61–70 of 128 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
European Union is not a sovereign entity that can have its 'own' military.
That’s not true, the EU is a suprantional entity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supranational_union That is, its members transfer part of their sovereignty to the EU
It simply doesn't make any sense for most European countries. First of all, there is no viable way to actually use conscripts. Sending them overseas to die over a patch of dirt is a really bad move, as the Vietnam war has shown. Europe doesn't really want to invade anyone, so you're left with defense. So who's going to invade? The only foe even worth considering is Russia - and NATO's combined professional armies are…
> anything further west just isn't going to happen. Are you somehow not counting Austria, Greece, and Switzerland as European? [pedantic edit: the parent, to my interpretation, does not just argue that "introducing conscription would be a poor idea" but that "conscription is a poor idea" (whether one already has it or not); maybe it would be better off refined to the former?]
GP was a bit too general.
Heinlein got a lot of flak for Starship Troopers , in the wake of the Korean War and even prior to escalation in Vietnam. But he was not wrong that there's a fundamental difference in democratic outlook between someone who risks their life (even hypothetically) for their country and someone who does not. If you can vote to spend a life, even indirectly, you should have some skin in that game too.
The ones who survive may - perhaps - be useful to everyone else.
Most of Western Europe is unwilling to fight for their country https://preview.redd.it/of-europeans-who-would-fight-for-the...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US would like nothing more than Europe to be able to deal with Russia without help. A joint European army does nothing to reduce US leverage; the US is still the only meaningful nuclear deterrent to Russia, and everyone in Europe knows it. But if the EU is able to credibly counter conventional threats, that's a huge bonus for the US.
GB and France are?
While the UK and France have nuclear warheads, their numbers (225 and 290, respectively), pale in comparison with that of Russia (5889) and the US (5244).
Also, the UK's force is sea based and France's is land and air based, both Russia and the US have a nuclear triad:
three-pronged military force structure that consists of land-launched nuclear missiles, nuclear-missile-armed submarines, and strategic aircraft with nuclear bombs and missiles.[1] Specifically, these components are land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and strategic bombers. The purpose of having this three-branched nuclear capability is to significantly reduce the possibility that an enemy could destroy all of a nation's nuclear forces in a first-strike attack. This, in turn, ensures a credible threat of a second strike, and thus increases a nation's nuclear deterrence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_we...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right that it is not necessarily efficient from a military effectiveness perspective. I see it as also an educational tool/investment. As other comments have pointed out, this helps the populace internalize their responsibities in war (affecting voting), might help instill social cohesion, and yes also provides a baseline military competency in the populace in the worst case scenario (total war).
How is it an "educational tool/investment" when you are removing 18-year-olds from their education or job for several months? And "instill social cohesion" sounds a lot like "brainwashing" to me. Those arguments don't have anything to do with conscription. You could just as well achieve the same with mandatory education, or mandatory pick-trash-up-in-the-forests.
They're getting education in a different set of skills, and additional life experiences; some of which may actually be transferrable outside the military context.
I don't see the same objection to students deciding to take a gap-year to backpack around Southeast Asia.
The obvious question to me is are they arming to defend themselves from Russia or from other European nations rearming? Russia struggled against Ukraine so it seems unlikely that they'd fare well against a country with a similar GDP. Sardonic congratulations to the fine minds at NATO for manoeuvring us towards this outcome. Anyone who feels optimistic as all these armies limber up is beyond an idiot. As a culture we'…
> The obvious question to me is are they arming to defend themselves from Russia or from other European nations rearming? From Russia of course.
The obvious question to me is are they arming to defend themselves from Russia or from other European nations rearming? Russia struggled against Ukraine so it seems unlikely that they'd fare well against a country with a similar GDP. Sardonic congratulations to the fine minds at NATO for manoeuvring us towards this outcome. Anyone who feels optimistic as all these armies limber up is beyond an idiot. As a culture we'…
What would "de-fuse this situation" have looked like?
* Investment in Russia post-USSR collapse to replicate what happened in Germany after WWII.
* Not expanding NATO towards Moscow in the 1990s-2010s (including the discovery that Ukraine is de-facto partially under the NATO security umbrella).
* Working to bring Russia into a security alliance targeted at China.
* The US not adopting a policy of prolonging the war in Ukraine to bleed out the Russian military. It should have been treated like Iraq 2.0.
But it is people like Victoria Nuland who have been influencing policy in the region so I expect there are a lot of other opportunities that have been missed. She's part of the cadre that should have been working somewhere outside foreign policy (ideally, McDonalds or Walmart) following the Iraq war.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> anything further west just isn't going to happen. Are you somehow not counting Austria, Greece, and Switzerland as European? [pedantic edit: the parent, to my interpretation, does not just argue that "introducing conscription would be a poor idea" but that "conscription is a poor idea" (whether one already has it or not); maybe it would be better off refined to the former?]
Switzerland most certainly is not going to start making military service compulsory.
How does that square with what I read on https://www.ch.ch/en/safety-and-justice/military-service-and...
Every Swiss man is required to serve in the military or in the alternative civilian service. In most cases, the military service obligation applies from age 18 to 30.
I've always thought of those compulsory military training schemes as a little silly. You have a bunch of unmotivated people that don't want to be there. You have to house them, feed them, train them for what, 3, 6, 12 months? Seems like a lot of money. How long will that training last for? How soon will you need retraining to be even considered marginally useful? Isn't it better to spend that money on professional so…
You're right that it is not necessarily efficient from a military effectiveness perspective. I see it as also an educational tool/investment. As other comments have pointed out, this helps the populace internalize their responsibities in war (affecting voting), might help instill social cohesion, and yes also provides a baseline military competency in the populace in the worst case scenario (total war).
I am just guessing of course