Europe's demilitarization

[lightblue]

Originally posted by 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).

That's largely internal terrorism though, you have to diferentiate.

[Bereta_Eder]

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?

Dealing retribution to whom? The innocents? Or you think they're not human beings living there?
Plus it doesn't work. You rpoved it in afganistan and iraq and bosnia/kosovo.

[Atahualpa]

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?

I am cool with that and I am confident that whatever happens, we'll be able to manage it.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
What's your definition?

Probably at some point below the median.

[Spiffor]

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?

Europeans aren't all pacifists, but we'd deal retribution differently:
1. The power projections for specific missions are there. They're largely provided by France and Britain, but they're there nonetheless. Besides, we don't need glitzy tech for power projection, as lo0ng as we aren't fighting an actually strong country.

The OP deals with more expenditures on military research, and you are speaking of massively increasing the European defense spending (considering that you wish it compares to the insane American military budget). I don't see why either -glitzy technologies or massive spending increase- are needed, even if we want to intervene in the occasional Kosovo or Afghanistan.

Many of the bigger countries could change the focuis of their military (from big conscription armies to smaller mobile units) with little cost. Actually, when France underwent this shift, the defense budget got cut.

The only reason of having a serious military tech is to expect a fight against a country that matches our tech. Neither the terrorists nor third world countries do. For the time being, our only technological rivals are the US, Russia, and Israel to some extent. Considering that all involved powers have the bomb, a war between any of those is very unlikely.

[DanS]

considering that you wish it compares to the insane American military budget

I don't wish such a thing. I think both the UK and France have reasonable military budgets and at least the UK can hang with us when the going gets tough. In any event, this isn't such a precise exercise that a 1/3rd difference by proportion to our economies would seem to make a critical difference. But some other European countries seem to have militaries and politics that do not reflect serious attention to contingencies in this jungle of a world.

The only reason of having a serious military tech is to expect a fight against a country that matches our tech.

In my view, this is not the case. We have plenty of tech that is useful in Afghanistan, as I have pointed out previously. Tech is useful to harm the bad guys while not harming the innocents. Tech is useful to persuade some of the bad guys that it is unwise to go against us. Tech is useful to reduce casualties, etc. Tech is useful to reduce the costs of the overall mission as well -- i.e., it's a form of spending now so that you don't have to spend more later.

[Agathon]

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).

And they know how to deal with it. I was shocked when I went through the US in the early nineties. Security checks for domestic passenger flights did not seem to exist. I got delayed numerous times in Britain while my bags were unpacked.

The Europeans have been living with terrorism for years. Munich, the IRA, ETA, and various other nutters have been trying this stuff for years. It just hadn't happened in the US (excluding McVeigh) and 911 was a big wakeup call.

It's like Americans said, "Hey terrorism is a real big problem", and everyone else said, "Yeah, we know."

[DanS]

And they know how to deal with it. I was shocked when I went through the US in the early nineties. Security checks for domestic passenger flights did not seem to exist.

And despite it all, we didn't have any problems for half a century. Until we did.

US society still is based upon the premise that internally, nobody wants to hurt the whole. It works the vast majority of the time, even with an amazing number of immigrants.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by DanS


I don't wish such a thing. I think both the UK and France have reasonable military budgets and at least the UK can hang with us when the going gets tough. In any event, this isn't such a precise exercise that a 1/3rd difference by proportion to our economies would seem to make a critical difference. But some other European countries seem to have militaries and politics that do not reflect serious attention to contingencies in this jungle of a world.

I certainly won't dispute that current Swedish defense planning and spending makes no sense.

What I disagree with are the notions that (i) Europe doesn't have the capacity to defend itself against all realistic military threats over the forseeable future, and that (ii) we need power projection capacities beyond light reapid response units fit for UN peacekeeping missions and swift forays into 3rd World troublespots of the sort the UK and France has been doing for decades. Given the attitude of the average European voter to military adventurism, a capacity to send large mechanized forces across the sea and fight a serious war would never be used, and maintaining it would be a perfect waste of money.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Geronimo
It's designed allow the completion of objectives in the face of intelligent opposition.

Perhaps part of europes problem is the prevalence of people who do not recognize this important distinction.

The objectives involve death-dealing. Every argument by Dan in this thread has been limited to objectives involving death-dealing. What distinction?

[Atahualpa]

All this intelligent opposition crap becomes really meaningless when you look at the targets the US is choosing.

A rag tag band of iraqi insurgents, equipped with t-shirts an AK74 and a RPG. Equally equipped afghan military.
The mighty mighty iraq army.
The only at least worthwile to consider opposition was the serbian army and there they decided to bomb the whole country first targeting power plants and oil refineries and terrorizing the civilians, who are probably more dangerous than a dozen sam sites.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
All this intelligent opposition crap becomes really meaningless when you look at the targets the US is choosing.

A rag tag band of iraqi insurgents, equipped with t-shirts an AK74 and a RPG. Equally equipped afghan military.
The mighty mighty iraq army.
The only at least worthwile to consider opposition was the serbian army and there they decided to bomb the whole country first targeting power plants and oil refineries and terrorizing the civilians, who are probably more dangerous than a dozen sam sites.

The iraqi insurgents are not necessarily lacking in intelligence just cause they are limited in resources. They seem to have used fairly sophisticated techniques, which in fact the Fedayeen Saddam and the Special Republican Guard were preparing before the US invasion.

And IIUC US forces HAVE used technology to advantage. Though perhaps they have overrelied in it as opposed to sufficient numbers of troops.

[Atahualpa]

The iraqi insurgents are not necessarily lacking in intelligence just cause they are limited in resources. They seem to have used fairly sophisticated techniques, which in fact the Fedayeen Saddam and the Special Republican Guard were preparing before the US invasion.

come on, you don't seriously want to compare their training and military education to that of a marine?

The only advantage they have is that the US has to take care where to step their feets on, while they are free to move around and have the support of the population. But that doesn't make them intelligent. Only harder to crack.

There are no weapons against intelligent opposition involved. What did the US do in Afghanistan? Level bombing every remote hole that Osama might be hiding in. You could have done that with a bomber squad from 1945.

[DanS]

What did the US do in Afghanistan? Level bombing every remote hole that Osama might be hiding in. You could have done that with a bomber squad from 1945.

That's not true in the extreme. You must not have been paying attention to believe this.

[Atahualpa]

Well, if you say so...