NobleSavage
Veteran Member
Would we see a sudden spike in EU military spending? They are a lot closer to the Middle East and Russia than we are.
-
Features
How would Europe feel if we shut down all our military bases and removed US troops?
- Thread starter NobleSavage
- Start date
arkirk
Veteran Member
That would be one of the things we could do if we had energy independence. Some of the outstanding problems in the middle east and Europe are a direct result of a continual reliance by the U.S. on middle east oil. It is no accident that the Germans are so invested in alternative energy. They do not need to control shipping lanes all over the world and enforce extractive agreements with foreign governments. That does not mean they are good guys. Maybe we could be better. We seem to be a nation that has adapted to major changes. Our military bases are not defensive. They are all pretty much the result of one of the most naturally endowed countries on the earth (the U.S.) remaining so dependent on imports from around the world. New alternative models need to be explored to cut down our trade deficit...and at the same time cut our military spending.
Crazy Eddie
Veteran Member
Because the European Union is so worried about being invaded by Russia these days.
ISIS might be a factor, sure, but that's more of a counter-terrorism and internal security issue it seems. None of them really have any plans on engaging in -- much less supporting -- foreign military action on that front, nor do they seriously expect the U.S. to do much of anything about it. It seems like for the threat environment they live in now, Europe is perfectly capable of defending itself. They're not capable of projecting power or pushing other people around, but I don't know that it's something they've actually WANTED to do since at least the end of the Cold war.
That could change, of course, if the collapse of NATO leads to some kind of power vacuum and the EU itself fails to fill it. I don't see that happening either, of course, unless the Soviet Union suddenly pulls itself together like the T-1000 and starts the Cold War all over again.
untermensche
Contributor
The nation in the world to fear. The nation that has been attacking other nations and people non-stop for decades, is the US.
The so-called Cold War was really the US attacking third world nations, The Congo, Vietnam, Haiti, Guatemala, Chile.
Always of course with some concocted rationalization involving the myth of a Soviet danger, but really always for the interests of US corporations and investors.
If the EU kicked out the US their greatest danger would be the US.
And the US ain't leaving anywhere voluntarily. And before the US leaves due to resistance it trashes the place, like in Vietnam.
Very true. I would say that about a quarter of what the US military does actually helps the world, and the other three quarters puts it more in danger. If the US pulled all forces out of the middle east and other third world areas, I think we could expect a slight bump in terrorist attacks on first world nations in the short term, but eventual stability in those regions and reduced tension with the west. They would have to deal with their own problems, fight it out, and the winners would have to govern somehow be it by democracy or iron fist.
I really don't think the US will ever do that though, nor will the western world at large, as exploiting third world countries is one of the major ways the rich stay rich.
Axulus
Veteran Member
Care to elaborate? What rich people in particular are you referring to? Names, please.
untermensche
Contributor
Do you know the history of Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, The Congo, Indonesia, Chile and many other places in the world?
Attacked by the US. Their governments overturned. Despots put in charge. In they couldn't be overturned they were attacked with terrorism or outright invasion. All to protect US business interests.
This is in the historical record. Everybody in the civilized world knows about it and it is why most of the world sees the US as the biggest threat to peace.
But of course Americans are subject to intense propaganda efforts by the government using the corporate media to distract people from US crimes and make justifications for them.
And many of the simplest and poorly read of them accept these justifications without question.
With any criticism of US violence and interference they scream "Communist" like a Pavlovian dog salivating.
NobleSavage
Veteran Member
WRT Russia, as Bibly pointed out Assad is a much bigger problem than ISIS. Russia has been supplying them with arms and the US has been supplying the rebels. There is more than one commentator that thinks they would like to get Finland back. Lithuania has been worried about an invasion since March: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/03/15/lithuania-prepares-for-a-feared-russian-invasion/
Because the European Union is so worried about being invaded by Russia these days.
ISIS might be a factor, sure, but that's more of a counter-terrorism and internal security issue it seems. None of them really have any plans on engaging in -- much less supporting -- foreign military action on that front, nor do they seriously expect the U.S. to do much of anything about it. It seems like for the threat environment they live in now, Europe is perfectly capable of defending itself. They're not capable of projecting power or pushing other people around, but I don't know that it's something they've actually WANTED to do since at least the end of the Cold war.
That could change, of course, if the collapse of NATO leads to some kind of power vacuum and the EU itself fails to fill it. I don't see that happening either, of course, unless the Soviet Union suddenly pulls itself together like the T-1000 and starts the Cold War all over again.
NobleSavage
Veteran Member
So why have you been against the XL pipeline, fracking, and Nuclear Power?
NobleSavage
Veteran Member
If your only history book is by Noam Chomsky it might sound that way, I'm sure. You know it was called a "cold war" because the US and Soviets didn't fight each other directly. We had a bunch of proxy wars and to think that the USSR wasn't an equal participant is just silly.
NobleSavage
Veteran Member
If your only history book is by Noam Chomsky it might sound that way, I'm sure. You know it was called a "cold war" because the US and Soviets didn't fight each other directly. We had a bunch of proxy wars and to think that the USSR wasn't an equal participant is just silly.
dystopian
Veteran Member
Well for one, you can't actually do that since you have treaty obligations that prevent such a thing.
Secondly, you'd be relentlessly mocked as being the only country to actually call upon NATO's mutual defense clause in response to a conflict where we ended up facing a bunch of militants armed with little more than RPG's and soviet era guns; while bugging the hell out when it looks as if you might possibly be called upon to help defend against something resembling a proper military; and for making promises you don't keep.
Thirdly; the EU already considerably outspends everyone except the US. Even if the US vanished overnight there'd be no need to spend more in order to deal with Russia or the middle-east. Russia barely manages to spend a third of what the EU does, and it's bankrupting itself doing so.
So no, we probably wouldn't see a sudden spike in military spending (not beyond the kind of increases we're already seeing now anyway). What we *might* see is the formation of a proper EU military in order to deal with the reduced effectiveness inherent in having a bunch of different armies with different procurement routes; which would allow Europe more bang for the same money. But then, we'll likely see that happen without the US leaving anyway.
NobleSavage
Veteran Member
Like we would live up to our treaties if it didn't benefit us.
More seriously though, it seem most of the world is tired of the USA acting as the global cop. Seems like a good place to start might be in dissolving NATO.Nice job ignoring the fact that in most of these cases they joined the Russian block.
barbos
Contributor
Nice job admitting that US doctrine has been and still is to hold Soviet Union and now Russia.
US doctrine is in fact as simple as Pavlovian dogs, anyone who dare to think of having decent relations with Russia must be "reeducated" preferably with death squads or carpet bombing, at the very least Maidan.
And funny thing, Vietnam went to US first, only after US rejected them they turned to Soviet Union and then US got mad. As one vietnamese guy said "all we wanted is independence the rest was secondary"
untermensche
Contributor
That is total bullshit.
For example, when Castro first took power in Cuba he came to the US and asked for US support. Since he had just thrown over a tyrant he thought he would be rewarded.
But the US rejected Castro, carried out operations like the Bay of Pigs, and through him into the arms of the Soviet Union.
There was no Soviet involvement in Castro's Revolution. But US aggression and terrorism, including biological warfare, aimed at Cuba forced it to try to defend itself by making deals with the Soviets.
Again. The Cold War was mainly the US attacking Third World nations using the Soviet Union as an absurd excuse for doing so.
It would have some interesting ramifications. Nothing particularly big though.
We'd probably see a small spike in military spending. Some European militaries are designed around the idea of being part of a NATO force. If the US aren't going to part of that, then they'd need to reorganise, and that would cost some money. The Europeans would probably also buy a few more fighter aircraft, since that's the main contribution the US would have been providing in the event of a big war.
But there wouldn't be a huge increase. EU countries have strategic and battlefield nuclear weapons, and the willingness to turn the border into a nuclear wasteland.
The effect the other way would be more dramatic. The intelligence sharing agreement would probably be an early casualty. If we're not coordinating militaries, then we don't need joint assessment of threat, or to provide the US with a steady stream of US intel about Europe and the environs. Since the US have repeatedly shown themselves to be exploiting the agreement to spy on trade agreements, industrial espionage, and bugging EU leaders, there aren't many decision-makers left in the EU whose privacy the US intelligence services haven't personally violated. Given the heavy reliance of the US on intercept and electronic espionage, cutting them off would leave them blind in a number of areas. So we'd probably see an increase in US intelligence spending, and a decrease in their effectiveness. If we had a tit for tat cutting of bilateral agreements as well, then that effect might be larger and hit both sides.
As for the rest, it's worth looking at two likely theatres.
First off, Estonia, a country on the Baltic and a far more likely target than Finland. Any conflict around there would be firstly done on negotiation, with Russia claiming sovereignty due to a large minority Russian population, and trying to repeat the annexation of Crimea, so US involvement wouldn't materially change anything.
If it did turn into a shooting war, it would be end up being a naval and air war. The US involvement might be more or less the same whether they had bases in the EU or not, but even without US involvement, win or lose, Russia would lose the Baltic Fleet, and probably their last ice-free port in the Baltic. They can't afford to rebuild it.
As for the Middle East, Europe is 'closer' but unless Turkey becomes a full member, and arguably even then, it's a sea voyage either way. The US would still have client states in Israel, Eygpt, and depending on how the war goes, Syria, Saudi Arabia, South (?) Yemen and Pakistan. US bases in Europe aren't worth that much compared to that lot. Bribe one of them to dramatically increase US military presence, and the problem is basically solved.
If, on the other hand, US withdrawal came hand-in-hand with a deterioration of relations, then Israel might become a hot-spot of contention. The US would want to protect them from a generally less sympathetic Europe, and Europe would want to vie with US influence in Egypt. Most of the moves would be economic, rather than straight military.
We'd probably see a small spike in military spending. Some European militaries are designed around the idea of being part of a NATO force. If the US aren't going to part of that, then they'd need to reorganise, and that would cost some money. The Europeans would probably also buy a few more fighter aircraft, since that's the main contribution the US would have been providing in the event of a big war.
But there wouldn't be a huge increase. EU countries have strategic and battlefield nuclear weapons, and the willingness to turn the border into a nuclear wasteland.
The effect the other way would be more dramatic. The intelligence sharing agreement would probably be an early casualty. If we're not coordinating militaries, then we don't need joint assessment of threat, or to provide the US with a steady stream of US intel about Europe and the environs. Since the US have repeatedly shown themselves to be exploiting the agreement to spy on trade agreements, industrial espionage, and bugging EU leaders, there aren't many decision-makers left in the EU whose privacy the US intelligence services haven't personally violated. Given the heavy reliance of the US on intercept and electronic espionage, cutting them off would leave them blind in a number of areas. So we'd probably see an increase in US intelligence spending, and a decrease in their effectiveness. If we had a tit for tat cutting of bilateral agreements as well, then that effect might be larger and hit both sides.
As for the rest, it's worth looking at two likely theatres.
First off, Estonia, a country on the Baltic and a far more likely target than Finland. Any conflict around there would be firstly done on negotiation, with Russia claiming sovereignty due to a large minority Russian population, and trying to repeat the annexation of Crimea, so US involvement wouldn't materially change anything.
If it did turn into a shooting war, it would be end up being a naval and air war. The US involvement might be more or less the same whether they had bases in the EU or not, but even without US involvement, win or lose, Russia would lose the Baltic Fleet, and probably their last ice-free port in the Baltic. They can't afford to rebuild it.
As for the Middle East, Europe is 'closer' but unless Turkey becomes a full member, and arguably even then, it's a sea voyage either way. The US would still have client states in Israel, Eygpt, and depending on how the war goes, Syria, Saudi Arabia, South (?) Yemen and Pakistan. US bases in Europe aren't worth that much compared to that lot. Bribe one of them to dramatically increase US military presence, and the problem is basically solved.
If, on the other hand, US withdrawal came hand-in-hand with a deterioration of relations, then Israel might become a hot-spot of contention. The US would want to protect them from a generally less sympathetic Europe, and Europe would want to vie with US influence in Egypt. Most of the moves would be economic, rather than straight military.
Bacillus anthracis
Member
If the EU kicked out or if the U.S. left on its own, it would only be a matter of time before Europe began foisting its horrors on the world again. Only under the protection of the U.S. has Europe managed to not erupt into the most violent, murderous place on the planet---and it hasn't been able to export those horrors either.
For over a thousand years Europe warred with itself while at the same time exporting its brand of brutality to the rest of the world. It enslaved India and Bangladesh, and brought disease to the New World before raping it of everything it had before taking over 10 million slaves from Africa to the Americas. That's to name a small select few things that happened even before it afflicted the planet with two world wars.
I would love for American forces to leave Europe. The only problem is that Europe would then be left to its own devices. And history has shown us how well that's gone for everyone. The U.S. has done bad things, but it blushes and then pales in comparison to what Europe did for millennia before the U.S. and even Europe itself acknowledged that it can't control itself.
And even as we speak, the Russians are spoiling for a fight to get things back to the good old days. Ukraine would already have been repossessed by Russia if not for the deterrent of American military might. And then Russia would be standing on Poland's doorstep.
Sound familiar?
You're ignoring the fact that joining the communist block brands them as enemies. Of course we tried to undermine them!
- - - Updated - - -
Nice ignoring the fact that he proceeded to steal the property of a whole bunch of US businesses before asking for that help.
untermensche
Contributor
You have a very short attention span.
All that property was paid for with Cuban labor that had been exploited for decades.
The businessman actually got off easy. They owed workers a lot more.
Basically all you're saying is that if US business interests exploit some workers and profit from it they must have the right to exploit workers forever.
Your position is the position of the despot. The position of the imperialist.