US-EU War

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...