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

[Winner]

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?

Err, I didn't say a word about enforcing our will or threatening the ME.

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 be prepared to protect our interests. Bosnia or Kosovo for instance - Europe had to rely on the US to help us solve that mess. There are many potential threats to our security and we need to have the means to deal with them, no matter we like it or not.

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.

Well, you talk to me like I said such things. Read what I really say, next time.

 

[Trajan12]

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?

If you guys keep making fat jokes, then yes. I see a pretty good reason.

 

[Yoda Power]

As opposed to what? World domination?

No, rather somethnig along the lines of: "We must protect our interests!" or "God told me too!"

 

[Trajan12]

No, rather somethnig along the lines of: "We must protect our interests!" or "God told me too!"

Ditto on both!

 

[storealex]

or "God told me too!"

haha good one. But you better not awake the sleeping dragon:

If you guys keep making fat jokes, then yes. I see a pretty good reason.

 

[Yoda Power]

Ditto on both!

Trajan I don't know if I should laugh or cry...

 

[Sidhe]

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)

Never been tried without the US vetoing everything that doesn't meet with Israel's aproval, peace in Palestine has never worked because it has never been tried, war has countless times and it's never worked, the logic of this argument defeats my sense of reason.

Also you fail to understand the culture in the ME, they really don't want democracy, and the more you try and force it on them the more they will rebel, it's a pointless waste of time, they want the right to govern themselves how they see fit, democracy will not be won by forcing it on them, any more than it was won in any country in Europe or the rest of the world. If they are going to end up in democracy there is only one way in history that happens: by the will of the people.

 

[Sidhe]

Err, I didn't say a word about enforcing our will or threatening the ME.

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.

Well projecting power in English as I understand it is using power to threaten or invade, project means to force outwards, it is not a defensive term, if you didn't mean it that way, I apologise.

 

[Trajan12]

Never been tried without the US vetoing everything that doesn't meet with Israel's aproval, peace in Palestine has never worked because it has never been tried, war has countless times and it's never worked, the logic of this argument defeats my sense of reason.Not worth it.

Also you fail to understand the culture in the ME, they really don't want democracy, and the more you try and force it on them the more they will rebel, it's a pointless waste of time, they want the right to govern themselves how they see fit, democracy will not be won by forcing it on them, any more than it was won in any country in Europe or the rest of the world. If they are going to end up in democracy there is only one way in history that happens: by the will of the people.

I think it is ridiculous that they cannot and will not have democracy. Are they mad? Do they love oppression?

 

[Elrohir]

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

Because Europe would rather give it's money away to bums who never worked a day in their life, and provide retirement benefits and free healthcare to illegal immigrants from Morocco. America spends it's money on the world's best military; Europe spends it on welfare. Personally, I prefer the military.

If Europe ever wants to be a serious hegemonic state - in laymans terms, able to project power beyond their borders, for good or ill - they'll need to seriously revamp how their society views the government, and what it's responsibilities are, and how their government runs. Unfortunately, I doubt that this will happen anytime soon, and I'll bet it takes something close to a total collapse before anyone outside of the European "right wing fringe" sees the light.

 

[luiz]

I say Europe has an army which fits the need.

It doesn't.

The point of this thread is exactly that Europe needs less armored divisions whose sole goal was to contain the soviets and more speacial units and aircraft capable of beign rapidly deployed anywhere in the planet, or at least in the ME and Africa. And it's a fair point.

 

[Winner]

Because Europe would rather give it's money away to bums who never worked a day in their life, and provide retirement benefits and free healthcare to illegal immigrants from Morocco. America spends it's money on the world's best military; Europe spends it on welfare. Personally, I prefer the military.

If Europe ever wants to be a serious hegemonic state - in laymans terms, able to project power beyond their borders, for good or ill - they'll need to seriously revamp how their society views the government, and what it's responsibilities are, and how their government runs. Unfortunately, I doubt that this will happen anytime soon, and I'll bet it takes something close to a total collapse before anyone outside of the European "right wing fringe" sees the light.

Read the OP, not just the title, please.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

I dislike strong goverment so this is good

 

[Sidhe]

I think it is ridiculous that they cannot and will not have democracy. Are they mad? Do they love oppression?

Oh believe me I agree, it seems to my cultural viewpoint horrible that they would want a certain type of government that doesn't lead to freedom, but that is what they want, and you can't force an idea on people particularly not democracy, I accept it, I don't want to, but that is the way it is, we can only hope that they will eventually find a better path.

Because Europe would rather give it's money away to bums who never worked a day in their life, and provide retirement benefits and free healthcare to illegal immigrants from Morocco. America spends it's money on the world's best military; Europe spends it on welfare. Personally, I prefer the military.

You have no clue about how welfare systems work in Europe, so I find little reason to make a rebuttal.

If Europe ever wants to be a serious hegemonic state - in laymans terms, able to project power beyond their borders, for good or ill - they'll need to seriously revamp how their society views the government, and what it's responsibilities are, and how their government runs. Unfortunately, I doubt that this will happen anytime soon, and I'll bet it takes something close to a total collapse before anyone outside of the European "right wing fringe" sees the light.

It doesn't want a hegemonic state, that sickens us, we tried in the past and it failed miserablly, we have learnt our lessons well. We find the idea now of enforcing military might on the world to be self defeating, but anyway good luck with it, it certainly hasn't worked yet, but hey if you keep plugging away, I'm sure you'll force everything on everyone you want

 

[storealex]

Because Europe would rather give it's money away to bums who never worked a day in their life, and provide retirement benefits and free healthcare to illegal immigrants from Morocco. America spends it's money on the world's best military; Europe spends it on welfare. Personally, I prefer the military.

Dude, that's so wrong I can't believe it. I doubt you have seen much of Europe. I doubt you know much of Europe, and I doubt that you have even read this very thread.

Norway and Denmark. Two countries with the capability to send lot's well armed, well trained soldiers abroad (For our small seize), are coincidently among the countries in the world, with the highest taxes, "biggest welfare state" and best economies. How do you equate that?

 

[Azkonus]

Actually, this is the topic where Turkish contribution would be most effective.

1) Location: It is almost in the middle of everything; you can check Russia, Caucasia, Central Asia, Iran, ME, Black Sea and Mediterranean.

2) Troop strength of 1,043,550 soldiers, second largest standing force in NATO after the United States.

3) Exceptional Air Force "Supported by the TuAF's in-flight refueling capability, the fighter jets of the Turkish Air Force can participate in international operations and exercises on every major continent and return back to their home bases." 2nd major F16 operator in Nato after U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Armed_Forces

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well it seems to me that the only logical thing to do is to invade Russiasatan for some EU lebenstraum (more ).


I don't think the welfare state is too bad for Europe. Does Europe really need an on-par power projection capability with the United States? Europe's been able to more or less sit on the military backburner for the last fifty years, it should enjoy that while it can. For one, it's not as if the United States has any sort of desire to conquer Europe, or really anywhere for that matter; I would hope that Europe has realized that by now, that you have no enemy any more who posses the capabilty of threatening Europe any more.
I think that small, highly mobile fighting forces are what Europe needs, and should maintain, but still have plans for a massive organization of troops, possibly by conscription, should (and that's a big "if") the need arises to create a "Grand Army of Europe." Come on, you know you're salivating at the thought and the cool name right now.

 

[warpus]

I don't think the welfare state is too bad for Europe. Does Europe really need an on-par power projection capability with the United States? Europe's been able to more or less sit on the military backburner for the last fifty years, it should enjoy that while it can.

Military backburner? THe U.S. spends around $480,000,000 a year on the military. The E.U. spends around $210,000,000.

In comparison, U.S. allies like Japan spend $42,000,000, Saudi Arabia $25,000,000, South Korea $21,000,000, Canada $10,000,000, Australia $10,000,000, Israel $10,000,000

In total, the countries I've mentioned so far make up about 80% of all military expenditures in the world. These are countries directly allied with the United States... and the list is by far complete!

So out of all the money spent on military in the world each year, let's say 85% is spent by the U.S. and her closest allies. 13% is spent by friendly and/or neutral countries.

Actual enemies of the U.S.? 2%? 1%?

I would say, keeping the above in mind, that $210,000,000 a year is a fair contribution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

 

[Elrohir]

You have no clue about how welfare systems work in Europe, so I find little reason to make a rebuttal.

In which case you'll never convince me of the error of my ways.

It doesn't want a hegemonic state, that sickens us, we tried in the past and it failed miserablly, we have learnt our lessons well. We find the idea now of enforcing military might on the world to be self defeating, but anyway good luck with it, it certainly hasn't worked yet, but hey if you keep plugging away, I'm sure you'll force everything on everyone you want

Hegemony, as defined as leadership among other nations, or power projection, isn't necessarily a bad thing. It certainly can be, when it is used to violate human rights, or exploite other nations - but could you really say that hegemonic power, used to promote democracy and human rights is really a bad thing?

I think hegemony is another one of those concepts that is a good one, but isn't popular anymore because of the negative connotations the word can bring with it.

Dude, that's so wrong I can't believe it. I doubt you have seen much of Europe. I doubt you know much of Europe, and I doubt that you have even read this very thread.

Correct on the first, in my opinion incorrect on the second, and simply wrong on the third.

Norway and Denmark. Two countries with the capability to send lot's well armed, well trained soldiers abroad (For our small seize), are coincidently among the countries in the world, with the highest taxes, "biggest welfare state" and best economies. How do you equate that?

One word: Oil. Norway is, I believe, the third largest oil producing country in the world, and most of that oil money goes into the government's pocket, as most of the companies that dig for oil are partially, or mostly owned by the government. (Statoil, for instance, is about 70% owned by the Norwegian government and is the largest oil company in any Nordic nation) Even Denmark produces oil, albeit about a tenth of what Norway exports. (Still about 200,000 barrels per day)

As for their militaries, they're decent for the nations size, but hardly large or extraordinarily equipped, such as the US military is. And even these militaries aren't particularly well funded in comparison to total GDP, if you average the two together percentage wise it's about half of what the US uses.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Guys, Warpus has made a good point. NATO accounts for three quarters of all world military spending. If that is not enough to keep in check the final quarter, there is a serious flaw in your system of power that mere raises in military spending cannot correct.

EDIT: Elrohir, if half of the military spending in the entire world can only buy you an absolute mess in a small 3rd world country like Iraq, it is not particularly effective.