considered so politically irrelevant. The second is frankly a sense of unease and mistrust - a realization that our crass and wealthy, but well meaning transatlantic cousins are not as well meaning as we had thought (neither are they as crass either, but we’re talking about European perception rooted in mild prejudice).

That a certain level of rearmament will now take place is now inevitable - public opinion has actually shifted in that direction, that we will see the same level of rearmament are we saw in Europe in the nineteen-twenties and thirties is another matter.

While European attitudes towards America may have now been irrevocably (or at least for the next twenty years) tarnished; that they have reached such a level that Europe feels compelled to overcome the inevitable hardships, both physical and economic, of supporting an ambitious military program, is questionable.

I don’t think relations have presently sunk so low that we would feel compelled to do so. However, if we continue see a PNAC style agenda unfold, then we will. I have no doubt of that.

Éomer of Rohan

A few points, all european nuclear storage sites are presumably known by the US. In a pre-emptive strike (i.e. cruise missiles from missile subs, they could take out Europes entire nuclear arsenal. At the very least, the EU would have no long range missiles left.

I was not insulting you for a start - I was merely stating that I thought that presupposition of such a thing is nonsense. Let me go into a little detail about the change of military positions if Europe and the US went to war.

1)SOSUS would be torn up thus allowing the European nations to move at will across the former Soviet-stopping sonar lines - the G-I-UK barrier in effect might even fall into European hands given that Greenland is a territory of Denmark.
2)US airbases would be removed from Europe and their navy would be sent packing.
3)GCHQ would (begin to?) listen to US governmental traffic.

For hostilities to begin, the tension on both sides would have their respective militaries standing to full alert - and the US would not necessarily know where the UK polaris submarines would be scrambled to. If the US tried to invade there would be an air/naval war first which ultimately I think we can agree the US might win the naval contest but with such stretched supply lines, it is unlikely that they would win the air war even with the seven carriers of the US Atlantic fleet and the Mediterranean fleet (which might actually be recalled given that it would have no base to operate from). The French airbases on the European mainland would easily be able to defeat the US given the logistics of the situation and the relatively equality in technology - esp given that the AWACS would probably be limited at best by French fighters and the RAF operating out of France or the Benelux countries. There would be no counterattack on the aircraft carriers because with the AEGIS systems available, it would be suicide. The US would try to pound the European mainland with B-52's and B-2's and probably cruise missiles as well. The B-52's would be easy prey fro anti-aircraft fire or fighters (I am sure some of them can reach the same altitude), the B-2's are too few to make a difference and given the difficulty in transporting so many cruise missiles to a fleet operating very near the enemy coast, I'd say the cruise missiles would do little damage as well, given how developed Europe is - there are infinitely more targets than in, for example, Iraq and Europe does posses Patriot technology as well. I don't even think that A-10's can take off from carriers which means no napalming ground troops. Thus a stalemate would arise for a while - the US would be unable to hurt Europe badly and vice versa (all the while the USN is battling the FN and RN plus the combined fleets of the other European nations, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Germany (if it has one), the Scandinavian adherents, Belgium and the Netherlands - would Russia be involved in this by the way? I know it says EU but if the EU declared war on the US, I'd say both China and Russia and various parts of Arabia would make a move as well - though of course this is all ridiculously hypothetical). And this would continue until the US acheived a decided naval victory and won the air war over the skies of Europe and then the land invasion could begin. If. Or until the Europeans scored a victory over the US in the naval war - by sinking carriers and so on - which is entirely possible given the British skill with submarines and even suicidal mini-sub attacks which are not always detected by sonar or the strangling of the carriers by the destruction of the supply convoys - in effect a third battle for the Atlantic. There would be a production war which the US would win and son eventually the US would begin landing in Europe - and out of sound strategic reasons, I would say near Bordeaux, Brest, and the other French naval centres (a blockade would be effected across the strait of Gibraltar to ensure no reinforcements arrived and a repeat of 'Torch' would probably be discounted given that the US has no allies in the Med whereas before they had the RN and of course Monty et al). At this point, the UK submarines would probably still be extant having hidden under the northern polar cap for safety and the French might well have moved their nuclear weapons and even have manufactured new ones - at which point the confrontation might go nuclear - and I think unless the first nuclear weapons used were tactical weapons, the aggressor would be Europe. Washington, New York, Philadelphia, Boston, etc would vanish (10 minutes is the flight time right?) and in retaliation, the minutemen would destroy London, Paris, various military installations, Cheltenham, Berlin, etc etc - and so no one would win and the survivors would suffer the fate of a nuclear winter.
This is all hypothesis but please, let me hear your idea of exactly how the war would go Vorbis.

vorbis

any such war can only be based on the current technologies available. The fact is technology has rendered a lot of individual skill irrelevant. US subs, I believe, simply cannot be detected by british ones until they fire torpedos. By then it would be two late. B2's are capable of taking off from America and pounding France and England. I imagine first assaults would be on ENgland and Ireland in order to gain bases. As for arial warfare, they are not equal. I remember reading some stuff before about how American fighters haver longer range missiles that can be co-ordinated very effectively with AWACs. Quite simply, if they can hit you before you hit them, you're going to lose. Taking Ireland and England would probably be easy, as they have a vastly greater navy. From there, an assault on France is highly feasible.
I doubt though that China and Russia would join such a war. Neither would feel any closer to Europe than the US. I would also think that the US can utillise satellites and espionage to identify all locations of ICBMs. Crusie missiles are nearly impossible to intercept. The EU would still have nukes but not the capacity to fire them. Generally thats my hypothetical view of such a war.

Sparks

Fact is, any warfare with the US is going to be assymetric warfare. And direct confrontation is a distinct no-no in such warfare. Odds are, you'd see the US take over targets without much resistance, and then encounter a *lot* of guerilla warfare. A long, slow, nasty fight.

Much more realistic though, is a trade war. Oh look, the WTO just gave the go-ahead to the EU to impose $4 billion worth of annual fines on the US...

Éomer of Rohan

B2's are capable of taking off from America and pounding France and England

But there are onlytwo of them are there not?

US subs, I believe, simply cannot be detected by british ones until they fire torpedos.

Can we have some substantive evidence for this apart from the rubbish that Tom Clancy puts in his amazingly biased books?

for arial warfare, they are not equal. I remember reading some stuff before about how American fighters haver longer range missiles that can be co-ordinated very effectively with AWACs

And from where would the AWACS launch? Again, can we have evidence as to the effectiveness of the American missiles as opposed to European ones? France has possession of some American aircraft anyway - Eagles, Tomcats, Hornets as do several other European nations.

I doubt though that China and Russia would join such a war. Neither would feel any closer to Europe than the US

If Europe felt under threat, I imagine China and Russia would be quaking in their boots - enough to throw their lot in with Europe, Russia especially. If it came down to it and America decided to challenge the EU, I think the end result would be the USA vs the World (bar a few unaligned nations).

I would also think that the US can utillise satellites and espionage to identify all locations of ICBMs

Works both ways and neither would give away the location of the British SLBM's - which given the first hint of a use 'em or lose 'em situation would probably fire them.

Crusie missiles are nearly impossible to intercept

That is simply not true - that is the whole point of AEGIS.

Sparks

http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/procurement.shtml

If cruise missiles are incredibly effective, the US may have a problem...

BattleBoar

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
But there are onlytwo of them are there not?

Actually, there are 21.

Can we have some substantive evidence for this apart from the rubbish that Tom Clancy puts in his amazingly biased books?

Pretty sure Eomer is right on this one. To my knowledge, the US submarine fleet is quite detectable with active sonar systems (ie. air-dropped bueys which would almost certainly be all over the European side of the atlantic)

And from where would the AWACS launch? Again, can we have evidence as to the effectiveness of the American missiles as opposed to European ones? France has possession of some American aircraft anyway - Eagles, Tomcats, Hornets as do several other European nations.

The navy operates carrier-based AWACS aircraft. The current European air force may operate some US jets, but they are no match for the US airpower at the moment. I have no doubt that with the industrial infrastructure, they could develop that airpower within 20 years if it were prioritised, however.

If Europe felt under threat, I imagine China and Russia would be quaking in their boots - enough to throw their lot in with Europe, Russia especially. If it came down to it and America decided to challenge the EU, I think the end result would be the USA vs the World (bar a few unaligned nations).

Hard to predict this one. If Europe regains its aggressive tendencies, I think it would be just the opposite.

That is simply not true - that is the whole point of AEGIS.

Eomer is right on this one. Cruise missiles are basically nothing more than low flying, slow moving, non-stealth aircraft and if you have a modern defence AA network in place, they are quite easy to shoot down. The Iraqis downed quite a few, and I'm pretty sure Europe has better AA defence than Iraq. The problem lies when one is fired at an area that is not well defended or when the system is overwhelmed, either by electronic jamming or sheer numbers.

Éomer of Rohan

Probably the first time I will ever thank you for something BB lol

Hard to predict this one. If Europe regains its aggressive tendencies, I think it would be just the opposite.

I would like to know why you think the opposite however. I was thinking that the point we are making here is that the US has the power to knock off Europe (and yet still the nuclear question remains) so therefore is the most powerful military in the world - and therefore Russia, who would naturally feel more akin to Europe than to her old nemesis (esp given the desperate overtures at ties with the EU) would throw in her (admittedly rather small) lot with Europe. China under the multi-polarity agreement would probably follow - though China's influence on this would simply be to invade Taiwan and push the North Koreans into taking out South Korea - removing their own adversaries while the US has it's back turned. The Arabs would almost certainly go with Europe - if not by formal ties then certainly by attacking the US wherever possible - which means that Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc would all be overrun fairly fast - and here we have another nuclear/chem/bio weapon scenario - what would Israel do? It is all very interesting to wonder which way the needle would swing. Of course if Europe really did want the US out of the way, they could covertly supply some random anti-US nation with a nuclear bomb to explode in New York or Washington which would bring the US to it's knees IMO (though the European economies would probably take a bashing as well).

xm15e3

Originally posted by The Corinthian

However, I have noticed that recent events have done two things in the minds of Europeans; the first is to engender a certain level of pride for Old Europe for standing up against the World’s only remaining Superpower as well as a sense of offence as being considered so politically irrelevant. The second is frankly a sense of unease and mistrust - a realization that our crass and wealthy, but well meaning transatlantic cousins are not as well meaning as we had thought (neither are they as crass either, but we’re talking about European perception rooted in mild prejudice).

This thread and your post are the only reason I surf this site. I fully expect to see the US and at least part of the UN in a hot war within the next 40 years. A war that will be both a terrible waste and unnecessary. And your post outlines the root cause.

Europeans have become so cynical about the motives of the US government that they now trust the French more the Americans. That has to raise a red flag (no pun intended).

Sun Tsu gives three methods to lay siege to a fortress, by direct attack, by co-opting the population to your side, and by discrediting the enemy's leadership. Usually, all three methods are used. We worked to do this to the Soviets and the 60's counter culture was often used by the Soviets to do the same to us. Media, the education institutions, religious leadership, and even corporate boardrooms were targets for both sides.

So now we have a Conservative Irishman convinced the US is using it's global dominance to force it's will on the world militarily, and that Europe must re-arm to defend it's interests.

So here's something to think about:

1) It's not the US that is trampling European interests
2) Americans, and their current government are about as well meaning as a nation gets
3) The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and probably Pakistan, Syria, Iran, N.Korea, (Please God!) France
are not about Oil so much as removing the festering boil of humanity that finally succeeded on 9-11. It
isn't about Al Quida so much as all of the Al Quida's ilk.
4) CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC or anything out of Hollywierd are not pro-American. Fox and Sky are, and
they are owned by an Aussie (go figure).
5) Yes we are crass, only Europe isn't any better.

bonkey

Originally posted by xm15e3

Europeans have become so cynical about the motives of the US government that they now trust the French more the Americans.

And in this statement we see just how accurate a picture you actually have of Europe.

Never before have I seen a nation act as petulantly as the US government have done regarding the French since the US decided it wanted to pick its fight with Saddam. I've seen 8-year-old kids act with more maturity.

Never before in my life either have I seen such a widespread acceptance and endorsement of such a bigoted policy by a people who claim to support demoracy, freedom of choice, and all the rest of it.

The rest of your post - if it isnt a troll - isnt even worth discussing. Maybe when you - as a nation - calm down and remember what the concepts of discussion, compromise, and freedom are about there might be something to talk about.

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by xm15e3
1) It's not the US that is trampling European interests

It’s a fair bet that if a big chunk of Europe (and Russia) were opposed to the conflict, then European interests were not best served by said conflict. That such opposition was dismissed would indicate diplomatic trampling.

Would you have another argument that refutes this?

2) Americans, and their current government are about as well meaning as a nation gets

I’m sure Americans, and their current government would see it this way, but much of the rest of the World may disagree. Again, how would you refute their views?

3) The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and probably Pakistan, Syria, Iran, N.Korea, (Please God!) France are not about Oil so much as removing the festering boil of humanity that finally succeeded on 9-11. It isn't about Al Quida so much as all of the Al Quida's ilk.

What bothers me is the definition of Al Quida's ilk and who is the sole judge, jury and executioner of this policy. Is Iran Al Quida's ilk? Or Cuba? Are we to see a proven link between Fidel Castro and Osama then?

And should we disagree, should we expect ‘consequences’?

4) CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC or anything out of Hollywierd are not pro-American. Fox and Sky are, and they are owned by an Aussie (go figure).

In fairness, they all are - Sky and, in particular, Fox are just over the top at it, while the others are somewhat subtler. You would do well to watch some of the anti-American (such as the Arabic stations) or even more neutral (such as many of the European stations).

5) Yes we are crass, only Europe isn't any better.

Never said, we were - merely said it was a prejudice, like believing that one’s nation is well meaning and can do no wrong...

bonkey

Originally posted by The Corinthian
What bothers me is the definition of Al Quida's ilk and who is the sole judge, jury and executioner of this policy. Is Iran Al Quida's ilk? Or Cuba? Are we to see a proven link between Fidel Castro and Osama then?

And should we disagree, should we expect ‘consequences’?

Well what other reason could France be listed as "Al Qaeda's ilk" or a "festering boil of humanity".

Then again, the main things that were removed on 9/11 were the lives of thousands of innocent civilians, some military/Pentagon employees, and the US belief that their homeland would never be attacked.

I'm trying to figure which one of these was "the festering boil of humanity" that was successfully removed on 9/11.

Actially....I'm not really trying to figure it out....

jc

BattleBoar

Originally posted by xm15e3
Europeans have become so cynical about the motives of the US government that they now trust the French more the Americans. That has to raise a red flag (no pun intended).

Look, give these people some amount of credit. I think most everyone here knows that the French almost never take a principled stand on anything and I'm willing to bet that very few people think they are trustworthy. Everyone knows they were in it for themselves and, given there history, that should come as no surprise. That said, your statement may indeed be true. And, that said, what does that say about the diplomacy of this administration in carrying out the campaign?

Case in point: Clinton never took Kosovo to the UN because he knew it would be vetoed. Bush should have known the reaction he was going to get based on his uncooperation with european nations on other issues. Thus, he should have realized that he should never have taken the issue before the UN in the first place. And please don't take this as any kind of endorsement of Clinton whatsoever, but in this case, his foreign policy was just...superior.

The idea that attacking Iraq was primarily about eliminating Al Queda is patently ridiculous. At most, tertiary goal. If it had not been, the target would have been Syria, or Saudi Arabia, or hell even Pakistan. No, I'm afraid that this war was always about weapons of mass destruction. Only in the aftermath of the Baghdad celebrations have the pundits started to opine that the liberation of Iraq was reason alone for going to war. And I'm afraid. I'm afraid because so far, nothing seems to be there. And I'm afraid that if nothing continues to be there over more weeks and months, we will eventually have a situation where the US's international credibility will have been dramatically eroded - at worst, for an outright lie, and at best, for a colossal mistake in intelligence. If found to be the former, perhaps the lie wasn't from bush but by someone high up who manufactured intelligence on WMD to further an agenda. If the latter, it should result in a massive overhaul of the intelligence services, which have needed it for some time now anyway.

So we're left with a few options. Either there were never were WMD in Iraq, the WMD haven't been located at any of the sites where our intelligence said they would be (again another intel lapse), or the WMD that were in Iraq have been moved or given to another state or terrorist organization and will one day be in a U-Haul truck on their way up I-95. Given the amount of diplomatic rangling at the UN, they certainly had enough time to get them out of the country. This latter case is yet another reason the diplomacy was horrible...even if you think someone is dangerous and you want to get rid of them militarily, why would you come out and directly say so?

In any case, I don't think you can lose sight of the fact that it *IS NOT* the job of the US military to liberate the oppressed peoples of the world, in Kosovo or Iraq. And any attempt to characterize the war in Iraq as justified based on that needs to be questioned because it leads to the question - if this alone is reason enough for starting a war, are there not countless other cruel, dictatorial, oppressive regimes that are surely worthy of American bloodshed and sacrafice? If it was reason enough in Iraq, why not go ahead and make it the official policy of the department of defense?

Sparks

That was excretable BB, even by your standards.

BattleBoar

Originally posted by Sparks
That was excretable BB, even by your standards.

Is that meant to be constructive criticism or just the best contribution to the topic you can muster?

Sparks

I felt it to be the best response your post deserved.