Can Europe depend on America in 21century?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

WarNerd 10/18/2009 4:13:35 AM

Depends on what you mean by "depend".

Quote Reply

smitty237 10/19/2009 12:28:41 AM

I agree with WarNerd, but the fact that would should have to seek clarification on this question should tell you a lot...... Ironically, the answer could very well be that "it depends." The Obama Administration has already demonstrated that it's not willing to stick its neck out for our NATO allies (Poland and the Czech Republic) if it means ticking off Russia, and we've demonstrated to some of the former Russian Republics (such as Georgia) that we will not go to war to protect them should Russia decide to take them back against their will. Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, et al., certainly have a right to wonder about this as well. I sure as hell can't blame them. Would the Netherlands, France, and/or Great Britain be able to count on us should they find themselves in an military entaglement in Aruba, Chad, or Belize? I would like to think so, but currently the Obama Administration is currently made up of people who believe that war never solves anything, and as such they would probably try to do everything they can to prevent a military resolution to just about any crisis. That could mean the Dutch might have to go it alone if Hugo Chavez decides to take Aruba, or worse, they could be forced to accept the loss of their Caribbean territory. The same could go for the rest of Europe, at least until an new Administration is in power.

Quote Reply

Parmenion 10/19/2009 9:48:12 AM

I don't believe the Obama administration isn't ready to go to war if America's interests or their principles are threatened.

I believe they are more realistic and pragmatic than the Bush administration. The Polish interceptors you mentioned would not have actually been avle to defend Poland, but only chunks of western europe. A network of upgraded AEGIS ships is more flexible and can cover a wider area- or simply hit the missiles while they are still in the first stage of their trajectory.

Annoying Russia is stupid. A Russia that is included economically, politically, culturally and strategically with the West is a potential counterweight to China, and moves towards proper deomcracy. An isolated and agressive Russia is a potential world menace that could supply terrorists with Nukes and would be militarliy impossible to stop without even worse consequences.

War with Iran is stupid. They are twice as nationalistic as the Afghans. Yes the USA could easily flatten the countries military. But you would create a new generation of terrorists across the middle east worse than anything we could imagines. There would be bombs not just in airplanes and landmarks but in every Starbucks and McDonalds, and to stop it western security services would have to curtail our freedoms massively. The nukes are quite frankly the thing that scare me least about Iran.

Engage Iran and you may be able to pacify it to the point where it will eventually overthrow the religous state on it's own. We buy their oil and give them thorium or some kind of nuclear tech without easy military applications. In the meantime build a defense network with the AEGIS destroyers as a hedge if the nuclear talks fail.

Then when the Iranian people finally decide enough is enough, as always happens in history eventually, we give them money, training and weapons.

Meanwhile the Obama administration puts the US on track for a carbon-neutral economy and gets China and India to do the same thing. Then we can leave the Arabs to blow themselves up if they want to.

As for Europe- continental Europe needs to increase defense spending and develop a joint defense posture and pool R&D.

The UK should increase defence spending to around 3-3.5% and act as a bridge between the US and EU. In reality though I think that Europe with the UK included if Cameron gets in will simply decline into irrelevancy glorbally. In times of scarce resources, which is what the next century will be, a country or union is only as strong as it's military.

Quote Reply

smitty237 Parm 10/21/2009 1:22:08 AM

I don't believe the Obama administration isn't ready to go to war if America's interests or their principles are threatened.

I believe they are more realistic and pragmatic than the Bush administration.

There's a double negative in that first sentence, but I think I know what you are saying. There are a lot of people that say that we shouldn't go to war unless America's interests are directly threatened, but that is wide open for interpretation. Every President that has ever ordered troops to go to war did so believing he was doing so to protect the country's interests. United States territory has only been attacked by a foreign force three times in the last hundred years. The first time was when Pancho Villa crossed the border and shot up a town in New Mexico in 1916, the second was when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and occupied land in Alaska, and the third was on 9/11 when Al Qaeda terrorists flew jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Only one of those attacks was orchestrated by a foreign government. The other two were terrorist attacks that were planned on foreign soil with at least the complicity of a foreign government. I've heard some leftists say that the only war that they would have sent troops to fight in was WWII, but when you point out that it was the Japanese that attacked us and not the Germans, they claim that war with Germany was justified because of the Holocaust. The fact that the full scope of the Holocaust was not fully realized until after the war is usually ignored. The second point you made about going to war if our principles are threatened is on even shakier grounds since those principles seem to change according to your political views. Folks that were against going to war with Iraq in 1991 had no problem with Clinton sending troops to Somalia or Kosovo and vice versa. People that are demanding that we withdraw from Afghanistan are some of the same people that were demanding we send troops to Darfur. As far as the Obama Administration being more pragmatic than the Bush Administration........well, I beg to obviously differ, but we'll have to agree to disagree.

The Polish interceptors you mentioned would not have actually been avle to defend Poland, but only chunks of western europe. A network of upgraded AEGIS ships is more flexible and can cover a wider area- or simply hit the missiles while they are still in the first stage of their trajectory.

If that is the case, then why were a lot of Polish politicians screaming that America had betrayed them? Unless you keep AEGIS ships in the region on a permanent basis, I fail to see how they are a better option than a ground base ABM system.

Are you serious? Why is Russia so special? They have been thumbing their nose at the world, especially the United States, for the better of a century. They are regional bullies, and the United States' vast nuclear arsenal was the only thing that kept the Soviet Union from spreading communism all over the world. Not only that, but it was the West's willingness to meet force with force is what kept the Russians at bay and eventually resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc. I would agree that it is foolish to unnecesarily provoke Russia, but as long as guys like Putin are still running the show over there Russia should be regarded as a potential enemy and a threat. We should work for good relations with Russia, but we should prepare for Russian agression.

War with Iran would be a mess, but so have been a lot of our other wars. It may come to the point that the only way to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is to attack her nuclear facilities. I certainly would avoid a ground war in Iran at all costs, but I think the "war is never the answer" crowd are flat wrong on this one. If nothing changes politically in Iran military action may be the only feasible option. Again, AEGIS ships are great, but in order to have an effect they would have to be in the region permanently, and would have to be heavily protected. Unlike you, I am scared to death of radical Islamists with an apocalyptic world view obtaining nuclear weapons. We should exhaust every diplomatic option available to curb Iran's nuclear weapons program, while at the same time planning and training to send our bombers and missiles to take them out.

Then when the Iranian people finally decide enough is enough, as always happens in history eventually, we give them money, training and weapons.

Fine, but what if that doesn't happen anytime soon and Iran obtains nukes first?

Meanwhile the Obama administration puts the US on track for a carbon-neutral economy and gets China and India to do the same thing. Then we can leave the Arabs to blow themselves up if they want to.

Again, that's fine, but we are decades away from becoming independent of foreign oil. The Iranians will probably have nukes by then.

As for Europe- continental Europe needs to increase defense spending and develop a joint defense posture and pool R&D.

I'm inclined to agree, but since WWII most European countries haven't needed a fleet of aircraft carriers or intercontintal bombers, and it will be a hard sell to the Europeans that they need them now. After the Cold War countries like Germany realized that they needed some sort of force projection, but don't expect any large military expansions. The one thing that could spur such an expansion is if they realize that they can no longer depend upon the United States to send a carrier group to the Mediterranean or a fligh of B-2s to bomb a target somewhere in South Asia or the Middle East. Frankly, I would rather avoid that if possible.

Quote Reply

LB Wrong Question 10/21/2009 10:43:01 AM

The USA liberated Western Europe in WWII, rebuilt it, then led the effort to defend Europe for the next 45 years during the Cold War. When the USA needed European support it's been lacking, specific nation exceptions aside.

The real question is thus can the US depend on Europe with the unqualified answer being no. NATO can not be bothered to send enough troops, helicopters, and other kit to Afghanistan. Most NATO nations are spending far below the 2% agreed upon level of GDP on defense- some are at 1%. This website constantly puts up articles listing the UK and France having severe spare parts issues.

Europe seems unwilling to do much of anything including not only defending themselves militarily but seem quite happy to see Europe entirely dependent on Russia and OPEC for energy while losing their cultural identity through demographic changes. Europe seem perfectly happy to let themselves be overrun. When the welfare states become the welfare continent it is then that we get questions like can Europe depend on the US when clearly Europe can not depend on itself. The question makes me ill.

Quote Reply

Parmenion 10/21/2009 10:50:21 AM

Firstly let me thank you for your maturity and decency in replying. Those things should come as standard but on this forum of late it sometimes feels more like getting the bus back when the 12 year olds are going home than a debating chamber.

Now for my responses:

I don't believe the Obama administration isn't ready to go to war if America's interests or their principles are threatened.

I believe they are more realistic and pragmatic than the Bush administration.

The double-negative was probably sleep-deprivation I just got back from a long trip.

Your points about the hypocrisy of many left wingers are well made. Personally I think It's only surpassed by the Hypocrisy of someone who supports big wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, but can't find the time to intervene against Genocide in Darfur and Rwanda when they happen to be a military superpower. I support intervention in all the conflicts you mentioned.

I don't believe war is always a failiure or any such philosophy, I belive it can be just and that in it human beings find both their worst evils and finest glories. If I had my way the western world would go into a WW2 metality in terms of fighting climate change and poverty, raise military spending to 10-20% of GDP, reintroduce a draft and organise volunteer groups to build wind turbines and solar panels.

A new crusade would wash over every part of the world blighted by ignorance and poverty and we would stay there forever, building schools and roads and making sure every child could be born into a world where the only ceiling on acheivement was their dreams. Then we would come for the PRC and Russisa. Our wrath would be terrible, our acheivments magnificent, and every living thing on earth would feel the thunder and terror of the lords of the west and their machines. And within a hundered years of starting the species would be united and we could begin colonising the solar system, combined with geo-engingeering and jurassic-park style projects to get the planet to the way it was 10,000 years ago, with humans living in kilometre high cities, virtual worlds, and beautiful rural communities.

That's my dream. Not a purpose for peace or a promise for hope or whatever buzz-words the Obama spin-doctors have come up with. But I can't have that, because people are too weak, and too selfish. So I'll settle for the next best thing, and at the moment I think Obama is a fairly good example of the next best thing. As a further-clarification I'm pro-Afghanistan, pro-Iraq (I think the surge was great BTW), and think Vietnam could have been won if the US had the kind of military leadership it has now. And I'm also pro-gay and anti-racism and pro-green and pro-higher fuel taxes and anti-religous extremism (evangelicals come under that category) and everything that conservatives in your country seem to hate.

So let's be carfeul before declaring even one war, because the US and Europe don't have the integrity or the stones to fight the twenty it would take to really fix even one-fifth of the world.

The Polish interceptors you mentioned would not have actually been avle to defend Poland, but only chunks of western

europe. A network of upgraded AEGIS ships is more flexible and can cover a wider area- or simply hit the missiles while they are still in the first stage of their trajectory.

I don't believe it is just AEGIS ships. The US is going to sell Israel a land based version of the system and I think the army has plans to put Paritots and the SM-3 AEGIS BMD system elsewhere, creating a better system than just Poland. Who says we need 24-hour coverage. Look at the Cuban missile crisis- there is usually an escalation period which would give you enough time. Keep 6-12 in the mediterranean and you'll be fine. Also it has the advantage of not pissing off RUSSIA.

Russia is special because they are big, agressive, have alot of harware, alot of resources, and a big chip on their shoulder (do you have that expression in the US- it basially means they feel p*ssed off at everyone). It was the West's willingness to meet force with force combined with the fact that Communism f*cks you up economically in the long term and Gorbachev that let to the USSR falling. The last two are very important. Russia has a relationhip with the west as customers for their oil and gas, as a source of technology and culture, and because China taking Siberia in 40 years time scares them.

You don't engage Russia because you want to. You do it because the idea of Russia as a rogue state, with more imperialistic moves like Georgia and Chechnya, and terrorists with a Russian-supplied nuke is worse than anything you have to give them. Keeping Russia on side is inconvenient. Letting them go crazy is another cold war except with far less efficent fire control on their side. Plus the consequences if they fully align with China.

Blowing up nuclaer facilities is a VERY last resort. Bombing Iran is a recrutment campaign for Islamic terrorists. A ground campaign would just be hideous. I am aware of the threat posed by radical Islamist terrorists with a bomb but that is not quite the same thing as Iran with a bomb. Using a bomb would ne national suicide and the Iranian goverment is not s terrorist organization. It is a moot point, since either sucessful talks or bombing will happen first. Obama is not being soft- if you actually look as what the White House and State Dept. is putting out you can see the talks are one last chance or the US will blow them to hell.

I think you're going to be pleasantly suprise by the results of the nuclear talks.

Then when the Iranian people finally decide enough is enough, as always happens in history eventually, we give them money, training and weapons.

Fine, but what if that doesn't happen anytime soon and Iran obtains nukes first?

I think Obama's policy is directed towards making it happen sooner and stopping Iran getting a bomb, if that means selling them subsidised nulcear technology that can't be made into a bomb, so be it.

Meanwhile the Obama administration puts the US on track for a carbon-neutral economy and gets China and India to do the same thing. Then we can leave the Arabs to blow themselves up if they want to.

Again, that's fine, but we are decades away from becoming independent of foreign oil. The Iranians will probably have nukes by then.

Hopefully not but I'm glad you support a Carbon-neutral economy.

As for Europe- continental Europe needs to increase defense spending and develop a joint defense posture and pool R&D.

I think Europeans should pull their weight. As I said though I doubt this will happen.