European military (in)capabilities - why is Europe so "weak"?

[JohnRM]

By you logic, Denmark should begin arming our selves for the future reconqista of Sweden... it's easier now with the bridge and all...

No way!
Though we disagree on several things, we're too alike to wage war. Plus a war would end in every major city in EU and US being nuked, which would make it even more idiotic.

You people don't have enough nuclear weapons for that. Your tactical nuclear cruise missiles are worthless against our mainland and your ballistic missile submarines are too few.

 

[Trajan12]

It's called social democracy, actually. And Denmark and Norway, two of the "good guys" regarding this topic, are also two countries with the highest taxes and the best economies.

It's not black and white.

What's working for you(Social Democracy) wouldn't necessarily work for us though. I can't see how. We have much higher priorities than more welfare.

 

[Atlas14]

Some countries might wish they didn't have these world police on their soil...

Probably, most criminals don't like being put in jail either. I don't really agree with most of our policing however though.

Really though, Europe has a larger army than the United States. The force projection capabilities are coming online pretty quickly despite the relatively lower funding. The naval projection might not be there (nor is it necessary, as Storealex has pointed out), but airlift capacity is going to get a huge boost once Airbus gets its act together and gets the A400 going.

That is to be expected. When you take a bunch of individual countries that together equal about the size of the U.S., you are going to get a much larger "total army".

 

[Yoda Power]

You have a better idea? Who else is going to do what we do if we were to cut back? As of now, not many could.

Well from a cynical point of view, you Americans would be much better of with just trading, and stop spending all those money on wars in various places. Whether or not it would leave the world a better place is another argument.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Well, sorry to say that, but China is mainly your "problem". China and Europe don't have many conflicting interests, their spheres of influence don't clash (maybe in Africa a little bit, but that's not serious) and I don't think there is a potential for a crisis between China and Europe.

I don't even think China is America's problem. The whole thing is being blown out of proportion. Except for situations where the Chinese believed their territorial integrity was being compromised (Taiwan, Indian border, Soviet border, Korean border) they have very consistently kept to themselves.

It will only be a problem if the Americans go out of their way to make it a problem. I mean damn, you bombed their embassy and they looked the other way.

 

[Yoda Power]

What's working for you(Social Democracy) wouldn't necessarily work for us though. I can't see how. We have much higher priorities than more welfare.

Actually isn't that just proof that he is right? Everything is not black and white.

 

[-0blivion-]

I would prefer the European Military (And the British Military from my perspective) concentrated on filling niche military roles, specifically counter-guerilla and counter-terrorist roles. That would mean smaller levels of soldiers with higher levels of training and equipment. Elite troops who can fill a role both in country protection and 'world policing'.

Europe can still fill a role militarily - I don't think its in doubt that the UK has the best Special Forces in the world.

We have to face facts that a large amount of soldiers is not realistic with current demographics and our current economies. We should adapt to the situation not change the situation.

 

[Winner]

I say Europe has an army which fits the need.

No, we have armies (plural!) that are mostly useless in today's world. If we planned to invade Russia, it would make a sense to have 5000+ main battle tanks, but why do we keep such forces if we don't intend to use them and we can't even use them anywhere, because we can't figure out the logistics.

I think we need much smaller, much more mobile and much better trained troops prepared to fight against new kind of threats to our security.

 

[Atlas14]

And why is it not easy to accept?

It looks pretty bad when you are the richest and most powerful country in the world and turn blind eyes to situations where entire populations of other nations are starving, being killed in mass genocide, oppressed.

As for the policing duty, it keeps us safe here at home. If we allowed world events to spiral out of control, our lives would pay the price.

 

[Kozmos]

I would prefer the European Military (And the British Military from my perspective) concentrated on filling niche military roles, specifically counter-guerilla and counter-terrorist roles. That would mean smaller levels of soldiers with higher levels of training and equipment. Elite troops who can fill a role both in country protection and 'world policing'.

Europe can still fill a role militarily - I don't think its in doubt that the UK has the best Special Forces in the world.

We have to face facts that a large amount of soldiers is not realistic with current demographics and our current economies. We should adapt to the situation not change the situation.

As much as like Europe, the SAS take second place to Spetsnaz.

 

[Sidhe]

That's true if you have enough money to bribe him.

Europe don't need that large territorial defense forces. We're not going to be invaded in the foreseeable future. What we need is the ability to project power in the region of Middle East, Eastern Europe and Africa.

I don't agree with the opinion we need large aircraft carriers etc. It is too expensive and unnecessary. Our enemies will be more like Hezbollah and we will fight in asymmetric wars. I'd focus on training and personal equipment, UAV's, air support, air transport, light armored vehicles etc.

Justify why we need to enforce our will on the ME, and how such wars will result in positive outcomes, I honestly can't see how building up militaries to threaten the ME is going to work out well? Nor how we can ultimately win asymetric wars individually or by UN forces? This whole thread is based on war being the only option where it has never worked yet, to be honest, every time we've tried it we've ended up in a world of pain.

Essentially the world of war isn't move in take over and that's it any more, it's move in, take over, then get a series of terrorist incursions that increase exponentially every time we move in. Your assuming that this type of thinking is going to suddenly work where it never has before. I'm not claiming we should never use force, just that when we use it in invading we end up in the toilet. Europe doesn't need this agressive BS, it doesn't need to build up militarily, because it knows it's a waste of time.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Probably, most criminals don't like being put in jail either. I don't really agree with most of our policing however though.



That is to be expected. When you take a bunch of individual countries that together equal about the size of the U.S., you are going to get a much larger "total army".

Well yes, but even if you weight it for the size of the populations they are not that far off. Europe has plenty of personnel for what is needed. And anyway, the greater the population the smaller the proportion of the population needed to be in uniform.

I mean China is more than 4 times the size of the US, and yet their standing army is only about 28% larger in numbers.

 

[Yoda Power]

It looks pretty bad when you are the richest and most powerful country in the world and turn blind eyes to situations where entire populations of other nations are starving, being killed in mass genocide, oppressed.

As for the policing duty, it keeps us safe here at home. If we allowed world events to spiral out of control, our lives would pay the price.

Thanks. I was hoping your reason would be based on morals.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

No, we have armies (plural!) that are mostly useless in today's world.

Not with the EU

 

[Atlas14]

Well yes, but even if you weight it for the size of the populations they are not that far off. Europe has plenty of personnel for what is needed. And anyway, the greater the population the smaller the proportion of the population needed to be in uniform.

I mean China is more than 4 times the size of the US, and yet their standing army is only about 28% larger in numbers.

But Europe is comprised of individual countries, each with a determination to defend themselves, and thus have a slightly larger army individually than what an area that size would contribute if it were part of one single country. Each individual country in Europe cannot rely on every other country to help them the way an individual state in America can count on the nation as a whole to save them.

 

[Trajan12]

Justify why we need to enforce our will on the ME, and how such wars will result in positive outcomes, I honestly can't see how building up militaries to threaten the ME is going to work out well? Nor how we can ultimately win asymetric wars individually or by UN forces? This whole thread is based on war being the only option where it has never worked yet, to be honest, every time we've tried it we've ended up in a world of pain.

We need to enforce democracy in the ME because with stable democratic governments we can cut corruption and funding to terror organizations. War may not sound fun, it isn't, but diplomacy has not worked well either.( See Palestine)

 

[Atlas14]

Thanks. I was hoping your reason would be based on morals.

As opposed to what? World domination?

 

[storealex]

You people don't have enough nuclear weapons for that. Your tactical nuclear cruise missiles are worthless against our mainland and your ballistic missile submarines are too few.

Ok so it would only be 50 million dead on your side then...

Do you see a possible disagreement between EU and US, worth 50 million dead?

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Well, your opinion of European unity in an actual crisis (Iraq was no real danger at all) is probably lower than reality.

Anyway you cut it, Europe and the United States have relatively larger militaries for their population than most other places on the planet.

 

[storealex]

As opposed to what? World domination?

Can you say:

"Seleucus Nicator" or "rmsharpe" ?