Reply With Quote
ElNoNo, thanks for the input. I wasn't very well versed, and it's good to hear they'd be a least somewhat prepared.
I don't get it, so we're supposed to be afraid of our russian brothers? All other european powers are in the NATO alliance. If one of the allies attacks us, will the rest of the NATO respond? On our side? I'm not so sure...
In any case, how much of our budget should Slovenia give to our army to not get steamrolled?
ElNoNo, thanks for the input. I wasn't very well versed, and it's good to hear they'd be a least somewhat prepared.
Don't get me wrong. I said I'm not privy to their capabilities. What I'm saying though is that they've dealt with this stuff before and there's marked differences between how we perceive the threat and how they perceive it.
I'm sure an Euro can give better input. There's a few on the board.
Apparently, the bare minimum 2% of GDP, by NATO treaty of which Slovenia applied for on their own out of a want to do so.
Russian brothers? I understand the sentiment, I do, but I wouldnt trust the Russians as far as you can throw them. Their wealth depends on the price of natural gas and oil, which are both finite as demand rises.
Since the hypothetical assumes 50 years after the dissolution of NATO, safe to say the world and its priorities will be far different by then. Literally, anything can happen.
Last edited by DarkReign; 06-15-2011 at 09:56 AM.
I honestly don't give a rats ass if Slovenia wants to build up a military or not. What I do care, is that we provide protection to the entire continent at our expense. If Europe feels its safe, then bravo. But I don't want our military taking care of their foreign policy IE Libya or Kosovo.
maybe their main reason to "look to expand outside their borders" is to go for tat on the foreigners that are inside theirs?
Is middle eastern oil an "easier target" than venezuelan or russian oil?
I think the terrorist groups that are currently active would remain active if the foreigners left, but I think they would struggle to attract new recruits with the invaders gone, and considering their main method of attack is suicide bombing, they would either have to stop attacking or change tactics to keep their organizations running.
and I think venezuelan oil is an easier target for the US than middle eastern oil; likewise, I think the terrorists would attack their ideological foes, not their easiest target.
My point is that if one of those European powers decided to stop playing nice and conquer their neighbors, said neighbors would have no chance.
I hate to use Germany as an example only because of WW1 and 2, but lets pretend NATO is dissolved. Germany subsidizes the EU's very existence. Without Germany's economy and strong deutsche mark, the EU is kaput. What happens when they tire of this role? When they tire of subsidizing Greece and Spain's existence?
This is far off, well into the future, but a world without NATO and a (inevitable) weakening of the EU, the ground would be fertile for drastic, violent change.
If said perpetrator were an industrial powerhouse (like Germany or Russia) and they militarized for years while their neighbors did not, they could cakewalk to victory.
And the broke-as- Americans with no dog in the fight wouldnt give two s.
"the broke-as- Americans with no dog in the fight wouldnt give two s"
UCA is never broke or Can't-Do when it comes fighting any wars or busting into other countries. UCA knows the bonds will be sold to finance the war, the UCA will pocket the very high profits, and Human-Americans are left holding the debts.
US went into WWI after extreme pressure from Wall St because Wall St was exposed in Germany. If Germany had won, there was risk that Germany would have blown off the Wall St banks.
It's huge, total bull myth that America fights wars for freedom and democracy. America fights wars for its own business interests, even more so now that US govt is completely controlled by corporations and capitalists.
All true, which is why a non-NATO Europe ought to fear a demilitarized Europe. Too ripe for the picking to resist temptation, regardless of similarities in skin color and chosen worship of invisible men in the sky.
You think 2% will keep us safe from Germany? Really?
Who's trusting them (though they were a better and more stable ally than say USA)? I just don't fear them, and if they ever occupy us... well they won't be the first and certainly not the worst major power to do so.Russian brothers? I understand the sentiment, I do, but I wouldnt trust the Russians as far as you can throw them. Their wealth depends on the price of natural gas and oil, which are both finite as demand rises.
Right, anything can happen, so why spend money now for weapons and soldiers that will be unusable in 50 years? Isn't it better to save that money and invest it in better economy?Since the hypothetical assumes 50 years after the dissolution of NATO, safe to say the world and its priorities will be far different by then. Literally, anything can happen.
I dont know how much more I can say beyond this; I wish the world was a better place, but it isnt.
The maxim "If you want peace, prepare for war" isnt some ancient sentiment to be remembered, its to be practiced vehemently.
Say whatever you want, IMO, there are only three reasons WW3 hasnt happened yet, in order:
1. Nuclear proliferation - ie mutually assured destruction
2. The fall of the Soviet Union
3. The United States being the sole military superpower of the world
Hate the US as much as you want, but imagine for a moment a different reality that made someone different the sole superpower, for example, the USSR, China or Nazi Germany.
Even if the stereotypical ideals of the US are just a facade we claim to respect, it is truly a testament to the US that they havent abused the throne FAR, FAR worse than they could have.
Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Thats the hit list of American military imperialism. Thats a ing joke, a ing joke. None of those countries had/have any infrastructure to write home about, or outside of Iraq, have any natural resource to really speak of that would be some "Crown Jewel" for the imperialists to take.
No, two of them where proxy wars with the Reds and the other two are barely a decade old, under the guise of king-making and the War on Terror.
When, if you really remove your subjectivity and nationalism from the equation, the 1950s through 2000s America could have conquered and controlled all of North and South America wholesale. By the pen or sword, two continents would become one nation, one flag, one resource, one military.
This could have been done before the 70s with ease. The next target, depending on world politics after such an expansion, would most likely have been the Orient. Again, weak infrastructure, poor governments (at that time) and individual militaries not worth even mentioning. Besides, as a genome, Asians are used to being conquered and controlled. They wouldnt bat an eye for too long at their new taskmasters.
At that point, only Europe and the USSR would be the last remaining threats/targets (Africa didnt count then just the same as it doesnt count now).
BTW, I am not talking about the American military you know and hate today and in WW2, I am talking about a Roman American military. Conquerors, nothing more, nothing less. Subjugators, not liaisons for ideology, peace and democracy. An autocratic, hegemonic society intent on world domination by pen or sword, that choice is left to your enemies.
That could have taken place, that could have been reality. You can argue that through the banking system and trade relations that America conquered the world through finance, not bloodshed already, but I am talking about something different.
I am saying, picture Hitler or Stalin with American military power and technology, with America's inherent geographic advantage and picture your world then. Far different world, I say.
"If you want peace, prepare for war" because the next superpower to usurp the US looks to be China. A jingoistic, communist society who has absolutely ZERO in common with anyone from Europe and a fiercely nationalistic populace that has been programmed to obey since birth. Dissenters are imprisoned, for life, while the government machine moves forward. Do you believe they will be as relatively benevolent with their power as the US was?
I dont...not by a ing longshot.
Last edited by DarkReign; 06-15-2011 at 10:47 AM.
No, it wouldnt. But those are the terms of NATO membership, of which nearly all members do not adhere to. I say, adhere to the terms agreed or dissolve it.
No more American military bases Europeans seem to hate so much. You win, we win. See how that works.
That...whole defeatist at ude you displayed in the above explains so much about you, I dont even know where to begin.Who's trusting them (though they were a better and more stable ally than say USA)? I just don't fear them, and if they ever occupy us... well they won't be the first and certainly not the worst major power to do so.
If you arent leading the race, youre losing the race. You think that you will have a chance 50 years into the future by starting to militarize then as opposed to them starting now?Right, anything can happen, so why spend money now for weapons and soldiers that will be unusable in 50 years? Isn't it better to save that money and invest it in better economy?
Ha. Seriously, laughable. What? Youre just going to...start a space program then to send all your satellites into orbit to combat their intelligence and situational awareness? Will you even have 3 stage rockets in time?
Ha. Laughable.
But judging by the "we've been occupied before, it wasnt so bad, better than you" at ude you have, Im hardly surprised.
That's what I hypothesized about why they're focusing on the US. If foreigners were to invade, I'm not sure if they'd turn on each other, or around nearby countries for add'l supplies/manpower/etc.
DR, I think you're forgetting that VelikM is from Slovenia. In his case, I can see his point about 2%. Will it make a difference in the long run if going up against a world power?
Right, but we can't win the "race". If you can tell me the plan by which we can win this "race", please tell me. So it's best to not even be in this pointless race.
And btw. we've been preparing for war from 1945 till 1990, when the army we financed attacked us. We have met the enemy and he is us.
Slovenia by itself? No, youre right.
All NATO countries spending the required 2%? No army in the world could ever stand against you, conquer or occupy you.
No argument, very true words. Precarious, for sure.And btw. we've been preparing for war from 1945 till 1990, when the army we financed attacked us. We have met the enemy and he is us.
I'm not so sure about that. There's more than just NATO sustaining a mutual defense agreement in Europe (ie:Treaty of Lisbon).
The Treaty of Lisbon also states that:
The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides.
Hate to break it to you, but Germany is actually one of those countries that only spends 1.3% of their GDP on defense. Countries like the UK and France actually spend substantially more in both GDP % and actual dollars than Germany (figures)
There's 4 top dogs in Europe, militarily speaking: UK, France, Germany and to a lesser degree, Italy. It would require at least two of those to join forces to start some real ruckus (Which coincidentally was what happened in WWII, with Germany and Italy joining forces). But then back then there were clearly fascists governments in place. Never say never, but I'll say pretty unlikely that adds up to that again. I would argue that China in general poses a bigger threat.
Today, the UK individually spends about the same as Russia on defense. France individually too.
Here's another list on general worldwide military spending
Let me point out that Europe actually spends 1.63% of their GDP on defense right now. Not all Euro members are NATO members though. That 1.63% is a lot of dough. It's almost 4x what China spends on defense, and China is ranked #3 right now in defense spending. So basically, the only country that spends substantially more than them is the US. For all intents and purposes, outside of the US invading, there really is nobody else that can stand against them.
What I meant by Germany "subsidizing the EU's existence" was more that their economy subsidizes the lesser economies of the EU, plain and simple.
My point is, at some juncture Germany is going to tire of the Euro being dragged down by failing governments and bailouts. Their economy is the strongest in Europe and it carries the freeloaders who promise their people social policies they cannot afford. Well, that they can actually afford so long as the EU keeps bailing them out whenever theyre about to go into receivership.
It is only my opinion that this Union cannot last under those conditions. I have family in Germany, Munich and Hamburg, theyre none to happy with the EU in general. Mainly because they tire of carrying the dead weight of Europe on their backs when their lives and well-being would be far better off without the EU.
IIRC, Britain never transitioned to the Euro, did they? Arent they still using the sterling pound? A question I have not researched, but I know that in speaking with our family, people want to go back to the Deutsche Mark. Its much, much stronger than the Euro and isnt degraded by the bailout of lesser en ies (Greece, Spain).
Britain and Denmark negotiated an opt-out of the Euro zone back when the original treaty was written. Sweden used a loophole to keep itself out.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions