It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will the europeans ever be powerful?

page: 22
1
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
I'm not questioning that fact, I'm questioning whether it will be in 2050, with the rise of India and China.


- OK. IMO by 2050 there may be quibbles over size and wealth between the EU and China by then (for those interested in splitting hairs over such minutiae) but Europe will very definitely (still) be the high-value 'rich' economy whereas China might well have a total wealth greater based on a larger number of smaller earners.

Frankly I think the idea of India as overtaking Europe by any serious meaningful measure is an absolute flight of fancy.
That one, if it ever happens at all, will take a long long time IMO.

The wealth 'infrastucture' in Europe is just far to huge and long established.




posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by Frosty
The Greeks even prefer US military fighters over the European competitors. I believe they just bought 40 some odd F-16 over the Eurofighter and Typhoon.


- Jayzuss wept is this pissing competition still going? :lol

Just so as you know the Greeks bought cheap because they saw no need to buy the high tech Typhoon, for now.
They may return to Typhoon later, apparantly.

(BTW the Typhoon is the Eurofighter; that's its' name.)


Sounds more like a holdout agreement for the F-22.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Sounds more like a holdout agreement for the F-22.


- Er, if European countries cannot or refuse to justify the cost of the tech leap that the Typhoon is what makes you think anyone here is remotely interested in buying the staggeringly expensive F22?

What possible credible 'need' could there be for them?

(......and considering the shabby way the US is treating what are supposed to be it's allies where military tech is concerned why on earth would we actually want to?)



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Because the Typhoon is no F-22, its high cost is justified. I believe Britain already has a fleet of F-22's and the Israeli's are all but a lock to buy. I can imagine India on the list.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Because the Typhoon is no F-22, its high cost is justified.


- Why?
Who on earth (litterally) do you really imagine it is in any way likely to go up against that requires such expensive tech?


I believe Britain already has a fleet of F-22's


- No we don't.
We are not going to get them either; the British tax-payer is not exactly turning cartwheels at footing the Typhoon bill (for exactly the reason mentioned above) and simply would not stand the expense of such a pointless purchase.


and the Israeli's are all but a lock to buy.


- After the way in which Israel has been selling US-derived military high tech to China I very much doubt it.
(unless that is the intention......afterall I guess it is getting harder and harder trying to justify a one-man arms race; time to get China to join in maybe?
Cos what is the point of trying to get a bogeyman situation going if the other guy isn't at all in any way credibly scary?)


I can imagine India on the list.


- You have some imagination.
Dream on.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   


(......and considering the shabby way the US is treating what are supposed to be it's allies where military tech is concerned why on earth would we actually want to?)


and why shouldn't they be? The US does more for its' allies than its' allies do for them. The US has the best technology. The US is the one who spends all of the resources and does all of the development. Unless you are ready to pay billions, don't expect to reap the fruits of America's labor.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   
LooseLipsSinkShips, if the European Union over-takes American in spending in technology you'll be fine with us kidnapping people from the U.S. then?

Glad to know that.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- OK. IMO by 2050 there may be quibbles over size and wealth between the EU and China by then (for those interested in splitting hairs over such minutiae) but Europe will very definitely (still) be the high-value 'rich' economy whereas China might well have a total wealth greater based on a larger number of smaller earners.

Frankly I think the idea of India as overtaking Europe by any serious meaningful measure is an absolute flight of fancy.
That one, if it ever happens at all, will take a long long time IMO.


Well the answer may lie in the fact that India is not competing against the EU for any markets..Nor does it have the growth comparable to China..
The rise of China can be viewed as something "in opposition" to the existing status quo, whilst that of India maybe be viewed a complementary to the existing order of things..

Also a recent development to indicate the nature of things tocome??

US asked to pull out of Uzbekistan..

A google for "uzbek pullout" will give enough links..

[edit on 31-7-2005 by Daedalus3]



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 02:44 AM
link   
To all fools who say that Europe will never be powerful:
1) We are already powerful. Germany, France and Italy all have a good military.
2) In the past, we were already powerful. In the Middle Ages, it was not only the Mongol empire, but also the Frankish empire that were the most powerful countries in the world. In the 17th century, it was France that was the most powerful country in the world. Yes, France. Not Spain, not the Habsburg Empire and not the Ottoman Empire.

[edit on 31-7-2005 by AtheiX]

[edit on 31-7-2005 by AtheiX]



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX
In the 17th century, it was France that was the most powerful country in the world.

[edit on 31-7-2005 by AtheiX]


? france might have been most powerful in europe. not asia. chinese Qing dynasty.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 04:03 AM
link   
To all fools who think Europe will be overrun by Muslims:
1) Germany, France and Italy have a good military.
2) It's not easy to get German citizenship and it's not easy to get French citizenship.
3) In France and GB, harsh actions are taken against the Muslims.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Not in GB.. France is secular..



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   
To all fools who think Italy is weak:
1) Italy has got a good airforce.
2) Huge urban areas. You think Fallujah was bad? Try taking over Rome, Milan, Turin, Venice, Naples, Florence and Pisa.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Who are all these "fools".. I can't see them... Show em' to me..
Chill dude.. You're on some kind of rampage...against fools!!..



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Who are all these "fools".. I can't see them... Show em' to me..
Chill dude.. You're on some kind of rampage...against fools!!..

These fools are the fools who think Europe is weak. So I'm telling about how powerful some of the European countries are.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by LooseLipsSinkShips
and why shouldn't they be?


- Maybe because the US expects 'us' to be allies and trading partners?
You know, to buy and sell?


The US does more for its' allies than its' allies do for them. The US has the best technology. The US is the one who spends all of the resources and does all of the development. Unless you are ready to pay billions, don't expect to reap the fruits of America's labor.


- Really.
If the US wants to engage in a one-man arms race that is it's own affair.

I was referring to the current manner in which the US treats those it claims to be allies with (and whom they expect to come forward with help and assistance).

I suggest you go away and examine the JSF F35 project.

The UK has stumped up hundreds of millions of $ during the projects' development, some of the tech is not even US at all but is British and lastly you expect us to buy significant numbers (and thereby reduce unit costs to benefit the US taxpayer, employing US workers and enabling the US military to afford more planes).

Yet here we are being treated with suspicion and obstructiveness (re the computing code).
We already have had the example of the Chinook deal where codes were not provided and brand new helicopters had to be broken up for spares.

But you know if that is how it is fine.
If that is how the US is to treat it's supposedly closest ally don't be too surprised if the UK (as well as the rest of the rest of the world watching) acts accordingly.
A handful of new but very old F16's to Greece and the like will not be of much help to the US leading edge high-tech manufacturers.

Don't be too surprised if numbers & sales drop, unit costs rocket as economies of scale disappear and the US ends up being able to afford less and less in years to come.
They'll have brought it upon themselves and only have themselves to blame.

Still "why shouldn't they", eh?


[edit on 31-7-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX
These fools are the fools who think Europe is weak. So I'm telling about how powerful some of the European countries are.



Ahh.. don't be so hard on these "fools"...
Those who represent their countries know better than to take Europe to be weak..
They take Europe to be ...umm.. very "malleable" to the american agenda
(except France) and maybe view that as a weakness..
Other than that I don't see any glaring shortcomings in Europe..
(except berlusconi!
)



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Do they have to, power is noting else but greedness...



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Well I read that both Chirac and his wife Shroeder will both be replaced by pro-American leaders. So the answer to the question of this thread, in my opinion, is maybe.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83
Well I read that both Chirac and his wife Shroeder will both be replaced by pro-American leaders. So the answer to the question of this thread, in my opinion, is maybe.

Firstly, don't be sure about Schroeder being replaced.
Secondly, he is not anti-American.
Thirdly, his rivals - if any of them becomes chancellor instead of Schroeder - won't send the Bundeswehr to Iraq.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join