Does EU need Military Power?

[Inverse Icarus]

Re: Re: Does EU need Military Power?

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Should they? No.
Can they? China's your best bet for the rise of another superpower. Russia isn't in a position to make another run at the title for the time being and European nations lack the ability and the will.

Really? China? In it's current direction?

there are two ways i see China going from this point, either hardcore free market or harcdcore communism. I don't see this "half-assed communism" they're pulling right now lasting too much longer myself.

So, either they go Capitialist and start making more and more money, or they go Stalinist Communism and ride their people into the ground.

Am i missing any options?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DarthVeda
Can't you just accept the possibility that the world can exist on one pole? Who needs a counterweight and why?

Because you guys act like *******s when nobody's around to stop you?

Good enough reason for me...

[Ozz]

I'd be building Nuclear ICBMs and plenty of them, after
yesterday.

[gunkulator]

The last time we had two poles it turned into a long and costly Cold War complete with an economically draining arms race. MAD forced the Cold War to be fought by proxies: tinpot dictatorships propped up for the sole reason that they supported one side over the other.

If power corrupts as is claimed, I don't hold much hope that the next two-pole world would turn out much differently than the last.

[Spiffor]

That's precisely why I call for a multipolar world, where US, Europe, China, Russia and maybe India have similar power.

[gunkulator]

More poles=more spheres of influence=more tinpots.

An EU power axis may be good for Europeans but don't fool yourself into believing that you'd be doing it to make the world a better place. Multipolar worlds force nations to choose up sides. Dictators do exceptionally well under these conditions because they gain protection from their sponsor. Refuse to accept the tinpot and he can threaten to switch to the other side.

And of course there is the other more sinister side of multiple superpowers: the heightened chance of nuclear war.

The world survived one Cold War. I'm not so sure about the next one.

[DanS]

Prime Minister Howard of Australia suggested a couple of days ago that mid-century 21st century the US will have left Europe in the dust economically. Since military power follows from economic power...

"The American economy will be much stronger than the aggregate of the European economies by the middle of this century."

This means that the EU would not be able to create a counterweight, unless it takes on other members, such as China or India. Or plays second fiddle to either of them...

Don't know if I believe it or not.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by gunkulator
More poles=more spheres of influence=more tinpots.

An EU power axis may be good for Europeans but don't fool yourself into believing that you'd be doing it to make the world a better place. Multipolar worlds force nations to choose up sides. Dictators do exceptionally well under these conditions because they gain protection from their sponsor. Refuse to accept the tinpot and he can threaten to switch to the other side.

And of course there is the other more sinister side of multiple superpowers: the heightened chance of nuclear war.

The world survived one Cold War. I'm not so sure about the next one.

Thats what such a multinational Organization like the UN is for.

With a multipolar world we would have a UN where not one single Nation dominates the Security council and can choose to act on his own even if it opposes the Will of the UN/Securityx council.
Of course one thing we would have to get rid of (in a new, reformed UN) would be the Veto-Rights of the permanent members, because it makes the Council a less democratic structure than it should be.

And one other thing is:
Even a multipolar world where there are multiple Powers with equivalent economic/military strength doesn´t inevitably have to lead to a new cold war. Of course there would be differences sometimes, but if none of the other nations would have to start a world revolution (as the communists wanted to do) there would be no reason for a cold war.

[gunkulator]

With a multipolar world we would have a UN where not one single Nation dominates the Security council and can choose to act on his own even if it opposes the Will of the UN/Securityx council.

This was just as true during the Cold War as it is today. The only time the UN has prevented conflict was when no major power had any serious interest in the outcome. For that reason alone, the UN is worthwhile. The big guys will always ignore it.

Even a multipolar world where there are multiple Powers with equivalent economic/military strength doesn´t inevitably have to lead to a new cold war.

World history proves otherwise. A multipolar world will be divided until all have chosen sides. In the past, this was accomplished via outright conquest and colonialism. During the Cold War, subversion was popular. Tomorrow's multipolar world may use economic might to crush the third world into choosing up sides.

However you care to put a spin on it, powerful nations will use power to dominate weaker ones. In a competitve multipolar war, the need to do so before the other guys does will only make things worse.

[Arrian]

Does the EU need military power?

Depends on:

1) Do the members of the EU wish to have a joint foreign policy
2) Are the members of the EU willing to pay for the costs of a military buildup?
3) What, exactly, do the members of the EU wish to do with this military power if they build it? (this determines just how much they need)

Up to you guys. But it seems that having a big stick tempts one to use it. Buyer beware.

-Arrian

[Gatekeeper]

BAH! Humanity doesn't need a multi-polar world! What it needs is to be invaded by aliens and completely conquered! Then we'll all have something in common when we rise up rebellion against our alien overlords!

Death to the Dominion! May the Founders fall apart and the Jem'Hadar get drunk on white!

Gatekeeper

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by gunkulator

With a multipolar world we would have a UN where not one single Nation dominates the Security council and can choose to act on his own even if it opposes the Will of the UN/Securityx council.

This was just as true during the Cold War as it is today. The only time the UN has prevented conflict was when no major power had any serious interest in the outcome. For that reason alone, the UN is worthwhile. The big guys will always ignore it.

World history proves otherwise. A multipolar world will be divided until all have chosen sides. In the past, this was accomplished via outright conquest and colonialism. During the Cold War, subversion was popular. Tomorrow's multipolar world may use economic might to crush the third world into choosing up sides.

However you care to put a spin on it, powerful nations will use power to dominate weaker ones. In a competitve multipolar war, the need to do so before the other guys does will only make things worse.

On the other hand the truely bad thing with unilateral Power is:

If in this most powerful state a president is elected who misuses those powers against the other states in the world to gather more influence, power or wealth for his own state, there is no other state capable to stop him.
In a mulipolar world if this same president would be kept at bay by the other powers.

So it seems also very risky to me to have only one state and (as a citizens of those states which are not so powerful) I´d rather take the risk of a divided world, than the risk to be some day oppressed by a single powerful state.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by DanS
Prime Minister Howard of Australia suggested a couple of days ago that mid-century 21st century the US will have left Europe in the dust economically. Since military power follows from economic power...

"The American economy will be much stronger than the aggregate of the European economies by the middle of this century."

Howard is just a little biased. He (rightly) sees Australia in the context of a US/Japanese dominated economic bloc. If the EU is a dominant economic power then the Pacific Rim and Australia's position will be less than otherwise. Whilst the reality is that economic failure in the EU would only be caused by a global crisis that took everyone else down, it is not in Howard's interest to admit this.

[DanS]

Whilst the reality is that economic failure in the EU would only be caused by a global crisis that took everyone else down, it is not in Howard's interest to admit this.

No, that's not the reality. It's not "economic failure", as such. Rather, it is in comparison to the US. The US will continue to add population at the current rate, which will make our economic growth rate faster than Europe's. At least that's the assumption.

[Drake Tungsten]

A multipolar world order is inherently unstable and dangerous. Those of you who ***** about a unipolar American-led world might want to think about the consequences of bringing great power conflict back to the fore in international relations. It usually isn't pretty...