An isolationist America: Would it be good or bad?

[mvaliz]

What the fuck are you talking about? This makes no sense

....I'm guessing he's supposed to be implying that the US economy is backed purely on military contracts? o_O

[Kalis]

You go right ahead and think that. The rest of us will be back here, in reality, laughing at you.

...because Europe doesn't have the technological abilities, or man power, to do that, yeah? They just don't spend on the levels of the US, partially because huge military forces kicking around doing nothing have a bad history in Europe, but that doesn't mean they aren't capable of doing so in the future.

Even at the current time, Russia and China wouldn't be able to cope with an all out war with Europe, unless it went nuclear - which would end badly for all concerned.

[Sialanne]

...because Europe doesn't have the technological abilities, or man power, to do that, yeah? They just don't spend on the levels of the US, partially because huge military forces kicking around doing nothing have a bad history in Europe, but that doesn't mean they aren't capable of doing so in the future.

Even at the current time, Russia and China wouldn't be able to cope with an all out war with Europe, unless it went nuclear - which would end badly for all concerned.

So, spending is the only thing that matters with regards to the military, right? And I'll take historical precedent over what they could possible be capable of in the future any day.

[mizeri]

US can save a lot of dollars if they just bring back all the troops from Europe.

[Kalis]

So, spending is the only thing that matters with regards to the military, right? And I'll take historical precedent over what they could possible be capable of in the future any day.

Spending plays a huge part, in fact it is the main part, which is why the US is regarded as the only current superpower. What do you think it's based on?

The original comment was regarding Germany ramping up their military, as European countries have done on a number of occasions in the past, so I'm not sure what you mean by historical precedent in that sense.

[Sialanne]

Spending plays a huge part, in fact it is the main part, which is why the US is regarded as the only current superpower. What do you think it's based on?

The original comment was regarding Germany ramping up their military, as European countries have done on a number of occasions in the past, so I'm not sure what you mean by historical precedent in that sense.

Spending is by no means the only part. I have to think that the fact that we're not soft like many European countries are has a lot to do with it, as well.

And the comment was based around your "huge military forces kicking around doing nothing have a bad history in Europe" comment, which I could see had to do with Germany ramping up their military. What happened the last time Germany did that? Why wouldn't they do it again? And why would they give a shit about the rest of the EU, when they could just take over the EU? I find it hard to believe that if any one country (in Europe) developed a large standing army, that it wouldn't try to conquer some of it's neighbors. That is the historical precedent to which I am referring.

[Deleted]

US can save a lot of dollars if they just bring back all the troops from Europe.

reason why it did take so long time to pull the troops back was to save money.....new barracks, training field, workshops etc in US need to be built to house the troops and that cost money, so it was cheaper to let them stay, but now the cutback in US military did allow the troops to "inherit" existing establishments in US.

[Slant]

- Europe (and Japan) would be left militarily helpless. Most of these countries have little more than a national guard, as that's all they've really needed with American bases scattered throughout. Though there also aren't any present military threats to Europe, leaving one of the wealthier parts of the world without any protection isn't a great idea. Russia would be likely to take advantage and play a much larger role in their development.

Hmm, I think you severely misunderstand the power balance in europe. Right now, the US has jack shit stationed in Europe. They simply man their airbases scattered around, but any ground forces that were stationed in Europe after WW2 has pulled out over 20 years ago. Europe ain't exactly shaking in fear, are they? The US isn't protecting Europe. It's being tolerated here, because they're allies. Russia would not move an inch to the west, because the second trade is cut off, Russia is broke. Oh and also, the UK, France and Germany are more than enough to deter anyone from trying funny stuff. And that's all the other countries with fine personnel not even included.

Just as an example... here's Finland:



As for development, you really need to see more global news. Russia is as far from "taking part in development" anywhere in Europe as I am from inventing cold fusion.

This whole topic is kind of offensive to Americans. I hope they're not as arrogant as this sounds. The world is quite capable of getting itself in and out of trouble without the intervention of the US. But you may find that you have less terrorism threats if you chill out a little over there. Oh and perhaps start educating people a bit more.

[Sialanne]

Hmm, I think you severely misunderstand the power balance in europe. Right now, the US has jack shit stationed in Europe. They simply man their airbases scattered around, but any ground forces that were stationed in Europe after WW2 has pulled out over 20 years ago. Europe ain't exactly shaking in fear, are they? The US isn't protecting Europe. It's being tolerated here, because they're allies. Russia would not move an inch to the west, because the second trade is cut off, Russia is broke. Oh and also, the UK, France and Germany are more than enough to deter anyone from trying funny stuff. And that's all the other countries with fine personnel not even included.

Just as an example... here's Finland:



As for development, you really need to see more global news. Russia is as far from "taking part in development" anywhere in Europe as I am from inventing cold fusion.

This whole topic is kind of offensive to Americans. I hope they're not as arrogant as this sounds. The world is quite capable of getting itself in and out of trouble without the intervention of the US. But you may find that you have less terrorism threats if you chill out a little over there. Oh and perhaps start educating people a bit more.

As a note to your picture, Finland has fewer than 40k soldiers now, among all the branches of their military combined. They no longer have a military in any real capacity.

[Kalis]

Spending is by no means the only part. I have to think that the fact that we're not soft like many European countries are has a lot to do with it, as well.

And the comment was based around your "huge military forces kicking around doing nothing have a bad history in Europe" comment, which I could see had to do with Germany ramping up their military. What happened the last time Germany did that? Why wouldn't they do it again? And why would they give a shit about the rest of the EU, when they could just take over the EU? I find it hard to believe that if any one country (in Europe) developed a large standing army, that it wouldn't try to conquer some of it's neighbors. That is the historical precedent to which I am referring.

Germany couldn't knock out a badly prepared Britain last time, and the military has changed a lot since then. Germany couldn't beat either Britain or France as it currently stands, and if they decided on a massive military build up against the wishes of other EU states, then Britain and France would follow suit.

What do you mean when you claim that Europeans are soft? Try talking to anyone in your armed forces that has served with Europeans, and you'll get a completely different answer - British Special Forces are regarded as some of the best in the world, France's Foreign Legion are regarded as some of the toughest, etc.

Spending is the only reason that the US is regarded as the current sole superpower.

[Kalis]

Imperialism thankfully died with WW2. The EU wouldnt attack each other.

...until you vote to leave the United Kingdom, then you're all ours.

[Slant]

As a note to your picture, Finland has fewer than 40k soldiers now, among all the branches of their military combined. They no longer have a military in any real capacity.

Hmm, why should they? They didn't have a massive arrmy before Russia invaded during WW2. Take Switzerland, for exaxmple... They have 150k soldiers. 30k or so in addition in the reserves. Tiny, no? Well, after you finish the service, you can actually take the rifle home. They estimate roughly 600k rifles being in the possession of ex-conscripts. Have fun invading them on their home turf, they'd need about a week to have a standing army of close to 800k.

Then take the raw industrial power of France and Germany coupled with the highest population density anywhere and probably the most cultural experience in warfare, since basically since the beginning of history up until 1945 someone was always waging war against someone else in Europe. We are quite able to defend ourselves. But we smartened up. And that's why you see "tiny national guards" in our countries. Because we don't actually need them. Peace is better for everyone involved. Warmongering is not. Chemical weapons in Iraq anyone? Totally worth the bad PR, right? :P

But what people forget about Europe is that it's pretty united these days. Russia or whoever wouldn't dare do anything openly, because the repercussions of the UK, France and Germany on top of all the other "little countries" striking as one would be devastating. Believe it or not.

[Sialanne]

Germany couldn't knock out a badly prepared Britain last time, and the military has changed a lot since then. Germany couldn't beat either Britain or France as it currently stands, and if they decided on a massive military build up against the wishes of other EU states, then Britain and France would follow suit.

What do you mean when you claim that Europeans are soft? Try talking to anyone in your armed forces that has served with Europeans, and you'll get a completely different answer - British Special Forces are regarded as some of the best in the world, France's Foreign Legion are regarded as some of the toughest, etc.

So, my point stands (which is that if any EU country built an army, it'd attack someone else in the EU). And we aren't discussing them as is, we're discussing if they could build a military. After all, YOU are the one who agreed that they'd be able to build a world-stopping military in 6 years, and that they'd do it without attacking their neighbors (hint: Once again, history shows that it's not going to happen. I'm not referring to Germany specifically, but the entirety of Europe)

Oh, and I didn't know that Special Forces are representative of the entire military. My bad bro. I forgot that you judge everyone based on the top 1%

Hmm, why should they? They didn't have a massive arrmy before Russia invaded during WW2. Take Switzerland, for exaxmple... They have 150k soldiers. 30k or so in addition in the reserves. Tiny, no? Well, after you finish the service, you can actually take the rifle home. They estimate roughly 600k rifles being in the possession of ex-conscripts. Have fun invading them on their home turf, they'd need about a week to have a standing army of close to 800k.

Then take the raw industrial power of France and Germany coupled with the highest population density anywhere and probably the most cultural experience in warfare, since basically since the beginning of history up until 1945 someone was always waging war against someone else in Europe. We are quite able to defend ourselves. But we smartened up. And that's why you see "tiny national guards" in our countries. Because we don't actually need them. Peace is better for everyone involved. Warmongering is not. Chemical weapons in Iraq anyone? Totally worth the bad PR, right? :P

But what people forget about Europe is that it's pretty united these days. Russia or whoever wouldn't dare do anything openly, because the repercussions of the UK, France and Germany on top of all the other "little countries" striking as one would be devastating. Believe it or not.

Oh, I don't think they necessary should have a large army. The point was that your picture was an inaccurate depiction of the way things are now. And just sticking rifles into peoples hands doesn't make them a viable defense force, especially against well trained soldiers. I'd argue that they would have been better off if they'd have kept mandatory military service for their citizens.

And you mention they wouldn't dare because it'd be devastating. You're right, but I don't think for the reasons you think they're right. They wouldn't do it because it would be economically devastating, not because they'd necessarily be beaten (which they may or may not. I don't know. Russians are great at fighting on their own turf, not so much so on others, historically speaking)

[Kalis]

So, my point stands (which is that if any EU country built an army, it'd attack someone else in the EU). And we aren't discussing them as is, we're discussing if they could build a military. After all, YOU are the one who agreed that they'd be able to build a world-stopping military in 6 years, and that they'd do it without attacking their neighbors (hint: Once again, history shows that it's not going to happen. I'm not referring to Germany specifically, but the entirety of Europe)

Oh, and I didn't know that Special Forces are representative of the entire military. My bad bro. I forgot that you judge everyone based on the top 1%

Forgive me if I don't really hold you're opinion on military matters in high regard, considering you don't know why the US is considered the current sole superpower.

Europe has a history of attacking their neighbours, hence the creation of the EU, they also have a history of attacking everybody else in the world - even some of the smaller ones had international empires, e.g. Belgium and Holland.

I was also giving you well known examples of European units internationally famous for not being soft, I could just have listed every unit in the British Army, Navy and RAF, but I thought my point was fairly obvious.

[Sialanne]

'Mon then.



Your point doesnt stand, the EU wont attack itself ffs. Not to mention we live in a world of nukes, so if one country is threatened were all fucked.

You THINK it wouldn't attack itself. I argue otherwise. History is on my side. And so what if we're in a world of nukes? I highly doubt that anybody is going to be nuking anybody else any time soon.

Forgive me if I don't really hold you're opinion on military matters in high regard, considering you don't know why the US is considered the current sole superpower.

Europe has a history of attacking their neighbours, hence the creation of the EU, they also have a history of attacking everybody else in the world - even some of the smaller ones had international empires, e.g. Belgium and Holland.

I was also giving you well known examples of European units internationally famous for not being soft, I could just have listed every unit in the British Army, Navy and RAF, but I thought my point was fairly obvious.

Pardon? I don't "know why the US is the sole superpower"? Where the hell did that come from? I know why we are. And don't think that military spending is the only reason, because it's NOT.

And you act as if the existence of the EU would stop war among the countries. It works for as long as it lasts. If somebody militarized, it would no longer last.

[Kalis]

'Mon then.

Okay, but no running to France if it goes tits up for you.

[Neufab]

Spending is by no means the only part. I have to think that the fact that we're not soft like many European countries are has a lot to do with it, as well.

And the comment was based around your "huge military forces kicking around doing nothing have a bad history in Europe" comment, which I could see had to do with Germany ramping up their military. What happened the last time Germany did that? Why wouldn't they do it again? And why would they give a shit about the rest of the EU, when they could just take over the EU? I find it hard to believe that if any one country (in Europe) developed a large standing army, that it wouldn't try to conquer some of it's neighbors. That is the historical precedent to which I am referring.

Why would Germany take over EU by military might when they are already the de facto lead nation of the union?

Also, national pride is clouding your objectivity I'm afraid. Europe is not the 3rd world, our tech is about on par with the US, our GDP is larger and we have much more manpower. Do the math.

[Kalis]

You THINK it wouldn't attack itself. I argue otherwise. History is on my side. And so what if we're in a world of nukes? I highly doubt that anybody is going to be nuking anybody else any time soon.

The US has a history of attacking itself over internal politics (War of Independence, Civil War), does that mean it will happen again soon?

[Sialanne]

Why would Germany take over EU by military might when they are already the de facto lead nation of the union?

Also, national pride is clouding your objectivity I'm afraid. Europe is not the 3rd world, our tech is about on par with the US, our GDP is larger and we have much more manpower. Do the math.

I don't think that Europe is the 3rd world. I do think that it's filled with separate countries, who, union or no, will still put themselves before their union.

I believe that here in the US, the whole is greater than the sum of our parts, and I don't feel the same way about the EU.

The US has a history of attacking itself over internal politics (War of Independence, Civil War), does that mean it will happen again soon?

It could.

[Deleted]

I don't think that Europe is the 3rd world. I do think that it's filled with separate countries, who, union or no, will still put themselves before their union.

I believe that here in the US, the whole is greater than the sum of our parts, and I don't feel the same way about the EU.

That's correct, and I believe this is what would happen if countries were somehow forced to defend themselves because US withdraws. The biggest parties I could see would be something like scandinavia, finland, switzerland and germany teaming up. A lot of those countries (scandinavia being Denmark, Norway and Sweden) are against EU, and would probably do anything (if this situation arised) to form their own kind of union.