Does EU need Military Power?

[Drake Tungsten]

And the Kiwis can be the Aussie's lap dog substitute for international diplomacy.

*cue whatever that sound is that the Commons makes when they agree with something*

[gunkulator]

I don´t know if it is better now.

So you would prefer going to sleep at night with the very real threat of nuclear war hanging over your head? Perhaps you are not old enough to remember the very real possibility of utter annihilation anytime US/USSR relations took a sour turn. I don't know about Germany, but many Americans in the 50's and 60's and even later figured a nuclear war with the Soviets was a matter of when, not if.

Remember the Doomsday Clock? First Strike Strategy? Dr. Strangelove? Cuban Missile Crisis? Nuclear Winter? As a German you must at least know about the hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops and thousands of missiles pointed at your home. Nobody even mentions these things today, let alone worries about them.

Surely mankind was never more on the edge of extinction than during the Cold War.

Lets assume someone would one day propose the Idea of a World Government which is elected by all the people of the world, governs the world and has an own army

Why would it need an army? Armies are for external threats.

I would be one of the Proponents of such a world government. Why? Because I would have the feeling that I could have an influence over the government either by electing the party or president which best suits my taste, or by becoming a politician.

I suspect you may not really believe this. The gap between rich and poor in the world today is too great to make a world-wide representative government feasible. The much greater numbers of poor people would drain your economy of its wealth and capital to the point of it no longer being functional. It would be like the Russia of 1917 all over again. Your gov't, like all other western govt's, prevents this scenario with strict immigration policies.

The way to a one world gov't is to help developing nations achieve the same economic success as the west. The EU works because all its members are industrialized. It would not work if Bangladesh was a member.

In any case, my main point is that two or more powerful nations inevitably conflict. The results of these conflicts (large scale war, dictatorships, subversion) have not proven to be good for humanity.

Yes, you have no voice in US elections. But I would again ask what real oppression you are currently experiencing such that you prefer to turn back the clock to the era of authoritariansism, totalitarism and all the very real human suffering that accompanied it.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Big Crunch


OK then, let Australia or Canada have a go. They've been waiting ever so patiently.

Sure, we'll have a go at it!

Hmmm, think you could loan us some of your military gear? We seem to be a bit short at the moment.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Willem


Sure, we'll have a go at it!

Hmmm, think you could loan us some of your military gear? We seem to be a bit short at the moment.

Sure, its not as if your entire navy isn't made up of UK hand-me-downs already.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Big Crunch


Sure, its not as if your entire navy isn't made up of UK hand-me-downs already.

Yeah, and I think we got our helicopters at a rummage sale somewhere.

I have to admit, even for a peacenik like me, our armed forces are getting rather embarrassing.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Not that many persons or countries like the US when it comes to international relations.

What's the better alternative? France? China?

So, your understanding of international relations closely resembles that of Bush Jr. No real surprise there.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
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.

I don't think we need a multipolar world, what we need is a One World Government, and the UN is the closest thing we have so far.

Paradoxically, however, a multipolar world is better than a unipolar world if that single pole doesn't gives a rat's arse about other nations.

[Drake Tungsten]

So, your understanding of international relations closely resembles that of Bush Jr. No real surprise there.

Nice comeback, UR. You've showcased your usual level of cleverness...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I don't think we need a multipolar world, what we need is a One World Government, and the UN is the closest thing we have so far.

[Sarxis]

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.

Hasn't the US already?

[HershOstropoler]

If you ingest enough mice, your answer will probably be yes.

[Demerzel]

Considering that the EU will be adding between 5 and 15 new countries in the next decade or two, it's overall population will rise significantly faster than the USA. Even with the fact that some of the new countries are not as powerful economically at this time, they will still add to the overall EU economic might and obviously more so as time goes on and they are integrated & upgraded.

I can't see the USA building its lead any further over the EU economically, in fact I'm sure the EU will overtake the USA shortly and build a large lead. Military might will no doubt suck for a fair while until the power struggles can be resolved.

Do we need a large military though? Hmm, a toughie. As someone said, once you have the capabiity to do something - resisting the urge to do it can be hard.

I would like to see the EU have more muscle when it goes into future diplomacy. The world needs one superpower like a shot to the head, having said that though many competing powers causing arms races and other negative events would obviously be bad too.

[Alexander's Horse]

You guys are behind the time. From what I hear the US Administration is going to be in a mood to settle a few scores after the war. That doesn't mean military action. But it does mean European integration is dead in the water and the US will see it as in its interests to keep Europe divided. You can kiss Nato goodbye and Britain will become the unsinkable aircraft carrier once again.

There is going to be major, major fallout from the Iraq thing and the positions countries took.

Should Europe re-arm? They'll have to. The US is in no mood to defend continental Europe any more.

[HershOstropoler]

Horsie:

"From what I hear the US Administration is going to be in a mood to settle a few scores after the war."

That's assured.

"But it does mean European integration is dead in the water and the US will see it as in its interests to keep Europe divided."

Will see? It always did. Didn't stop us, will not stop us.

"You can kiss Nato goodbye"

That would be excellent news.

"and Britain will become the unsinkable aircraft carrier once again."

That remains to be seen, depends on how thsi war goes, and how the next one goes, and the one after that...

"Should Europe re-arm? They'll have to. The US is in no mood to defend continental Europe any more."

Against what, pray tell?

[Alexander's Horse]

Its difficult to see what threats may emerge at this time, possibly a resurgent Russia under an extreme nationalist leadership, but continental Europe will be responsible for its own defence. That much is clear.

The US is talking about closing bases in Germany. I think that's public knowledge.

A re-armed Germany will change the global military balance. The German public don't want it but they will have to look to their own defence.