What should the EU do about US power?

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Why on Earth would the EU want an army as big as the US army???

The whole point of the EU criticising the US, is that we don't want them to go around killing people quite so much. Why would we counter that by doing the same thing?



The only way to try and deal with the US is to try and acheive economic dominance. This is something which Europe can and should do (although it policy makers would need a serious kick up the arse first....). The EU has a highly trained populace and good infrastructure, as well as good relations (on the whole - at least better than the US) with developing countries.

Nowadays econimic dominance = cultural dominance, so by Europe gaining economic dominance, maybe we could somehow trandfer our views onto the US populace and teach those Americans how to behave themselves.

You don't get it, do you? The moment any nation begins to interact with the outside world to an extensive degree is the moment it makes enemies.

Do you really think the European Union could practice economic dominance — with or without a military — and get away with it? Hardly. Wanna know why? Because that's what everyone is whining about today: the combination of U.S. economic, cultural and military dominance. Look what our "dominance" has wrought: It just makes us a nice big target for the perpetually "victimized" masses to spit at (at best) and maybe bring down a few of our skyscrapers if they're really aggravated (and religiously-motivated to boot).

Go ahead, Rogan. Lead the EU to economic dominance. Then get ready to build up the EU's military in order to defend said economic interests (and, by then, your puppet states in which the interests reside). After all, it's getting lonely up here in the "dominance" crow's nest. We could use a partner up here ... then at least there would be two targets for the perpetually "victimized" masses to spit and shoot at.

Isn't this bringing back memories of pre-World War I Europe, Rogan? European nations were gung-ho, interventionist and had colonies all over the world back then. Success then made you a target and success now and in the future will also turn you back into a target for those who feel they are disenfranchised.

What it all comes down is that success and "dominance" will inevitably lead to someone hating your guts and wanting to make balloon animals out of said entrails. No matter how "nice" or "evil" you are. That's human nature.

Welcome to the crow's nest, Rogan. Here's your flak jacket and helmet. Now DUCK!

CYBERAmazon

[faded glory]

How high are taxes in middle/upper business brackets in most EU nations? 40%? 80?% in some...?If you only think you can sneak them higher without pummeling economic growth or cutting out your Social priorities to cover military.....


Who will go along with that? Speaking on your own citizens here.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Why on Earth would the EU want an army as big as the US army???

The whole point of the EU criticising the US, is that we don't want them to go around killing people quite so much. Why would we counter that by doing the same thing?

Kill or be killed.

[Bereta_Eder]

easy to say when

Originally posted by Asher

Kill or be killed.

You haven't seen what "killing" is...

[Asher]

Re: easy to say when

Originally posted by paiktis22
You haven't seen what "killing" is...

Why would I need to?

It was an expression.

If you have the econonic influence, but no military to back it up, history has shown you WILL be killed. You need military to protect your economic interests.

Kill or be killed.

[Bereta_Eder]

Re: Re: easy to say when

Originally posted by Asher

Why would I need to?

Because then you'd not be so quick in "killing" others. If they kill you back that is.
So it's easy to say kill or be killed and not try to find a solution for example when you actually have not a fear of getting you killed.

[Asher]

Re: Re: Re: easy to say when

Originally posted by paiktis22
Because then you'd not be so quick in "killing" others. If they kill you back that is.
So it's easy to say kill or be killed and not try to find a solution for example when you actually have not a fear of getting you killed.

It's a frickin' expression.

I'm not even talking about the details of combat, just the ideology behind the military protecting the economy.

[Bereta_Eder]

Re: Re: Re: Re: easy to say when

Originally posted by Asher
I'm not even talking about the details of combat, just the ideology behind the military protecting the economy.

And I'm talking about the will to co-operate. The expression is valid. A superpower will not have the will to do that if it can "kill" (there, happy? ) with inpunity. That's what "balance of power" was invented ffs

[Velociryx]

I think that both the US and EU should focus their attention MUCH more heavily on bananas....that's the best solution for all parties involved.

Seriously. The world is shrinking. That's a fact. It's also a fact that there are VERY FEW first world, highly industrialized nations on the planet, and the ones that are here need to band together to guide the rest of the world to wealth and prosperity.

You wanna make a lasting impact on global politics? Gunships are NOT the way to do it. The only thing the military is good for (from a pracical and diplomatic standpoint) is:

a) enforcing your will on others (lose diplomatic brownie points big time)
b) self defense (nobody's business but those directly involved....largely a "push" diplomatically)
c) protecting state interests which happen to lie outside your borders (keeping the oil flowing, for example)

Aside from that, the military is just so much scrap iron.

So, yes. It's needed. It's necessary cos there are a lot more po' boys living in the hood than there are rich, and without a strong military, you're asking for the pasting of your life. But, long term, the ONLY viable solution to world peace is world prosperity. It's about building such an intricately intertwined global economy that it's simply more profitable to remain at peace than it is to make war.

EU needs to get off its duff and start acting more like a first world power, that's true. And that starts with beefing up its military apparatus.

US needs to tone it down a little and stop playing global boogie man.

Eventually, they'll meet somewhere in the middle, and when they do, the world will be a hell of a lot better off.

Maybe then we can get down to the business of raising the global standard of living to a place never even DREAMED of in most parts of the world.

-=Vel=-
(my two cents)

[DanS]

"as to political will it probably is not there now, but as the US's own history has show that can change"

Point well taken.

[Comrade Tribune]

The option I´d vote for is the 'Put our heads together with Russia and China and find a way to clobber Mickey Mouse' option.

[Lonestar]

I fall into the "If the EU wants to influence our polices, lead, follow, or get out of the way" category. Unfortunatly, the EU has a relatively laughable military...it's pretty damning when the Brazilians have more power projection capabilities (the two large Carriers Minias Garais and Sao Paulo) than Britain, or France, or pretty much the rest of the EU combined.

Britain is trying to fix this, it's two "Future Large Carriers" should be entering service in 2012, armed with JSF's or maybe a navalized version of the Typhoon.

France? Don't make me laugh. It has one Nuclear carrier (the Charles de Gaulle, which is the only coalition asset of note providing air support.) It should have two, so they always have a carrier on hand for emergancies.

Italy is building a second arrier, which is actually patterned after the America Wasp class Landing Ships, so that'll be good for humanitarian missions.


Otherwise, outside of the three Invincible class carriers Britain has (all smaller than our Wasp amphibs) there is no real power projection capability in Europe. Sorry Charlie.

Put up, or shut up.

[Makeo]

A few points:

-Not only is the US military bigger than the EU's, it is different in nature. It is truly expeditionary. A real blue-water navy, C-5 Aircraft, control of GPS constellation, etc. The EU would not merely need to build up forces to US levels, they would need to change the nature of those forces. Look at Germany with it's conscript army and with an insignificant Navy.

-The forces can not currently act together in the way that US forces can. Not only are their language barriers, etc. (despite all the NATO exercises), but the command and control is not unified.

-As you have noted, the relative power imbalance is a double-edged sword for Europe/US. Some good and bad for both.

-I forsee slow changes to a less US-controlled world. We are still moving away from the Cold War. And in some sense still moving away from WWII and the German partition, Austrian neutrality, etc. Even while things change, we are still influenced by the remains of the past.

[Comrade Tribune]

I am not advocating a 'Europe should go at it alone'. I am advocating a 'Europe, China and Russia form Sevastopol Pact to contain US aggression' solution.

[Velociryx]

US aggression?

Dude, you haven't SEEN US aggression, and you won't.

The fact is, with our military as it stands right now, if we really WERE aggressive, we could take on the abovementioned coalition and eat it for breakfast.

That's not what we're about, despite what our current president's actions might lead you to think.

-=Vel=-