Europe's demilitarization

[Sikander]

Originally posted by lightblue
Wouldn't an easier standpoint be something along these lines:

"If you attack us and it's proven that your country is behind it we will target the biggest 5 cities in your country and flatten them after 5 days warning so you can evacuate civilians."

Note that i am not against the use of military force (nuclear if necessary because they don't have the carriers etc) i just don't think we should really get involved in other countries as well. Money can be better spent elsewhere.

I mean obviously all this is a slight exaggeration, but really, to get and maintain massive projection power just in case someone kills less than 0.05% of our population sounds like an irrational thing to do.

Massive retaliation. One false move and boom! A lot cheaper than a flexible response capability. A lot less flexible too.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Sikander
Untrue unless you define poor as below the income mean.

What's your definition?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Geronimo

I see.

So given that you dismiss what I said as empty nauseating rhetoric you clearly believe that military equipment is designed with only one purpose. To kill people as efficiently as possible. Those who enlist in the military are exactly like SS soldiers who would volunteer to staff a concentration camp, eh? They both serve only to kill, right?

Given your assumptions that military equipment is designed exclusively to kill why hasn't the world gotten any better at it since ww2? You would think that if some 50+ million were killed in WW2 we would have done much much better than that by now in iraq! Why, every last Iraqi should be dead by now!


The rhetoric that really makes me sick, the rhetoric that is truly nauseating is the rhetoric of those who would pardon the unforgivable abomination of genocide as somehow just the default course and indeed final objective of any warfare.

I'm afraid you don't see. In the end weapons are made for bringing death and destruction. You can't separate both from eachother. And no - it doesn't mean that every soldier is automatically a killer, that is a totally different question. But noone should have illusions about the purpose of military weapons. You can rationalize all day long about how they are for defense against the evil guys or for something else, but that does not change the fact that in praxis they are for killing and for destroying stuff.

Oh, and I am not a pacifist.

[Dinner]

My old reserve unit was staffed mainly with upper middle class white folks from the burbs. Nearly all of them were either college graduates, like me, or were attending college. About 25% of the unit had advanced degrees. Granted the reserves tend to attract more people who have university as a goal since the Reserves pay for college but it still shows how far off the mark many people are on this topic.

Over all their income level, even for those in their mid-20's, was probably higher then most Europeans in this forum. I'd say there is a whole lot of ignorance and prejudice in this thread about persons in uniform and few informed opinions.

[Last Conformist]

@Geronimo: Try harder.

[Az]

The heavy units can't prevent anyone from getting blown apart on account of arriving in half a year.

A rapid response force might be of little use overseas for anything beyond policing duties. The heavies aren't useful for anything whatsoever overseas.

That's only because you lack the capabilities to transfer them rapidly. Maybe you should develop them, instead, tsk tsk.

[lightblue]

Wow, got sigged, had people slag me off. First time I've this kind of impression i think. Maybe i should stick to posting hyperbole style...

As for Blackcat, I guarantee you if you asked the general public in all european countries if they preferred more foreign military adventures or better hospitals/schools/roads you'd probably get close to 100% replying that they'd prefer the latter. Yes a lot of what I say is isolationist in scope (at least on military front, global trade and spread of ideas is a good thing), but i don't necessarily think that's a bad thing.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Geronimo
So given that you dismiss what I said as empty nauseating rhetoric you clearly believe that military equipment is designed with only one purpose. To kill people as efficiently as possible.

The military has no other purpose but to kill. Pretending otherwise is just trying to guild a turd.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Az

The heavy units can't prevent anyone from getting blown apart on account of arriving in half a year.

A rapid response force might be of little use overseas for anything beyond policing duties. The heavies aren't useful for anything whatsoever overseas.

That's only because you lack the capabilities to transfer them rapidly. Maybe you should develop them, instead, tsk tsk.

That would require a drastic rise of military expenditure, which just isn't going to happen unless people in the streets feel threatened, at which point we'd be focusing on territorial defense again.

Most Europeans don't see a need for the capacity to fight big wars overseas.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Most Europeans don't see a need for the capacity to fight big wars overseas.

At least some people on this planet are sane.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Terrorism is a serious threat, and it is actually the EU's common security policy's main concern.

However, considering that we deal with guys armed with cutters/old-school explosives/the odd dirty bomb, I don't see why we should need to develop the glitziest toys.

I think that's a little too glib a response. Is Europe going to be cool without a capability of reaching out and dealing retribution when the time comes, such as Afghanistan? (In an amount of violence comensurate to that received, no nuking cities involved, etc.) Are Europeans all pacifists?

[lightblue]

You say that as though being a pacifist is a bad thing. Also as long as the US is busy making itself as big a target as it can be why should they bother attacking Europe, especially if we stay out of it.

[DanS]

It was a question. Answer the question!

[pchang]

Because Europe is an easier target. Just look at your history. Europe has been hit by terrorists much more often than the US (at least an order of magnitude more).

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by DanS


I think that's a little too glib a response. Is Europe going to be cool without a capability of reaching out and dealing retribution when the time comes, such as Afghanistan? (In an amount of violence comensurate to that received, no nuking cities involved, etc.) Are Europeans all pacifists?

No, Europeans aren't all pacifists.

Dealing retribution to a hellhole like Afghanistan doesn't require the capacity to land an armoured division on the other side of the earth in a hurry. America achieved rather more than retribution without using it.