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: 31
1
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Well, as someone stated in the thread before, why would Europe need a bigger military?

It already has heavy political weight in UN, and as a block, they have economic weight as well, and lastly, they don't see the rest of the world as a potential threat, or has the intention to police every single country who falls out of line...as one country I know of which is into such practices...

If power is measured by economics, Europe is no shabby place at all, and in fact most of its citizens live a good life, although not exaclty at its brightest, in doesn't really has a grim future, as some other country, AGAIN, does seem to have, (at least to most economists around the world, not that is unavoidable, but if something doesn't change soon...well)

Military...well, I recall some European countries have important advances, such as sweden, has a sub US navy uses for practice, not very succesfully apparently, nothing confirmed though. As a matter of fact, none of the major players in Europe has bad militaries or underequipped, again, FOR THEIR NEEDS, which is, protection of their sovereignty on their country, and that's it, except some peace keeping mission, or some cowboy adventure in Iraq, and that's it.

Of course that's speaking of EU countries, Russia is quite another deal, and has a good military, or correcting myself, good for it's needs, since they don't have to worry anymore about the US making a sneak attack, and I've read on other forums about massive re-arming and whatever, but let's not loose the topic, Russia is recovering from the shock the USSR fall was, and the economic and political meltdown that came with it, yet it still has a should I say, large nuclear stock, which makes it, well, powerful, right?

Resumed, european countries have no need or interest whatsoever to deploy military assets all around the world (except perhaps UK, but UK does not reflect policy at all in Europe) hence their reduced, yet effective militaries.

Nevertheless, why state they are not powerful, when they have everything to be, they are major players in most fields, from space programs, to nuke arsenals, to military RnD, to genetic research, to naval development, and the list goes on...




posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 06:15 AM
link   
If I may just add some small measure of thought from a different perspective.

Europe has had two major wars fought on it's soil and millions of it's citizens slaughtered, burned butchered maimed and otherwise illtreated.

"Old Europe" as it is described, mainly perhaps by the same people who would describe someone as a "noob" expecting this to be an insult. Does not IMHO care two hoots for the kind of power and chest beating that is being discussed.

We will sit here doing what we do, protecting ourselves, with no real enemies on the global scale left and wait for the next phase of world development, in the same way as we watched the last. Post war US dominance to Asia Pacific rim dominace. It will happen in it's own time and we will wait as we have always waited.

Or maybe it's just too hot in my office...



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Well, as someone stated in the thread before, why would Europe need a bigger military?

That is the dumbest question I have ever heard. First of all, you need to have a strong military to be powerful. Secondly, there are many rogue states in the world today: Russia, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Germany and Zimbabwe.


Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
It already has political power in UN,

Only two EU member countries (Great Britain and France) have permament seats in the UNSC. That's less than a half of the UNSC.



and as a block, they are economically power as well

Incorrect. The current state of the EU economy is as follows:
GDP: $ 12.180 trillion (less than the GDP of the US)
GDP per capita: $ 28,000
GDP yearly growth rate: 1.7%
Unemployment: 10%

In other words, the European economy is stagnant.



and lastly, they don't consider the rest of the world a threat




If power is measured by economics, Europe is no shabby place at all, and in fact most of its citizens live a good life

Incorrect. In the EU, GDP per capita is 28,000 dollars. That translates into bad healthcare.



as some other country does seem to have, (at least to most economists around the world, not that is unavoidable, but if something doesn't change soon...well)

What are you talking about?



Military...well, I recall some European countries have important advances, such as sweden, has a sub US navy uses for practice, not very succesfully apparently, nothing confirmed though.

That alone doesn't make Sweden powerful.



As a matter of fact, none of the major players in Europe has bad militaries or underequipped, again, FOR THEIR NEEDS, which is, protection of their sovereignty on their country

You can't pretend that there are no rogue states in the world. There are six.



Of course that's speaking of EU countries, Russia is quite another deal, and has a good military,

Firstly, Russia is not a European country. Secondly, Russian equipment is junk. Their subs sink even if not attacked.



it still has a should I say, large nuclear arsenal

Incorrect. Their nuclear arsenal is small. They have decomissioned 20,000 of their uranium nukes, downblended this uranium to civilian-grade uranium and sold this to the US.



Resumed, european countries have no need or interest whatsoever to deploy military assets all around the world (except perhaps UK, but UK does not reflect policy at all in Europe)

Which is good.



hence their reduced, yet effective militaries.

They are not effective (except the Polish military). With the exception of Poland, no country in Europe could defend itself if it was attacked.

[edit on 20-7-2006 by Deutschland_ist_doof]



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deutschland_ist_doof
That is the dumbest question I have ever heard. First of all, you need to have a strong military to be powerful. Secondly, there are many rogue states in the world today: Russia, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Germany and Zimbabwe.


Oh greetings to you as well, what a polite person!

Soo...Vietnam Germany and Zimbabwe are rogue states? What cave do you come from may I ask? Germany?? Vietnam!? Zimbabwe for crying out loud....rogue against whom?

Originally posted by Deutschland_ist_doof
Only two EU member countries (Great Britain and France) have permament seats in the UNSC. That's less than a half of the UNSC.

No, see, to say something like that you must surely have done your homework, which you did not, for 6 european countries are in the United Nations Security Council, go look it up yourself...



Incorrect. The current state of the EU economy is as follows:
GDP: $ 12.180 trillion (less than the GDP of the US)
GDP per capita: $ 28,000
GDP yearly growth rate: 1.7%
Unemployment: 10%
In other words, the European economy is stagnant.


(just one tip, comparing EU figures to the US won't fly in this thread, ok?)
So please name the great number of nations the EU has to compete that have a so much larger GDP please...what? just one? Am I hearing well? It's on it's way down?? Oh my god, that is....good



Incorrect. In the EU, GDP per capita is 28,000 dollars. That translates into bad healthcare.

Well that the country you got to live in has crummy healthcare does NOT mean the rest of Europe, but since in fact the EU is not a single nation, you'll notice a lot of poor eastern nations are joining or already joined. So that means a lot of countries which are barely recovering from years of bad policy will have a toll on those figures. For someone that actually KNOWS europe, sorry, for your theory is not flying at all.


What are you talking about?

Mr Big Policeman, you should know his name well, you know the name of the "rogue" states for crying out loud, now don't try playing dumb




That alone doesn't make Sweden powerful.

No, only proves that sweden is military self sufficient, advanced, and his little sub would put a fight to anyone who attacked sweden, which is sweden's interest. European militaries are tailored to it's need, PERIOD. Who is going to threaten them that they need a bigger military? China? China is begging to have the weapons embargo released. Russia? Sorry, but if you know any geography you'd know Russia is in fact part of Europe, just because Poland doesn't want to doesn't mean it's real...


Incorrect. Their nuclear arsenal is small. They have decomissioned 20,000 of their uranium nukes, downblended this uranium to civilian-grade uranium and sold this to the US.

Well...if you can call 7,200 active nuclear warheads a "small" arsenal...I'll just laugh I gues...



They are not effective (except the Polish military). With the exception of Poland, no country in Europe could defend itself if it was attacked.


And the laughs keep coming, France has the Third largest arsenal in the world, and Uk has at least 180 nukes. just two nukes made the Us the most powerful country back in ww2. And what I find the funniest yet, Poland... which uses still the Russian "crap" (you called it that way) or well German equipment, and is PLANNING to upgrade it's military, yep, just plans. It's mostly a CONSCRIPT army, unlike the professional army you want to believe it is, Netherlands has a better army and it doesn't boast, LEARN.

Just breathe, nobody is attacking Europe,



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 05:56 AM
link   
Ioseb_Jugashvili

Please !!! Why does anyone think that the UK has "at least 180 nukes" is untrue or funny ?

The true figure is probably larger than that. The missiles to carry them (Trident D5) may be leased from the US but the warheads and the patrol subs ( vanguard etc) themselves belong to HMG. President Blair (oops) has this week announced a free vote in the house of commons over "upgrading" our nuclear deterrent. By voluntary agreement the UK limits the warheads on each D5 out on patrol ( they don't have 16x12 x4 anyway), but since the pre chevaline days of UK deterrent the UK possessed sufficient nuclear warheads to equip four polaris boats. (Chevaline = some warheads out decoys in)

Why would this be considered funny ? Please help

BTW the French do in fact have significant stocks of indiginously designed nuclear weapons for their patrol subs and the L'Armee de L'Air still retains a nuclear strike role and significant capability in the area ( Rafale is designed to deliver it as well).
Some of the post you criticized was, well a bit of a fantasy, but the other stuff not that far off the mark I am afraid.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili

No, only proves that sweden is military self sufficient, advanced, and his little sub would put a fight to anyone who attacked sweden, which is sweden's interest. European militaries are tailored to it's need, PERIOD.


Though I agree with most of your points, this one is a little dubious I feel.
Sweden(and the rest of Scandanavia for that matter) never really ever stood a chance against a dedicated Soviet invasion. The whole area was deemed to capitulate in few days. Infact any of the frontline countries never really stood a chance against a soviet sweep. And IMHO the situation still remains more or less unchanged as of today.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Though I agree with most of your points, this one is a little dubious I feel.
Sweden(and the rest of Scandanavia for that matter) never really ever stood a chance against a dedicated Soviet invasion. The whole area was deemed to capitulate in few days. Infact any of the frontline countries never really stood a chance against a soviet sweep. And IMHO the situation still remains more or less unchanged as of today.


Well, yes, back in the day, none of the frontline countries really stood a chance against a massive invasion, but that's where the nuclear detterent comes in. What I've read, is that even US forces stationed in Europe had access to some kind of tactical nukes, because all the way to the 80's, Europe didn't really stood a chance against the Soviets, you've got it right on that.

Nevertheless, the Soviet threat is gone, and with modernized militaries in most western european countries, the truth is that Russia wouldn't have a walk in the park at all. More so, Russia does not seem anymore as a possible threat against Europe, just because the huge shock and how back is Russia compared in modernization to most European countries, I'll think you'll agree on that.

I believe Russia would be better with the rest of Europe as economic partners, than enemies, wouldn't you agree?

So talking now, right now at this moment, who is a credible threat to Europe's autonomy? I might be a little short-sighted, and anyone here is free to tell me otherwise, but with the huge threat the Soviets represented gone, against whom should they be readily protected??

My belief is that with the huge threat gone, and the need for big armies as well gone, Europe united itself makes one big army, so I find no reason for each and every country to have a big army, when they can have a small, modern and effective one, that united makes one big modern and effective army, but hey, that's just what I believe...








posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili


I believe Russia would be better with the rest of Europe as economic partners, than enemies, wouldn't you agree?

So talking now, right now at this moment, who is a credible threat to Europe's autonomy? I might be a little short-sighted, and anyone here is free to tell me otherwise, but with the huge threat the Soviets represented gone, against whom should they be readily protected??


Oh yes yes..all that's fine. I agree Europe faces no external threat. But Europe's facing a lot of internal turmoil. There are some who are breaking away and distancing themselves from US policies and there are others who are cosying up to the US at the same time(Germany has done a bit of both ir the recent past one may observe). If Russia enters Europe(I mean this metphorically ofcourse) then Europe will eventually be split by the pro-US ideology on one side and a more independatn one on the other.
I see a very bright future for French-Russian relations..



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Oh yes yes..all that's fine. I agree Europe faces no external threat. But Europe's facing a lot of internal turmoil. There are some who are breaking away and distancing themselves from US policies and there are others who are cosying up to the US at the same time(Germany has done a bit of both ir the recent past one may observe). If Russia enters Europe(I mean this metphorically ofcourse) then Europe will eventually be split by the pro-US ideology on one side and a more independatn one on the other.
I see a very bright future for French-Russian relations..


Well, actually all I've seen is Merkel just acting as a good politician, happy friend pictures and all, but I've seen nothing of this change policy against Iraq, and Germany still insists the Iran case to go through UN, which Bush can't say he likes, he'd rather have some country to back him for "happy cowboy season part 2" , and most importantly, Merkel wants Guantamo shut down, Bush doesn't appretiate someone wants his little concentration camp closed...

France and Russia also oppose Iraq, but Russia goes quite farther by even offering a light water complex, I'll check on that though...and Spain after the change of president backed down on the Us as well. Italian relations were harmed as well somehow (at least a lot to the public) after the US "accidental" killing of an intelligence officer.

Also, you'll remember that Italy just changed to a left-wing government, led by Romano Prodi, and well, you know how the US relations with left wing countries are...
Prodi will also have to begin the CIA witchhunt, 22 agents, after an Italian prosecutor found out CIA arrested ilegally an Egyptian cleric in Milan as a suspected terrorist.

So aside from UK, no country really supports US policy anywhere, be it Iraq, or Iran, or "war on terrorism", or Guantanamo.

And lastly, about the bright future of France-Russia relations...nah, France I believe is a country more of "I'm my own side" and will side with Russia in UN just to have someone for back up to veto the US. THey both agree they don't like the US, so they join up for that single reason, yet as a bright "future" I really don't know, the first reason the French acquired nukes was the soviets after all, and they don't trust the russians any better. Maybe in weapons trade?
Don't know, I just don't see those 2 countries having any specific goals in common...



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   
If Europe can develop one government, one military and tighten their economy, then yes, they can grow in power. Right now, they have a population growth problem and their economy is not growing as fast as they would like it.

Certainly if the EU was one nation, they would be the world's second superpower, but that is unlikely to happen in the near future. With a population of almost 500 million, an economy approaching $13 trillion, a potential manpower of 1.8 million, and a nuclear arsenal of about 550 warheads, they would certainly pose a problem for Russia and growing power, China.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 04:39 AM
link   
I don't feel there's a need for one centralized army. There should, however, be very tight cooperation among the Union's armies. Centralizing is likely to work destructively, as differences between the states are too big. France would for instance never accept a German general to command its Foreign Legion.

We must bear in mind that a treat always exists for our Union. We're a mighty block and some would rather see it disappear than continue and grow in strength. Especially for the US, Europe is a major economic threat. One advantage Europe has, is the knowledge and ability to build up a powerful war machine, should Europe be attacked. This is mainly made possible by the cooperation between member states. The Leopard and Euro Fighter are examples of this cooperation.

The richer member states, no matter whether they are big or small, do have strong and modern armies, capable of defending Europe in times of war, and capable of intervene in conflicts around the world. I dear to say the US would not have went into Iraq, if Europe didn't support the US, military in both in Afghanistan and Iraq. Most of the Union's states are present in current conflicts, even the newer and poorer states, such as Poland.

In contrast to the US, the European international power grows steadily. This is mainly caused by the current US foreign policy, which doesn't make the US popular around the globe, rather much more hated than ever before. Europe learned from its faults, its wars, its times of crisis. Europe learned diplomacy is a much better way of solving conflicts than military intervention. Military force should be considered as a last option only, the US seems to think differently on this subject (ref. Hans Blix, Iraq).


What we currently see is the rise of the Chinese empire, which slowly takes over the position of super power from the US, which is exactly why the US fairs China. While China has a healthy and ever growing economy, the US has in contrast a weak, a very weak economy.

The Bush administration and the main stream media don't talk about this, but the indications don't lie.

The steadily depreciation of the Dollar the last years
The appreciation of gold
The discontinuance of the M3
The lies on the inflation rate, which is actually 2% higher than the Fed. Says (instead of 4.32 it is 6.32% - 2006, while the EU inflation is only 2.5%)
The recently given instructions to US bank managers, stating how to deal with customers in times of an economic collapse.
The warnings of the Fed. comptroller
Reports of European banks predicting the collapse of the Dollar, and thus the US economy within max ten years.
The warnings of Buffet and Gates
The warnings of financial gurus and professors, and the list goes on.

Some will argue that with such a military and nuclear arsenal the US has it will never lose its position. But it will. Lets compare the collapse of the Soviet Union to the coming collapse of the US. The Soviet Union didn't lose its military and nuclear weapons, it did lose its economy. An army not being backed up by a proper economy becomes one bunch of garbage, not able to defend its country's overseas interests, which for the US is even more crucial than for the Soviet Union back then.

Europe's economy neither is what we would like it to be, but many measures could be taken to improve it. Two major differences between the US and the European Union are the social conditions (which absorbs ridiculous amounts of money) and Europeans generally have much shorter work weeks than US citizens have (approx. 41 hours in the EU compared to 50/51 in the US).

In times of crisis, social costs can be cut and productivity can be increased. For now, the European Union decides to give priority to the ‘’good’’ live.


Originally posted by MasterRegal
Right now, they have a population growth


While I agree the baby boomer generation causes major problems the coming decennia, there isn’t an actual population growth problem at the moment:

img88.imageshack.us..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   
What a discussion of people who know nothing about warfare.



Vietnam, Germany and Zimbabwe are rogue states?

Yes, they are. Vietnam is a communist country where millions of people have died in concentration camps SINCE the end of the Vietnam war. Germany is a country where the Nazi NPD party is legal and which has supported Saddam Hussein’s regime. Zimbabwe is a totalitarian country where people are being killed every day by the Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe.

The truth is that firstly, the defence needs of a country include fighting against ANY enemy, including totalitarian regimes. Secondly, European countries, with the exception of Poland, cannot defend themselves, they cannot even meet their “defence needs” by your definition of that term. As Bruce Bartlett correctly said in his article, no nation in Europe has a military that can be relied upon in times of war. Poland has got a good military, but only to defend itself and to help the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. It cannot do anything else than that.



Russia is not anymore a threat against Europe

Incorrect. Russia is now trying to get control of Europe via energetic blackmail. When European countries that are now dependent on Russian gas will become energetically independent from Russia, Russia will still a pose a military threat, so European militaries should be strengthened.



So talking now, right now at this moment, who is a credible threat to Europe's autonomy?

North Korea, Iran (the missiles of that country can reach Europe), Russia and China.



So please name the great number of nations the EU has to compete that have a so much larger GDP please...what? just one?

In terms of GDP, only one country outperforms the EU – the US. That’s true.



6 european countries are in the United Nations Security Council

There are only 2 PERMAMANENT MEMBERS of the UNSC (which was what he was talking about). You should find out the facts prior to debating with other people.



Well that the country you got to live in has crummy healthcare does NOT mean the rest of Europe

Other European countries have crappy wealthcare systems too. GDP per capita HAS relevance to healthcare. If you’re poorer than the Americans, that translates into inferior healthcare. There are several other countries with bad healthcare systems, e.g. Great Britain and Germany.



Mr Big Policeman, you should know his name well, you know the name of the "rogue" states for crying out loud, now don't try playing dumb

All know that it is the US.



when they can have a small, modern and effective one, that united makes one big modern and effective army, but hey, that's just what I believe...

And you are wrong. Neither the European militaries separately nor combined are effective. They can’t even project power to Iraq.

The welfare state and the high taxes that it (the welfare state) involves have weakened France and Germany so much that they couldn’t afford a strong military even if it was a matter of national survival. Not only both of them combined spend less on defence than the US, but also they spend most of their military budgets on pays for soldiers, while America spends about 30% on equipment and on 30% on pays (and IMO even that is too much). Germany cannot even afford ordering more fighters, surface ships or submarines, or inventing new tank versions or IFV versions. France cannot even afford inventing new tank versions or ordering more surface ships. American ATSers sometimes remind us Europeans that America has 10 times more aircraft carriers than France. What they politely do not remind us of is that the French aircraft carrier is twice smaller than an American one. As a result of France and Germany’s financial weakness, their militaries are weak, and exist not to fight, but to provide jobs for people. Many of their soldiers are unionized and routinely strike.

In fact, the spokesman of the Belgian ministry of defence even openly admitted that the Belgian armed forces are a joke. Not surprisingly, Belgium strongly supported France’s efforts to block military action in Iraq.

Regarding air warfare, America has more ASFs than all of Europe combined, and America’s aircraft are better than the aircraft of all countries that use indigenous planes. France, for example, uses Mirages – the aircraft that the US shot down during Gulf War 1, and Israel (who uses American fighters) shot down during the war with Syria in 1982.

And finally, regarding ground warfare, the US uses a battle-proven tank and a battle-proven MBT. None of their European counterparts have proven themselves in battle. The fact that some users claim, nevertheless, their superiority over American armored vehicles, proves only those users’ lack of knowledge about warfare. Analogy: imagine that you take part in tens of shooting competitions or rifleman battles and win 95% of them, and then a shooter than has NEVER taken part in any such competition/war (never mind winning any) claims that he is a better shooter than you. Who is a better sniper, you or him?

If anyone still thinks that e.g. the Leclerc tank is the best in the world, ask an American soldier and he’ll confirm that the best is the M1 tank.

The militaries of all of the world combined are weaker than the US military, never mind the armed forces of the European continent. This, and not America’s “self-proclaiment as the world’s policeman”, is the reason for why America is policing the world and keeping the peace.

To all of those who claim Europe’s superiority and European military equipment’s superiority, your theory is wrong.

1) You hardly bring up any arguments.
2) When you do, it’s mostly “the Leopard 2’s specs are better”. That is irrelevant to REAL COMBAT. What is the only meaningful indication of how good a tank/IFV/fighter/helo in real combat is… real combat – to be exact, it’s performance in real combat. Comparing the Leclerc, the Leopard 2, etc. etc. etc. to the M1 tank on the basis of specs is foolish.
3) Someone has mentioned that the M1 tank, the F-15 and the F-16 earned their fame by destroying their 60’s, 70’s and 80’s Soviet counterparts. This is the equipment that most of the world’s militaries (not only Third World countries but also e.g. India) still use.
4) When arguing about facts (not specs of tanks), you never provide a single link to back up your claims. Those who claim America’s superiority, on the other hand, provide a lot of links.

And it’s good that it is the US who is now #1. From 1900 until 1945, the world was run by European countries (mainly by colonial powers). The world’s politics were under European control. During that period the world has suffered from two world wars, the first of which costed the lives of 5 million people and the second of which caused the death of 60 million human beings (400,000 of them Americans, most of whom died in Europe). Then, in 1945, Pax Americana started. The world has experienced only a few regional wars (KW, VW, FW, American intervention in Grenada and Panama, GW 1&2 and the war in the Balkans). Overall, less than 200,000 people died, i.e. 25 times less than during WWI and 230 times less than during WWII. While the world suffered only those light casualties, America defeated the USSR.



The lies on the inflation rate, which is actually 2% higher than the Fed. Says (instead of 4.32 it is 6.32% - 2006, while the EU inflation is only 2.5%)

Ah, so whenever you are proven wrong by someone, you claim that the people who disproved you are liars. That's a bad way of participating in a debate. It should go without saying that the American Fed surely knows better than you what is the real inflation rate in the US.



Reports of European banks predicting the collapse of the Dollar, and thus the US economy within max ten years.

I don't care what the European banks are predicting, and neither does the US.


The warnings of Buffet and Gates

Buffet and Gates couldn't make the fortunes they made ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD. That is possibly only in the US, where taxes are low.



Some will argue that with such a military and nuclear arsenal the US has it will never lose its position. But it will.

The only problem is that the event you mention as a condition of America's collapse (i.e. the collapse of the American economy) will not happen. At present, America's economy is performing well. GDP has grown by 5.6% in the first quarter of 2006 alone. Unemployment is at the level of 5.1%, i.e. it is twice lower than in Europe. GDP per capita is higher than in all of EU member countries except for the tiny principality of Luxembourg.


Posted by stumason[i/]
Great Britain doesn’t have an aircraft carrier. France does.

Now you have shown that you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about the topics you are talking about. Great Britain has 2 aircraft carriers, HMS Invincible and HMS Illustrious. These two aircraft carriers combined carry as much aircraft as the CDG, i.e. 40. Proof:
www.royal-navy.mod.uk...
www.royal-navy.mod.uk...



In times of crisis, social costs can be cut and productivity can be increased.

Yes. But something has to be done to increase that productivity, it won't increase by itself. The only solution I can think of is simply lengthening the work week. I mean, come on, these people are adults, they should work for their own living.



For now, the European Union decides to give priority to the ‘’good’’ live.

The cost of that "good life" is:
1) Low GDP and GDP per capita
2) The economy's stagnation
3) High unemployment
4) Poor healthcare throughout all of Europe

You, the French and the Germans simply don't understand: you cannot have a good living (i.e. as good as the Americans) while working only 35 hours per week.



While China has a healthy and ever growing economy, the US has in contrast a weak, a very weak economy.

That is a lie. The truth is that the US economy remains the strongest in the world. America's GDP grew by 5.6% in the first quarter of 2006 alone. Unemployment is just 5.1%. Public debt is just 64.7% of GDP. By any economic measure, the US is outperforming the EU. Regarding China, they are a powerful country, but not powerful enough to challenge the US, but that is not the topic of this thread.



There should, however, be very tight cooperation among the Union's armies.

I disagree with you. My country's military is supposed to defend my country, not to support the French and the Germans and their idiotic hostility to America.



One advantage Europe has, is the knowledge and ability to build up a powerful war machine, should Europe be attacked.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep, just like during WWI and WWII, when Europe asked the US to help it end the two world wars when it was started. Oh well, last time Europe was attacked, it was by the Turks, and they did not retreat from the European continent until WWI.



I dear to say the US would not have went into Iraq, if Europe didn't support the US, military in both in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Your hatred for the US has fooled you so much that you now make up such ridiculous lies that I couldn't read anywhere else, only on ATS. The US defeated Japan, the USSR and Mexico on its own, so it surely could defeat Iraq and Afghanistan on its own. The US didn't need the help of anyone - the countries that did help the US did so because they wanted to keep good relations with America by supporting its military campaigns.



No, only proves that sweden is military self sufficient, advanced, and this little sub would put a fight to anyone who attacked sweden, which is sweden's interest.

If Norway or Finland attacked Sweden, they would conduct a land invasion.



France has the Third largest arsenal in the world, and Uk has at least 180 nukes. just two nukes made the Us the most powerful country back in ww2.


Firstly, nukes alone don’t make them powerful and secondly, their combined nuclear arsenals are smaller than that of the US, though the Brits have enough crude plutonium to produce 12,500 additional 500KT-force nukes, and could do that in an hour. Crude plutonium can be used for nuke production, and in order to produce a crude plutonium nuke you need less crude plutonium that you would need uranium if you wanted to produce a uranium nuke. Continental European countries, except for Poland, are military weaklings. Your militaries are not capable of going to, and not able to fight at, war (which is the reason for why France and Germany did not take part in war in Iraq). Germany can’t even afford inventing new MMP versions.



And what I find the funniest yet, Poland... which uses still the Russian "crap" (you called it that way) or well German equipment

Now you have proven that you know nothing about warfare. Poland has never lost any war, with the exception of the Partitions of Poland (which was lost politically, not militarly) and the national uprisings in 1830, 1846, 1848 and 1863.

At present, the Polish military is not decrepit, but it’s not capable of doing more than defending the country itself and taking part in antiterrorist operations in Afghanistan in Iraq. However, at least our infatry uses the light AK-47 rifle, while German infatry uses the G36 rifle. While the Polish Air Force have ordered 48 F-16s in 2003, the Luftwaffe still flies the crappy F-4 and the expensive EF-2000.



Poland is PLANNING to upgrade it's military, yep, just plans.

It’s not just plans. The Polish military has already ordered 48 F-16s and 216 AMVs.



It's mostly a CONSCRIPT army

De iure it is. But there are many ways to avoid military service, e.g. simply not showing up when you are called to show up. The police won’t hunt you down, they are too busy with their lucrative business of hunting down motorists who park incorrectly or have violated the speed limit by 10 kph.


[edit on 29-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by benedict arnold
i dont think they ever will. THeir days are over. The british ditched india 60 years ago. The french are busy eating crepes and snails and the germans cant get over sauerkraut. Ok seriously they just cant get project any power nowadays. India could whip the French.

But do you think the europeans wil ever have an important part to play in world affairs in the next 100 years. I got nothing to do so please respond.

HA HA!
OMG man!
Do you know how much of the forces in iraq the british service men and women made up?
1/4th of the forces there.
And britain is one of the smallest forces in the world and in europe.
Europe has the best tech , yes thats right yanks we have equal tech, and better training.



Actually, the English aren't European, they are British. A completely different people.

It's like saying all of the far east are "Asian". Not true, the Japanese are thier own people.

Landlocked people share similair traditions and cultures, and island isolated people are completely different. The Japanese are totally different in every way, than from the rest of "Asia". As is Britian is completely different in every way from the Europeans. My ex's brother (they live in Germany) did his 2 years in the German military, and he told me straight out that the German military is a complete JOKE. On a side note, when I was over there (pre 9/11) they couldn't comprehend that the US military is totally a volenteer military, since most of the European military is a manditory assignment of 2 years... Anyway, yeah, Europe is done as a world power, why do you think they are always trying to make peace and nicey nice with people that could give two shakes of a rats butt about them. Because all Europe has is apeasment and talk, they have nothing to back up any actions that require and form of strength.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 01:52 AM
link   


Actually, the English aren't European, they are British. A completely different people.

I agree. There are no "Europeans". There are Brits, Germans, Poles, Danes, Norwegians, etc., but naming them all European is incorrect.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 02:16 AM
link   
I don't know why Europeans and Americans bicker so much. And why Europeans have such hate for America. I have always said that people have to choose the lesser of evils one of these days, and accept it or not, the US does not seek to control Europe. There are others who are would probably not be as benign.

And I love how everyone on this board foretells a coming down for the US economy, and how we will be utterly destroyed, and how developing countries are overtaking us, and how the US military really isn't *that* strong. I have even read that Mexico could come into the US and take back their land...

In any case, I know people have given into wishful thinking that the US economy crashes, but think, if the US economy crashes, what will happen to the rest of the world? Ponder that. Mass consumers are loved for a reason by businesses and countries, I assure you



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 02:49 AM
link   
In 2000, the EU said that its economy will become the world's strongest by 2010. But that is not going to happen. In order to do that, it'd have to overtake the US. To 2010, America's GDP will be $14,183,384,287,725, i.e. the US economy will grow by 16.4%, because America's present yearly economic growth rate is. In order to overtake the US economically, the EU would have to have a higher GDP, but that will not happen. The EU's economy will grow by only 6.9% in 4 years, because the EU's present yearly economic growth rate is 1.7%. Links:
www.cia.gov...
www.cia.gov...

In order to be a hyperpower, you need a hyperpowerful economy. America's economy is hyperpowerful, the EU's isn't.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Mmm...well what do you know, seems like someone who might have some obvious AMERICAN bias got a little carried away...well, I'll show some courtesy and answer your dubious remarks...here we go:



Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter
Vietnam is a communist country where millions of people have died in concentration camps SINCE the end of the Vietnam war. Germany is a country where the Nazi NPD party is legal and which has supported Saddam Hussein’s regime. Zimbabwe is a totalitarian country where people are being killed every day by the Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe.

Well, since Vietnam is communist, they must be inherently EVIL! and about Germany...


as Germans correctly point out, there are many more Nazis in the United States (and now even in the Russian Federation) than there are in unified, modern Germany...



So what if the NPD is legal, it doesn't even has 5% of the treshold to have seats in the Bundestag...never been to Germany huh? I thought cavemen were extinct...
I have no objection about Zimbabwe, yet it only poses a threat to it's own people, not to be considered a "rogue state" for that.


[The truth is that firstly, the defence needs of a country include fighting against ANY enemy, including totalitarian regimes.



Mmm...so attacking any country that differs from your interests is DEFENSE? yes of course...if your statement was true, the whole world would be saving up to fight the Big Imperial Boogeyman, not so, sorry.


[Secondly, European countries, with the exception of Poland, cannot defend themselves



Oh, so you're showing your colors already? Well, no sorry, but the fact that they just ORDERED 48 F-16s, against the 180 MUCH better Typhoons Germany is going to have, proves nothing, I'm sorry, but the EF is better, and you'll have to acknowledge it.
216 AMV? I'm guessing you're talking about the Patria AMV 8x8 from Finland. So Poland can't make good indigenous equipment, yet you mock the countries that do and sell it to Poland? Anyone else see the humour in this?


Incorrect. Russia is now trying to get control of Europe via energetic blackmail. When European countries that are now dependent on Russian gas will become energetically independent from Russia, Russia will still a pose a military threat, so European militaries should be strengthened.


Mmm...Europe is about 30% of Russia's total exports, I don't see that blackmail anywhere...maybe your imagination? I'm sorry, but I've seen relations between Europe and Russia improve somehow, not deteriorate, which they would if this "blackmail" thing existed... Russia wants Europe as friends, for pure economic reasons, sorry but I see no reason whatsoever for Russia to be a "threat" to Europe militarily, a Russian invasion is simply not happening any time soon.


North Korea, Iran (the missiles of that country can reach Europe), Russia and China..
Russia and China are no credible threat to European autonomy, they are economic partners, and they will stay like that for quite a while. Iran is a security threat to the inmediate area, and even though in their speeches they might say they want to wipe everyone out, fact is they can't, they know they would be doomed should one of their missiles ever touch Europe. Europe would simply back the US against Iran, and retaliate in force, game over for Iran.

Iranians are no fools, and I really doubt they'd try such a thing, yet I'll give you that they might, though highly unlikely...and North Korea...well I don't see how a starving country could ever pose a threat to Europe. North Korea is against the US, not Europe, I don't see that scenario either, how could they possibly threaten Europe, or how you came to that conclusion, is a complete mistery.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter
And you are wrong. Neither the European militaries separately nor combined are effective. They can’t even project power to Iraq.

I think not. Europe had and has no need to meddle in Iraqui buisness, it's not that they can't, it's simply, why should they?
To support the US interests? I see again no reason whatsoever for Europe to be interested in following Mr Bush's agenda.



There are only 2 PERMAMANENT MEMBERS of the UNSC (which was what he was talking about). You should find out the facts prior to debating with other people.


Oh, I can use caps as well, there are 3 PERMANENT MEMBERS of the UNSC, France, UK and Russia (yep, from the Urals westwards it's still Europe) as well as other 3 NON PERMANENT MEMBERS, Slovakia, Denmark and Greece. You should be the one checking your facts, sorry.


America has more ASFs than all of Europe combined

So because Europe has less ASFs than the US, that means they're weak...riiight.
No see, It's not a competition, Europe could care less about America's numbers, simply because Americans are not a threat to them, so they can have all the equipment in the world, Europe doesn't care.


The militaries of all of the world combined are weaker than the US military, never mind the armed forces of the European continent. This, and not America’s “self-proclaiment as the world’s policeman”, is the reason for why America is policing the world and keeping the peace.


If you call "peackeeping" invading countries and ilegally arresting, holding without trial and torturing people because of ethnicity, or because "maybe" they are terrorists, or whatever reasons, I'll just say
. Sorry, but in fact America self proclaimed to "save" the world since end of wwII, first of the evil boogeyman communism was, and now from the Terrorists. America is policing the world because the USSR is gone to bring balance, not because of large guns.

America seeks conflict for one simple reason, it's economy thrives with it, or used to, doesn't seem to work to well nowadays, but since wwII they've gone from conflict to conflict almost non stop, and you can check a history book on that.


I disagree with you. My country's military is supposed to defend my country, not to support the French and the Germans and their idiotic hostility to America.
Yep, I wonder how would your country's military defend your country assuming one day your country stops being on the US nice side, and then transformed into a "rogue state". Maybe you'd understand "idiotic" hostility, wouldn't you? Then you'd need the Union, which you so much dislike right now, right?


Your hatred for the US has fooled you so much that you now make up such ridiculous lies that I couldn't read anywhere else, only on ATS. The US defeated Japan, the USSR and Mexico on its own, so it surely could defeat Iraq and Afghanistan on its own. The US didn't need the help of anyone - the countries that did help the US did so because they wanted to keep good relations with America by supporting its military campaigns.


The Us never fought the USSR because neither would have survived, and attacked a country just recovering from independence and stole half it's country, now those are some BIG achievements, aren't they?
The US doesn't need help, but it needs support, because if the WHOLE world opposes their actions, their own citizens will start wondering wether their country is doing the right thing or not, and most likely the gov wouldn't want that? Without the world opposing fully it is already happening...

Now you have proven that you know nothing about warfare. Poland has never lost any war, with the exception of the Partitions of Poland (which was lost politically, not militarly) and the national uprisings in 1830, 1846, 1848 and 1863.
Maybe you heard of WWII, how much did Poland last, a month?



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili

I think not. Europe had and has no need to meddle in Iraqui buisness, it's not that they can't, it's simply, why should they?

The reason for why European countries didn't take part in war in Iraq is NOT because they didn't want to, but because they can't. Iraq was a danger to Europe, and therefore normally Europe would have attacked Iraq, however Europe didn't do so, because it does not have the ability to do that, but it was too proud to admit it.



Oh, I can use caps as well, there are 3 PERMANENT MEMBERS of the UNSC, France, UK and Russia (yep, from the Urals westwards it's still Europe) as well as other 3 NON PERMANENT MEMBERS, Slovakia, Denmark and Greece. You should be the one checking your facts, sorry.

Russia is not Europe.



So because Europe has less ASFs than the US, that means they're weak...riiight.
No see, It's not a competition, Europe could care less about America's numbers, simply because Americans are not a threat to them, so they can have all the equipment in the world, Europe doesn't care.

I did not cite America's numerical advantage as the sole cause of America's supremacy. I see that now that you are being proven wrong, your only resort is to FALSIFY the contents of my posts.



If you call "peackeeping" invading countries and ilegally arresting, holding without trial and torturing people because of ethnicity, or because "maybe" they are terrorists, or whatever reasons, I'll just say
. Sorry, but in fact America self proclaimed to "save" the world since end of wwII, first of the evil boogeyman communism was, and now from the Terrorists. America is policing the world because the USSR is gone to bring balance, not because of large guns.

America was policing the world since WWII. This is why the USSR collapsed. And America is not "invading countries and ilegally arresting, holding without trial and torturing people because of ethnicity, or because "maybe" they are terrorists, or whatever reasons". America is freeing the world from terrorists because the free nations of the world ask America to do so. Recently, the Iraqi PM has said that Iraq is the front line of the war on terrorism. HOW DO YOU ARROGANT WESTERN EUROPEANS DARE TO SAY THAT YOU KNOW BETTER THAN IRAQIS THEMSELVES WHAT'S BEST FOR THEM?


America seeks conflict for one simple reason, it's economy thrives with it,

No, it doesn't. The American economy is independent from war. At present, the US is engaged in only 1 minor war theatre (Iraq), and the American economy is growing stronger.


or used to, doesn't seem to work to well nowadays

What are you talking about? In the first quarter of 2006 alone, the US economy grew by 5.6%. That's not "not working well", that's outperforming the rest of the world.



Yep, I wonder how would your country's military defend your country assuming one day your country stops being on the US nice side, and then transformed into a "rogue state". Maybe you'd understand "idiotic" hostility, wouldn't you? Then you'd need the Union, which you so much dislike right now, right?

The EU wouldn't defend my country. There is no common defence policy.



The Us never fought the USSR because neither would have survived, and attacked a country just recovering from independence and stole half it's country, now those are some BIG achievements, aren't they?

The US DID defeat the USSR. America's victory in the arms race is the ONLY reason for why the USSR collapsed. Besides America, there was no one that could have stopped the USSR, which was conducting an aggressive foreign policy.


because if the WHOLE world opposes their actions, their own citizens will start wondering wether their country is doing the right thing or not, and most likely the gov wouldn't want that?

But luckily the Americans don't care what the world thinks about their country.

Maybe you heard of WWII, how much did Poland last, a month?

You have again proven that you know nothing about warfare. The fact that Poland was overrun in 35 days does not mean that Polish soldiers stopped fighting. Polish soldiers also:
1) helped the Brits defend themselves against the Luftwaffe while all the French could do were radio addresses to the French people living in France
2) fought in North Africa and the Middle East
3) participated in the invasion on France in 1944
4) liberated Poland with the Soviets
5) overrun Berlin with the Soviets (there were two flags flying over the Brandenburg gate - the Polish flag and the Soviet flag)

[edit on 30-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]

[edit on 30-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 04:25 AM
link   
I've never cared for the term hyperpower. I deal with Superpower because it's been around longer than I have, but Hyperpower? At what point do we decide that we're happy with the size of the national sex organ and stop inventing new comparative terms?

What's next? "Super-Duper-Mega-Friggin-Gargantuan-Power of Epic Proportions that could kick the crap out of the entire Greek Pantheon before breakfast and then start the hard work"?

Super-power was coined to describe the dominant powers of a bipolar strategic environment. By implication, anything bigger, such as hyperpower, would have all but achieved world domination, or at least be capable of it.

Anybody want to call America, or anyone else, a hyperpower now?

My humble opinion, though I'll say upfront that I've been questioned on this before by people who have a lot more experience and knowledge on international relations that I do, is that most terms for describing a nation's standing in the balance of power should be used sparingly. They are good for quick descriptions of the nations to which a given term or principle is meant to be applied, but in terms of labeling the "can do" and "can't do", I wouldn't trust them.

On any given day, on any given field, any given nation can shake the balance of power to its very foundations.

What if it hadn't rained before Waterloo? What if General Jackson had been at Gettysburg?

What if Nagumo hadn't rearmed his planes just before the American ships arrived at Midway, or what if the Yorktown hadn't been there to absorb both Japanese sorties?

Every war has these questions. I am convinced that David beat Goliath because the sun was in Goliath's eyes. I don't take much comfort therefore in being a Superpower or Hyperpower or anything else, because you never know if next time the sun might be in our eyes too.

I know I know... you still don't think any or even all of the European nations could possibly hold up to America in any comparrison. Do you really want to find out though? Underdogs are the most ferocious of all breeds.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join