Like it or not Euros, we're the best country in the world

[Lemmy]

Military might, Lem, should be viewed as Insurance. If you never need it, that's great!

but you also shouldn't go around creating the need for such an insurance by projecting your power on people who don't want it.

True, like insurance, you should never carry more than you need

Your initial post made it seem as tho the two have nothing to do with each other.

my bad.

Iraq/Iran....either...neither. Pick two bullies bigger than the Netherlands. If your nation was stuck between them, those would be your choices. Sad but true, my friend....we hunting apes that call ourselves homo sapiens are not so advanced that the barrel of a gun does not dictate peace. More often than not, it certainly does.

Yes, fortunately, like the US, we aren't next to any bully....but this was about how a large military improves living conditions or something. I think in the case of the US, a large military, and more or less using it, created the need for a larger military, without a noticable improvement of life.
(with large i mean larger then needed to defend your territory)

After that, the Netherlands declined more than increased in power, and for their size they are still quite powerful.

You sure the Netherlands didn't reach the height of their power in the 18th century? You know, with all that trade and colonies and stuff...ah, those were the days..

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Lemmy....just some observations:

1) military might makes it possible to project your nation's power and protect your interests. This becomes important, especially as you start to get more creature comforts (see below).

2) industrial might enables your country to either a) make creature comforts to make your life better or b) sell/trade the stuff made in order to acquire creature comforts to make your life better. More industrial might = more creature comforts, so yes....there IS a direct coralation there.

3) without military and/or diplomatic weight, you exist at the mercy of those with more guns than butter. you therefore, exist in a perilous state. It is fortunate that the Netherlands are surrounded by democratically minded states who have no interest in gross territorial acquisition. How long do you suppose the Netherlands would exist as an independent nation if, say, it were tucked between Iran and Iraq? You would quickly either arm yourselves, seek a close alliance with someone much bigger than either of these two (sorta like Kuwait did with the US), or you would be an appendage to one or the other of them. Those would be your possible futures.

-=Vel=-

Military might is only developed when it needs to be. What need of a military does the EU have?

Industry is not the be-all-end-all. 1 million rich people is better than a billion poor people. Improving industry is good, but if the wealth is spread thinly, then you are not increasing creature comforts for the masses.

Re diplomacy, the Swiss have been doing very well without a military, an industrial base or allies for centuries. Their peoples are some of the richest in the world.

[Adalbertus]

Re diplomacy, the Swiss have been doing very well without a military.

Except for a few details, that Swiss soldiers served in armies around the world, that they have more military training than most others, an airfield in each other valley and each new-built house has to have a room in the cellar which serves as a bunker against a nuclear attack (which is sort of feasible because the mountains will shield a lot of the radiation). True, in Germany one says Switzerland doesn't have an army. It is an army.

[Velociryx]

Good points all 'round. And I'd say you're right. We're currently carrying lots more insurance than we need. Long term, that can't be healthy, but given the current state of our economy, it will take many years before the weight of the military expenditures begins a general degredation OF the same economy that spawned it. In the meantime, it stands as a bulwark to protect those creature comforts we love and enjoy (and, admittedly, then some!)

Per capita measures are valuable to a point, but the real world is a world of absolute measures. (the hypothetical invading army doesn't matter if you have one soldier per thousand members of the general population...the absolute size and quality of the defending force is the only relevant measure. True, for purely comparitive "on paper" projections, per capita measures have their value....no denying that.

-=Vel=-

PS: Some good discussion here!

[Velociryx]

Dolphin....I would contend that in the world we live in, military might is always needed, and it is needed before, not after the fact.

If you don't maintain a good standing force of significant strength, then after the carpet bombing begins, it's a bit late to start tooling up.

With the SU in disarray, and China growing by leaps and bounds, the EU may well look to the east and rethink their military preparedness. Not now, or even in the next ten years, but the day's coming.

-=Vel=-

[Adalbertus]

the absolute size and quality of the defending force is the only relevant measure.

I don't agree with the "only". It depends on what you focus on. Would you like to live in a "China+India+Russia" where (nearly) the same PPP is distributed over roughly eight times the US population (given the figures above)? And given the geographical situation of Switzerland, and the determination of the population (I would rate them highest in western Europe when it comes to defend their country), a much bigger and well-equipped army would have problems to perform well. There are things where sheer size is important. In other things it is the per-capita.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Dolphin....I would contend that in the world we live in, military might is always needed, and it is needed before, not after the fact.

A military must be built to contend with the potential enemy at hand. The EU has no enemy, and so does not know what military equipment is needed.

You can't second guess who your enemies will be in the distant future, or the technology that will be employed at that time. Best to build the defence that is suited to the threat. This is done before the first bullet is fired, but after the enemy has been acknowledged.

[SKILORD]

A military must be built to contend with the potential enemy at hand. The EU has no enemy, and so does not know what military equipment is needed.

He who says he has no enemies deceives himself.

[Velociryx]

Alb....inside the span of 200 years, the USofA went from nil to the hands down, bar none biggest economy the world has ever seen. That's huge, and cannot be understated.

Part of it was the American knack for innovation....taking roughed up ideas of others and building on them. Part of it was natural resources. Part was sheer luck.

I guarantee you that if we had the landmass, resources, and population of russia + china + india, we'd have a gdp on par with that 8x population, and probably in the same timeframe. Love the USA or hate the USA, even our most bitter detractors have to admit that when it comes to using and growing capital, we do it like nobody's business.

Dolphin....I see where you're going, but still disagree. Right now, you are vulnerable. Today. You are vulnerable on a variety of fronts, and those fronts need military preparedness.

What are they?

1) Oil dependency. ME controls a healthy chunk of oil, with Russia coming on line as a big producer soon too (and not a moment too soon for them and their crumbling economy). You want to continue to enjoy the EU lifestyle, then protecting the life blood of all modern economies (oil) has GOT to be priority numero uno (with priority #2 being the quest for viable alternatives to fossil fuels). Right now, the EU has it easy in that regard, cos the US, with a larger economy, is even MORE vulnerable to this than you are, and so, has stepped up to the plate. If the oil stops flowing, the west stops entirely.

2) Two-bit thugs and wannabes. These guys seem to crawl out of the woodwork. Some are of our (generic "our" here....Western world in general) creation, and some just seem to sprout up like weeds on their own. These guys indescriminately kill, maim, gas, torment, and terrorize. Since Euros like to travel as much as we do, that's a concern. Travel in the wrong hood, and your people get kidnapped, blown up, stabbed, shot at, etc. If you can't respond, the two-bit thug sees you as weak, and like any schoolyard bully, if you're weak, you're the target of further attacks.

3) Biochemical and Nuclear proliferation. Crazy dictators don't care about MAD, they care about power. Suitcase nukes, using jets as missiles on civilian targets....all that's fair game. Now, it's true that a conventional military has to think on its feet to fight a force organized to make use of those kinds of attacks, what other alternatives do we have. It's either make our own terrorist organizations to fight fire with fire, leave it in the hands of law enforcement divisions, or use the military.

That the EU has been able to ignore or curtail military spending to the extent that it has is a testiment to the strength of the US military. Of course no one would attack Europe.....the US would kick their arses! Note tho, that the EU15 nations have very nearly the GDP of the USA. As you solidify your economic position, I would expect that some agreement would be reached between the EU and US regarding military expenditures, with yours rising, and ours falling.

-=Vel=-

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by SKILORD


He who says he has no enemies deceives himself.

Then who is about to launch an invasion of the EU?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Velociryx
That the EU has been able to ignore or curtail military spending to the extent that it has is a testiment to the strength of the US military. Of course no one would attack Europe.....the US would kick their arses! Note tho, that the EU15 nations have very nearly the GDP of the USA. As you solidify your economic position, I would expect that some agreement would be reached between the EU and US regarding military expenditures, with yours rising, and ours falling.

-=Vel=-

If the US were to be destroyed for whatever reason, or if the relations between the US and Europe became embittered, I have no doubt military spending would increase.

My point is there is no reason to do it unless you have to it.

Given current US foreign and domestic views, I doubt that Europe will take much of the military burden off of the US. The US seems to prefer to be in charge, and sees Europe as a "threat*" to that.

*By that I mean I cannot see the US ever being sub-ordinate in military actions, or letting Europe exert primary influence on areas of the world that are likely to require international involvement.

[Velociryx]

Oh trust me....the need is out there....at the moment, it's been suppressed by the fact that the US (willingly) does the bulk of the heavy lifting, BUT....

Your own economy will soon be roaring along right on par with ours, and as we scale back our expenditures, we'll need our friends across the pond to help take up the slack. This will be good for both of us, as it puts us on an equal footing in every way.

And in the meantime, the current #2 contender for the Economic Heavyweight Champion (#3, counting EU as a solidified whole) is China. Her economy is growing faster than ours (makes sense, it started so much lower!), and it won't be long till she's the big dog on the block. Very definately it'll happen in our lifetime, and prolly sooner than we think. When that happens, it will FORCE a greater spirit of cooperation between us, cos don't think for a minute that China won't want to flex those newfound muscles, and it will take every bit of our American ingenuity and European pragmatism to deal with that threat.

Count on it.

-=Vel=-

[Roland]

"Love the USA or hate the USA, even our most bitter detractors have to admit that when it comes to using and growing capital, we do it like nobody's business."

As was demonstrated by the dotcoms.

"That the EU has been able to ignore or curtail military spending to the extent that it has is a testiment to the strength of the US military......Of course no one would attack Europe.the US would kick their arses! "

The combined military spending is about 150-200 billion $. The combined armies have about 2-2.5 million soldiers, couple million reserves, couple thousand fighter planes, something like 12000 tanks etcetc.

Even the US could not win (as in invade and occupy) a war against a united EU. So our security from attack is not so much the problem. It is about force projection, and I'm not sure what to do on this. The idea of randomly bombing places around the globe to compete for most-hated status is not very tempting.

[Adalbertus]

Your own economy will soon be roaring along right on par with ours, and as we scale back our expenditures, we'll need our friends across the pond to help take up the slack. This will be good for both of us, as it puts us on an equal footing in every way.

I hope so. But at the moment, we have an experiment going on which seems to me more difficult than building a strong economy in 200 years (and probably without significant spending on military in the first 100 years, and some bootstrap before. In 1776, you didn't have nothing): To make a stable union of proud nations who fought each other the last 1500 years, and sometimes quite horribly.

[Lemmy]

And in the meantime, the current #2 contender for the Economic Heavyweight Champion (#3, counting EU as a solidified whole) is China. Her economy is growing faster than ours (makes sense, it started so much lower!), and it won't be long till she's the big dog on the block. Very definately it'll happen in our lifetime, and prolly sooner than we think. When that happens, it will FORCE a greater spirit of cooperation between us, cos don't think for a minute that China won't want to flex those newfound muscles, and it will take every bit of our American ingenuity and European pragmatism to deal with that threat.

i don't see why China has to be an enemy forever, they aren't a heavyweight yet and thus no threat to us now, so there is still a chance China get's a better government before that happens, and i think we should do everthing we can to encourage that, and not just brand China as our enemy.