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

[Farm Boy]

@Farm Boy: What "exchange" are you even talking about? What do you think Europe's current military strategy is?

EDIT: Dammit, I said I didn't want to start on this argument, but here I am...

Enough might to ward off 2nd string military power nodes and enough big badabooms to drag the loutish offspring into it even if they really really don't want to get off the sofa.

 

[Akka]

Well, I guess if the community of Europe wants to pull weight with the likes of Russia, the PRC, and the USA in conventional killing tools rather than relying on a couple nukes to start the exchange it's going to need to unify that jazz into one thing instead of bunch of separate entities.

I don't think Europe is actually very interested in that. It's more the US right which wants to bring their allies into the same kind of military expenses that they do.

Not that I agree with your argument : having nukes as a last-ditch deterrent to avoid annihilation and to prevent first nuclear strikes is good (and has worked pretty well at avoiding another world war so far), but having only nukes to rely one is a rather terrible binary strategic defense. Regular military strength is needed for more low-level deterrence that can't be solved with a nuclear strike, and also required to be able to be heard and to carry influence when heads and tempers are growing hot. As such, having a functionnal and respectable military (which doesn't mean going full remilitarization, but keeping a decently sized, trained and equipped army) is in my opinion a much better situation.

And also not that it means raising the expenses and focus to a huge level. Despite all the scaremongering, Russia conventional power is actually well within (actually probably below) the league of Europe (remember, it only takes UK to match the military expense of Russia, and only France + Germany to match its population) - it's more the willingness to use force than the actual amount of force which is worrying. And Russia is the only real threat rising these days (which is probably the reason why European militaries are at such a low level actually, lack of threats makes military expenses harder to justify).

China would certainly requires a whole other level of commitment, but China is way too far for that, and has already all its neighbours to contend with (which won't be easy for them, certainly, but are half a world away).

Here's a new low in scumsucking...instead of your usual strawmanning claims about things I said, now you are strawmanning about what I "barely stopped before I said."

This was by far the stupidest post you've ever put up, and that is saying something.

Base name-calling and ranting won't change facts ; your opinion that USA and Russia should keep Europe down under their thumb because Europeans are inherently bloodthirsty and unable to not waging war is well documented.
Don't blame me because your opinions are what they are.

 

[Kyriakos]

@ Kyriakos ... Sure it wiil, that will be exactly the reason. Its the Russians remember, they expand, its what they do. Look how big their country is, how they push out every chance they get. Why has Putin made peace with China on their border? Given concessions they never have before? China is Russia's second front, Europe is where they plan on going first.

The Soviets planned on being on the Rhine in a week, Putin is an old KGB man. Its not the same for Russians, this is what they live for, and now they have the man who will do it.

Have you seen those new Russian tanks? The new planes? Many are saying they're the best in the world.

The west builds washing machines and Mercedes, the Russians build their military. Now the US doesn't stand in the way any more... Of course that's where the Russians are going, they've already tested the total lack of resolve among European powers. What European powers are fighting beside the Ukrainians?

Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia have larger Russian minorities than the Ukraine.

They don't need more living space, they already have far more land than they need or can use. European Russia alone is as big as the rest of the continent.

Besides, it isn't sustainable to annex large parts of the EU. Russia already did that, and it did not help it at all (nor did it help those parts).

Only "logical" scenario for a ww3 would be about changing power balance. And that can only happen if nukes get out of the picture (without being used, i mean ) at some time during the hostilities.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Base name-calling and ranting won't change facts ; your opinion that USA and Russia should keep Europe down under their thumb because Europeans are inherently bloodthirsty and unable to not waging war is well documented.
Don't blame me because your opinions are what they are.

Nobody blames you for what my opinions are...I blamed your post for being a gross assault on reality...Having just said that disarmament is the best course, I find you spouting off about something totally the opposite that I "almost said."

Your willingness to falsely create a target for your offensiveness when one doesn't exist is a perfect display of why Europe should remain disarmed. Your country rattles sabers it doesn't even have over the exact kind of manufactured slight you attacked me over. Imagine if France was really heavily armed.

 

[warpus]

Americans criticizing Europe for being "bloodthirsty" might have made sense in the 1950s, but today it is just laughable and ironic. Sorry Tim, but your side of the argument has no legs to stand on, not even tiny micro legs.

 

[Akka]

Nobody blames you for what my opinions are...I blamed your post for being a gross assault on reality...Having just said that disarmament is the best course, I find you spouting off about something totally the opposite that I "almost said."

You consider Europeans as a special, separate breed of (sub)humans devoid of decency, which should be kept on a leash and subjugated by foreign powers.
That sounds pretty much exactly like "stopping just before advocating bombing them into stone age to keep them in check" to me. If you find your own opinion to be disgusting when stripped of its fake pseudo-intellectual ignorant justification, it might give you a hint about its validity.

Your willingness to falsely create a target for your offensiveness when one doesn't exist is a perfect display of why Europe should remain disarmed. Your country rattles sabers it doesn't even have over the exact kind of manufactured slight you attacked me over. Imagine if France was really heavily armed.

And thanks for proving my point

Americans criticizing Europe for being "bloodthirsty" might have made sense in the 1950s, but today it is just laughable and ironic. Sorry Tim, but your side of the argument has no legs to stand on, not even tiny micro legs.

Even in the 1950s, it would have simply stemmed from the psychological impact and closeness to WW2 (and blissfully ignored the whole Pacific War, with, you know, Japan), and still would have been as dumb, self-serving and ignorant as today. The bloodbathes of mankind are numerous, well distributed over the globe, and date from well before history was even recorded. It would have been more understandable, but would still be stupidity and intellectual myopa.

 

[Farm Boy]

And thanks for proving my point

Yea, Tim's never said European powers should be forced prostrate. Who'd do it anyways? Us? He has said he doesn't think re militarization is a wise course. I've listened to the arguments so far and I still don't think it is either. For many of the same reasons that I don't think US states need large independently funded, created, and managed armed forces. At least we have the precedent that if one or more states gets too salty with its national guard we will proceed stomp them into the curb until they cry uncle or the twitching stops.

 

[Oerdin]

It would be noce if Europe was a more capable partner and was able to project power without relaying upon the US. That would improve NATO's deterence power and make it so Europe is more of an equal partner in its own right.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Americans criticizing Europe for being "bloodthirsty" might have made sense in the 1950s, but today it is just laughable and ironic. Sorry Tim, but your side of the argument has no legs to stand on, not even tiny micro legs.

Warpus...we ARE Europeans! America is the very best example of European thinking. We DO believe in subjugating the world as the only way to ease our paranoia. That's WHY having more than one European nation heavily armed always has led to disaster and probably always will.

If Akka were in charge of France and they had sufficient advantage the saber rattling wouldn't be hollow, they would "settle the Russian threat once and for all," and tell themselves they were provoked into it and doing the world a favor. Check any thread with a discussion of Russia.

If the UK had the tools to get away with it do you think there would be all this squabbling over influence in the EU? Do you think the "should the UK leave the EU" thread would read a little differently?

You talk about the Pax Europa for the past sixty years as if they have had any choice in the matter. They haven't. You believe in their "better angels" and that they would have overcome all their previous history even if they didn't have to. I don't.

 

[warpus]

You aren't Europeans no' mo', just compare .. well almost anything about our two cultures, political systems, approaches to welfare, education, healthcare, social safety nets, sports, etc.

At this stage you might as well say that Hungarians are central Asian, really! Which technically I suppose they are.

 

[civman110]

There's been a recent invention, you might have heard of it. It's called civilization.

What's that even suppose to mean? We've had "civilization" for about 5,000 years and humans have been in perpetual war.

I don't see it. The strong child is just as likely to protect the weaker child. It's a part of human nature.

Bullies are usually weak personalities who seek some kind of validation by dominating a weaker person.

It doesn't matter what the cause is. The point is it happens and it's part of human nature. Just like war.

Actually, I think, the danger comes when both sides are very nearly equally armed, and see no alternative.

Usually both sides want to make a pre-emptive strike in "self-defence" before the other side does.

If a conflict is inevitable then it's obviously better to be armed and fight in self-defence than to be slaughtered, or made a slave.

 

[Akka]

Yea, Tim's never said European powers should be forced prostrate. Who'd do it anyways? Us? He has said he doesn't think re militarization is a wise course. I've listened to the arguments so far and I still don't think it is either.

He's implying it in this very thread, and he openly said it in the Ukrainian one.
Let me quote the guy himself :

The only thing that ever has or ever will keep France, England, and Germany from going for each other's throats intermittently is fear of a bigger enemy. The USSR was good. Now it's the USA. I'm okay with that. I'm actively in favor of redeveloping Russia into what the USSR should have been...a fellow 'big brother' that could just tell the European children to quiet down whenever they start squabbling.

That's pretty clear-cut to me.

You can also see the seething rage and insult mode he enters and how personal he becomes when he's confronted on this point of his blinded bias. That sounds pretty much visceral to me and hardly speaks of moderation or informed opinion (not to add, as I pointed repeatedly in this thread, that considering Europe being a special case when it comes to bloodthirst is just a proof of complete ignorance of the rest of the world, which already in itself prove he's not an informed opinion).

For many of the same reasons that I don't think US states need large independently funded, created, and managed armed forces. At least we have the precedent that if one or more states gets too salty with its national guard we will proceed stomp them into the curb until they cry uncle or the twitching stops.

Ideally, no state would need large armed force. In practice, I'm afraid the world just doesn't (yet) works like that. If there is a power vacuum, someone will fill it, and everyone prefers it to be filled by themselves than by others.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

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.)

British involvement in the Manhattan project was complicated. They offered to help, then tried to withhold the data. Eventually they realized (as you point out) that the American scientific/industrial capacity so far outstripped the British capacity that in short order the data they had would soon become worthless to the Americans. They then changed course and made the data available right when it was becoming useless. The Americans pretty much knew game the British were up to but in the end didn't care too much because they knew in the end it wouldn't matter, they would get the bomb.

Pretty much as soon as WWII ended, the Americans cut off the British when it came to nuclear research. I'm not entirely sure if it was a retaliatory move (as administrations changed twice in the early post-war years) or not.

In the end, the British carried on and eventually created some nuclear warheads but they were not weaponized, i.e. they were too big for practical deliver. The Americans continued to withhold help until the British managed to test a very large boosted-fission device and then at that point offered up plans/data to the British to allow them to create and weaponize weapons on their own. I have no idea why the Americans chose to wait until that specific achievement to help but they did.

Then yeah, much later, the Americans seriously screwed over the British with the Skybolt although they ended up giving the British Polaris/Trident systems instead which in the end are much more effective weapons.

__________________

I'll set aside some time later to respond to Angst! Want to do it right, kind of rushed now.

 

[Farm Boy]

I guess my take would be this Akka: it should be noted, and perhaps it comes from the more free for all speech we got going over here, that an insult and a call to force are distinctly different statements. He's discussing PR, not forcing disarmament. Insulting the language may be, incitement it is not. Conflating the two is actually dangerous. For insults we expect people to put on their big boy pants. Incitement initiates actual preparations for violence and violence in return. Which is why he feels as if you are making his point for him. He's insulting you, and you're taking them as actual "fighting words" by implication.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yea, Tim's never said European powers should be forced prostrate. Who'd do it anyways? Us? He has said he doesn't think re militarization is a wise course. I've listened to the arguments so far and I still don't think it is either. For many of the same reasons that I don't think US states need large independently funded, created, and managed armed forces. At least we have the precedent that if one or more states gets too salty with its national guard we will proceed stomp them into the curb until they cry uncle or the twitching stops.

Drive By Troll Post -

How dare you compare the burning of the South to a lowly curb stomping!!

It was more of a 'salt the earth so nothing ever grows again' effort. Give my ancestors due credit for their carnage!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

He's implying it in this very thread, and he openly said it in the Ukrainian one.
Let me quote the guy himself :

That's pretty clear-cut to me.

You can also see the seething rage and insult mode he enters and how personal he becomes when he's confronted on this point of his blinded bias. That sounds pretty much visceral to me and hardly speaks of moderation or informed opinion (not to add, as I pointed repeatedly in this thread, that considering Europe being a special case when it comes to bloodthirst is just a proof of complete ignorance of the rest of the world, which already in itself prove he's not an informed opinion).

Ideally, no state would need large armed force. In practice, I'm afraid the world just doesn't (yet) works like that. If there is a power vacuum, someone will fill it, and everyone prefers it to be filled by themselves than by others.

So let me make sure I understand this post.

I am ignorant, uninformed, blinded by bias and seething with rage.

Does that sum up your point, my cultivated European friend who I should be in favor of seeing rearmed?

 

[Akka]

I guess my take would be this Akka: it should be noted, and perhaps it comes from the more free for all speech we got going over here, that an insult and a call to force are distinctly different statements. He's discussing PR, not forcing disarmament. Insulting the language may be, incitement it is not. Conflating the two is actually dangerous. For insults we expect people to put on their big boy pants. Incitement initiates actual preparations for violence and violence in return. Which is why he feels as if you are making his point for him. He's insulting you, and you're taking them as actual "fighting words" by implication.

I'm afraid you've really lost me there. What exactly is your point ? From what I can see, it seems you're saying I'm deducing that Tim is wrong just because he becomes inflamatory with me ? That seems completely absurd, but I have a hard time understanding what else you could mean.

So just in case, let me clarify :

1) My main point is that claiming Europe and European are somehow especially bloodthirsty/prone to war is factually wrong, and show complete ignorance of world history, or/and simply a willing bias on this point (notice that nobody has actually contested this in the end, they just either know it's true or just dance around and ignore it, perhaps because they don't want to admit it's true).

2) Tim's opinion on the matter of Europe is pretty clear (I mean, there is not a lot of way you could misread the quote I made). He simply makes the above claim despite it being proved false.

3) His rage and insults when confronted with it tends to simply gives a further evidence that this claim is not from informed opinion but bias and visceral disdain/hate.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

So let me make sure I understand this post.

I am ignorant, uninformed, blinded by bias and seething with rage.

Does that sum up your point, my cultivated European friend who I should be in favor of seeing rearmed?

What's funny about this exchange is that the first post Akka made in this thread was a direct, unwarranted insult to you:

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).

And your response was entirely level headed and didn't counter-attack at all. You just stated your case without fanning the flames. I even noticed it at the time and gave you a mental tip of the hat but I didn't feel like jumping into it. It's amusing to see you called seething with rage hahaha.

 

[Akka]

What's funny about this exchange is that the first post Akka made in this thread was a direct, unwarranted insult to you:

I can certainly see why you could see it as such.
But on the other hand, you can notice I just took a shot against the opinion itself and didn't talk about the person. Only after the insults come off do I point at the behaviour, and still only for its relevance to the opinion held.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm afraid you've really lost me there. What exactly is your point ? From what I can see, it seems you're saying I'm deducing that Tim is wrong just because he becomes inflamatory with me ? That seems completely absurd, but I have a hard time understanding what else you could mean.

Nah. Just that you seem to keep saying he wants and is actually implying that Europe should be forced into a perpetual state of disarmament. Forced. He stops short of that. But it's an important line to stop short of. At least, it is, in the speech environment I'm used to and the environment I'd guess Tim is even more used to than me.

1) My main point is that claiming Europe and European are somehow especially bloodthirsty/prone to war is factually wrong, and show complete ignorance of world history, or/and simply a willing bias on this point (notice that nobody has actually contested this in the end, they just either know it's true or just dance around and ignore it, perhaps because they don't want to admit it's true).

I think Cami actually made this argument pretty straight on. It's not that Europeans are somehow especially bloodthirsty. The argument made is that the environment European persons and nation states have found themselves in lends itself to a violent history. Now, Phrossak might disagree with me in the takeaway from our exchange, but I have absolutely no doubt that the circumstances a culture finds itself in shape the form of that culture itself. Manifest destiny has had/has long lasting impacts on American culture, for example. I think we're still squabbling with each other over its impacts and legacy when it comes down to things like local vs federal rule and how people object to that in relation to the intertwined webs of justice, protest, and punishment(even with my friend Phrossak, it got pretty heated. I don't think either of us is sorry.) The environment European nation states have found themselves in for long periods of time will leave marks and influences as well. The environment has changed in some ways, the people have changed in some ways, and other things are probably still pretty much the same.

3) His rage and insults when confronted with it tends to simply gives a further evidence that this claim is not from informed opinion but bias and visceral disdain/hate.

I don't think he's mad. I think he's very good at being insulting when he wants to be. He'd be right at home as a Zimmerman in a stand your ground state, and I think he's baiting hard.