Does EU need Military Power?

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


You always assume, that two or mutliple blocks with equivalent power would inevitably lead to a scenario which would be like the worst days of the cold war.
I think in this you are completely wrong.

The entire history of mankind says I am right.

I don´t propagate that the EU should start a nuclear armament Race with the USA just as the USA and USSR did during the cold war (btw. as a sidenote, the MAD-Scenario has worked as the USA and the USSR never had a hot war against each other ).

And what happens when one side inevitably produces and deploys more or better weaponry than the other? Does the other side do nothing or do they quickly produce and counter-deploy? The M1A2 is arguably the best MBT in the world. What will Europe do to counter that? And then what well the US do in response? And then what will the EU do...

I just say, that Europe should build a significant conventional armed force which on the one hand would grant us independence from the US armed forces and on the other hand can´t such easy be dismissed by the USA in diplomatic negotiations.

You need more than a defensive conventional force. What will you do when the US tests the EU when our interests conflict? Let's say we get fed up with the Saudis and start to move in. Do you do something or nothing? You need a force that can be projected worldwide. BTW this costs us about 300 billion dollars per year. If the US sees an EU build-up, what do you think our response will be?

And I think it would also prevent such Scenarios as just recently happened under the Bush Government, where the Senate decided that it would be correct for the US to invade the Netherlands if someday an US Citizen would be accused at the international court.

Why are you so sure that you are right and the US is wrong? This is the same arrogance the US is accused of. The US objects to international courts and such is because, frankly, they are stacked against us. The fact the Libya chairs the UN Human Rights commissions is all I need to know about that body to dismiss it.

Diplomacy is the art of forwarding your interests in the world theater. International courts and the like are just one more means to this end.

Of course, and there would have to be much more prerequisites met. For example aside from the economics it would have to be assured that all citizens have an equivalent level of education. For my hypothetical scenario just assume that it would be a time in the future, where the developing countries have a strong economy and an education level like Europe or the USA.

But who says you will all agree. Europe today is sharply divided over Iraq. You are making a big assumption that in the future this will not be so. You are also assuming that to be in the EU means to be against the US. Why must this be so and why bother committing resources to build up a military to make it so? If education is all that is needed, what's wrong with the US?

Or as an Alternative let the World government be the UN (as Urban Ranger suggested earlier) and let the question be if I would support an UN-Army which is stronger than all the other armies in the world (and yes, I would support it)

Pardon me if I see this as hopelessly naive. The UN is too flawed in its organization to ever act as a world government. The mere fact that both Luxembourg and Cameroon get the same representation in the UN as Russia and the US ought to tell you something about it.

And this is the point where our opinions are absolutely different.
I don´t see that such conflicts are inevitable. More and more conflicts between industrialized countries today are resolved peacefully in a diplomatic way.

Only when the major powers have an interest in peace. European history alone should be enough to show you that powerful nations eventually clash and the results have never been pretty.

If you want to compare the relations between the USA and USSR to a military strong Europe and the USA, than rather take dhte USSR under Gorbachev after Glasnost and Perestroika.

Well, the Russians basically couldn't keep up so they abandoned their status as superpower. The US finds itself in the uncomfortable position of having to support Russia now. In particular, we have an interest in keeping their scientists and hardware from finding new homes in the Middle East. The story is far from over in Russia however the threat of direct conflict is pretty much gone and this is a good thing.

At the moment there is no opression

Enjoy it. You have a precious gift that relatively few even today have. But be careful about taking steps that might end it.

But imagine as a worst case scenario you someday elect a president which is much worser than George W. Bush and this president convinces the congress and large parts of the american citizens, that it would be right to invade europe.

Again the US economy would crash if we invade Europe so it ain't gonna happen. US policy over the years has steadily followed the European model. We are more like you than anyone else in the world. Likewise, you are the most like us. While I'm not sure what would happen if suddenly Ecudaor became a world power, I have a pretty good idea what Europeans wth power would be like.

And I still fail to see, what getting a significant conventional european army has to do with authoritarianism and totalitarism. Just because we would have an united europoean army doen´t mean, that all european countries suddenly turn into dictatorships. European states would still remain the representative democracies they are today.

Yes, as did the US during the Cold War. It's the rest of the world that gets dictatorships. If you wanted to rule a third world country during the Cold War, all you had to do was pledge your support to either the US or the USSR and we or they would happily overthrow whatever gov't was currently in place. You would still enjoy your freedoms but others would lose theirs.

[gunkulator]

"And with its force-projecting military, the US still is powerless to do anything about it - even more so when US cities get into the reach of NK missiles. Don't see a solution apart from MAD. Some for other WOMD"

North Korea is probably a bad example. If there were no China, NK would have been taken care of long ago. Libya is a better example. In any case, force projection is needed to protect your interests outside of your domain. Had Saddam taken Saudi Arabia in 1991, he would have controlled more than half of world's oil reserves. Europe would have been at his mercy. Unfortunately, there are many Saddams in the world but for the moment those that threaten west risk intervention by the US. If the US were to vanish today, I suspect you would quickly learn of the others.

"Yes, they need to learn to accept the voting majorities - and they usually do, despite the rhetoric. I'm neither french nor german though."

Isn't that just replacing supposed American domination with French and German domination? Why is the US so much worse than France or Germany?

[Willem]

Originally posted by gunkulator
The entire history of mankind says I am right.

But history also says that if one nation has overwhelming power over others, they tend to abuse their position.

"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

[DinoDoc]

No comeback, a sidenote. Check rah's sig.

It's still funny that you think that though.

[gunkulator]

"But history also says that if one nation has overwhelming power over others, they tend to abuse their position"

Good point, and I don't deny it. I think you would agree that recent history has shown that US world domination has so far been relatively benign compared to past dominations. On the other hand, recent history also shows that two or more modern superpowers is an inherently dangerous thing.

Not the best choices I'll admit. Still, if a one world government is the answer, perhaps the best way to achieve it is not via the useless UN or via a second power axis via the EU. Maybe the answer is (*puts on flame retardent suit*) for Europe to join the United States of America.

Hey, why not? I'd be for it. We have far more in common than we have differences.

[HershOstropoler]

gunkulator:

"In any case, force projection is needed to protect your interests outside of your domain."

Probably.

"but for the moment those that threaten west risk intervention by the US."

Which in part explains the little european interest in projection capabilities. It's hard to think of a case outisde europe where the US would not intervene, and europe would.

"Isn't that just replacing supposed American domination with French and German domination? Why is the US so much worse than France or Germany?"

F and G together have less than a quarter of the voting weight in the council, and every time the overshot they've learned their lesson. This Franco-German domination has never grown beyond the rhetoric.

Also there isn't much of american domination, more annoyance. The political divergences are a lot bigger.

Dino:

"It's still funny that you think that though."

Actually I don't know where to draw the exact line. I mean, were the US (then still used in plural) a "country" in 1783? In 1800? In 1850? Was Germany one in 1806?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by gunkulator
Isn't that just replacing supposed American domination with French and German domination? Why is the US so much worse than France or Germany?

It isn´t

It´s just that this site wouldn´t be the same without the usual nation bashing...

[Willem]

Originally posted by gunkulator
Still, if a one world government is the answer, perhaps the best way to achieve it is not via the useless UN ...

Or maybe just a simple restructuring of the UN so that it isn't useless? The foundation is already there, why not just build on it? Personally I would like to see a UN with the resolve and capability to say to any tin pot dictator: "Shape up or ship out. If not we'll do it for you."

[randomturn]

There seem to be some suggestions that a strong EU military would give the US pause in the future. That notion is completely laughable. The US will never eschew war out of trepidation at EU military power.

The Cold War was a fertile time for tyrants because they were ready puppets in a larger struggle. Since the end of the Cold War, the US has largely made the world a more dangerous place for tyrants. It did so in Panama, Yugoslavia (which should have been a strictly EU problem), Afghanistan, and now Iraq. It tried and failed to do so in Somalia. Its motives weren't always perfect and neither were the results, but I think it is indisputable that a unipolar world is less hospitable to tin pot dictators.

Meanwhile, the EU, as is intrinsic to its nature, sat around and talked every crisis to death while the US took action. It is clear that the EU is a long way from being a coherent unified entity that can project its influence around the world. Even if the EU ever gets its act together enough to move in this direction, it will continue to be contemptibly easy for any of the world's real powers -- US, Russia, China -- to set the EU states arguing with each other like crazy, just as we're witnessing right now.

[HershOstropoler]

rt:

"The US will never eschew war out of trepidation at EU military power."

True, I see that as a side problem. We have to rely on political means there.

"but I think it is indisputable that a unipolar world is less hospitable to tin pot dictators."

I think that has little to do with polarity. The US is very hospitable to tin pot dictators in say Pakistan and Central asia, and in the ME. Old same...

"Meanwhile, the EU, as is intrinsic to its nature"

Just as it was intrinsic to the EU to never get to monetary union, according to the mainstream US "intelligentsija".

[gunkulator]

"but I think it is indisputable that a unipolar world is less hospitable to tin pot dictators."

I think that has little to do with polarity. The US is very hospitable to tin pot dictators in say Pakistan and Central asia, and in the ME. Old same...

Untrue. Almost all of Central and South America and much of Africa and Asia were under politically alligned dictatorships during the Cold War that were propped up only to be contrary to the other side. Today the US and Russia hardly interfere there at all.

The dictators in the ME were there before the Cold War and are still there. As to Pakistan, again we didn't put them there but they were useful to rid the world of the Taliban, who by all accounts were far worse.

The US is not omnipotent. We cannot do it all. But that doesn't mean we should do nothing at all.

[HershOstropoler]

"Almost all of Central and South America and much of Africa and Asia were under politically alligned dictatorships during the Cold War"

Sometimes, sometimes not. Latin America and South Korea moved more towards democracy during the 80s already.

"As to Pakistan, again we didn't put them there but they were useful to rid the world of the Taliban, who by all accounts were far worse."

Exactly - the US will support useful dictators in this "war" on terror, just as in the cold war. As I said, I don't see much connection with polarity.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Unless Russia gets back the Ukraine it is no longer demographicaly in aposition to dominate Germany especaily if the Germans remain allied to France.

Its misleading to say Germany and France are allied. They are making common cause now but their motivations are very different. The German public is deeply pacifist. The French are driven by the Gaullist desire to assert France's role as a great power.

[tinyp3nis]

gurkulator, you should compare what is different about EU and Soviet Union. Hell, even US 50 years ago is not the same that it is now, nor is rest of the world.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Its misleading to say Germany and France are allied. They are making common cause now but their motivations are very different. The German public is deeply pacifist. The French are driven by the Gaullist desire to assert France's role as a great power.

I don't think he was refering to just this issue. Germany and France have been scratching each others backs, as it were, in internal EU matters too. They've even held a joint sesssion of parliament a while ago, suggesting things are quite cosy.