Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 395 posts

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#271

Post by a-saleh »

Gustomaximus wrote: post #77

From the article: "It needs to move toward more military integration, which means streamlining procurement. European armies use too many different weapons systems: seventeen main battle tank families compared with just one for the U.S.; 20 types of fighter planes compared with just six; and 13 kinds of air-to-air missiles compared with three." While I dont doubt there are efficiencies to be had, I feel they fail to r…

I heard interesting comment in one of newspapers I was reading, proposing a closer union between Baltic countries, Poland and Scandinavia.

The argument was that these countries combined have roughly the army spending around half of Russia spending.

And to be frank, you should be quite worried about Russia doing the invading iff:

* you have significant russian minority * your population can speak russian * you border Russia * you have been part of USSR

Therefore, I could see baltics pushing for closer cooperation.

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#272

Post by seppin »

bad_user wrote: post #198
baursak wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it curious that it's only Europeans who are worried about Russia and their expansion threat, and the most loud about it are those who don't even have a common border with Russia. On the other hand, countries with a common border -- China, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, etc., are kind ho hum about the whole thing. I also feel compelled to partially quote Gore Vidal's old article on this: "When Japan surrende…

> I find it curious that it's only Europeans who are worried about Russia and their expansion threat, and the most loud about it are those who don't even have a common border with Russia. On the other hand, countries with a common border -- China, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, etc., are kind ho hum about the whole thing. That's because of what the Soviets did after WWII, and let me remind you of the Warsaw Pact c…

Unbelievable that the suffering of Baltic states for 50+ years under brutal Soviet rule is simply "forgotten" by OP. The cold war showed a clear contrast between US/Rus goals. The US wanted free and prosperous allied countries, Russia wanted an empire.

Just b/c Russia failed in their attempts to become a global power doesn't mean they somehow had more noble intentions. Quite the opposite in fact.

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#273

Post by [deleted] »

pabloski wrote: post #98
alextheparrot wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sort of. Russia needed to annex Crimea prior to the Ukraine joining NATO, which was becoming more possible after the revolution in Ukraine. Russia didn't need to act prior because it isn't threatened if the Ukraine isn't looking towards joining NATO. Crimea is hugely important to Russia because of its port access, which is why Turkey is now becoming more important to Russia (If they have the Crimea ports, Turkey cont…

Revolution? It is called coup d'etat, whose only outcome has been the enrichment of oligarchs and the utter destruction of the ukrainian national identity. Now Ukraine is a mix of foreign interests, polish born oligarchs, nazi battalions ( the so-called volunteers ). What is there in for the people? Famine, high prices for gas and electricity, the Ministry of Truth ( yes there is such a thing in the new shiny "democr…

[deleted]

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#274

Post by Kalium »

Gustomaximus wrote: post #77

From the article: "It needs to move toward more military integration, which means streamlining procurement. European armies use too many different weapons systems: seventeen main battle tank families compared with just one for the U.S.; 20 types of fighter planes compared with just six; and 13 kinds of air-to-air missiles compared with three." While I dont doubt there are efficiencies to be had, I feel they fail to r…

> While I dont doubt there are efficiencies to be had, I feel they fail to recognise diversity . Any of these weapon systems will have pros/cons. The diversity can be a strength.

You're right! And military planners are keenly aware that a diversity of capabilities is a significant strength and asset.

That said, there is a point beyond which military diversity is a handicap to ongoing operations. 20 types of fighters means maintenance is very complex and requires a lot of specialized crews. 13 types of air-to-air missiles that can't be used by all 20 types of fighters is a significant complication to battlefield logistics. Both mean manufacturing costs are higher than they need to be.

Redundancy in military equipment is perhaps not an ideal situation.

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#275

Post by andybak »

owebmaster wrote: post #236
_b8r0 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. The Falkland Islands are British territories. They are British because the population are British citizens and have repeatedly made it clear they wish to remain so. 2. The UK has never gone to war with the Falkland Islands. Argentina invaded the Falkands in 1982.

1. Just like Crimea?

Whilst a hypothetical (and impossible in practise) fair referendum in Crimea prior to the Russian takeover might have shown some support, I doubt it would have been a landslide if it was even a victory. The Falklands however - would have voted 100% to remain part of Britain. It's a silly comparison in many ways but you can't get away with the statement you just made.

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#276

Post by klibertp »

vondur wrote: post #250
zzleeper wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait wait.. Russia plainly invaded two of its neighbors, and annexes part of them. Is that just "behaving badly" in your book?

Well, we pushed NATO onto the borders of Russia. I can't imagine the US would be too happy with Russian military bases on our borders.

Actually, we should try our hardest to bring Russia into NATO. Won't happen anytime soon for many reasons, but that would be the most rational way forward, I think.

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#277

Post by dingaling »

mcguire wrote: post #235
yequalsx wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When discussing EU military capabilities one must go beyond dollar amount spent. The huge inefficiencies in the collective national militaries in terms of having an integrated force should not be discounted. Diversity of equipment at the level mentioned in the article is not a collective strength. It is a weakness. The real weakness however is the inability for the EU to collectively act militarily. Recall Kosovo and…

Specifically, diversity makes for a terrible battlefield logistics problem. It doesn't matter how many rounds of 5.56mm you have if your rifle fires 7.62mm. Further, has the EU ever projected it'd forces outside of Europe without US backing? Can the EU put troops in the middle east or Africa collectively? (Yes, I know the individual countries can.)

The rifle calibre issue is an interesting example of inefficiency since both were foisted on NATO by the USA.

Post-war, Western Europe was tending towards an intermediate-power 7mm round. The UK even issued it. But the US Army wouldn't accept a lower-power round so NATO soldiets suffered 7.62 Shoulder as a result. Until Vietnam, when the USA hastily adopted a fast but low-power varmint round.

After 50 years we're still carrying both calibres and no-one is happy, but NATO can't change unless the USA does.

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#278

Post by a-saleh »

owebmaster wrote: post #236
_b8r0 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. The Falkland Islands are British territories. They are British because the population are British citizens and have repeatedly made it clear they wish to remain so. 2. The UK has never gone to war with the Falkland Islands. Argentina invaded the Falkands in 1982.

1. Just like Crimea?

Are you suggesting that "Krym is Russian teritory" in a same way "Falklands are a British territory" ?

Are you suggesting that Ukraine invaded Krym and Russia had to respond?

I think that is flat out wrong.

I am not saying that you can't be of an opinion that invasion of Falklands was not justified and annexation of Krym was. I am just saying that these two incidents are not comparable.

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#279

Post by fictioncircle »

owebmaster wrote: post #236
_b8r0 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. The Falkland Islands are British territories. They are British because the population are British citizens and have repeatedly made it clear they wish to remain so. 2. The UK has never gone to war with the Falkland Islands. Argentina invaded the Falkands in 1982.

1. Just like Crimea?

So...90% of Crimeans voted to join the USSR in a fair and open election with international observers?
Post reply on HN