 |
| |
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
the EU will be adding between 5 and 15 new countries in the next decade or two, it's overall population will rise significantly faster than the USA |
Perhaps. Frankly, the EU has the "good" countries in it already. Latvia ain't gonna add much in the way of power.
As to population, US population growth rates are higher than the EU so while the EU can grow by adding new countries, that is its only way to grow. Eventually the EU will run out of acceptable countries.
While the EU can pursue a common economic policy, the current Iraq situation proves that it is decades away from having a united foreign policy, let alone a military. In fact, a military without a cohesive foreign policy is a recipe for disaster.
"The world needs one superpower like a shot to the head, having said that though many competing powers causing arms races and other negative events would obviously be bad too."
Mankind was pretty close to extinction the last time there were two superpowers. I can't see going back to that as preferable for anyone.
quote:
"Should Europe re-arm? They'll have to. The US is in no mood to defend continental Europe any more."
Against what, pray tell? |
You're kidding. Let's see how this would play out: Europe, which is fabulously wealthy compared to most of the world, has few guns. Middle Eastern, African and Asian nations are dirt poor but have lotsa guns and conscripts too. You tell me what happens next.
The US and EU interests coincide in all the things that really matter. Both countries need to foster economic growth not only for each other but also in the rest of the world. Our goods and services are too expensive for the third world to buy. New markets need emerging nations but we also need each other. Trade between North America and Europe enriches both parties. There is no way any EU or US leader would jeopardize this.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"It won't happen overnight but unless US policy changes, it will happen."
The sooner the better.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gunkulator
So you would prefer going to sleep at night with the very real threat of nuclear war hanging over your head? Perhaps you are not old enough to remember the very real possibility of utter annihilation anytime US/USSR relations took a sour turn. I don't know about Germany, but many Americans in the 50's and 60's and even later figured a nuclear war with the Soviets was a matter of when, not if.
Remember the Doomsday Clock? First Strike Strategy? Dr. Strangelove? Cuban Missile Crisis? Nuclear Winter? As a German you must at least know about the hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops and thousands of missiles pointed at your home. Nobody even mentions these things today, let alone worries about them.
Surely mankind was never more on the edge of extinction than during the Cold War.
|
You always assume, that two or mutliple blocks with equivalent power would inevitably lead to a scenario which would be like the worst days of the cold war.
I think in this you are completely wrong.
I donīt propagate that the EU should start a nuclear armament Race with the USA just as the USA and USSR did during the cold war (btw. as a sidenote, the MAD-Scenario has worked as the USA and the USSR never had a hot war against each other  ).
I just say, that Europe should build a significant conventional armed force which on the one hand would grant us independence from the US armed forces and on the other hand canīt such easy be dismissed by the USA in diplomatic negotiations.
And I think it would also prevent such Scenarios as just recently happened under the Bush Government, where the Senate decided that it would be correct for the US to invade the Netherlands if someday an US Citizen would be accused at the international court.
quote:
Originally posted by gunkulator
Why would it need an army? Armies are for external threats.
I suspect you may not really believe this. The gap between rich and poor in the world today is too great to make a world-wide representative government feasible. The much greater numbers of poor people would drain your economy of its wealth and capital to the point of it no longer being functional. It would be like the Russia of 1917 all over again. Your gov't, like all other western govt's, prevents this scenario with strict immigration policies.
The way to a one world gov't is to help developing nations achieve the same economic success as the west. The EU works because all its members are industrialized. It would not work if Bangladesh was a member.
|
Of course, and there would have to be much more prerequisites met. For example aside from the economics it would have to be assured that all citizens have an equivalent level of education. For my hypothetical scenario just assume that it would be a time in the future, where the developing countries have a strong economy and an education level like Europe or the USA.
Or as an Alternative let the World government be the UN (as Urban Ranger suggested earlier) and let the question be if I would support an UN-Army which is stronger than all the other armies in the world (and yes, I would support it)
quote:
Originally posted by gunkulator
In any case, my main point is that two or more powerful nations inevitably conflict. The results of these conflicts (large scale war, dictatorships, subversion) have not proven to be good for humanity.
|
And this is the point where our opinions are absolutely different.
I donīt see that such conflicts are inevitable. More and more conflicts between industrialized countries today are resolved peacefully in a diplomatic way.
If you want to compare the relations between the USA and USSR to a military strong Europe and the USA, than rather take dhte USSR under Gorbachev after Glasnost and Perestroika.
The relationship between USA and Europe would, even if Europe had a significant army, more resemble this scenario (I think it would even be better) than any scenario within the cold war..
quote:
Originally posted by gunkulator
Yes, you have no voice in US elections. But I would again ask what real oppression you are currently experiencing such that you prefer to turn back the clock to the era of authoritariansism, totalitarism and all the very real human suffering that accompanied it. |
At the moment there is no opression, just an american president who gives a BS about international treaties and the things, other countries or the UN have to say (at least as long the things the other countries say donīt support its own opinion)
But imagine as a worst case scenario you someday elect a president which is much worser than George W. Bush and this president convinces the congress and large parts of the american citizens, that it would be right to invade europe.
I would sleep much more calm if I would know there is an army to prevent this (but I can understand that you, as an american with the most powerful army behind you, canīt understand those fears of poeple outside of the United States, maybe I would think likewise if it would Europe which had the most powerful army).
And I still fail to see, what getting a significant conventional european army has to do with authoritarianism and totalitarism. Just because we would have an united europoean army doenīt mean, that all european countries suddenly turn into dictatorships. European states would still remain the representative democracies they are today.
Last edited by Proteus_MST on 21-03-2003 at 19:43
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by HershOstropoler
I don't know where this "few guns" nonsense emerges, and why it is such a popular nonsense. The problem with the EU members' forces is not that they are weak, it's that they are static. |
No, the problem is that they are divided. Would the EU risk war to save future members like, say, Turkey? The recent failures in Kosovo show the EU is completely paralyzed militarily. You can't have an effective military when there is no cohesive European foreign policy.
And who says the Middle East will invade Europe a la WWII? Far easier to threaten to nuke a few cities and extort money and technology a la North Korea. Without a military that can project force, you are powerless to do anything about it.
quote:
But yes, europe will be overrun by Yeminite clansman who miraculously walk on water over the mediterranean. |
This is the early 21st century, not the early 20th. Rich Middle Eastern countries have some pretty impressive hardware these days, including WOMD, some of it helpfully provided by EU countries.
quote:
"The US and EU interests coincide in all the things that really matter. Both countries"
HAH! HAH! TELL THAT TO RAH!!!  |
Stunning comeback.
quote:
"There is no way any EU or US leader would jeopardize this."
I would have agreed with this 2 years ago. Now I'm far from certain. |
So you would cut off your nose to spite your face? One thing I've noticed about the EU that is troubling for its continued unity is the arrogance of both the French and Germans. Somehow you feel thay you alone ARE the EU and that anyone within the EU who disagrees can simply be dismissed as unimportant or simply wrong.
Face facts, the EU is not nearly united enough to flex any kind of military muscle. And why bother? A big military is a huge drain on your resources. The US is not going to invade Germany or France. In fact, our interests are best served by a strong European economy which lets you enjoy the large amount of freedom you have today.
Freedom is a commodity bought and paid for by the blood of soldiers. It is maintained by force. Not by laws, not by politicians, not by Hollywood actors.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
gunkulator:
"No, the problem is that they are divided. Would the EU risk war to save future members like, say, Turkey?"
That is another problem, but it would be overcome if it is clear there no longer is a NATO.
"The recent failures in Kosovo show the EU is completely paralyzed militarily."
That was a case of intervention, not self defense.
"Far easier to threaten to nuke a few cities and extort money and technology a la North Korea. Without a military that can project force, you are powerless to do anything about it."
And with its force-projecting military, the US still is powerless to do anything about it - even more so when US cities get into the reach of NK missiles. Don't see a solution apart from MAD. Some for other WOMD.
"Stunning comeback."
No comeback, a sidenote. Check rah's sig.
"So you would cut off your nose to spite your face?"
That fallout comes from the US side, not ours.
"One thing I've noticed about the EU that is troubling for its continued unity is the arrogance of both the French and Germans. Somehow you feel thay you alone ARE the EU"
Yes, they need to learn to accept the voting majorities - and they usually do, despite the rhetoric. I'm neither french nor german though.
"Freedom is a commodity bought and paid for by the blood of soldiers. It is maintained by force. Not by laws, not by politicians, not by Hollywood actors."
Force, laws and brains.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Proteus_MST
You always assume, that two or mutliple blocks with equivalent power would inevitably lead to a scenario which would be like the worst days of the cold war.
I think in this you are completely wrong. |
The entire history of mankind says I am right.
quote:
I donīt propagate that the EU should start a nuclear armament Race with the USA just as the USA and USSR did during the cold war (btw. as a sidenote, the MAD-Scenario has worked as the USA and the USSR never had a hot war against each other ). |
And what happens when one side inevitably produces and deploys more or better weaponry than the other? Does the other side do nothing or do they quickly produce and counter-deploy? The M1A2 is arguably the best MBT in the world. What will Europe do to counter that? And then what well the US do in response? And then what will the EU do...
quote:
I just say, that Europe should build a significant conventional armed force which on the one hand would grant us independence from the US armed forces and on the other hand canīt such easy be dismissed by the USA in diplomatic negotiations. |
You need more than a defensive conventional force. What will you do when the US tests the EU when our interests conflict? Let's say we get fed up with the Saudis and start to move in. Do you do something or nothing? You need a force that can be projected worldwide. BTW this costs us about 300 billion dollars per year. If the US sees an EU build-up, what do you think our response will be?
quote:
And I think it would also prevent such Scenarios as just recently happened under the Bush Government, where the Senate decided that it would be correct for the US to invade the Netherlands if someday an US Citizen would be accused at the international court. |
Why are you so sure that you are right and the US is wrong? This is the same arrogance the US is accused of. The US objects to international courts and such is because, frankly, they are stacked against us. The fact the Libya chairs the UN Human Rights commissions is all I need to know about that body to dismiss it.
Diplomacy is the art of forwarding your interests in the world theater. International courts and the like are just one more means to this end.
quote:
Of course, and there would have to be much more prerequisites met. For example aside from the economics it would have to be assured that all citizens have an equivalent level of education. For my hypothetical scenario just assume that it would be a time in the future, where the developing countries have a strong economy and an education level like Europe or the USA. |
But who says you will all agree. Europe today is sharply divided over Iraq. You are making a big assumption that in the future this will not be so. You are also assuming that to be in the EU means to be against the US. Why must this be so and why bother committing resources to build up a military to make it so? If education is all that is needed, what's wrong with the US?
quote:
Or as an Alternative let the World government be the UN (as Urban Ranger suggested earlier) and let the question be if I would support an UN-Army which is stronger than all the other armies in the world (and yes, I would support it) |
Pardon me if I see this as hopelessly naive. The UN is too flawed in its organization to ever act as a world government. The mere fact that both Luxembourg and Cameroon get the same representation in the UN as Russia and the US ought to tell you something about it.
quote:
And this is the point where our opinions are absolutely different.
I donīt see that such conflicts are inevitable. More and more conflicts between industrialized countries today are resolved peacefully in a diplomatic way. |
Only when the major powers have an interest in peace. European history alone should be enough to show you that powerful nations eventually clash and the results have never been pretty.
quote:
If you want to compare the relations between the USA and USSR to a military strong Europe and the USA, than rather take dhte USSR under Gorbachev after Glasnost and Perestroika. |
Well, the Russians basically couldn't keep up so they abandoned their status as superpower. The US finds itself in the uncomfortable position of having to support Russia now. In particular, we have an interest in keeping their scientists and hardware from finding new homes in the Middle East. The story is far from over in Russia however the threat of direct conflict is pretty much gone and this is a good thing.
quote:
At the moment there is no opression |
Enjoy it. You have a precious gift that relatively few even today have. But be careful about taking steps that might end it.
quote:
But imagine as a worst case scenario you someday elect a president which is much worser than George W. Bush and this president convinces the congress and large parts of the american citizens, that it would be right to invade europe. |
Again the US economy would crash if we invade Europe so it ain't gonna happen. US policy over the years has steadily followed the European model. We are more like you than anyone else in the world. Likewise, you are the most like us. While I'm not sure what would happen if suddenly Ecudaor became a world power, I have a pretty good idea what Europeans wth power would be like.
quote:
And I still fail to see, what getting a significant conventional european army has to do with authoritarianism and totalitarism. Just because we would have an united europoean army doenīt mean, that all european countries suddenly turn into dictatorships. European states would still remain the representative democracies they are today. |
Yes, as did the US during the Cold War. It's the rest of the world that gets dictatorships. If you wanted to rule a third world country during the Cold War, all you had to do was pledge your support to either the US or the USSR and we or they would happily overthrow whatever gov't was currently in place. You would still enjoy your freedoms but others would lose theirs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
"And with its force-projecting military, the US still is powerless to do anything about it - even more so when US cities get into the reach of NK missiles. Don't see a solution apart from MAD. Some for other WOMD"
North Korea is probably a bad example. If there were no China, NK would have been taken care of long ago. Libya is a better example. In any case, force projection is needed to protect your interests outside of your domain. Had Saddam taken Saudi Arabia in 1991, he would have controlled more than half of world's oil reserves. Europe would have been at his mercy. Unfortunately, there are many Saddams in the world but for the moment those that threaten west risk intervention by the US. If the US were to vanish today, I suspect you would quickly learn of the others.
"Yes, they need to learn to accept the voting majorities - and they usually do, despite the rhetoric. I'm neither french nor german though."
Isn't that just replacing supposed American domination with French and German domination? Why is the US so much worse than France or Germany?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
"But history also says that if one nation has overwhelming power over others, they tend to abuse their position"
Good point, and I don't deny it. I think you would agree that recent history has shown that US world domination has so far been relatively benign compared to past dominations. On the other hand, recent history also shows that two or more modern superpowers is an inherently dangerous thing.
Not the best choices I'll admit. Still, if a one world government is the answer, perhaps the best way to achieve it is not via the useless UN or via a second power axis via the EU. Maybe the answer is (*puts on flame retardent suit*) for Europe to join the United States of America.
Hey, why not? I'd be for it. We have far more in common than we have differences.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
gunkulator:
"In any case, force projection is needed to protect your interests outside of your domain."
Probably.
"but for the moment those that threaten west risk intervention by the US."
Which in part explains the little european interest in projection capabilities. It's hard to think of a case outisde europe where the US would not intervene, and europe would.
"Isn't that just replacing supposed American domination with French and German domination? Why is the US so much worse than France or Germany?"
F and G together have less than a quarter of the voting weight in the council, and every time the overshot they've learned their lesson. This Franco-German domination has never grown beyond the rhetoric.
Also there isn't much of american domination, more annoyance. The political divergences are a lot bigger.
Dino:
"It's still funny that you think that though."
Actually I don't know where to draw the exact line. I mean, were the US (then still used in plural) a "country" in 1783? In 1800? In 1850? Was Germany one in 1806?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
randomturn
|
|
NYC US
Aug 1999
time: 05:26
|
|
There seem to be some suggestions that a strong EU military would give the US pause in the future. That notion is completely laughable. The US will never eschew war out of trepidation at EU military power.
The Cold War was a fertile time for tyrants because they were ready puppets in a larger struggle. Since the end of the Cold War, the US has largely made the world a more dangerous place for tyrants. It did so in Panama, Yugoslavia (which should have been a strictly EU problem), Afghanistan, and now Iraq. It tried and failed to do so in Somalia. Its motives weren't always perfect and neither were the results, but I think it is indisputable that a unipolar world is less hospitable to tin pot dictators.
Meanwhile, the EU, as is intrinsic to its nature, sat around and talked every crisis to death while the US took action. It is clear that the EU is a long way from being a coherent unified entity that can project its influence around the world. Even if the EU ever gets its act together enough to move in this direction, it will continue to be contemptibly easy for any of the world's real powers -- US, Russia, China -- to set the EU states arguing with each other like crazy, just as we're witnessing right now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
rt:
"The US will never eschew war out of trepidation at EU military power."
True, I see that as a side problem. We have to rely on political means there.
"but I think it is indisputable that a unipolar world is less hospitable to tin pot dictators."
I think that has little to do with polarity. The US is very hospitable to tin pot dictators in say Pakistan and Central asia, and in the ME. Old same...
"Meanwhile, the EU, as is intrinsic to its nature"
Just as it was intrinsic to the EU to never get to monetary union, according to the mainstream US "intelligentsija".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
"but I think it is indisputable that a unipolar world is less hospitable to tin pot dictators."
I think that has little to do with polarity. The US is very hospitable to tin pot dictators in say Pakistan and Central asia, and in the ME. Old same... |
Untrue. Almost all of Central and South America and much of Africa and Asia were under politically alligned dictatorships during the Cold War that were propped up only to be contrary to the other side. Today the US and Russia hardly interfere there at all.
The dictators in the ME were there before the Cold War and are still there. As to Pakistan, again we didn't put them there but they were useful to rid the world of the Taliban, who by all accounts were far worse.
The US is not omnipotent. We cannot do it all. But that doesn't mean we should do nothing at all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"Almost all of Central and South America and much of Africa and Asia were under politically alligned dictatorships during the Cold War"
Sometimes, sometimes not. Latin America and South Korea moved more towards democracy during the 80s already.
"As to Pakistan, again we didn't put them there but they were useful to rid the world of the Taliban, who by all accounts were far worse."
Exactly - the US will support useful dictators in this "war" on terror, just as in the cold war. As I said, I don't see much connection with polarity.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-03-2003 19:03
which looks for US protection.
|