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: 8
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I think every one is overlooking that north sea oil field.....or is that not big enough...




posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

I didn't realize Europe is a net exporter of oil now...



The Uk at least would be fine !
( from CIA world factbook)

Uk:
Oil - production:
2.541 million bbl/day (2001 est.)
Oil - consumption:
1.71 million bbl/day (2001 est.)
Oil - exports:
2.205 million bbl/day (2001)
Oil - imports:
1.418 million bbl/day (2001)
Oil - proved reserves:
4.741 billion bbl (1 January 2002)
Natural gas - production:
105.9 billion cu m (2001 est.)
Natural gas - consumption:
92.85 billion cu m (2001 est.)
Natural gas - exports:
15.75 billion cu m (2001 est.)
Natural gas - imports:
2.7 billion cu m (2001 est.)
Natural gas - proved reserves:
714.9 billion cu m (1 January 2002)



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Go take a look at France and Germany. Both import millions of barrels of oil a day.

The UK's economy is not only directly tied in with the other European nations, but would also lose business if they didn't have oil to export.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Go take a look at France and Germany. Both import millions of barrels of oil a day.

So?
Most likely this is from the UK since it would be cheaper to get from there.


The UK's economy is not only directly tied in with the other European nations, but would also lose business if they didn't have oil to export.

...where do you think they get the oil?



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Not the UK. The UK doesn't even export that much. It's only a few hundred thousand barrel surplus you guys have running. The UK doesn't provide Europe with its oil...



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Not the UK. The UK doesn't even export that much. It's only a few hundred thousand barrel surplus you guys have running. The UK doesn't provide Europe with its oil...

It doesnt provide all but some, it will get some from the UK, and if they couldnt get it from the gulf then they could just get it from US couldnt they?



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Together they probably need about 7 or 8 million barrels of oil a day. They may be able to get 1/8th of that from the UK. As for America, we have a large reserves, but we're an importer. We use more oil per day than anyone in the world.

The Middle East is basically the lively hood of the West. Without their oil our economies collapse in a way that makes the Great Depression seem like a holiday.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   
The United States does not have oil; we have about enough to run the country for 3 months maybe; we do not have "50 years reserves" of oil.

That is why ousting Saddam was important, so that he wouldn't end up in the future getting true WMD or his sons developing true WMD and thus causing a crapload of havoc in the region.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
The United States does not have oil; we have about enough to run the country for 3 months maybe; we do not have "50 years reserves" of oil.

That is why ousting Saddam was important, so that he wouldn't end up in the future getting true WMD or his sons developing true WMD and thus causing a crapload of havoc in the region.



Think about it. Oil is an energy source that most of the world depends on.
The US is going to import oil from other contries while the supply is realitivly (sp?) high.

Why use up your own resources when you can use other countries till they are depleted then tap into your own resources.

I agree the US does not have 50 yrs worth ( I doubt the entire worlds oil reserve would last 50 yrs) but we have alot more then 3 months worth.

We probably (just an opinion ) have a good 5 to 7 yrs up in Alaska alone.

We just need to get away from oil all togeather .



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Also whats up with the UK / US bashing?

Other then the Revolutionary War and The War of 1812, the US and UK have been fighting (and dying) side by side for the commen good of the world. Other contries criticize the US for trying to be the worlds police, but who do they call when they are in need? Thats right, the US.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   

I agree the US does not have 50 yrs worth ( I doubt the entire worlds oil reserve would last 50 yrs) but we have alot more then 3 months worth.

We probably (just an opinion ) have a good 5 to 7 yrs up in Alaska alone.


I think you two are talking about different things.

Without the Middle East's oil, America could not support itself at all but for a very limited time. 3 months probably isn't that far off the mark. That's because America stores oil away for a rainy day.

But we could not support ourselves. Alaska only holds about as much oil as America uses in a year. It's a relatively small source. It really wouldn't help us much, not even to simply lower our reliance on foreign oil sources.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   
You are probably right.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I don't look just at specs to make my decision. I look at total design. The S-35 had several major design flaws. The commander had to carry out most tasks, which is just a minor inconeniance, but a huge disadvantage. It allows the enemy to react faster. And while heavier armored, it had some major weak points. It didn't take much firepower to split the hull.

The Panzer was not as slow as you say, either. It could go 40mph, just like the S-35.

There were only some 400 S-35's produced, as well. This was the best tank the French really had.


- Well as I've said the French had some excellent tank designs for their day (I agree the fashion for a multi-tasking commander turned out to be a poor choice but it was hardly the 'flaw' that having the bulk of your tanks (the Panzer 2) armed with a 20mm cannon and a machine gun was, right?).


They did not use the French tanks on the frontlines. They served secondary roles.


- Like I said, their problem was not their kit but how they used their kit.


I think you're idea of attacking is a bit skewed. The Germans innitiated the fighting in Norway. It wasn't the British doing the attacking. They mostly just retreated. The invasion of France soon followed.


- Sorry but once again this is incorrect and way wide of the mark as to what actually happened.

Norway was a strange instance of the 2 sides reaching the same conclusion and finding they were both attempting an invasion at almost exactly the same time, one side invited and the other not.


That was my point. You were completely unprepared to fight. You were even pretty unwilling.


- Rubbish.
'We' were not "completely unprepared", 'we' had been preparing since 1936. 'We' were simply not as prepared as we believed we needed to be, the UK alone had enormous forces around the world, unfortunately not enough in the western European area.

But, as events were to prove, 'we' were obviously prepared just enough, right?

As for a lack of resolve?
How on earth can you conclude this given the deep and terrible privations the people of Britain and Europe were prepared to suffer and did suffer in seeing the war thorugh to a successful conclusion?

.....and frankly what would many Americans know anything about any of that, hmmm?


This is what I'd call complacency and cowardice.


- Well in that case you'd just be demonstrating your ignorance and the degree to which you have utterly failed to appreciate the situation then wouldn't you?


Sounds more like they just got out smarted.


- No.
It shows how war can throw up the most unlikely coincidences and odd occurrances.

Had the Germans not believed their original plans compromised (a Me 108 aircraft carrying them came down in Belgium on 10th Jan 1940, a few months before the attack) the whole western attack would have proceeded much differently than it actually did.

In that case allied planning was right on the mark, it was the sudden need for change which prompted the innovation that was characteristic of the western German assault.


This doesn't really explain how they intended to fight the Germans since the Germans didn't have to even attack France to begin with.


- This is ridiculous.
Germany needed to attack in the west to secure the western flank to free her forces for the attack on the USSR, the fact that she failed to defeat the UK (and expended large forces in trying to do so) ensured the Russia situation was nothing like as dire as it might have been

(although I, like many observers of WW2 am convinced there was never a possibility of Germany ever actually defeating the USSR, they were too big, to prepared and too huge. It would just have taken an even longer time and been an even more savage and costly war.)


It only explains how they planned on surviving.


- I suggest you have no clue as to what the plans envisaged.

It would have been similar to WW1, containment and blockade gradually wearing down the German ability to wage war.

Effective and proven tactics which had already won the allies a WW. Who can blame them for believing the same might well happen again.

Afterall it came within a chance air accident and a couple of months of actually doing so.


It depends on what the aircraft was. If it were a C-130, I wouldn't think those pilots were going off to shoot down some flankers.

I never said horses weren't used, I said they didn't serve as the frontline combat force of the German army.


- ...and the link proves you wrong, they were.
Along with huge numbers of horses in transport and supply.


Europe "benefited" a whole lot more than America did.


- I think you'll find US industry did enormously well out of the deal.


The American military could have gone head to head with the Soviets, and won, and did so without as much bloodshed as people would expect.


- Believe what you like, you're in a small circle that believe that kind of dangerous nonsense.


There wouldn't have been any nuclear war because no side has anything to gain from firing it. No nation in history, nor any nation that will exist, will doom themselves simply to destroy the enemy unless they know that themselves, and their own people will be whiped off regardless of what they do.


- ....and what is nuclear war if not that, hmmm?

Coupled with the fact that the Soviet doctrine was to view nuclear weapons as any other and that their attack (were it to come) would be with nuclear weapons anyway do you seriously imagine it all being contained within Europe and Russia?!

Yeah right.


The only thing you did to stop an invasion was let American troops be stationed in your countries.


- Believe what you like, the fact is we must obviously have done enough to deter an attack (even if one accepts your reasoning that it were ever really likely) seeing as it never actually happened.


No reason? How about the fact that they had a history of aggression?


- What "history of aggression"?
Once that nutter Stalin died there was no serious threat. .....and even then Stalin was a paranoid who saw the west as deliberately formenting trouble in the agreed Soviet 'sphere of influence'. He saw that kind of thing as preparations for an attack.

The Soviets expected the western powers to keep out of eastern Europe and leave them secure and to rebuild. They saw 'democracy movements' in eastern Germany and Hungry in the 1950's and later in eastern Germany and Czechoslovakia in the late 1960's as the west attempting to destabilise their regimes.
They were not entirely wrong either.

In fact we now know we could have had meaningful arms limitation and reduction talks during Krushchev and Eisenhower's time.

Sadly 'Bomber gaps' and 'Missile gaps' and all that kind of threatening stupidity put paid to all that.

Even Cuba was a respnse to the US stationing nuclear missiles in Turkey, the Russian rational was entirely predictable and reasonable in the light of this.


One only had to look at how they acted after WW2 to see that their main goal was getting more power, not peace.


- Rubbish.
Russia's main goal was security; as it has always been for Russia seeing as how they have regularly faced ruinous attacks and threats from the west in the last few centuries.


At this point, you don't yet face any major external threat. That may not last, though. If a major war broke out within the next decade, I'd say Europe would be completely caught off guard.


- .....and this "major war" is going to suddenly spring up from where, hmm?
.....and who can afford this 'threat', hmmmm?
Cos it certainly isn't like the old days. You can't build a genuinely threatening set of forces in secret like was once possible.


You in fact are helping future threats develop. The French and Germans undemrining America with Iraq, supporting Russia, and arming China may seem cute now, but we'll see how you feel when you become their bitches. They won't be as gentle as America is.


- At this point I'd ask if you could check if your med dosage is correct.

Europe has looked to sell some existant military tech to China, so what? It hasn't happened yet and is this so different from Boeing selling 787's there?
Cos if that isn't selling cutting edge aerodynamics, materials and computer tech I'd love to know what is.
Can you spell 'hypocrisy'?


Germany and France don't support the US in Iraq.....so what?
I thought you guys believed in "freedom" to choose.
Some of you Americans seem to be getting some kind of weird sad kick out of knocking the French at every opportunity yet they are there risking their forces in Afghanistan.
Just because they didn't agree with the Iraq war you start up with the weird infantile attitudes?!


This type of attitude is extremely dangerous.


- Yes for the USA, especially given the way so many Americans are blind to the damage this paranoia is doing to themselves.


Go take a look at what China and Russia are both doing. Do they have the capacity today? No. Will they in the future? It's very possible.


- No it isn't. It isn't at all. Try tuning in to reality.

Russia is not going to bankrupt herself again persuing a military the country cannot afford. Russia is also abiding by her agreements to reduce the level of her nuclear and conventional weapons.

In fact you'd have to be pretty determined and blind to insist on Russia as any kind of growing threat in todays world. They have wised up too and have decided to leave you Americans playing your ruinous military game all alone too.

.....and as for China? The Chinese are interested in China. Period.

Check out the world military spending tables.
Neither China, Russia nor Europe are bothering to play the same game you guys insist on playing.

However Europe collectively is the next biggest spender after the USA (but waaaaaay below the US level) and our forces compare with anyone's after the US's.....so who are we meant to be spending absurd (US) amounts in fear of, hmmm? The whole idea is targically laughable and so detached from reality.

But you enjoy yourselves in your loony-tunes arms race with your shadow now you hear!
(just try not to endanger everyone else as you disappear up your own 'tail-pipe' over it all, huh?)


While Europe takes it easy, and even helps these two nations, America will keep building its military up so it doesn't find itself in a situation like Europe did during WW2.


- Get real.
American has not come close to facing a situation like Europe did during WW2 ever since WW2 ended.


Europe doesn't have to be threatened directly. What the hell would you do if someone cut off your oil?


- Well we do have substantial oil and gas reserves of our own actually and with the conservation and startegic usage only that would instantly be implemented we'd manage for quite sometime I'm sure.


Hell, Saddam and Iraq would have completely had you guys by the balls if it weren't for America. If they had swept across the Middle East, Europe would have been nearly powerless to stop them. Iraq would have gone from being a petty nuissance to the one of the world's greatest powers.


- Yeah well I know letting you imagination run wild over what Saddam might have done is the basis for many thing in the USA right now but the point is he didn't and never came close to it (excepting gulf war mk 1 in which he believed the visiting US ambassador had said 'feel free' to him just before it all started).

....and what the hell do you think he would do have done anyway? The point of having the oil isn't to hoard it but to sell it.
Simply hanging on to it kind of misses the point in a major way, right?

(unless you have some daft wild fantasy and imagine him trying to paralyse the oil markets entirely, something he could not do anyway as he could never have held all the supply, waiting the 6mths+ for everyone's strategic reserves to run out and somehow not being attacked as he reduced the world to his will or else no-one get any oil.

Yeah right. Dream on.)

Much of the bad stuff Saddam did do was either directly with western assistance and agreement or - as in gulf war mk 1 - when he thought hed been told it was ok but the US.

But you carry on, you dream your dreams and feel that weird blend of paranoia and security in them.


You're number 1! Gee.


[edit on 5-2-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 08:27 PM
link   

- Well as I've said the French had some excellent tank designs for their day (I agree the fashion for a multi-tasking commander turned out to be a poor choice but it was hardly the 'flaw' that having the bulk of your tanks armed with a 20mm cannon and a machine gun was, right?).


The Germans managed just fine with whatever problems their tanks had. The French didn't.


- Like I said, their problem was not their kit but how they used their kit


They didn't have horrible tanks. I never said they did. They still didn't have enough modern, competent tanks to compete with Germany.


Norway was a strange instance of the 2 sides reaching the same conclusion and finding they were both attempting an invasion at the same time, one side invited and the other not.


I've never heard that. This certainly doesn't agree with you:


Two days later Denmark surrendered, totally unprepared for invasion. But the Norwegians, similarly surprised, did not succumb. They even managed to sink the German Blücher off the coast of Oslo. Their small army then prepared to face attacks up the coast and in the north. They were offered support from 12,000 British and French troops.


www.bbc.co.uk...


- Rubbish.
We were not "completely unprepared" we were simply not as prepared as we believed we needed to be, the UK alone had enormous forces around the world, unfortunately not enough in the western European area.


Ok...


As for a lack of resolve?
How on earth can you conclude this given the privations the people of Britain and Europe were prepared to suffer and did suffer in seeing the war thorugh to a successful conclusion?


Most Europeans seemed to simply crawl into a hole when they saw Germany come. The French sure as hell didn't show much resolve.

How about all the concessions you made to the Germans before you finally declared war? Just look at how Churchhill was treated when he was calling for the British to stand-up to Hitler.


.....and frankly what would many Americans know about that, hmmm?


I suppose I have no right to talk about history that didn't happen in America now. Or any politics. That's the message I keep getting from you Europeans. Unfortunately, none of you have any problem talking about mistakes America is, or has made.


- No.
It shows how war can throw up the most unlikely coincidences. Had the Germans not believed their original plans compromised (a light aircraft carrying them came down in Belgium on 10th Jan 1940, a few months before the attack) the whole western attack would have proceeded much differently than it actually did.


It's all speculation. The Germans may have attacked at the wrong place, but they still would have attacked with better tactics.


- This is ridiculous. Germany need to secure the western flank to free her forces for the attack on the USSR, the fact that she failed to defeat the UK (and expended large forces in trying to do so) ensured the Russia situation was nothing like as dire as it might have been


This has nothing to do with what I said. I asked how you guys planned on fighting the Germans when you declared war. If you declare war on someone, you should be prepared to take that war to them. Germany should never have been able to invade anyone after Poland. Hell, it should never even have gotten to Poland.


(although I, like many observers of WW2 am convinced there was never a possibility of Germany ever actually defeating the USSR, they were too big, to prepared and too huge)


Too big? The Germans were already at Moscow. They had pretty much already beaten the Russians, and by all means should have. Russia has been conquered in the past. The Mongols did it with complete ease. Had the Germans simply not stopped for three measely weeks to handle problems in the Balkans, they would have had Russia. They could have taken Moscow had they done just a few things differently during the battle.

Too prepared...Now that's not something you hear often. Who would have called Russia prepared to fight the Germans during WW2? They were completely caught off guard. Their military was in shambled at the time.

It was only a stroke of luck that Russia managed to fight the Germans off, and only the Western front which allowed the Russians to mount a successful counter-offensive.


It would have been similar to WW1, containment and blockade gradually wearing down the German ability to wage war.

Effective proven tactics which had already won the allies a WW. Who can blame them for believing the same might well happen again.

Afterall it came within a chance air accident and a couple of months of actually doing so.


You guys got lucky during WW1. Why in gods name would anyone want to use that strategy again? The German offensive was stopped merely because of short supply lines, and even then the Germans only lost because they were over-cautious.


- ...and the link proves you wrong, they were along with huge numbers of horses in transport and supply.


Didn't I ask you for quotes from your article that show this a while ago?


- I think you'll find US industry did enormously well out of the deal.


I think Europe's survival outweighs a few American companies seeing a better profit margin.


- Believe what you like, you're in a small circle that believe that kind of dangerous nonsense.


I'd say its the belief held by most military analysts, and generals.

I, personally, would put a lot of a faith in what Patton truly wanted. I'll take a look at the numerous military failures in Russia's history, and even their marginal successes. There is nothing to be scared of.


Coupled with the fact that the Soviet doctrine was to view nuclear weapons as any other and that their attack (were it to come) would be with nuclear weapons anyway do you seriously imagine it all being contained within Europe and Russia?!


Nukes being fired anywhere would effect everyone on the planet. So no, it would hardly be contained anywhere.

I don't know what Soviet doctrine you're talking about, though. Care to actually explain yourself?


- Believe what you like, the fact is we must obviously have done enough to deter an attack (even if one accepts your reasoning that it were ever really likely) seeing as it never actually happened.


As I said, you became dependent on America's military. There may very well come a day when you are on the opposite side of America. There may be a day when America won't come to your aid, because most of Europe has not been faithful to America. Even the few nations that have stayed by our side have populations that are overwhelmingly against us. I, for one, have no concern what happens to the British population. I'd call for American arms to help you guys only to repay our debts.


The Soviets expected the western powers to keep out of eastern Europe and leave them secure and to rebuild. They saw 'democracy movements' in eastern Germany and Hungry in the 1950's and later in eastern Germany and Czechoslovakia in the late 1960's as the west attempting to destabilise their regimes.
They were not entirely wrong either.


Eastern Europe itself was an act of aggression. They should never have been satellite states. Russia had no real right to do what they did. And how about their invasion of Afghanistan? Their actions with Korea?


In fact we now know we could have had meaningful arms limitation and reduction talks during Krushchev and Eisenhower's time.


Arms limitations? Is that supposed to be a good thing? I wouldn't have wanted peace with a government like Russia's because regardless of how you viewed their foreign policy, they were a brutal bunch of thieves.

I don't think peace should come at that cost.


- Rubbish.
Russia's main goal was security; as it has always been for Russia seeing as how they have regularly faced ruinous attacks and threats from the west in the last few centuries.


The only time Russia really had trouble with the West was when they acted aggressively, minus maybe Napoleon and Hitler. They started wars in the Middle East. They chose to get involved with WW1. They were the ones waging wars of aggression to get ports at the Black Sea for centuries.


- .....and this "major war" is going to suddenly spring up from where, hmm?
.....and who can afford this 'threat', hmmmm?
Cos it certainly isn't like the old days. You can't build a genuinely threatening set of forces in secret like was once possible.


You can't build forces up in secret, but America already has the force, and Europe doesn't. We could mobilize and invade before Europe could ever react. Just like you can't build up weapons in secret, you can't produce competent militaries overnight. You can't rely on raw numbers. You can't mass-produce modern technology like you could before.

And this war could come from anywhere. That's the point. WW1 was called the War to End all Wars, after all. Most in Europe didn't even predict another war during the late 30's with all the German aggression. What makes you think Europe would act so much differently today?


Europe has looked to sell some existant military tech to China, so what? It hasn't happened yet and is this so different from Boeing selling 787's there?
Cos if that isn't selling cutting edge aerodynamics, materials and computer tech I'd love to know what is.
Can you spell 'hypocrisy'?


787's are hardly cutting edge technology. They aren't going to help China improve their military.

I am against anyone giving help to China. It pisses me off that Clinton gave them technology during the 90's. It pisses me off even more that Israel goes behind our backs to give advanced technology to China.


Germany and France don't support the US in Iraq.....so what?
I thought you guys believed in "freedom" to choose.
Some of you Americans seem to be getting some kind of weird sad kick out of knocking the French at every opportunity yet they are there risking their forces in Afghanistan.
Just because they didn't agree with the Iraq war you start up with the weird infantile attitudes?!


Everyone does have the right to make whatever choice they want. At the same time, they have to face the consequences. Freedom to choose doesn't mean you can go around doing whatever the hell you want and not face any consequences. France and Germany have to earn America's friendship. They in no way deserve it right now.

This isn't just about Iraq, either. The anti-American sentiments in all of Europe did not start with Iraq. This isn't about Bush, or WMD's, or any of that other bull. That was just what brought the bad blood to the surface.


- Yes for the USA, especially given the way so many Americans are blind to the damage this paranoia is doing to themselves


It isn't paranoia, it's the reality. What message should I get when Chirac goes to China and gives speeches on how they have to work together to stop the spread of American culture?


Russia is not going to bankrupt herself again persuing a military the country cannot afford. Russia is also abiding by her agreements to reduce the level of her nuclear and conventional weapons.


Who could honestly believe Putin's goals are to simply make a peaceful, happy Russia?

Is that why the number of Russian spies in America are believed to have gone back to Cold War levels? OH, that crippled military of Russia's is starting to get back on its feet, too.

Russia isn't as dumb as they used to be. They won't go back to being cut off communists. They'll adopt a system closer to the West's economically, and build their military to become a global power once again. Putin and Russia are not content being a second world nation. They are not happy having America as the world's lone super power.

As for China, they, too, have a massive number of spies here in America. Their air defenses have pretty much been designed for the singal goal of stopping America. They had military advisors in Iraq. They designed Iraq's missile defenses. They studied the campaign in Iraq to find weaknesses in America's military. They've been buying advanced American weapons technology from traitors like Israel.

China basically has ripoffed the F-16, and Patriot, and many other weapons.


- Get real.
American has not come close to facing a situation like Europe did during WW2 ever since WW2 ended


And god willing we won't. I never want to see an America forced to bow down to petty dictators like Europe had to with Hitler.


- Well we do have substantial oil and gas reserves of our own actually and with the conservation and startegic usage only that would instantly be implemented we'd manage for quite sometime I'm sure.


France and Germany produce a few thousand barrels of oil a day, and consume millions. I don't think I need to say much more.


- Yeah well I know letting you imagination run wild over what Saddam might have done is the basis for many thing in the USA right now but the point is he didn't and never came close to it (excepting gulf war mk 1 in which he believed the visiting US ambassador had said 'feel free' to him just before it all started).


You don't seem to get the idea of cause and effect. Iraq didn't run all over the Middle East because American troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia to prevent it.


....and what the hell do you think he would do have done anyway? The point of having the oil isn't to hoard it but to sell it.
Simply hanging on to it kind of misses the point in a major way, right?


He would have sold it. He just would have jacked up prices. If you did something he didn't like, he'd cut you off. He would have massive political power all over the world.

And no one in the world besides America could have reacted quickly enough to stop Saddam besides America. Europe doesn't have the ability to move tens of thousands of troops anywhere in the world within a relatively short period. Even Russia could not have done it.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Germany's supply lines were too stretched and the infrastructure and poor conditions of the russian front would of made conquering the entire USSR extremely hard if not impossible IMO.

There's two sides to this, those who believe Germany could of won and those who don't. We'll never know.

thanks,
drfunk



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

The harsh reality of any large scale war between powers is that the draft would be necessary and government planning of the war economy and the shifting of workers.


Not true. Drafts are not needed in America, and shouldn't be in Europe. America right now could take out Europe without a draft.

A military much larger then what America had during the Cold War is impractical. It's simply too hard to organize, equip, train, and deploy a military of that size for any nation the world has yet to see.

Most great war machines didn't have drafts at all, and fought wars constantly.


I have to disagree. America would never be able to maintain such a large volunteer army and America would have no chance in hell against Europe. If you really think all national service armies are poor, look at Israel and Germany, two armies who man for man are superior to the American GI and who both have long and proud military traditions. National Service is a mixed bag and every general would prefer an entirely volunteer army but I do not think it would be possible to maintain the flow of recruitment and the proper amounts needed and also the restructuring of the economy to war needed without some sort of government control on these mechanisms.
If you were fighting a real large scale war against another power I (let's say the US vs Europe) you would have to introduce national service to get the numbers required to be able to take on Europe in a long, drawn out large scale conflict.

I go off what history has shown us since total war has been a reality since the 20th Century and history tells us that national service is sooner or later introduced by the powers during great wars (wwi, wwii) and that the economy is shifted to war production with some sort of government planning.

thanks,
drfunk



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Germany's supply lines were too stretched and the infrastructure and poor conditions of the russian front would of made conquering the entire USSR extremely hard if not impossible IMO.

There's two sides to this, those who believe Germany could of won and those who don't. We'll never know.


There are only two types of people on this matter. The educated, and the ignorant.

How could someone argue the Germans couldn't win, when they were just outside Moscow, with Stalin ready to run, and had yet to lose? They suffered their first loss only to the Russian winter, which never should have happened because first, the Germans should have gone prepared. Even still, though, if they hadn't taken a detour to resolve conflict in the Balkans, they would have been able to attack Moscow before the first winter set in.


I have to disagree. America would never be able to maintain such a large volunteer army and America would have no chance in hell against Europe. If you really think all national service armies are poor, look at Israel and Germany, two armies who man for man are superior to the American GI and who both have long and proud military traditions. National Service is a mixed bag and every general would prefer an entirely volunteer army but I do not think it would be possible to maintain the flow of recruitment and the proper amounts needed and also the restructuring of the economy to war needed without some sort of government control on these mechanisms.
If you were fighting a real large scale war against another power I (let's say the US vs Europe) you would have to introduce national service to get the numbers required to be able to take on Europe in a long, drawn out large scale conflict.


America kept a military of "that" size all throughout the Cold War. It was also better trained, and better equipped then the one America keeps now.

Army size isn't even close to the best judge of its strength, either. The greatest empires were built not from massive armies, but smaller, well organized ones. It's all about discipline, and technique. America is above everyone here.

And Germany does not have a military better trained than America. Their military isn't even considered the best military in Europe, even though they have the largest of them all. Germany's military possesses almost no offensive capability.

As for Israel, they are a product of circumstance. They have conscripts who are put into a unique position. Their nation is at constant threat from all of their neighbors, constantly attacked by the Palestinians, and they are always deployed in hostile environments.

Even still, this military was taught everything it knows from America. Without America's help, they wouldn't exist anymore.

America's military at this time is a scaled down, decayed form of what it once was. Always remember that. America's military during the 80's was untouchable in this world in size, training, and technology. We had the capability to fight wars on multiple continents against the best in the world.

NOTHING stops America from returning to that level except the demand for it.


I go off what history has shown us since total war has been a reality since the 20th Century and history tells us that national service is sooner or later introduced by the powers during great wars (wwi, wwii) and that the economy is shifted to war production with some sort of government planning.


Total war isn't something first seen in the 20th century, and it's ignorant to say that. There was simply more firepower than ever.

The wars of the past took just as much from the nations fighting them. I will take a look at ALL history. I have looked at the greatest war machines on Earth.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   

There are only two types of people on this matter. The educated, and the ignorant.

How could someone argue the Germans couldn't win, when they were just outside Moscow, with Stalin ready to run, and had yet to lose? They suffered their first loss only to the Russian winter, which never should have happened because first, the Germans should have gone prepared. Even still, though, if they hadn't taken a detour to resolve conflict in the Balkans, they would have been able to attack Moscow before the first winter set in.

America kept a military of "that" size all throughout the Cold War. It was also better trained, and better equipped then the one America keeps now.

Army size isn't even close to the best judge of its strength, either. The greatest empires were built not from massive armies, but smaller, well organized ones. It's all about discipline, and technique. America is above everyone here.

And Germany does not have a military better trained than America. Their military isn't even considered the best military in Europe, even though they have the largest of them all. Germany's military possesses almost no offensive capability.

As for Israel, they are a product of circumstance. They have conscripts who are put into a unique position. Their nation is at constant threat from all of their neighbors, constantly attacked by the Palestinians, and they are always deployed in hostile environments.

Even still, this military was taught everything it knows from America. Without America's help, they wouldn't exist anymore.

America's military at this time is a scaled down, decayed form of what it once was. Always remember that. America's military during the 80's was untouchable in this world in size, training, and technology. We had the capability to fight wars on multiple continents against the best in the world.

NOTHING stops America from returning to that level except the demand for it.

Total war isn't something first seen in the 20th century, and it's ignorant to say that. There was simply more firepower than ever.

The wars of the past took just as much from the nations fighting them. I will take a look at ALL history. I have looked at the greatest war machines on Earth.


what BS. You simply ignore the basics taught in high school history class for your own odd world view. Where do I start :

The Russian winter is one of the arguments for why no-one could win against the Russians. Just because you take out someone's capital it doesn't mean it's all over, a lot of Russia's defence industry was moved towards the Urals and they would of turned the tide sooner or later even if Moscow was taken. I'm not arguing if Moscow could of been taken but I am arguing if the Germans could of won the war with their poor logistics and lack of manpower. Napoleon took moscow after borodino btw and we still have Russia today. My main argument for why the Germans could never of won is because of logistics, logistically speaking Russia was a nightmare and its a miracle and a testament to the german military that they were able to keep the success going so far, considering the extremes and the ingenious ideas german engineers came up with to overcome the logistical nightmare that was russia.

To call the other side ignorant and your side educated is a poor mistake because you must try and see the other sides validity and where they are coming from. One man cannot know everything. As I said there are two sides to this and truly we will never know no matter how well you make an argument.

As for the might US army, the US had the draft until 1973 if you didn't know, so for a large part of the cold war we saw national service as well. Even back then the US didn't have enough to take on a collective europe, approx 2.23 million in 1986 and to think that is wrong. To return to cold war levels would only drown the US economy more indebt and have an adverse affect on it, such large armies thankfully are not needed anymore because of the stable times we live in. Overestimating yourself and underestimating your opponent is the worst mistake some have made. If there was a war between a small, professional trained US military and a national service based European military in Europe the Europeans would win because of the advantage of home ground and the fact of superior numbers combined with good training and onpar technology. The German military is a very well trained defence force and you're kidding yourself if you don't think so. Forgive me if I am mistaken but didn't the british help first train Israel's army? As for circumstance for germany, I think being the flashpoint for a potential warwsaw pact thrust through Europe for 45 years is more than enough to keep you on your toes during the cold war. Also just because a defence force hasn't got excellent power projection capabilities doesn't mean they are a bad force.

okay as for total war : total war involves basically all facets of society (industry, civilian and military essentially an entire people) fighting for the one cause of winning a war. Until the French revolution, most wars were essentially fought with small professional armies based on feudalist practices, essentially having to "raise" an army. Not until WWI did we see total war, essentially a 'total war' where we saw huge conscript armies of the masses fighting and there also being a war effort at home, essentially production and also patriotic and nationalistic fervour over the war. So essentially the 20th Century was the first instance when we saw total warfare, all facets of society was involved and this can essentially be attributed to the long-term effects from the industrial age and the changes that happened in western society. Pick up a few history books and have a read about how WWI is the first total war instead of your odd viewpoint.

Here's a little read for you, very basic but it's somewhere you can start. It's only 6 pages but it should enlighten you about the great war :
www.bbc.co.uk...

No one man can look at ALL of history, a historian must understand the past and also learn the lessons that they can bring but you must not ignore the great changes in society that change our paradigms and completely changes our world. What i'm trying to say is that you may of looked at the greatest war machine's on earth but they were different times and circumstances what we must do is analyze our recent history and also the present as they have more relevance than wars of the past due to the great differences in our societies today. Believe it or not but the best armies in the world were the one's of the 20th century, we've never had so much destructive power before.

thanks,
drfunk


[edit on 5-2-2005 by drfunk]



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 12:23 AM
link   

The Russian winter is one of the arguments for why no-one could win against the Russians. Just because you take out someone's capital it doesn't mean it's all over, a lot of Russia's defence industry was moved towards the Urals and they would of turned the tide sooner or later even if Moscow was taken. I'm not arguing if Moscow could of been taken but I am arguing if the Germans could of won the war with their poor logistics and lack of manpower. Napoleon took moscow after borodino btw and we still have Russia today. My main argument for why the Germans could never of won is because of logistics, logistically speaking Russia was a nightmare and its a miracle and a testament to the german military that they were able to keep the success going so far, considering the extremes and the ingenious ideas german engineers came up with to overcome the logistical nightmare that was russia.


There's not a whole lot after Moscow. Russia's manpower is gone after Moscow. They had lost their major cities. They could keep producing weapons (not for very long, though), but there wouldn't be too many to use them. Moscow was Russia's last stand.

Manpower was not Germany's problem with Russia. It was Hitler's meddling, and not preparing enough for the Russian winter. If the Mongols could take Russia, it could be done then, and today.

And yes, Napoleon took Moscow. It wasn't that he was later defeated, it was that the Russians burned the city down. He didn't have any supplies to keep fighting.


As for the might US army, the US had the draft until 1973 if you didn't know, so for a large part of the cold war we saw national service as well. Even back then the US didn't have enough to take on a collective europe, approx 2.23 million in 1986 and to think that is wrong. To return to cold war levels would only drown the US economy more indebt and have an adverse affect on it, such large armies thankfully are not needed anymore because of the stable times we live in. Overestimating yourself and underestimating your opponent is the worst mistake some have made. If there was a war between a small, professional trained US military and a national service based European military in Europe the Europeans would win because of the advantage of home ground and the fact of superior numbers combined with good training and onpar technology. The German military is a very well trained defence force and you're kidding yourself if you don't think so. Forgive me if I am mistaken but didn't the british help first train Israel's army? As for circumstance for germany, I think being the flashpoint for a potential warwsaw pact thrust through Europe for 45 years is more than enough to keep you on your toes during the cold war. Also just because a defence force hasn't got excellent power projection capabilities doesn't mean they are a bad force.


America's military reached its peak in every way during the 1980's. The draft was not needed to keep a large, very deployable, highly equipped military. Funding was, and is not a problem for America. Our debt is overstated. Europe has more debt then we do.

As for manpower, America could come equal to anyone in Europe. You know why? Deploying armies much bigger than a few million men is simply impractical. Organizing, equipping, and training an army of that size, and keeping it together are not possible for anyone.

Europe's conscript armies would only pay off in a short term defensive war. You know what happens as time goes on? Europe's economy crumbles. That is part of why conscript armies do not measure up to professional armies. Europe's military capability will go up, but at the cost of their economy. It's a risky gamble.

Plus, with the conscript armies of Europe, they don't have much manueverability and deployment capabilities. America enjoys the ability to pick and choose where the fighting will take place. We won't be fighting all the EU forces at once. We could know out Germany, or France, in the very beginning. Taking out France would take the British out of the war, unless they wanted to attempt a D-Day style invasion alone, which I don't think would be very successful when the enemy would be holding air and naval superiority.

And guess what? War with Europe would end up like the past two world wars. Europe would be devestated at the end of the day, but the American mainland would be untouchable.


okay as for total war : total war involves basically all facets of society (industry, civilian and military essentially an entire people) fighting for the one cause of winning a war. Until the French revolution, most wars were essentially fought with small professional armies based on feudalist practices, essentially having to "raise" an army. Not until WWI did we see total war, essentially a 'total war' where we saw huge conscript armies of the masses fighting and there also being a war effort at home, essentially production and also patriotic and nationalistic fervour over the war. So essentially the 20th Century was the first instance when we saw total warfare, all facets of society was involved and this can essentially be attributed to the long-term effects from the industrial age and the changes that happened in western society. Pick up a few history books and have a read about how WWI is the first total war instead of your odd viewpoint.


Besides the number of nations available, and the actual destruction, nothing you said hasn't been done in the past. Destruction is merely do to increase in technology, and so is the number of nations involved. Never before was the world so connected.

Warfare is not more costly to a nation than it used to be. The death rates probably aren't that disproportional to the population growth of the last century.


No one man can look at ALL of history, a historian must understand the past and also learn the lessons that they can bring but you must not ignore the great changes in society that change our paradigms and completely changes our world. What i'm trying to say is that you may of looked at the greatest war machine's on earth but they were different times and circumstances what we must do is analyze our recent history and also the present as they have more relevance than wars of the past due to the great differences in our societies today. Believe it or not but the best armies in the world were the one's of the 20th century, we've never had so much destructive power before.


Things always progress like that. We've simply seen more rapid growth. The basics of warfare, though, have not changed.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Most of Europe's militaries are in a very degradated state right now; all of Europe united at this moment would only equal a quarter of the military strength of the United States currently. Europe is very indebted, and their economies are crap at the moment. Germany's military just recently had to take another funding cut, making it almost incapable of being able to perform its duty.

As for individual European armies that are extremely small, it is very easy for them to have extremely well-trained troops because those soldiers are so few. If you've got a huge army to train, things are different.

The only real "European" military at this moment with any real fighting ability is Britain, and they themselves don't like to necessarily be referred to as "European."

If Europe's individual militaries were as powerful as people try to make out, you'd see a lot more of Europe being involved in foreign affairs, to help secure their interests abroad as well.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join