Europe's demilitarization

[Lawrence of Arabia]

get off this 'percent of economy' garbage. its useless when comparing militaries, and their strengths.

[Az]

And in a way why should we worry about civil wars/government collapses? Would you want Russian/Chinese troops on American soil if the US government ever collapsed or if there was a 2nd Civil War (theoretically obviously)? I doubt it, I am sure you'd want to sort things out yourselves. You wouldn't want an outside power interfering and propping up the side they though would suit their goals the best (think pipeline in Georgia and that sort of thing).

What a dangerous approach.

[lightblue]

I think you're more likely to antagonise people by interfering in their country than by not interfering.

[Az]

And in that line of reasoning you're caring first and foremost for yourself. If that's your goal, sure.

[DanS]

"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."

[Kuciwalker]

Sigged!

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Deathdealing infratstructure would be things like slaughterhouses (concetration camps for humans). Military equipment isn't designed to deal or create death. 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.

This is the sort of rhetorics that makes me sympathize with the pacifists. *vomit*

[Last Conformist]

Merging the "who's gonna attack us?" and "who cares about brown people?" subthreads, the rational thing to do would be having less heavy units for territorial defense and more rapid response forces that could be sent to whatever hellhole needing getting blown up in short order. Great power projection capabilities need not necessarily spell greater military spending in total.

[Az]

experience has taught that this sort of Rumsfeldian logic doesn't work. You need the heavy units so that you don't get blown apart.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Yes, I've become a little disillusioned with strictly realist foreign policy post 9/11.

You're not the only one.

Anyway, to address the topic, I'd much rather see Japan increase its military spending than Europe. Europe's days as the center of world events is long gone, while odds are good that the next century will be an Asian one. A reliable, militarily strong ally in the thick of world events is much better for the US than a fickle union of formerly influential states with the military strength needed to back up their delusions of grandeur. IMO, at least...

Well said.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Maybe we should spend less on our military and stop invading places.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Az
experience has taught that this sort of Rumsfeldian logic doesn't work. You need the heavy units so that you don't get blown apart.

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.

[Japher]

Europeans should get rid of their military all together, that way they can beitch about the USA's military more.

Besides, when ever the sh1t hits the fan they all look at the USA and go "so what are you gonna do about that?!" And then, the big ol' USA smashes whatever problem there is and everyone is happy, and the Europeans go back to insulting the USA for being "aggressive" and not "understanding" other cultures, even though there are more cultures in my one county then there are in most countries.

[Atahualpa]

oh come on... you should have added the ranting smiley

[Japher]

or the troll smiley