Is it in the US' interest that eg Europe militarizes?

[hobbsyoyo]

People in this thread seem completly delusional. Europe contains 3 nuclear powers and many of the biggest military spenders in the world.

Don't confuse the lack of significant internal warfare between the major powers in Europe in recent years for some sort of lack of military power.

Are you counting Russia as the 3rd nuclear power in Europe? I guess that makes sense.

That's a great point but it is also a fact that practically the entire rest of the EU does not have adequate military strength to defend itself once you exclude France and the UK. And even then, much of the force/force projection abilities of France and in particular the UK counts on them being able to leverage NATO resources and logistics. Absent NATO (read: the US) and their abilities would be significantly diminished. Hell, even the missiles that the UK's nuclear deterant is based on are American and it was a massive infusion of American cash and expertise that allowed the UK to weaponize their own warhead designs. (Long story but we dicked them around post WWII after they dicked us around early in the Manhattan project)



Anywho, from the US, I don't actually think there is much political consensus that there would be tremendous economic benefits around reducing our military spending. And certainly there is zero consensus that such economic benefits could be driven by European re-armament and subsequent US draw down.

If anything, the consensus is that the US wants Europe to spend more on their militaries so that the US can shift more resources to the East. Economics don't come into it. There certainly are people (mostly on the left) who do want a reduction of US military spending but they are a minority. And again, Europe's status vis-a-vis re-armament doesn't come into the equation.

Re: Healthcare -
I don't know how much of this is consensus but there are at least a few academics that argue that indeed, Europe and much of the world does free load off of US medical research. But this is more a law of unintended consequences rather than any concerted effort by the rest of the world. Essentially we have a healthcare system where corporations are extremely short-sighted and profit motivated and there are few, if any, mechanisms in place for government to reign in those instincts.

Consequently, the US public winds up footing the bill for medical R&D with exhorbitant healthcare costs. Then those same companies sell their inventions/medicines overseas where governments do have strong mechanisms to reign in profiteering. Thus, those countries reap an enormous benefit of lower costs that are ultimately enabled by Americans.

This is a highly simplified argument however and of course there are significant non-US health care companies in the field. But many of them still use the US as their primary cash cow.

Re: Technology and Economic Growth

It's really, really hard to dis-entangle US military spending from the growth of our economy. Let's not forget that many massive improvements in technology (the internet, GPS, super-critical airfoils that enable cheaper jet travel, nuclear energy generation, satellite communication networks, etc, etc) were driven primarily by US taxpayer spending via the military.

The American military is actually really good at identifying capabilities that would make ass-kicking easier and then it goes out and gets them. The US public is pretty much adverse to spending taxpayer money on just about anything and thus there wouldn't not be (in my opinion) a strong base of R&D in this country absent the military.

However, Joe Public American does support massive spending and investment in the military and thus it has become a primary conduit for R&D and advancement in across-the-board technologies. What I am getting at is that if Europe re-militarized and subsequently the US drew down its military spending, those resources likely would not go toward R&D and technology-driven economic growth. Quite the opposite as there are many technology initiatives that would go away without military spending and this would depress innovation.

Here's a great example of this in action -
The USAF essentially funds the satellite lab at my university. The USAF is interested primarily in a cheap way to get good R&D for various space capabilities and low-risk, low-cost university programs are a great way for them to get that. The side benefit is that the satellite lab churns out dozens of highly experienced, qualified rocket scientists into industry every year with more experience than they could get at most other schools. But the USAF doesn't really care about that; it's a great side benefit but the primary driver of the program is cheap R&D.

So it's win-win for all involved because you bet your ass the public would not step up and offer to fund the lab if it wasn't connected with the military.




Great thread, very interesting topic!

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm definitely not buying the claim that Europeans are inherently, or uniquely, imperialistic and dangerous. However, I suppose there is a valid point to be made in noting the difference between rearmament and disarmament--one takes a conscious effort, and the other's a done deal.

Well, it certainly isn't that European peoples themselves are somehow fundamentally different human beings. That theory has been put paid so many times I don't really even want to dignify it with addressing it - rather, that humans and the cultures they form are products of interplay with their environments. Europe, historically and probably to this day has some specific characteristics that should be recognizable. Let's take one of your more horrific examples in that long and good post of yours - Imperial Japan in the 20th century. Not only was it a country rapidly arming to "catch up" with rival powers in order to exert its share of power on the world stage it had some fundamental characteristics that should be warning signs. An industrializing/industrialized power when compared to its neighbors, heavily populated to just flat overpopulated, and an economy that more than anything needed space and resources to continue on its path of prosperity since it was relatively manpower and skills rich and relatively resources poor.

Not that this is necessarily a recipe that spits out Imperial Japanese aggression, but rather a situation in which an increased likelihood of bad friction is present. Imagine a USA that couldn't Drill Baby Drill when it feels the pinch.

I'd also agree with Hobbs that some of the rumbling for Europe to start arming does stem from what are not entirely unfounded fears of the rising Middle Kingdom.

 

[warpus]

Acknowledging that their history, which would certainly cut against, should be put aside as just history, what cuts in favor?

Any reasonable person is going to correctly assume that these are not the same people, not the same political systems, and a completely different situation than the one 80 years ago.

Basing current geopolitical decisions on 80 year old history is, I'm sorry to say, but stupid, especially considering the number of paradigm shifts that have occurred in geopolitics since.

You are essentially saying something like: "We can't sell tanks to Hungary, because the Magyars were illegal migrants from Asia and terrorised the locals during their conquests." Obviously the time frame is different, but the relevance to modern day Europe is exactly the same.

 

[Kozmos]

There is NO European nation that currently lacks a significant portion of their population that still believes that European culture is so inherently superior that even if it was inflicted at gunpoint the rest of the world should be thanking them for it.

Yeah, outside your equivalent KKK like groups there isn't much thinking like that. Most European feel lucky to be born in Europe, because of obvious benefits but I don't think they feel pride at things they didn't even choose. (except when it's the World Cup for soccer, then all bets are off)

I don't know where Americans get that idea from. Most Europeans just want to be left alone as evidenced by their reluctance to invest any significant portion of GDP to projective power, let alone the bare minimum to maintain their current pitiful forces in any kind of usable readiness for local action. (even when faced with a Russia that has been flexing in Europe's face for a while now)

Only the complete far-right crazies (again, much like the US) believe in some kind of active interventionism. They are however so detached from reality that they can't comprehended the massive economic cost of such ventures. I don't think EU countries would want to, even if they could. We do however make a lot of weapons for sale to other countries, but that's indicative of practices in the world. War is very expensive nowadays, the entry cost is high if you want to compete at level beyond minor annoyance, and that's just good for business.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Any reasonable person is going to correctly assume that these are not the same people, not the same political systems, and a completely different situation than the one 80 years ago.

Basing current geopolitical decisions on 80 year old history is, I'm sorry to say, but stupid, especially considering the number of paradigm shifts that have occurred in geopolitics since.

You are essentially saying something like: "We can't sell tanks to Hungary, because the Magyars were illegal migrants from Asia and terrorised the locals during their conquests." Obviously the time frame is different, but the relevance to modern day Europe is exactly the same.

I already accepted...leave history out of it. So, why arm these guys? Based on current geopolitical reality.

They ALREADY rattle sabers that they don't even have at the Russians.

 

[warpus]

I already accepted...leave history out of it. So, why arm these guys? Based on current geopolitical reality.

They ALREADY rattle sabers that they don't even have at the Russians.

All context aside, yeah, why arm anybody beyond a reasonable level of self-defense? I can get behind that sort of thinking, all context aside.

But context is important and stuff, and every country on the planet has a right to defend itself from aggressive neighbours or whoever. If we're going to complain about countries arming themselves, why not start with western arm sales to questionable regimes in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.?

Peaceful western democracies acquiring weapons for purposes of self-defense should be at the bottom of our: "Oh no!" list, all things considered.

 

[Borachio]

Wait. What?

Aren't most Americans of European descent, then?

As for European nations without historical imperialistic ambitions there's....

... Luxembourg, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, Lichtenstein... er... and the Vatican? (No, that last one isn't correct however you look at it.)

 

[Camikaze]

It's definitely not that Europeans are somehow more inherently prone to war, as people. It's that the political organisation of the European continent lends itself more towards war (particularly remembering that one of the premises on which the European nation-state system was built was that war was a justifiable means of dispute resolution). The US can exercise hegemonic power within their geographic domain, but the same is not true of any Europe country, and it's reasonable to suggest that conflict is therefore more likely to result in a more contested geographic space. The EU is designed to interlink European countries so much that war is impossible, but this is only necessary due to the implicit assumption that without such deep integration, war would be likely.

To flip the argument that "saying Europe is not suited to militarisation is saying that Europeans are war-like people", would people support the militarisation of Africa?

Now, I'm not meaning to suggest that a remilitarised Europe would suddenly kick off WWIII, or that the US is perfectly placed to act as some sort of permanent occupying force to keep an eye on those troublesome Europeans. I just don't think remilitarisation is a good policy to adopt. I find it hard to believe it would be in anyone's interests.

 

[Borachio]

It's certainly in the interests of the armaments industry. Which seems to frankly think that you can't have too many guns.

 

[civman110]

History is irrelevant. Everyone has a right to defend themselves.

 

[Akka]

When faced with questions why US social services are so horrible, right wingers often retort that the services are an economic impossibility due to the massive military spending of the US.

This argument is simply wrong. The main reason being, that social services in the US are actually MORE EXPENSIVE than those in social Europe. The Americans are shafted by very inefficient (corrupt ?) use of the money allocated, but the fun point is that USA actually spend more to get less.

In other words, it would cost less to have a better social system than to keep it like that.

Nah. It's no so much that it would or wouldn't save any nickels in the USA if Europe did, it's more that Tim is right in that a bunch of ethnic states with incredibly dodgy military histories aren't really in anyone's interest to have armed.

You're already tripping considering you use Tim's arguments, which are entirely based on factual ignorance, double standard and bias (which could be called downright racism if Europe was a race).

Europeans aren't more or less bloodthirsty than any other people. They didn't inherently waged more war for worse reasons. The only difference is that they managed to get a big enough technological superiority to steamroll the rest of the world.
Guns, military tactics and long-range transportation : THAT is the real (and only) reason why Europe conquered the world.

Anyone who think there is something inherent in European culture or genes which make it more prone to kill his neighbour than someone from nearly every other place in the world, is just blissfully (or, more often than not, purposedly) ignorant.
Open an history book and look at how everyone everywhere nearly always gleefully killed and conquered each other, and only stopped when overcoming everyone else, being annihilated, becoming weak enough to not have the means, or being barred from further conquest by some geographical barrier.

It's actually ironical that people using this anti-European argument, can only make it because they are ignorants of everything outside Europe.

All NATO members save the US and Estonia spend significantly less of their budget on their militaries than the NATO guidelines recommend.

Actually, IIRC the guideline is 2 %, and the UK manage to be at exactly that while France is at 1,9 %. That's not really "significantly less". The USA is at 3,3 %, in comparison. There is not such a colossal gap in proportion, simply a huge gap in the GNP.

 

[Borachio]

History is irrelevant. Everyone has a right to defend themselves.

Oh, and how many wars have been fought in self-defence, and how many in naked aggression?

Hint: the first answer is "most of them"; according to those claiming to act in self-defence. And who knows? Maybe they were right.

It's very strange that a war can be fought between two parties with both of them acting in self-defence.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Actually, IIRC the guideline is 2 %, and the UK manage to be at exactly that while France is at 1,9 %. That's not really "significantly less". The USA is at 3,3 %, in comparison. There is not such a colossal gap in proportion, simply a huge gap in the GNP.

The guideline is 2%, which is actually referred to as a minimum. However, like most international agreements, there is a distinct failure to specify how this is determined. Depending on how tightly one defines "defense spending" most NATO countries are either WAY above the minimum, or WAY below it, or somewhere in between.

One area that is tossed back and forth...is police a defense expenditure? If you say yes then 2% becomes that much closer. Foreign military aid? Another difficult area.

I'm not claiming to have any answers, by the way, just pointing out that saying "well, they are meeting the minimum" is an arguable claim. Personally I think any "[whoever] isn't spending enough" is just a ploy to help arms merchants make more money, and that the best solution is for everyone to cut back.

 

[Akka]

and that the best solution is for everyone to cut back.

That has always been the ideal best way to do things (resolving conflict without violence), but then the Prisoner's Paradox happens and we are reminded that ideals and reality are sadly very different things.

 

[jackelgull]

This argument is simply wrong. The main reason being, that social services in the US are actually MORE EXPENSIVE than those in social Europe. The Americans are shafted by very inefficient (corrupt ?) use of the money allocated, but the fun point is that USA actually spend more to get less.

In other words, it would cost less to have a better social system than to keep it like that.

You're already tripping considering you use Tim's arguments, which are entirely based on factual ignorance, double standard and bias (which could be called downright racism if Europe was a race).

Europeans aren't more or less bloodthirsty than any other people. They didn't inherently waged more war for worse reasons. The only difference is that they managed to get a big enough technological superiority to steamroll the rest of the world.
Guns, military tactics and long-range transportation : THAT is the real (and only) reason why Europe conquered the world.

Anyone who think there is something inherent in European culture or genes which make it more prone to kill his neighbour than someone from nearly every other place in the world, is just blissfully (or, more often than not, purposedly) ignorant.
Open an history book and look at how everyone everywhere nearly always gleefully killed and conquered each other, and only stopped when overcoming everyone else, being annihilated, becoming weak enough to not have the means, or being barred from further conquest by some geographical barrier.

It's actually ironical that people using this anti-European argument, can only make it because they are ignorants of everything outside Europe.

Actually, IIRC the guideline is 2 %, and the UK manage to be at exactly that while France is at 1,9 %. That's not really "significantly less". The USA is at 3,3 %, in comparison. There is not such a colossal gap in proportion, simply a huge gap in the GNP.

The argument isn't that Europe is inherently more bloodthirsty, but rather that Europe's political climate and culture are more conducive to military conflict. Note that neither Tim nor Farmboy mentioned a no hold bars, bomb 'em back to the stone age style of warfare. I'm not sure I agree, but I do believe there have been several incidents in the past five to six years that could have become military conflicts. The Greek debt crisis, for example. Germany could have, possibly, sent in troops for debt collection, and to enforce the EU's terms. Now, I know you'd argue, that's impossible. I agree, it would be highly unlikely, but with Germany's rearmament, it would be more likely. Military expenditure demands justification, and what better justification for military spending than armed conflict? I won't say it is inevitable, but it does significantly increase odds.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Surely someone found something worth arguing against in my wall of text!

Spoiler :

Are you counting Russia as the 3rd nuclear power in Europe? I guess that makes sense.

That's a great point but it is also a fact that practically the entire rest of the EU does not have adequate military strength to defend itself once you exclude France and the UK. And even then, much of the force/force projection abilities of France and in particular the UK counts on them being able to leverage NATO resources and logistics. Absent NATO (read: the US) and their abilities would be significantly diminished. Hell, even the missiles that the UK's nuclear deterant is based on are American and it was a massive infusion of American cash and expertise that allowed the UK to weaponize their own warhead designs. (Long story but we dicked them around post WWII after they dicked us around early in the Manhattan project)



Anywho, from the US, I don't actually think there is much political consensus that there would be tremendous economic benefits around reducing our military spending. And certainly there is zero consensus that such economic benefits could be driven by European re-armament and subsequent US draw down.

If anything, the consensus is that the US wants Europe to spend more on their militaries so that the US can shift more resources to the East. Economics don't come into it. There certainly are people (mostly on the left) who do want a reduction of US military spending but they are a minority. And again, Europe's status vis-a-vis re-armament doesn't come into the equation.

Re: Healthcare -
I don't know how much of this is consensus but there are at least a few academics that argue that indeed, Europe and much of the world does free load off of US medical research. But this is more a law of unintended consequences rather than any concerted effort by the rest of the world. Essentially we have a healthcare system where corporations are extremely short-sighted and profit motivated and there are few, if any, mechanisms in place for government to reign in those instincts.

Consequently, the US public winds up footing the bill for medical R&D with exhorbitant healthcare costs. Then those same companies sell their inventions/medicines overseas where governments do have strong mechanisms to reign in profiteering. Thus, those countries reap an enormous benefit of lower costs that are ultimately enabled by Americans.

This is a highly simplified argument however and of course there are significant non-US health care companies in the field. But many of them still use the US as their primary cash cow.

Re: Technology and Economic Growth

It's really, really hard to dis-entangle US military spending from the growth of our economy. Let's not forget that many massive improvements in technology (the internet, GPS, super-critical airfoils that enable cheaper jet travel, nuclear energy generation, satellite communication networks, etc, etc) were driven primarily by US taxpayer spending via the military.

The American military is actually really good at identifying capabilities that would make ass-kicking easier and then it goes out and gets them. The US public is pretty much adverse to spending taxpayer money on just about anything and thus there wouldn't not be (in my opinion) a strong base of R&D in this country absent the military.

However, Joe Public American does support massive spending and investment in the military and thus it has become a primary conduit for R&D and advancement in across-the-board technologies. What I am getting at is that if Europe re-militarized and subsequently the US drew down its military spending, those resources likely would not go toward R&D and technology-driven economic growth. Quite the opposite as there are many technology initiatives that would go away without military spending and this would depress innovation.

Here's a great example of this in action -
The USAF essentially funds the satellite lab at my university. The USAF is interested primarily in a cheap way to get good R&D for various space capabilities and low-risk, low-cost university programs are a great way for them to get that. The side benefit is that the satellite lab churns out dozens of highly experienced, qualified rocket scientists into industry every year with more experience than they could get at most other schools. But the USAF doesn't really care about that; it's a great side benefit but the primary driver of the program is cheap R&D.

So it's win-win for all involved because you bet your ass the public would not step up and offer to fund the lab if it wasn't connected with the military.




Great thread, very interesting topic!

 

[Angst]

Surely someone found something worth arguing against in my wall of text!

I'm just curious what you think of the idea that keeping Europe peaceful is ideal for the US due to it nourishing a market which the US massively exports to (as far as I know). Like, in some degree Europe free rides but Europe also has very high demand due to wealth redistribution increasing wealth (ie demand) across all layers of society. Isn't this ideal for the US? Most people have talked about different aspects of the militarization which I think is interesting. But I'm actually interested in the "free riding" itself; how free it actually is, and how much the US gains from selling stuff to Europe. And how taxing it would actually be for the US to reform into a larger degree of wealth redistribution in this context. What Akka said was especially interesting for me. I knew that US social policies sucked but not that they also sucked because of a very bad cost effeciency.

Because all in all I'm not sure how good an argument it is that the US can't afford social policies contrary to Europeans because the Europeans don't have a significant defense spending. Right wingers tend to spearhead this argument, and it honestly smells more like somewhat irrational pride over a nation doing military stuff to save the world. You know, that kind of national complex rather than parsing how an economy might work.

 

[Farm Boy]

Does it change your assessment at all Akka if I use the term "nation states" instead of "ethnic states?" Gotta admit I tend to be Midwest when it comes to those terms. We call the USA a nation when I get the feeling that's not generally how the word gets used elsewhere. Genetics isn't supposed to play any part in the assessment. Simply different situations. Cami says much the same thing as I intend, only more purty like.

 

[Lay_Lay]

I can also guarantee that those same right-wingers who say the US can't afford a welfare state because European militaries are too weak, would take increased European military spending as challenging American dominance and would call for even higher US military spending to keep up in an imagined arms race.

Many people don't want a welfare state, because they believe in the notion that each citizen should be paying for his and his family's own upkeep.
But they can't say that in real life, because then people judge them for being mean, so instead they say, "we can't afford it."
On the anonymous internet you can see people's real opinions on these matters.
The truth is, of course the 'fair share contributing' public can easily afford to feed, shelter, educate, and provide health care for everyone, even to the millions of citizens who do not currently contribute anywhere near their fair share towards their nation/state/city/family.
Even them. We can take care of each of them for life. We can afford that. But they don't deserve it, do they?
You need to earn stuff in this world.

 

[Ajidica]

(Long story but we dicked them around post WWII after they dicked us around early in the Manhattan project)

You talking about the attempt to turn the V-bombers into standoff nuclear deterrents with Skybolt which failed so badly it nearly ended British naval aviation?
Also, what are you referring to with the British involvement in the Manhattan Project? I was under the impression that their assistance in it was largely a foreshadowing of what the UK ended up being later in the war - useful but largely unnecessary in the face of America's overwhelming productive advantage. (Sort of like a little kid helping to cook by holding the spoon.)