NYT interactive military budget cutter

[Rabid]

Don't forget China producing most of the rare-earth we use for our high-tech electronic industry. But apart from that, yeah, as long as the spice oil & resources flow, Europe couldn't care less.

[Sky Captain]

... given Europe's reliance on foreign energy sources they really should pay attention more to the possibility of intervention.

We'd be better off spending the money on reducing our dependence on imported oil and gas than trying to run COIN operations half-way across the world to keep those imports flowing, especially since that could potentially set us at odds with Russia.

Exactly. Development of non fossil energy technology to get rid of dependency on foreign energy sources especially ones coming from unstable regions should be much higher priority than spending billions upon billions to secure oil fields (which will run out in few decades anyway) in some arab wasp nests.
Sometimes I wonder how much progress could have been made if those hundreds of billions of $ flushed down Iraq toilet would have be invested in development of nuclear and renewable energy sources and efficient energy storage for wehicles.

[bobalot]

Don't forget China producing most of the rare-earth we use for our high-tech electronic industry. But apart from that, yeah, as long as the spice oil & resources flow, Europe couldn't care less.

China is producing the most now, but there is plenty or rare-earth materials around (the U.S has plenty). At the moment, it is simply not economical to mine there. If prices were to rise, you would see alternative production to China slowly come online.

[Solauren]

My Solution

Solauren's Solution - $1059 Billion Cut

[Eleas]

NB: This seems like calculated flamebait, particularly when Lonestar went from answering a question to (presumably) trying to justify Pax Americana, but okay, I'll bite.

Again, out of curiosity, do people feel that Europe, as the worlds' largest economy doesn't pull it's weight militarily in international affairs? For example, in cases involving the Middle East or Southern Asia?

Europe doesn't. The Europeans couldn't even fight a low-intensity war(libya) without the US kicking in the door and providing most of the ISR assets. And then they ran out of guided munitions, forcing them to raid the stocks of non participating countries(like Germany...what are the odds that those stocks are going to refilled?).

So "Europe" entered Libya, is that so? I thought it was the UN, seeing as Europe is a land mass. In Europe there are so-called "countries". A group of states should not blithely be treated as if they were a single one, because that's moronic.

It would be like if Venezuela went to shit and the US couldn't do anything about it unless the French Navy and RN did the hard(expensive) work of taking out the air defenses first. Europe can't get a handle on stuff that occurs in their own neighborhood without running to the US, and then wonder why Americans sneer at them.

Again, this relies on a hidden set of assumptions. One: a land mass (Europe) must be the equivalent of a country (USA). Two: The US (a country, thus an economic and military hedgemony) must be governmentally equivalent to Europe (a land mass and largely unified economic coalition). Three: An action desired by one or more countries in Europe must mean that Europe itself (down to the continental shelf) somehow desires this outcome.

These assumptions are unwarranted. In truth, "Europe" doesn't generally come running to the US because Europe is a fucking continent. Individual countries may, conversely, coordinate through the UN, and the UN already has the semi-allegiance of rogue states like the US, so there's no shortage of weapons and hard-ons for intervention. As long as one have to put up with such people, one might as well get some mileage from them.



Tl; dr: The last time the entirety of Europe wanted something done in a unified manner was... well... arguably during WW2, as long as you discount Germany and Italy. Claims that "Europe" constantly wants the US to intervene are, by and large, jingoist nonsense.

[Simon_Jester]

So "Europe" entered Libya, is that so? I thought it was the UN, seeing as Europe is a land mass. In Europe there are so-called "countries". A group of states should not blithely be treated as if they were a single one, because that's moronic.

Eleas, the nations which went to war in Libya are a representative sample of the body known as the European Union, including most of the major military powers of that body except for Germany. If the various nations waging war against Qaddafi's regime could not do something with their combined armed forces without US help, then it's a good bet that the EU (commonly though informally referred to as "Europe") would not be able to do it either, or would only be able to do it with great difficulty.

The NATO states enforcing the no-fly zone in Libya include Belgium, Britain, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Norway, and assorted others. I can't think of anyone with all that much of a military in Europe except Germany who didn't participate. How is it not reasonable to assess the military striking power of the EU or the European component of NATO in terms of what they were capable of in Libya?

Even if the nations of Europe were totally united in a common cause, how much could they accomplish that a large subset of their armed forces wasn't able to accomplish in Libya?

And this is a relevant question, because sooner or later someone is going to ask the question "How many divisions has the Pope the EU?" or "What can NATO do if the US is unwilling or unable to participate?" Suddenly, the question "what is the combined military strength of the European continent, and how much of it can or will be brought to bear in this situation" matters...

Again, this relies on a hidden set of assumptions. One: a land mass (Europe) must be the equivalent of a country (USA). Two: The US (a country, thus an economic and military hedgemony) must be governmentally equivalent to Europe (a land mass and largely unified economic coalition). Three: An action desired by one or more countries in Europe must mean that Europe itself (down to the continental shelf) somehow desires this outcome.

Since the European nations are constantly trying to integrate their economies and foreign policies more and more, these hidden assumptions are not entirely unreasonable. Any future crisis that provokes, say, Germany to go to war is likely to draw in a large selection of other European nations (France, Britain, Italy, and so on).

This does not mean "Europe" is a single country, but it does mean that from a grand-strategy point of view, "Europe" can be thought of as a loose confederation of individually small and medium nations, which are closely allied and likely to support one another in war. And if a statement is true in general of all the major military powers on the European continent, then it is fair to say that the statement is accurate when applied to the military forces of "Europe."

It's much as we might say "South American militaries speak Spanish or Portuguese," even though South America is not a country and there is no such thing as the South American Army.

Likewise, "European militiaries lack power projection capability." Whether fighting alone or in combinations, the armed forces of that continent are not well suited for intervention overseas. They may be well trained and equipped, but their quantity is so small that their quality becomes irrelevant- there are times when four very good fighters with very good pilots simply cannot do the work of twelve fighters, even twelve mediocre ones.

Now, does this make the typical European nation, or a combination of those nations like the EU, bad or inferior in any way? I don't think so. But it's still a fact that anyone should be willing and ready to face squarely when thinking about questions like "what happens if the US stops maintaining a worldwide naval and air presence, and the power to land armies anywhere in the world quickly?"

[Lonestar]

So "Europe" entered Libya, is that so? I thought it was the UN, seeing as Europe is a land mass. In Europe there are so-called "countries". A group of states should not blithely be treated as if they were a single one, because that's moronic.

Are you fucking high?

Or are you just unable to cogitate that the article "the" in front of "Europeans" implies a group of people rather than a landmass?

And yes, when big European players(France, Britain, Italy) are the ones pushing for intervention then it's reasonable to say "The Europeans" instead of "The European continent excluding:"

Again, this relies on a hidden set of assumptions. One: a land mass (Europe) must be the equivalent of a country (USA).

Two: The US (a country, thus an economic and military hedgemony) must be governmentally equivalent to Europe (a land mass and largely unified economic coalition). Three: An action desired by one or more countries in Europe must mean that Europe itself (down to the continental shelf) somehow desires this outcome.

These assumptions are unwarranted. In truth, "Europe" doesn't generally come running to the US because Europe is a fucking continent. Individual countries may, conversely, coordinate through the UN, and the UN already has the semi-allegiance of rogue states like the US, so there's no shortage of weapons and hard-ons for intervention. As long as one have to put up with such people, one might as well get some mileage from them.

(1) "Europe", in the US, is frequently used as shorthand for "European Union", which DOES strive to have a common defense and foreign policy, whether you like it or not.


(2)People refer to the United States of America frequently as "America" even though "America" could mean two diferent landmasses, but if I were to do I search would I find you jumping down the throat of someone referring to the "United States of America" as "America"? How about people referring to the United States of America as "The United States"? Or do you only get pedantic when the honor of Europe is on the line?

Tl; dr: The last time the entirety of Europe wanted something done in a unified manner was... well... arguably during WW2, as long as you discount Germany and Italy. Claims that "Europe" constantly wants the US to intervene are, by and large, jingoist nonsense.

Oh, pffffffffffft. When you refer to "Americans" do you only refer to the US or everyone who inhabits both landmasses?

And which US are you referring to? There are a couple. Help me out bro.

And by the way, I would love for you to show me where I said "Europe constantly wants the US to intervene", as opposed to me citing one example(and even made a distinction of non participating European countries, but man don't let that stop a good rage) in response to a question about the largest economy in the world not pulling their weight militarily.

[Eleas]

Eleas, the nations which went to war in Libya are a representative sample of the body known as the European Union, including most of the major military powers of that body except for Germany. If the various nations waging war against Qaddafi's regime could not do something with their combined armed forces without US help, then it's a good bet that the EU (commonly though informally referred to as "Europe") would not be able to do it either, or would only be able to do it with great difficulty.

That's the key word: if. You go to war with the forces you have, not the ones you want. I remain unconvinced that if the US hadn't been there, no military intervention would have been possible. Very costly, perhaps. More difficult, certainly. With the US stepping in, what we do know is that the US had the power to do it with the best result. It doesn't automatically imply that the rest of the alliance could not do it at all.

The NATO states enforcing the no-fly zone in Libya include Belgium, Britain, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Norway, and assorted others. I can't think of anyone with all that much of a military in Europe except Germany who didn't participate. How is it not reasonable to assess the military striking power of the EU or the European component of NATO in terms of what they were capable of in Libya?

I haven't ITT seen evidence of the military of the EU or the European component of NATO being unable to accomplish that. As per the evidence presented in this thread, all I see is that the US were asked to do it.

Since the European nations are constantly trying to integrate their economies and foreign policies more and more, these hidden assumptions are not entirely unreasonable. Any future crisis that provokes, say, Germany to go to war is likely to draw in a large selection of other European nations (France, Britain, Italy, and so on).

Except policy is not action, and there little real unity of purpose when it comes to the military. This is demonstrated by, yes, Libya, in which the single largest economy of the EU didn't participate. Therefore, trivializing the actions of a number of countries as "what Europe does" implies that Europe operates in a similar manner to the US, and that is untrue.

Now, does this make the typical European nation, or a combination of those nations like the EU, bad or inferior in any way? I don't think so. But it's still a fact that anyone should be willing and ready to face squarely when thinking about questions like "what happens if the US stops maintaining a worldwide naval and air presence, and the power to land armies anywhere in the world quickly?"

It's a good question. However, I submit that it's pretty far removed from the gist of what Lonestar was actually saying, which was that "Europe" deserved contempt because "America" had to be talked into do the hard work (as a constant state of affairs, don't forget).

---

Are you fucking high?

Or are you just unable to cogitate that the article "the" in front of "Europeans" implies a group of people rather than a landmass?

You should not treat a conglomerate as a unit, particularly when the conglomerate does not behave in a unified fashion. In the vast majority of conflicts, the EU is less unified than in the case of Libya, and even then, its biggest economic player didn't participate.

And yes, when big European players(France, Britain, Italy) are the ones pushing for intervention then it's reasonable to say "The Europeans" instead of "The European continent excluding:"

"...the biggest economy of the EU." There, ended the sentence for you. Not that it would stop you from making sweeping generalizations, of course, nor from making the wholly unsupported claim that the US had to badgered into intervention instead of leading the charge as per usual.

(1) "Europe", in the US, is frequently used as shorthand for "European Union", which DOES strive to have a common defense and foreign policy, whether you like it or not.

"Strive" being the operative word. Brussels can "strive" all it wants when reality says otherwise.

(2)People refer to the United States of America frequently as "America" even though "America" could mean two diferent landmasses, but if I were to do I search would I find you jumping down the throat of someone referring to the "United States of America" as "America"? How about people referring to the United States of America as "The United States"? Or do you only get pedantic when the honor of Europe is on the line?

This, right here, proves my point. Of course you would interpret my posts to be about the supposed "honor" of a series of trade agreements. Clearly, with you this has everything to do with prestige; you want this to be a dickfight between two superpowers. Me, I have no interest in championing the EU. Why would I? It's not as if I self-identify as "European" other than geographically.

No, my problem is in you taking a single, fairly outré incident (Libya) and declaring that this is not isolated but status quo. My problem is the altogether repugnant notion that because the US loves its military-industrial complex, other regions of the world are somehow at fault for not measuring up. My problem is that the USA using overwhelming might to uncharacteristically end suffering this time around fails to justify the need for overwhelming might in the first place.

[Zaune]

Just as an aside, the German constitution heavily restricts the circumstances in which they can deploy their military; only with UN authorisation or in the event of an act of war against Germany or a fellow NATO member, I think. Whatever the German government's feelings about the pro-democracy movement in Libya, they could not render aid without either rewriting or ignoring their own laws.

[Simon_Jester]

Just as an aside, the German constitution heavily restricts the circumstances in which they can deploy their military; only with UN authorisation or in the event of an act of war against Germany or a fellow NATO member, I think. Whatever the German government's feelings about the pro-democracy movement in Libya, they could not render aid without either rewriting or ignoring their own laws.

Yes, which is fine by me- but which needs to be taken into consideration when we think about the consequences of crossing European nations. If the Luftwaffe would be on constitutionally hazy grounds to go help out in the event that Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, or the Deutsche Marine would be on equally hazy grounds to do anything about piracy in Somalia, then that needs to be factored into overall assessments of the European 'grand alliance' of like-minded center-left democracies (as opposed to the center-right/far-right democracy of the US, which has its own problems and totally different interests and so on).

Eleas, the nations which went to war in Libya are a representative sample of the body known as the European Union, including most of the major military powers of that body except for Germany. If the various nations waging war against Qaddafi's regime could not do something with their combined armed forces without US help, then it's a good bet that the EU (commonly though informally referred to as "Europe") would not be able to do it either, or would only be able to do it with great difficulty.

That's the key word: if. You go to war with the forces you have, not the ones you want. I remain unconvinced that if the US hadn't been there, no military intervention would have been possible. Very costly, perhaps. More difficult, certainly. With the US stepping in, what we do know is that the US had the power to do it with the best result. It doesn't automatically imply that the rest of the alliance could not do it at all.

Could they have launched the requisite number of missiles to flatten the Libyan air defense network? If not, were they prepared to accept the predictable loss of planes from going in and flattening the network the hard way? If not, in what way might the intervention have been possible, on the scale needed to keep Qaddafi from crushing the rebellion?

Except policy is not action, and there little real unity of purpose when it comes to the military. This is demonstrated by, yes, Libya, in which the single largest economy of the EU didn't participate. Therefore, trivializing the actions of a number of countries as "what Europe does" implies that Europe operates in a similar manner to the US, and that is untrue.

You're looking for things that aren't there. I don't know how you interpret Lonestar's use of "Europe" and "the Europeans." To me it seems pretty obvious, based on (so to speak) my familiarity with the local dialect, that he's talking about the shifting alliance of closely affiliated and politically aligned nations that we see over and over, presenting

A given war might see France staying out while Britain and Germany go in, or Britain out while France and Germany go in, or Germany out while Britain and France go in, or some other permutation. But you will not see France actively fighting against Germany on behalf of some random country far away; at most you will see a majority of the 'EU core' actively participating while a minority sits this one out.

So it is far from unrealistic to take a step back and figure out what the "average European intervention" would be in response to a given situation. Most of the first-line European militaries have broadly similar levels of resources and training, and there are certain weapon systems they deliberately share in common, which makes analyzing the defensive and offensive power of "Europe" as a whole a common pastime in places that aren't inside Europe.

It's a good question. However, I submit that it's pretty far removed from the gist of what Lonestar was actually saying, which was that "Europe" deserved contempt because "America" had to be talked into do the hard work (as a constant state of affairs, don't forget).

The relevant passage:

"Europe doesn't. The Europeans couldn't even fight a low-intensity war(libya) without the US kicking in the door and providing most of the ISR assets. And then they ran out of guided munitions, forcing them to raid the stocks of non participating countries(like Germany...what are the odds that those stocks are going to refilled?).

It would be like if Venezuela went to shit and the US couldn't do anything about it unless the French Navy and RN did the hard(expensive) work of taking out the air defenses first. Europe can't get a handle on stuff that occurs in their own neighborhood without running to the US, and then wonder why Americans sneer at them."

Now, yes, "and then wonder why Americans sneer at them" can be interpreted as "this is why they deserve contempt." I see what you mean.

Then again, I also see what he means. When you tally up the numbers, look at who has what and what it is capable of, there's a gap there. European military capabilities are funded and balanced to a level that, without US support, leaves them stuck with an isolationist foreign policy by default. The lack of a large, long-range navy, of heavy bombers, of reconnaissance assets... all these things mean that even the combined strength of all the armies and fleets of Europe would be hard pressed to enforce or impose any action far from European shores.

Again, that works fine as long as Europe adopts a military policy similar to that of, say, America from its founding up to the 1890s: "we don't really care what happens on other continents, at least not enough to make any difficult or expensive efforts to do anything about it."

I'm fine with that, I don't sneer at that, as long as the Europeans are collectively aware that this decision is imposed on them by the size and composition of the militaries the European powers are willing to fund.

[Eleas]

Thank you, Simon. You make a good case. I see now that I took Lonestar's words and, out of the possible interpretations, chose the one least charitable and most in line with my own frustrations and biases. My apologies for that, Lonestar.

I don't dispute the weakness in EU-based militaries when it comes to power projection. I'm uncertain whether it's a good thing to strive for, or indeed whether it's practical. When it comes to the matter of creating and maintaining a large standing army, it seems natural that a group of countries would be at a disadvantage compared to a single one due to conflicts of interest, political fractiousness, and so on.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't dispute the weakness in EU-based militaries when it comes to power projection. I'm uncertain whether it's a good thing to strive for, or indeed whether it's practical. When it comes to the matter of creating and maintaining a large standing army, it seems natural that a group of countries would be at a disadvantage compared to a single one due to conflicts of interest, political fractiousness, and so on.

The real problem is that if you find you need such a military, in this day and age there's a fifteen year gap before you can obtain it.

What the EU would really need for power projection isn't an army; it's a navy and air force. Europe's armies are quite competent, well equipped, and (added up) reasonably numerous. Perhaps not well suited for something like the occupation of Iraq, but that may be just as well- I argued up-thread that shrinking the US Army and Marines might actually help us avoid the kind of incredibly costly and pointless foreign adventure that the Iraq War turned into.

But if you have a global navy, with the numbers and munitions stockpiles to fight a serious war, you can make your weight felt pretty much anywhere of direct importance to your nation. That is worth something to the EU, potentially, since like the US much of the EU's prosperity hinges on the global trade network.

At the moment, the best candidate for this is Britain with its heavy carriers, but the British are only working on two of them (which means at best one capable of going to sea at any time), and the costs are eating up almost their whole naval budget.

If Europe wants a collective military strong enough to give it leverage for a non-isolationist foreign policy, it would need to buy more jets, to stockpile far more munitions for the existing jets, and to start working on "Eurocarrier" and "Eurocruiser" naval designs. This would be expensive, but not unmanageably so; the main barrier is conflicts of interest and mutual laziness- "let the British/French/Germans/whatever do it."

Alternatively, they can stick with the status quo and accept that if anyone more than a few hundred miles from their shores asks them "oh yeah, you and what army?" they do not, in point of fact, have a good position to say "me and this army!"

[Rabid]

France and the UK are/were (don't know the current status of the project, what with the current austerity) working on a common carrier design, but the two countries Navies have imposed with the passing years so much differing requirements for the units they are going to buy that by now it could as well be two wholly different designs with some common elements - at least it would globally cost less to build them, as each country's carrier is going to be built on the naval yards of their respective buyers anyway.

That's basically the problem with any efforts to standardize any kind of of European military stuff : You have 27 different countries, with 27 different armies, with 27 different military tradition and 27 different Doctrines on everything. How do you expect in these conditions to implement any kind of meaningful standard for military materials, or even military operations ? Everything is already STANAG-this or NATO-that, and you can see it's still a total mess.

Aaaand don't even get me started on how useful a common military would be if we can't even be arsed to have a common External Policy... *waves hands away*


No, the way I see it, we'd realistically be better served by just creating some kind of opt-in Eurocorp or something. At least we could begin to get shit done. Not ideal, but better than nothing, I guess.


Edit : P.S. : (off-topic) I like how on the Eurocorp's logo there's basically all of the European Union geographically represented, EXCEPT for the British Isles.

[Rabid]

Ghetto edit : Mea Culpa, it seems I was wrong.

[Lonestar]

[You should not treat a conglomerate as a unit, particularly when the conglomerate does not behave in a unified fashion. In the vast majority of conflicts, the EU is less unified than in the case of Libya, and even then, its biggest economic player didn't participate.

"...the biggest economy of the EU." There, ended the sentence for you. Not that it would stop you from making sweeping generalizations, of course, nor from making the wholly unsupported claim that the US had to badgered into intervention instead of leading the charge as per usual.

"Strive" being the operative word. Brussels can "strive" all it wants when reality says otherwise.

This, right here, proves my point. Of course you would interpret my posts to be about the supposed "honor" of a series of trade agreements. Clearly, with you this has everything to do with prestige; you want this to be a dickfight between two superpowers. Me, I have no interest in championing the EU. Why would I? It's not as if I self-identify as "European" other than geographically.

It is astounding to me that you are not manning up and admitting that you're splitting hairs just for, well, just for the Hell of it. You completely ignored my "Which US are you referring to? There are a couple of them." Because you know that "US" is common shorthand for "United States of America".

And it's okay for you to use shorthand but not me? "Europe" is common shorthand for "a large collection of European states" in the US. Deal with it.

No, my problem is in you taking a single, fairly outré incident (Libya) and declaring that this is not isolated but status quo. My problem is the altogether repugnant notion that because the US loves its military-industrial complex, other regions of the world are somehow at fault for not measuring up. My problem is that the USA using overwhelming might to uncharacteristically end suffering this time around fails to justify the need for overwhelming might in the first place.

Really, this is not isolated?

For those of us old enough to remember the immediate post-9/11 Invasion of Afghanistan(which would have been the last major time the Europeans agreed as a fairly unified group on military intervention),initial European involvement was very narrow in scope because of, well, because of much of the same problems with Libya. They didn't have enough munitions, they didn't have ISR assets worth the name, even Special Forces was limited to a couple of countries.

I think you would have to go back to the Early-mid 80s to find an instance of a European country(or a group of them) performing a military intervention of moderate difficulty without relying heavily on US Backing. And no, shooting up unorganized militias in subsahara Africa isn't really what I'm thinking of when I say "moderate difficulty".

Complain about the horrible US MIC all you want, but the fact of the matter is that the US is largely subsidizing European defense, which means that if something is happening even fairly close to European shores and there is a general European agreement that something has to be done, they still require that the US performing a lot of the heavy lifting.

And fine, that's okay, but as Simon Jester said then you have to accept the limits on foreign policy that goes along with it. Part of those limits are the US not taking European positions into consideration as much, because the US doesn't have as big of an incentive to include various European militaries in their military operations.

You make a good case. I see now that I took Lonestar's words and, out of the possible interpretations, chose the one least charitable and most in line with my own frustrations and biases. My apologies for that, Lonestar.

.

'Kay. I apology for asking if you were fucking high.

[Lonestar]

France and the UK are/were (don't know the current status of the project, what with the current austerity) working on a common carrier design, but the two countries Navies have imposed with the passing years so much differing requirements for the units they are going to buy that by now it could as well be two wholly different designs with some common elements - at least it would globally cost less to build them, as each country's carrier is going to be built on the naval yards of their respective buyers anyway.

My understanding is that the French are backing away from a direct copy of the RN CVFs. That said, I doubt that the PA2 is going to get outright cancelled anytime soon, the FN gets a lot of mileage out of the CdG and the whole Libyan operation has pretty much shown why a carrier is a great thing to have.

That's basically the problem with any efforts to standardize any kind of of European military stuff : You have 27 different countries, with 27 different armies, with 27 different military tradition and 27 different Doctrines on everything. How do you expect in these conditions to implement any kind of meaningful standard for military materials, or even military operations ? Everything is already STANAG-this or NATO-that, and you can see it's still a total mess.

Well, all the lowhanging fruit of standardiztion has been picked in NATO and the EU. Even stuff you'd think would be standard, isn't. A big problem with the air campaign over Libya was that RAF aircraft weren't wired to take a bunch of different munition types. That's okay...so long as you have a big stockpile of your own munitions. I guess the Brits didn't.). Shoot, when Swedish Gripens showed up in Sicily they had to wait a few days to start operations because they used a different type of jet fuel then everyone else involved! Again, not a problem if you have the ability to get it there quickly and easily yourself, but if your foreign military operations hinges on coalition stuff, then there are serious problems.

To Americans being able to do stuff without relying on others is a Big Deal. Maybe this isn't as big a deal for most Europeans, but problems like the ones above are a bit of a confirmation bias towards being able to go it alone.

[Eleas]

It is astounding to me that you are not manning up and admitting that you're splitting hairs just for, well, just for the Hell of it. You completely ignored my "Which US are you referring to? There are a couple of them." Because you know that "US" is common shorthand for "United States of America".

And it's okay for you to use shorthand but not me? "Europe" is common shorthand for "a large collection of European states" in the US. Deal with it.

I guess I agree. I used this in the context of self-image; i.e. the people of the USA seem to identify themselves as American or US citizens, whereas I've yet to meet a person from the EU who would define themselves as primarily (or even secondarily) European. Perhaps that'll change in time.

Really, this is not isolated?

<snip>

Complain about the horrible US MIC all you want, but the fact of the matter is that the US is largely subsidizing European defense, which means that if something is happening even fairly close to European shores and there is a general European agreement that something has to be done, they still require that the US performing a lot of the heavy lifting.

And fine, that's okay, but as Simon Jester said then you have to accept the limits on foreign policy that goes along with it. Part of those limits are the US not taking European positions into consideration as much, because the US doesn't have as big of an incentive to include various European militaries in their military operations.

In light of the arguments given by you and Simon on the matter of European power projection, I'm going to have to change my position.

'Kay. I apology for asking if you were fucking high.

No worries.

[Zaune]

Yes, which is fine by me- but which needs to be taken into consideration when we think about the consequences of crossing European nations. If the Luftwaffe would be on constitutionally hazy grounds to go help out in the event that Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, or the Deutsche Marine would be on equally hazy grounds to do anything about piracy in Somalia, then that needs to be factored into overall assessments of the European 'grand alliance' of like-minded center-left democracies (as opposed to the center-right/far-right democracy of the US, which has its own problems and totally different interests and so on).

I'm aware of that; I was merely attempting to shut down any implicit accusations of cowardice or selfishness before they became explicit ones. In retrospect I might have been reading too much into some of what was said earlier.

That's basically the problem with any efforts to standardize any kind of of European military stuff : You have 27 different countries, with 27 different armies, with 27 different military tradition and 27 different Doctrines on everything. How do you expect in these conditions to implement any kind of meaningful standard for military materials, or even military operations ? Everything is already STANAG-this or NATO-that, and you can see it's still a total mess.

You forgot to mention a lengthy shared history during which we've invaded, beseiged, looted, sacked, burned and plillaged each other on and off for over a thousand years.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm aware of that; I was merely attempting to shut down any implicit accusations of cowardice or selfishness before they became explicit ones. In retrospect I might have been reading too much into some of what was said earlier.

I don't think "cowardice" or "selfishness" would be the right words, but I do think there's an endemic vice in the politics of Europe (again, I'm saying "Europe" to mean a territorial abstraction that covers a large group of affiliated nations which have a lot of stuff in common among their political systems and interests).

It's not so much a conscious sense that it is better to submit than to fight, or a fear of danger, or a desire to force America to foot the bill for pursuing Europe's interests. It's more like... a decision to step back from thoughts of war, and to step back so far that waging a war effectively becomes very difficult. Europe seems to have tried to remake itself as a 'civilian' continent.

Which, in the context where war becomes necessary, is a recipe for trouble.

You forgot to mention a lengthy shared history during which we've invaded, beseiged, looted, sacked, burned and plillaged each other on and off for over a thousand years.

My working theory (heh) is that after World War Two, the European nations realized that anything else they could do for an encore would just be anticlimactic, and decided they'd rather be remembered for the massive 1945 grand finale than for another century of stabbing each other in the backs.

[Rabid]

My working theory (heh) is that after World War Two, the European nations realized that anything else they could do for an encore would just be anticlimactic, and decided they'd rather be remembered for the massive 1945 grand finale than for another century of stabbing each other in the backs.

My own understanding is that we realized that the Next War would be fought with Atomic Weapons, and that it dawned on us that the only way to ever win this war was to never have to fight it in the first place. And so instead we chose to voluntarily unite together and put such silly thing as hate and prejudice behind us. For Science Peace Profit.
We Europeans are a profoundly 'realistic' people at heart. We do what we mus because we can.


Edit : more seriously, to answer :

It's not so much a conscious sense that it is better to submit than to fight, or a fear of danger, or a desire to force America to foot the bill for pursuing Europe's interests. It's more like... a decision to step back from thoughts of war, and to step back so far that waging a war effectively becomes very difficult. Europe seems to have tried to remake itself as a 'civilian' continent.

Which, in the context where war becomes necessary, is a recipe for trouble.

We have had enough of war. Enough. We don't want it, we don't seek it, we don't want to anything to do with anymore. Ever.

Too many people died, too many people suffered, for us to remember war as anything else than the Hell it is.

Can you blame us for not wanting to fight anymore ?


Anyway, if ever Europe had to fight for survival, you know as well as me we aren't going to send the troops. You know very well what we will happen if one day we happen to be cornered such that our current forces will be unable to effectively defend the continent from external aggression.

Nukes.

A second holocaust.

And people know it. THIS is our defense. And as you can see, it has been effective for sixty year, now.

[Sidewinder]

Anyway, if ever Europe had to fight for survival, you know as well as me we aren't going to send the troops. You know very well what we will happen if one day we happen to be cornered such that our current forces will be unable to effectively defend the continent from external aggression.

Nukes.

A second holocaust.

And people know it. THIS is our defense. And as you can see, it has been effective for sixty year, now.

As the past 20 years have shown, when you need to project power WITHOUT using weapons of mass destruction- see the Yugoslav Wars and Iraq, both of which have resources we do NOT want to destroy with their peoples and armies- this is insufficient.

Perhaps the bigger problem is governments keep trying to punch above their weight, i.e., their foreign policy is too aggressive for them to pursue, with the resources they have. (Yes, the US does this as well, but while Europe is the salaryman who tries to intimidate a sumo wrestler, the US is a heavyweight boxer doing the same- one has the muscle to NOT make an ass of himself in a fight, the other has not.)

[Rabid]

Yes, this is the real problem : adapting our forces to what we are going to use them for.

As a layman with absolutely no insight into how our military forces function, the problem I perceive is that they seem to have stayed trapped in time somewhere between the Cold War and the First Gulf War, that they don't really perceive the paradigm shifts unless they get their noses rubbed in it ; and then only make superficial changes into their operational-this or that, instead of undertaking a real reflexion on the nature of modern warfare and how it is to be fought.
Same thing that happened to the French Forces in 14-18, same thing that happened too to us in 39-40... Always fighting the Current War with the tactics of the Last War.
Our forces, as an organization, seems to lack forward and lateral thinking, their traditionalism seeming to pull them backward into some sort of eternal Present. Reactive instead of being proactive, and thus always condemned to lose in the end.


Maybe the problem isn't so much in term of material as it is in terms of how it is to be used and to what ends ?

[Sidewinder]

Yes, this is the real problem : adapting our forces to what we are going to use them for.

The real problem is figuring out what our end goals are, and adapting our means to achieve these ends.

Look at Vietnam and OIF. In both cases, the military was successful in what it was intended to do: destroy the enemy armies. Unfortunately, the end goals- to replace a hostile government, with one more amenable to our government's demands- demanded NON-MILITARY solutions as well. Unfortunately, the French and US governments failed to recognize what these solutions were, and their diplomatic shortcomings ultimately rendered their military might irrelevent.

Same thing that happened to the French Forces in 14-18, same thing that happened too to us in 39-40... Always fighting the Current War with the tactics of the Last War.
Our forces, as an organization, seems to lack forward and lateral thinking, their traditionalism seeming to pull them backward into some sort of eternal Present. Reactive instead of being proactive, and thus always condemned to lose in the end.

Maybe the problem isn't so much in term of material as it is in terms of how it is to be used and to what ends ?

To use your nation as an example, let's look at beginning World War II. When Germany invaded Poland, France declared war, as it was obligated by treaty.

What do you need to win a war? You need an army that can WIN- to take the fight to the enemy, by invading this enemy, and rendering its army incapable of threatening yours- instead of one that can only fight to NOT LOSE. The one with the Maginot Line, was the latter, ill-equipped for aggressive instead of defensive (passive) actions.

The French government should've recognized this weakness, and accommodate by either NOT declaring war- yes, remaining neutral would be betraying the Poles, but the French Army could do little to help them, anyways- or by investing time, money, and resources needed for a "French Expeditionary Force," so it could help the Poles BY THREATENING GERMANY.

[Rabid]

I do not contest your historical conclusion, for I agree with it.

However, it is to be understood that Wars aren't won solely by Armies and their guns and trenches and bombers and advancing armored formations. The ultimate goal of a War isn't only to make your adversary's army surrender. You also have to do politics in order to mould their future government so that they will never rise up against you in the future, and win the heart and minds of the people so they won't foster resentment against you in the future. You have to decisively move your pawns on every fronts.

But, when I look to Afghanistan, when I look to Irak what do I see ? I see an incomplete picture, half-assed attempts, a political power so incompetent that it won't mobilize everything that it take in order to give a real meaning to their interventions.
In these conditions, I ask : why bother ? Why go there in the first place ? Tell me.


Yes, our governments punch far above their weights. Now is the time to deeply re-think our strategies, or we are doomed to lose.

THIS is the kind of questions that should preside to any question there is about military budgets. Not some silly-ass partial question about materials, and military contracts, or military bases budget.

It's time to look at the Big Picture.

[Simon_Jester]

My working theory (heh) is that after World War Two, the European nations realized that anything else they could do for an encore would just be anticlimactic, and decided they'd rather be remembered for the massive 1945 grand finale than for another century of stabbing each other in the backs.

My own understanding is that we realized that the Next War would be fought with Atomic Weapons, and that it dawned on us that the only way to ever win this war was to never have to fight it in the first place. And so instead we chose to voluntarily unite together and put such silly thing as hate and prejudice behind us. For Science Peace Profit.
We Europeans are a profoundly 'realistic' people at heart. We do what we mus because we can.

Well, I'm sure you can rummage up a cake somewhere.

Anyway, I was largely joking with that line. Sort of like my theory that the French accidentally burned through their reservoirs of awesome in one tremendous burst with Napoleon, and wound up in trouble because they didn't have any left to carry them through 1870-1940.

Edit : more seriously, to answer :

It's not so much a conscious sense that it is better to submit than to fight, or a fear of danger, or a desire to force America to foot the bill for pursuing Europe's interests. It's more like... a decision to step back from thoughts of war, and to step back so far that waging a war effectively becomes very difficult. Europe seems to have tried to remake itself as a 'civilian' continent.

Which, in the context where war becomes necessary, is a recipe for trouble.

We have had enough of war. Enough. We don't want it, we don't seek it, we don't want to anything to do with anymore. Ever.

Too many people died, too many people suffered, for us to remember war as anything else than the Hell it is.

Can you blame us for not wanting to fight anymore ?

I understand the logic very well; pacifism is not new. I'm certainly not unsympathetic.

However, to respect a pacifist I must know that the pacifist is enough of an adult to recognize the consequences of his own beliefs, and how those beliefs might affect others in his charge, and to deal with and understand the consequences of that responsibly.

In the case of Europe's small militaries, that means recognizing that if something you don't like happens in a moderately well armed nation a thousand kilometers or more from your shores, you probably can't do much about it. To take the example of France, one of the best-prepared nations to deal with this, against a moderately serious opponent, you can send a token force, you can threaten to launch your nuclear deterrent, but you don't have any options between "Unleash the Force de Frappe, and kill twenty million people" and "scrape together a modest armed force and pray the enemy doesn't get lucky and humiliate us."

If a small force won't work and the situation isn't serious enough to justify killing millions of people and leveling entire urban areas, you have very little choice but to shrug and accept the inevitable.

That leaves the European powers open to a lot of nasty situations, most of which they've been able to avoid worrying about only because the US is full of jingoistic muscle-flexers. As such, the Americans are willing to intervene in any situation that might threaten the prosperity or stability of Europe, and and do spend enough money on their huge military that they have options like "destroy your surface to air missile batteries overnight, but leave the rest of your country intact."

That's basically luck, and the European powers can not and should not count on it remaining true indefinitely. Which means that some day they may run smack into the problems I've described above, and be forced to basically shrug and accept things that no nation would want to permit, because they lack the power to do anything about it without grotesque overkill.

Insofar as Europeans recognize and accept this as part of the cost of doing business under their current strategy, I understand their motives and respect them as adults who choose to do things in a way that I would not.