Will the europeans ever be powerful?

Well, as someone stated in the thread before, why would Europe need a bigger military?

It already has heavy political weight in UN, and as a block, they have economic weight as well, and lastly, they don't see the rest of the world as a potential threat, or has the intention to police every single country who falls out of line...as one country I know of which is into such practices...

If power is measured by economics, Europe is no shabby place at all, and in fact most of its citizens live a good life, although not exaclty at its brightest, in doesn't really has a grim future, as some other country, AGAIN, does seem to have, (at least to most economists around the world, not that is unavoidable, but if something doesn't change soon...well)

Military...well, I recall some European countries have important advances, such as sweden, has a sub US navy uses for practice, not very succesfully apparently, nothing confirmed though. As a matter of fact, none of the major players in Europe has bad militaries or underequipped, again, FOR THEIR NEEDS, which is, protection of their sovereignty on their country, and that's it, except some peace keeping mission, or some cowboy adventure in Iraq, and that's it.

Of course that's speaking of EU countries, Russia is quite another deal, and has a good military, or correcting myself, good for it's needs, since they don't have to worry anymore about the US making a sneak attack, and I've read on other forums about massive re-arming and whatever, but let's not loose the topic, Russia is recovering from the shock the USSR fall was, and the economic and political meltdown that came with it, yet it still has a should I say, large nuclear stock, which makes it, well, powerful, right?

Resumed, european countries have no need or interest whatsoever to deploy military assets all around the world (except perhaps UK, but UK does not reflect policy at all in Europe) hence their reduced, yet effective militaries.

Nevertheless, why state they are not powerful, when they have everything to be, they are major players in most fields, from space programs, to nuke arsenals, to military RnD, to genetic research, to naval development, and the list goes on...

If I may just add some small measure of thought from a different perspective.

Europe has had two major wars fought on it's soil and millions of it's citizens slaughtered, burned butchered maimed and otherwise illtreated.

"Old Europe" as it is described, mainly perhaps by the same people who would describe someone as a "noob" expecting this to be an insult. Does not IMHO care two hoots for the kind of power and chest beating that is being discussed.

We will sit here doing what we do, protecting ourselves, with no real enemies on the global scale left and wait for the next phase of world development, in the same way as we watched the last. Post war US dominance to Asia Pacific rim dominace. It will happen in it's own time and we will wait as we have always waited.

Or maybe it's just too hot in my office...

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Well, as someone stated in the thread before, why would Europe need a bigger military?

That is the dumbest question I have ever heard. First of all, you need to have a strong military to be powerful. Secondly, there are many rogue states in the world today: Russia, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Germany and Zimbabwe.

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
It already has political power in UN,

Only two EU member countries (Great Britain and France) have permament seats in the UNSC. That's less than a half of the UNSC.

and as a block, they are economically power as well

Incorrect. The current state of the EU economy is as follows:
GDP: $ 12.180 trillion (less than the GDP of the US)
GDP per capita: $ 28,000
GDP yearly growth rate: 1.7%
Unemployment: 10%

In other words, the European economy is stagnant.

and lastly, they don't consider the rest of the world a threat

If power is measured by economics, Europe is no shabby place at all, and in fact most of its citizens live a good life

Incorrect. In the EU, GDP per capita is 28,000 dollars. That translates into bad healthcare.

as some other country does seem to have, (at least to most economists around the world, not that is unavoidable, but if something doesn't change soon...well)

What are you talking about?

Military...well, I recall some European countries have important advances, such as sweden, has a sub US navy uses for practice, not very succesfully apparently, nothing confirmed though.

That alone doesn't make Sweden powerful.

As a matter of fact, none of the major players in Europe has bad militaries or underequipped, again, FOR THEIR NEEDS, which is, protection of their sovereignty on their country

You can't pretend that there are no rogue states in the world. There are six.

Of course that's speaking of EU countries, Russia is quite another deal, and has a good military,

Firstly, Russia is not a European country. Secondly, Russian equipment is junk. Their subs sink even if not attacked.

it still has a should I say, large nuclear arsenal

Incorrect. Their nuclear arsenal is small. They have decomissioned 20,000 of their uranium nukes, downblended this uranium to civilian-grade uranium and sold this to the US.

Resumed, european countries have no need or interest whatsoever to deploy military assets all around the world (except perhaps UK, but UK does not reflect policy at all in Europe)

Which is good.

hence their reduced, yet effective militaries.

They are not effective (except the Polish military). With the exception of Poland, no country in Europe could defend itself if it was attacked.

[edit on 20-7-2006 by Deutschland_ist_doof]

Originally posted by Deutschland_ist_doof
That is the dumbest question I have ever heard. First of all, you need to have a strong military to be powerful. Secondly, there are many rogue states in the world today: Russia, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Germany and Zimbabwe.

Oh greetings to you as well, what a polite person!
Soo...Vietnam Germany and Zimbabwe are rogue states? What cave do you come from may I ask? Germany?? Vietnam!? Zimbabwe for crying out loud....rogue against whom?

Originally posted by Deutschland_ist_doof
Only two EU member countries (Great Britain and France) have permament seats in the UNSC. That's less than a half of the UNSC.

No, see, to say something like that you must surely have done your homework, which you did not, for 6 european countries are in the United Nations Security Council, go look it up yourself...

Incorrect. The current state of the EU economy is as follows:
GDP: $ 12.180 trillion (less than the GDP of the US)
GDP per capita: $ 28,000
GDP yearly growth rate: 1.7%
Unemployment: 10%
In other words, the European economy is stagnant.

(just one tip, comparing EU figures to the US won't fly in this thread, ok?)
So please name the great number of nations the EU has to compete that have a so much larger GDP please...what? just one? Am I hearing well? It's on it's way down?? Oh my god, that is....good

Incorrect. In the EU, GDP per capita is 28,000 dollars. That translates into bad healthcare.

Well that the country you got to live in has crummy healthcare does NOT mean the rest of Europe, but since in fact the EU is not a single nation, you'll notice a lot of poor eastern nations are joining or already joined. So that means a lot of countries which are barely recovering from years of bad policy will have a toll on those figures. For someone that actually KNOWS europe, sorry, for your theory is not flying at all.

What are you talking about?

Mr Big Policeman, you should know his name well, you know the name of the "rogue" states for crying out loud, now don't try playing dumb

That alone doesn't make Sweden powerful.

No, only proves that sweden is military self sufficient, advanced, and his little sub would put a fight to anyone who attacked sweden, which is sweden's interest. European militaries are tailored to it's need, PERIOD. Who is going to threaten them that they need a bigger military? China? China is begging to have the weapons embargo released. Russia? Sorry, but if you know any geography you'd know Russia is in fact part of Europe, just because Poland doesn't want to doesn't mean it's real...

Incorrect. Their nuclear arsenal is small. They have decomissioned 20,000 of their uranium nukes, downblended this uranium to civilian-grade uranium and sold this to the US.

Well...if you can call 7,200 active nuclear warheads a "small" arsenal...I'll just laugh I gues...

They are not effective (except the Polish military). With the exception of Poland, no country in Europe could defend itself if it was attacked.

And the laughs keep coming, France has the Third largest arsenal in the world, and Uk has at least 180 nukes. just two nukes made the Us the most powerful country back in ww2. And what I find the funniest yet, Poland... which uses still the Russian "crap" (you called it that way) or well German equipment, and is PLANNING to upgrade it's military, yep, just plans. It's mostly a CONSCRIPT army, unlike the professional army you want to believe it is, Netherlands has a better army and it doesn't boast, LEARN.

Just breathe, nobody is attacking Europe,

Ioseb_Jugashvili

Please !!! Why does anyone think that the UK has "at least 180 nukes" is untrue or funny ?

The true figure is probably larger than that. The missiles to carry them (Trident D5) may be leased from the US but the warheads and the patrol subs ( vanguard etc) themselves belong to HMG. President Blair (oops) has this week announced a free vote in the house of commons over "upgrading" our nuclear deterrent. By voluntary agreement the UK limits the warheads on each D5 out on patrol ( they don't have 16x12 x4 anyway), but since the pre chevaline days of UK deterrent the UK possessed sufficient nuclear warheads to equip four polaris boats. (Chevaline = some warheads out decoys in)

Why would this be considered funny ? Please help

BTW the French do in fact have significant stocks of indiginously designed nuclear weapons for their patrol subs and the L'Armee de L'Air still retains a nuclear strike role and significant capability in the area ( Rafale is designed to deliver it as well).
Some of the post you criticized was, well a bit of a fantasy, but the other stuff not that far off the mark I am afraid.

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili

No, only proves that sweden is military self sufficient, advanced, and his little sub would put a fight to anyone who attacked sweden, which is sweden's interest. European militaries are tailored to it's need, PERIOD.

Though I agree with most of your points, this one is a little dubious I feel.
Sweden(and the rest of Scandanavia for that matter) never really ever stood a chance against a dedicated Soviet invasion. The whole area was deemed to capitulate in few days. Infact any of the frontline countries never really stood a chance against a soviet sweep. And IMHO the situation still remains more or less unchanged as of today.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Though I agree with most of your points, this one is a little dubious I feel.
Sweden(and the rest of Scandanavia for that matter) never really ever stood a chance against a dedicated Soviet invasion. The whole area was deemed to capitulate in few days. Infact any of the frontline countries never really stood a chance against a soviet sweep. And IMHO the situation still remains more or less unchanged as of today.

Well, yes, back in the day, none of the frontline countries really stood a chance against a massive invasion, but that's where the nuclear detterent comes in. What I've read, is that even US forces stationed in Europe had access to some kind of tactical nukes, because all the way to the 80's, Europe didn't really stood a chance against the Soviets, you've got it right on that.

Nevertheless, the Soviet threat is gone, and with modernized militaries in most western european countries, the truth is that Russia wouldn't have a walk in the park at all. More so, Russia does not seem anymore as a possible threat against Europe, just because the huge shock and how back is Russia compared in modernization to most European countries, I'll think you'll agree on that.

I believe Russia would be better with the rest of Europe as economic partners, than enemies, wouldn't you agree?

So talking now, right now at this moment, who is a credible threat to Europe's autonomy? I might be a little short-sighted, and anyone here is free to tell me otherwise, but with the huge threat the Soviets represented gone, against whom should they be readily protected??

My belief is that with the huge threat gone, and the need for big armies as well gone, Europe united itself makes one big army, so I find no reason for each and every country to have a big army, when they can have a small, modern and effective one, that united makes one big modern and effective army, but hey, that's just what I believe...

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili


I believe Russia would be better with the rest of Europe as economic partners, than enemies, wouldn't you agree?

So talking now, right now at this moment, who is a credible threat to Europe's autonomy? I might be a little short-sighted, and anyone here is free to tell me otherwise, but with the huge threat the Soviets represented gone, against whom should they be readily protected??

Oh yes yes..all that's fine. I agree Europe faces no external threat. But Europe's facing a lot of internal turmoil. There are some who are breaking away and distancing themselves from US policies and there are others who are cosying up to the US at the same time(Germany has done a bit of both ir the recent past one may observe). If Russia enters Europe(I mean this metphorically ofcourse) then Europe will eventually be split by the pro-US ideology on one side and a more independatn one on the other.
I see a very bright future for French-Russian relations..

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Oh yes yes..all that's fine. I agree Europe faces no external threat. But Europe's facing a lot of internal turmoil. There are some who are breaking away and distancing themselves from US policies and there are others who are cosying up to the US at the same time(Germany has done a bit of both ir the recent past one may observe). If Russia enters Europe(I mean this metphorically ofcourse) then Europe will eventually be split by the pro-US ideology on one side and a more independatn one on the other.
I see a very bright future for French-Russian relations..

Well, actually all I've seen is Merkel just acting as a good politician, happy friend pictures and all, but I've seen nothing of this change policy against Iraq, and Germany still insists the Iran case to go through UN, which Bush can't say he likes, he'd rather have some country to back him for "happy cowboy season part 2" , and most importantly, Merkel wants Guantamo shut down, Bush doesn't appretiate someone wants his little concentration camp closed...

France and Russia also oppose Iraq, but Russia goes quite farther by even offering a light water complex, I'll check on that though...and Spain after the change of president backed down on the Us as well. Italian relations were harmed as well somehow (at least a lot to the public) after the US "accidental" killing of an intelligence officer.

Also, you'll remember that Italy just changed to a left-wing government, led by Romano Prodi, and well, you know how the US relations with left wing countries are...
Prodi will also have to begin the CIA witchhunt, 22 agents, after an Italian prosecutor found out CIA arrested ilegally an Egyptian cleric in Milan as a suspected terrorist.

So aside from UK, no country really supports US policy anywhere, be it Iraq, or Iran, or "war on terrorism", or Guantanamo.

And lastly, about the bright future of France-Russia relations...nah, France I believe is a country more of "I'm my own side" and will side with Russia in UN just to have someone for back up to veto the US. THey both agree they don't like the US, so they join up for that single reason, yet as a bright "future" I really don't know, the first reason the French acquired nukes was the soviets after all, and they don't trust the russians any better. Maybe in weapons trade?
Don't know, I just don't see those 2 countries having any specific goals in common...

If Europe can develop one government, one military and tighten their economy, then yes, they can grow in power. Right now, they have a population growth problem and their economy is not growing as fast as they would like it.

Certainly if the EU was one nation, they would be the world's second superpower, but that is unlikely to happen in the near future. With a population of almost 500 million, an economy approaching $13 trillion, a potential manpower of 1.8 million, and a nuclear arsenal of about 550 warheads, they would certainly pose a problem for Russia and growing power, China.

I don't feel there's a need for one centralized army. There should, however, be very tight cooperation among the Union's armies. Centralizing is likely to work destructively, as differences between the states are too big. France would for instance never accept a German general to command its Foreign Legion.

We must bear in mind that a treat always exists for our Union. We're a mighty block and some would rather see it disappear than continue and grow in strength. Especially for the US, Europe is a major economic threat. One advantage Europe has, is the knowledge and ability to build up a powerful war machine, should Europe be attacked. This is mainly made possible by the cooperation between member states. The Leopard and Euro Fighter are examples of this cooperation.

The richer member states, no matter whether they are big or small, do have strong and modern armies, capable of defending Europe in times of war, and capable of intervene in conflicts around the world. I dear to say the US would not have went into Iraq, if Europe didn't support the US, military in both in Afghanistan and Iraq. Most of the Union's states are present in current conflicts, even the newer and poorer states, such as Poland.

In contrast to the US, the European international power grows steadily. This is mainly caused by the current US foreign policy, which doesn't make the US popular around the globe, rather much more hated than ever before. Europe learned from its faults, its wars, its times of crisis. Europe learned diplomacy is a much better way of solving conflicts than military intervention. Military force should be considered as a last option only, the US seems to think differently on this subject (ref. Hans Blix, Iraq).


What we currently see is the rise of the Chinese empire, which slowly takes over the position of super power from the US, which is exactly why the US fairs China. While China has a healthy and ever growing economy, the US has in contrast a weak, a very weak economy.

The Bush administration and the main stream media don't talk about this, but the indications don't lie.

The steadily depreciation of the Dollar the last years
The appreciation of gold
The discontinuance of the M3
The lies on the inflation rate, which is actually 2% higher than the Fed. Says (instead of 4.32 it is 6.32% - 2006, while the EU inflation is only 2.5%)
The recently given instructions to US bank managers, stating how to deal with customers in times of an economic collapse.
The warnings of the Fed. comptroller
Reports of European banks predicting the collapse of the Dollar, and thus the US economy within max ten years.
The warnings of Buffet and Gates
The warnings of financial gurus and professors, and the list goes on.

Some will argue that with such a military and nuclear arsenal the US has it will never lose its position. But it will. Lets compare the collapse of the Soviet Union to the coming collapse of the US. The Soviet Union didn't lose its military and nuclear weapons, it did lose its economy. An army not being backed up by a proper economy becomes one bunch of garbage, not able to defend its country's overseas interests, which for the US is even more crucial than for the Soviet Union back then.

Europe's economy neither is what we would like it to be, but many measures could be taken to improve it. Two major differences between the US and the European Union are the social conditions (which absorbs ridiculous amounts of money) and Europeans generally have much shorter work weeks than US citizens have (approx. 41 hours in the EU compared to 50/51 in the US).

In times of crisis, social costs can be cut and productivity can be increased. For now, the European Union decides to give priority to the ‘’good’’ live.

Originally posted by MasterRegal
Right now, they have a population growth

While I agree the baby boomer generation causes major problems the coming decennia, there isn’t an actual population growth problem at the moment:

img88.imageshack.us..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

What a discussion of people who know nothing about warfare.

Vietnam, Germany and Zimbabwe are rogue states?

Yes, they are. Vietnam is a communist country where millions of people have died in concentration camps SINCE the end of the Vietnam war. Germany is a country where the Nazi NPD party is legal and which has supported Saddam Hussein’s regime. Zimbabwe is a totalitarian country where people are being killed every day by the Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe.

The truth is that firstly, the defence needs of a country include fighting against ANY enemy, including totalitarian regimes. Secondly, European countries, with the exception of Poland, cannot defend themselves, they cannot even meet their “defence needs” by your definition of that term. As Bruce Bartlett correctly said in his article, no nation in Europe has a military that can be relied upon in times of war. Poland has got a good military, but only to defend itself and to help the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. It cannot do anything else than that.

Russia is not anymore a threat against Europe

Incorrect. Russia is now trying to get control of Europe via energetic blackmail. When European countries that are now dependent on Russian gas will become energetically independent from Russia, Russia will still a pose a military threat, so European militaries should be strengthened.

So talking now, right now at this moment, who is a credible threat to Europe's autonomy?

North Korea, Iran (the missiles of that country can reach Europe), Russia and China.

So please name the great number of nations the EU has to compete that have a so much larger GDP please...what? just one?

In terms of GDP, only one country outperforms the EU – the US. That’s true.

6 european countries are in the United Nations Security Council

There are only 2 PERMAMANENT MEMBERS of the UNSC (which was what he was talking about). You should find out the facts prior to debating with other people.

Well that the country you got to live in has crummy healthcare does NOT mean the rest of Europe

Other European countries have crappy wealthcare systems too. GDP per capita HAS relevance to healthcare. If you’re poorer than the Americans, that translates into inferior healthcare. There are several other countries with bad healthcare systems, e.g. Great Britain and Germany.

Mr Big Policeman, you should know his name well, you know the name of the "rogue" states for crying out loud, now don't try playing dumb

All know that it is the US.

when they can have a small, modern and effective one, that united makes one big modern and effective army, but hey, that's just what I believe...

And you are wrong. Neither the European militaries separately nor combined are effective. They can’t even project power to Iraq.

The welfare state and the high taxes that it (the welfare state) involves have weakened France and Germany so much that they couldn’t afford a strong military even if it was a matter of national survival. Not only both of them combined spend less on defence than the US, but also they spend most of their military budgets on pays for soldiers, while America spends about 30% on equipment and on 30% on pays (and IMO even that is too much). Germany cannot even afford ordering more fighters, surface ships or submarines, or inventing new tank versions or IFV versions. France cannot even afford inventing new tank versions or ordering more surface ships. American ATSers sometimes remind us Europeans that America has 10 times more aircraft carriers than France. What they politely do not remind us of is that the French aircraft carrier is twice smaller than an American one. As a result of France and Germany’s financial weakness, their militaries are weak, and exist not to fight, but to provide jobs for people. Many of their soldiers are unionized and routinely strike.

In fact, the spokesman of the Belgian ministry of defence even openly admitted that the Belgian armed forces are a joke. Not surprisingly, Belgium strongly supported France’s efforts to block military action in Iraq.

Regarding air warfare, America has more ASFs than all of Europe combined, and America’s aircraft are better than the aircraft of all countries that use indigenous planes. France, for example, uses Mirages – the aircraft that the US shot down during Gulf War 1, and Israel (who uses American fighters) shot down during the war with Syria in 1982.

And finally, regarding ground warfare, the US uses a battle-proven tank and a battle-proven MBT. None of their European counterparts have proven themselves in battle. The fact that some users claim, nevertheless, their superiority over American armored vehicles, proves only those users’ lack of knowledge about warfare. Analogy: imagine that you take part in tens of shooting competitions or rifleman battles and win 95% of them, and then a shooter than has NEVER taken part in any such competition/war (never mind winning any) claims that he is a better shooter than you. Who is a better sniper, you or him?

If anyone still thinks that e.g. the Leclerc tank is the best in the world, ask an American soldier and he’ll confirm that the best is the M1 tank.

The militaries of all of the world combined are weaker than the US military, never mind the armed forces of the European continent. This, and not America’s “self-proclaiment as the world’s policeman”, is the reason for why America is policing the world and keeping the peace.

To all of those who claim Europe’s superiority and European military equipment’s superiority, your theory is wrong.

1) You hardly bring up any arguments.
2) When you do, it’s mostly “the Leopard 2’s specs are better”. That is irrelevant to REAL COMBAT. What is the only meaningful indication of how good a tank/IFV/fighter/helo in real combat is… real combat – to be exact, it’s performance in real combat. Comparing the Leclerc, the Leopard 2, etc. etc. etc. to the M1 tank on the basis of specs is foolish.
3) Someone has mentioned that the M1 tank, the F-15 and the F-16 earned their fame by destroying their 60’s, 70’s and 80’s Soviet counterparts. This is the equipment that most of the world’s militaries (not only Third World countries but also e.g. India) still use.
4) When arguing about facts (not specs of tanks), you never provide a single link to back up your claims. Those who claim America’s superiority, on the other hand, provide a lot of links.

And it’s good that it is the US who is now #1. From 1900 until 1945, the world was run by European countries (mainly by colonial powers). The world’s politics were under European control. During that period the world has suffered from two world wars, the first of which costed the lives of 5 million people and the second of which caused the death of 60 million human beings (400,000 of them Americans, most of whom died in Europe). Then, in 1945, Pax Americana started. The world has experienced only a few regional wars (KW, VW, FW, American intervention in Grenada and Panama, GW 1&2 and the war in the Balkans). Overall, less than 200,000 people died, i.e. 25 times less than during WWI and 230 times less than during WWII. While the world suffered only those light casualties, America defeated the USSR.

The lies on the inflation rate, which is actually 2% higher than the Fed. Says (instead of 4.32 it is 6.32% - 2006, while the EU inflation is only 2.5%)

Ah, so whenever you are proven wrong by someone, you claim that the people who disproved you are liars. That's a bad way of participating in a debate. It should go without saying that the American Fed surely knows better than you what is the real inflation rate in the US.

Reports of European banks predicting the collapse of the Dollar, and thus the US economy within max ten years.

I don't care what the European banks are predicting, and neither does the US.

The warnings of Buffet and Gates

Buffet and Gates couldn't make the fortunes they made ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD. That is possibly only in the US, where taxes are low.

Some will argue that with such a military and nuclear arsenal the US has it will never lose its position. But it will.

The only problem is that the event you mention as a condition of America's collapse (i.e. the collapse of the American economy) will not happen. At present, America's economy is performing well. GDP has grown by 5.6% in the first quarter of 2006 alone. Unemployment is at the level of 5.1%, i.e. it is twice lower than in Europe. GDP per capita is higher than in all of EU member countries except for the tiny principality of Luxembourg.

Posted by stumason[i/]
Great Britain doesn’t have an aircraft carrier. France does.

Now you have shown that you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about the topics you are talking about. Great Britain has 2 aircraft carriers, HMS Invincible and HMS Illustrious. These two aircraft carriers combined carry as much aircraft as the CDG, i.e. 40. Proof:
www.royal-navy.mod.uk...
www.royal-navy.mod.uk...

In times of crisis, social costs can be cut and productivity can be increased.

Yes. But something has to be done to increase that productivity, it won't increase by itself. The only solution I can think of is simply lengthening the work week. I mean, come on, these people are adults, they should work for their own living.

For now, the European Union decides to give priority to the ‘’good’’ live.

The cost of that "good life" is:
1) Low GDP and GDP per capita
2) The economy's stagnation
3) High unemployment
4) Poor healthcare throughout all of Europe

You, the French and the Germans simply don't understand: you cannot have a good living (i.e. as good as the Americans) while working only 35 hours per week.

While China has a healthy and ever growing economy, the US has in contrast a weak, a very weak economy.

That is a lie. The truth is that the US economy remains the strongest in the world. America's GDP grew by 5.6% in the first quarter of 2006 alone. Unemployment is just 5.1%. Public debt is just 64.7% of GDP. By any economic measure, the US is outperforming the EU. Regarding China, they are a powerful country, but not powerful enough to challenge the US, but that is not the topic of this thread.

There should, however, be very tight cooperation among the Union's armies.

I disagree with you. My country's military is supposed to defend my country, not to support the French and the Germans and their idiotic hostility to America.

One advantage Europe has, is the knowledge and ability to build up a powerful war machine, should Europe be attacked.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep, just like during WWI and WWII, when Europe asked the US to help it end the two world wars when it was started. Oh well, last time Europe was attacked, it was by the Turks, and they did not retreat from the European continent until WWI.

I dear to say the US would not have went into Iraq, if Europe didn't support the US, military in both in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Your hatred for the US has fooled you so much that you now make up such ridiculous lies that I couldn't read anywhere else, only on ATS. The US defeated Japan, the USSR and Mexico on its own, so it surely could defeat Iraq and Afghanistan on its own. The US didn't need the help of anyone - the countries that did help the US did so because they wanted to keep good relations with America by supporting its military campaigns.

No, only proves that sweden is military self sufficient, advanced, and this little sub would put a fight to anyone who attacked sweden, which is sweden's interest.

If Norway or Finland attacked Sweden, they would conduct a land invasion.

France has the Third largest arsenal in the world, and Uk has at least 180 nukes. just two nukes made the Us the most powerful country back in ww2.

Firstly, nukes alone don’t make them powerful and secondly, their combined nuclear arsenals are smaller than that of the US, though the Brits have enough crude plutonium to produce 12,500 additional 500KT-force nukes, and could do that in an hour. Crude plutonium can be used for nuke production, and in order to produce a crude plutonium nuke you need less crude plutonium that you would need uranium if you wanted to produce a uranium nuke. Continental European countries, except for Poland, are military weaklings. Your militaries are not capable of going to, and not able to fight at, war (which is the reason for why France and Germany did not take part in war in Iraq). Germany can’t even afford inventing new MMP versions.

And what I find the funniest yet, Poland... which uses still the Russian "crap" (you called it that way) or well German equipment

Now you have proven that you know nothing about warfare. Poland has never lost any war, with the exception of the Partitions of Poland (which was lost politically, not militarly) and the national uprisings in 1830, 1846, 1848 and 1863.

At present, the Polish military is not decrepit, but it’s not capable of doing more than defending the country itself and taking part in antiterrorist operations in Afghanistan in Iraq. However, at least our infatry uses the light AK-47 rifle, while German infatry uses the G36 rifle. While the Polish Air Force have ordered 48 F-16s in 2003, the Luftwaffe still flies the crappy F-4 and the expensive EF-2000.

Poland is PLANNING to upgrade it's military, yep, just plans.

It’s not just plans. The Polish military has already ordered 48 F-16s and 216 AMVs.

It's mostly a CONSCRIPT army

De iure it is. But there are many ways to avoid military service, e.g. simply not showing up when you are called to show up. The police won’t hunt you down, they are too busy with their lucrative business of hunting down motorists who park incorrectly or have violated the speed limit by 10 kph.


[edit on 29-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]