Europe's demilitarization

[Sandman]

Originally posted by DanS


I take it that you think that the UK and France spend too much on defense?

No, a wee bit of a blue-water navy is OK. Just so we don't forget how to build one.

Anyway, what's all this talk of defence? A credible scenario of Europe being attacked has yet to be mentioned. What this is about is America wanting more and better errand boys.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Isn't it harder to recruit volunteers in Europe?


Aren't soldiers looked down upon in general?

Originally posted by Spiffor

Can't say for the UK, but in France, military guys aren't looked up. At best, this is seen as another career path (nothing like the "defending our freedom" fetishism of the Yanks). And the military as a whole is still treated with distrust.

Originally posted by kronic
Yes, it's harder but it's not impossible. It's certainly not a big problem to find 100,000 or 200,000 people, especially considering the current economic troubles.


Yes. Military people are normally seen as losers.

I guess that it depends on wich coutry you are taling about.

Here it isn't that big a problem to get voluteers, but it has nothing to do with kronics claims about economic troubles (we don't have that). Neither are there some bad feelings towards people choosing a military carrer - it's just as good as any other private or civilian job.

Originally posted by Ted Striker


Good point.

Most of our soldiers are recruited out of poor neighborhoods.

We don't have that many poor neighbourhoods - besides, since we have conscripts, our recruitment for prof soldiers are more broad.

Upon that, the payment isn't that bad - the basic wage for a common grunt is about $3.200 a month (what is it in other countries ?). On top of that there are qualification, hot spot etc. but I haven't bothered to dig into that.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by lightblue


You're fighting in Afghanistan because you decided to (and because you made a good targets for terrorists as you had troops stationed in Saudi and thus made easy recruitment fodder for them). And as a whole europe is sick of foreign military adventures, been there, done that, got the bloody t-shirt. I guess we're just further along our development as nation states, and this is your imperialistic phase (16-19th century for us).

I accept that this is your personal opinion, but please stop stating that it is a common viewpoint of "whole europe" - that is not true.

[kronic]

Why is it that Denmark participates in many military actions?

And as stated in response to Dan, I was talking about Germany. I don't understand how people can be uncomfortable with the reduced role of the military in Germany.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by kronic
Why is it that Denmark participates in many military actions?

Some kind of international responsibility I guess.

And as stated in response to Dan, I was talking about Germany. I don't understand how people can be uncomfortable with the reduced role of the military in Germany.

What I opposed to was

And as a whole europe is sick of foreign military adventures

wich I belive is your peronal opinion - not someone shared generally.

About the general role of german military - well, I guess that depend very much upon how they act.

[kronic]

And as a whole europe is sick of foreign military adventures

lightblue wrote that.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Spiffor
It wasn't for a lack of projection power that we didn't intervene in Bosnia and Kosovo. The cause was political, as European countries were largely divided on the appropriate course of action, and thus they could do nothing (in a typical European way)

Even after the commitment was made to militarially intervine in Kosovo most of Europe couldn't effectively contribute. There were a few manned air strikes but all to often the nightly news showed the US or UK launching guided missiles at targets in Yugoslavia while the rest of NATO did little more then hold press releases.

Power project was a big problem for most of Europe then and it still is now.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Nah, they need it seriously since they are trying to make a claim on the danish Hans Island - unfortunately, they haven't any ships that are able to reach it

I'm sure they have a rubber dingy around some where.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by kronic

lightblue wrote that.

You are of course not to be blamed for lightblues opinions - my fault.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I'm sure they have a rubber dingy around some where.

I guess so, but they haven't a vessel that can handle the ice to get the dinghy into range - Hans Island is placed somewhere at the upper northwest point of greenland.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Even after the commitment was made to militarially intervine in Kosovo most of Europe couldn't effectively contribute. There were a few manned air strikes but all to often the nightly news showed the US or UK launching guided missiles at targets in Yugoslavia while the rest of NATO did little more then hold press releases.

Power project was a big problem for most of Europe then and it still is now.

Has to disagree slightly - both airforce and ground units from denmark was active. Especially our leopards made a good job in 94.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
The ideology of the islamofascists has a certain internal consistency. However, I think it's funny that apparently you believe you could get inside their heads, think like they do, and foresee something like 9/11.

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.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Geronimo: What's the use, for Europe, to increase its defense spending? The only potential threat in the coming decades is a revanchist Russia, but our nuclear deterrence makes it extremely unlikely that it attacks us.

So, against whom should we be so prepared?

I suppose you are justified in assuming that I advocate that Europe spend more on defense, given that I posted that part of europes problem was an inability to understand that war material /= death infrastructure.

However, I actually agree that too much is spent on military hardware. My complaint is not how much europeans are spending but rather their attitude towards such expenditures.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Deathdealing infrastructure would be things like slaughterhouses (concentration 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.

Originally posted by Atahualpa


Yeah blah blah, I hate this military language so much... it's just nice words for dropping a nuke on a million people

Hey man, you're the only survivor, but you know, this bomb wasn't designed to create death, it's just that this city was full of intelligent objectives and since this poses opposition to our simple minds, we can't let them live *spits*

Originally posted by Last Conformist

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

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.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


Good point.

Most of our soldiers are recruited out of poor neighborhoods.

Untrue unless you define poor as below the income mean.