Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
racko
Topic Author
Posts: 4548
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 12:06 am

Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:23 pm

Forgetting for a moment about the ongoing missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, what, in your opinion, will be the next major conflict involving either the whole NATO or either the US or the EU?

North Korea invading the south?
China invading Taiwan?
Iran?
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9310
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Tue Mar 10, 2009 12:43 am

NATO is incapable of acting together. I think it's relevance is seriously in question in future conflicts. If the U.S. or EU nations will get involved in any conflict, here's my list in order:

1. Expanded operations in Pakistan
2. Strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities
3. War between India and Pakistan
4. Shooting war with North Korea
5. Shooting war with a South American country, likely Venezuela

I think there's a relatively low probability of a China/Taiwan conflict in the near future compared to the possibilities I mentioned above.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Tue Mar 10, 2009 12:49 am



Quoting Racko (Thread starter):
what, in your opinion, will be the next major conflict involving either the whole NATO or either the US or the EU?

North Korea invading the south?
China invading Taiwan?
Iran?

History has repeatedly shown that despite the probabilities, future conflicts are rarely predicted with any accuracy and usually come as a complete surprise.

But if I were a betting man, I would bet that the next major conflict involving NATO, the US, or the EU will come in the form of North Korea. With the global economic slowdown, that country is going to feel even more pressure in the form of providing basic necessities to its populace. Which means its desperate despotic leader will resort to even more desperate tactics.

I would also look to some form of instability in the Middle East - specifically destabilization of a country like Lebanon or even Egypt. Mubarak is only going to be around for a short time longer (I think he's pushing around 80). When he's gone, look to the West's anxiety level going through the roof.

Those are my guesses. But, like I said, future conflicts are very difficult to predict. The best way to prepare for future conflicts by military strategists is to prepare for UNEXPECTED conflicts.
 
Dornier328Jet
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 5:43 am

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:16 am



Quoting Racko (Thread starter):
China invading Taiwan?

Unlikely. First of all, China and the US share an important trade relationship, and two nuclear powers have never gone to war. (Yes, Pakistan and India have been at war, but not when both sides have had nukes.)

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 2):
But if I were a betting man, I would bet that the next major conflict involving NATO, the US, or the EU will come in the form of North Korea

Likely conflict for US, and, obviously, South Korea. If North Korea declares war on US, expect Japan and Australia to become involved as well. If I remember correctly, the NATO treaty does not come into force if the attack does not come in Europe or North America, hence why NATO was not involved in Vietnam. Iran is also a similar situation.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1):
3. War between India and Pakistan

Possible, but unlikely due to what I pointed up above about nuclear powers. Plus, I do not see NATO getting involved in this.

I'd say the most likely cause would be a conflict breaking out in Europe. If Ukraine and Georgia are admitted into NATO, I could see Russia causing activation of the NATO treaty via war with one of those two states. The nuclear issue, however, is once again a problem here.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 2):

Those are my guesses. But, like I said, future conflicts are very difficult to predict. The best way to prepare for future conflicts by military strategists is to prepare for UNEXPECTED conflicts.

This is, by far, the best prediction that can be made!
 
bennett123
Posts: 10865
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:28 pm

http://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html

The key for NATO is the scope of the Euro Atlantic area.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:00 pm

Should there be a shooting war between the US and almost any other country, NATO will not get involved. NATO has been successfully turned into a meals on wheels force, and are not a viable military force, in other words, a paper tiger. Political leaders in most NATO countries don't want to risk their own political future. Individual NATO countries will side with the US in a conflict. Those contries, including non-NATO members include, but not limited to the UK, OZ, Canada, and possibly some of the eastern European countries and former USSR countries.

The DPRK is the most likely country to start something, but they are not the only 'problem' country for the US, or therest of the world.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:03 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
NATO has been successfully turned into a meals on wheels force

 rotfl 

That is rich! Sadly, it's probably a very accurate statement.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
in other words, a paper tiger. Political leaders in most NATO countries don't want to risk their own political future.

I would agree with that for the most part. I don't think the populace of most NATO members have the stomach for any further military adventures, regardless of the dividends it might provide in the way of future security and stability in their own countries. However, the one exception would be if an event were to occur on a NATO member's own soil (other than the U.S.). In that case, I could see NATO getting directly involved militarily. But if something were to happen on U.S. soil (e.g., another 9/11 type event), I could see the rest of NATO telling the U.S. that it's on its own.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:11 pm

None. The current US administration is determined to reduce the US military to an extent that no capabilities beyond ceremonial functions will exist. I could list all of the "give-ins" about to befall the United States, but those should be apparent in every day news.
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Wed Mar 11, 2009 3:32 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 2):
History has repeatedly shown that despite the probabilities, future conflicts are rarely predicted with any accuracy and usually come as a complete surprise.

The timing of a conflict is hard to predict. Also, many wars thought to be innevitable have been prevented. There are also strange alliances - parties that have never got along can suddenly find themselves on the same side. But it is very rare for a shooting war to suddenly appear out of the blue between 2 parties that were thought to be on good terms. Most wars in the past have been feared by a large number of contemporary observers for some time beforehand. The few exceptions seem to be caused by revolutions driven by ideology - such as those in France and Russia. Even then, the revolutionaries often find themselves at war with traditional enemies, or there is a gap between the revolution and the international conflict.

The WW II Pacific war is a good example. Japan's invasion of Manchuria and China was more or less an expected result of Japan's expansionist tendencies. The US and Japan for years before Pearl Harbor were thought to be on a course for war - in fact the US navy had a detailed plan for such a war even in the early 30's, called war plan orange. Only the TIMMING of pearl harbor and that it came (though beauraucratic bungling) before a declaration of war came as a surprise. By that time, war between the US and at least Japan was expected at any moment.
 
pjflysfast
Posts: 442
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 11:05 pm

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:19 am

I think if Nato/Us/Eu were smart (not saying that they are not) that they would target Saudi Arabia. If you look at all of the hijackers of 9/11 all but one were from the kingdom of Saudi. They have been giving money to insurgent and terrorist cells for years and in turn those cells attack us. They are the ones who to this day still kill forces operating in Iraq and Afghanistan. Same with Pakistan and Iran. I think that if we were to get in a conflict with North Korea that there would be hundreds of thousands killed. If we could take out key targets that supply these forces with the means to kill that it would be a lot more of a plus than a minus. This of course would not be easy. Are there people out there on all sides that benefit from these conflicts......sure. Of course this will always be the case. If you want to look at countries that could benefit from us being there lets look at all Dar fur. I mean genocide is no joking matter and the fact that nothing seems to be done about this is just appalling. These are human beings.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1138
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:51 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
NATO has been successfully turned into a meals on wheels force

So true... NATO is becoming too much like the UN every day. Lots of lip gabbing, little action.

Big problem I think now is that you will never EVER beable to win a war. Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and China will all resort to guerrilla warfare and you get another Vietnam. Best you could hope for is to distroy their military hardware and war making facilities, and leave. Boots on the ground will mean much death with little or no gain.


If I was a bad guy wanting the best chance aginst the US and even NATO, the Chinese would launch an attack on Taiwan while N Korea attacked S Korea. Both Taiwan and S Korea would be a loss before the US/NATO could get significant military power in the area, and you get another Korean war. Its already over when you get there. They would have tunnel networks built ahead of time, weapon caches, troops trained for urban warfare. It is a losing fight... you cant preserve civilian lives if your opponent hides in towns and cities. The numbers of troops China and N Korea have, they could go into a town, kill off the population, and replace them with troops, and live there for a week before NATO even got there.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:05 pm

The Korean action was an UN action so the UN would have to provide protection to the South Koreans. Hopefully, the South Koreans can take care of the issue with just US support while the UN decides what to do. However, as in the original conflict, the North Koreans would seek Russian and Chinese assistance (which they would get).
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4961
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:06 pm

Somalia is my bet, they need to erase the pirates infrastructure.
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4961
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:31 pm

http://cafe.comebackalive.com/viewto...d=cf50f1adb8d67010f7a52b3f7b4e7110
Story about US citizens recruited by Al-Quieda and their associates in Somalia.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Fri Mar 13, 2009 2:54 am

Thank all of you for outlining the world wide problem the US, EU, and NATO will face in the future. Everyone is correct and accurate in your assessments.
 
TheCol
Posts: 1857
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 9:30 am

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:33 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):

 checkmark   Wink

Before anyone starts talking about NATO running in half cocked again, I think attempts should be made at re-stratagizing our current engagement, and collective security as a whole. This is something that has been put off for too long, and we cannot let another decade go by without a plan that pertains to 21st century threats. One thing is for certain, if we want NATO to continue to exist, then each nation should be expected to pull a fair share of the weight during NATO military operations. No more "we don't want our forces to take part in any front line combat" stipulations.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:55 am

It has been pretty quiet for the world's most heavily armed soup kitchen, but I expect that the next fight will be more like a skirmish. My guess is that either Iran or North Korea will rattle their sabre a little too hard and have to be put in their place.
 
MadameConcorde
Posts: 9265
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:08 pm

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:46 am

The question should be "Next Wars Involving NATO/EU/US?".

I don't understand the use of the word "conflict" when these "conflicts" are in fact WARS. I do not like this minimal vocabulary, using one word for the other in situations so grave.

Vietnam was a war. So was Kosovo, Serbia, Bosnia, Iraq 1 and 2, Iraq/Iran, Lebanon, Gaza, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir... An attack on Iran will result in a war, probably large scale. The now Iran conflict will turn into the Iran war.

Think of all these innocent people being killed in horrible ways. This is war, not conflict. Savage aerial attacks, bombings, wild destruction.

Conflicts don't necessarily make victims they can be just words, like Israel and Iran at this present stage. Wars kill people in most atrocious ways. They kill far too many civilians. How would you like to find yourselves in Gaza in the midst of these phosphorus bombs explosions? I wouldn't want to be there at all.

This is why I hope they will leave Iran alone as if they attack it may ignite another horrible war which extent cannot be imagined. The whole Gulf region may go in flames, maybe even further out.  

[Edited 2009-03-13 03:01:57]
 
Oroka
Posts: 1138
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Sat Mar 14, 2009 11:44 pm



Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 17):
I don't understand the use of the word "conflict" when these "conflicts" are in fact WARS.

While technically a 'war', many conflicts are just to short, or one sided to be a 'war'. Also, there is never a official declaration of war. They call the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan the 'War on Terror', but it would be better called a 'police action' like Vietnam was at first. There is no actual country they are at war with, just a terrorist organization.


On another note, what is with those Chinese ships harassing a USN intelligence ship in international waters? That was a somewhat aggressive move on the Chinese's part.

My guess is that China (and Iran with that drone) are testing Obama to see how he would react to such a situation.
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:20 am



Quoting Oroka (Reply 10):
Big problem I think now is that you will never EVER beable to win a war. Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and China will all resort to guerrilla warfare and you get another Vietnam.

Guerilla wars are winnable. In fact, most guerilla vs. conventional wars are won by the conventional force. When guerillas succeed, they simply get more attention from the media and from history.

There are also some widespread misconceptions about past guerilla wars. The US and South Vietnam won the guerilla war against the Viet Cong. The Viet Cong never really recovered from Tet, and were loosing support over time. It was only after the US drew down its forces and the North launched a full scale invasion with conventional forces that the south fell.

The American revolution was not a guerilla war. In fact, the more guerilla-like tactics favored by the Americans at first failed miserably. The British were usually able to win with far fewer - but better disciplined troops. Look up how Washington lost New York city if you want an example. The US forces were larger but simply ran when confronted with enemy fire, and did not obey orders reliably. The colonists could win only after the US got support from the French army and navy, and good training for its own troops. By the time Yorktown was fought, the Americans were fighting in much the same way as the British.

Guerillas cannot take and hold territory, and ultimately one needs to do that in order to win. Guerillas win by making the war to costly to the enemy and convincing him to pull out, or by becoming competent enough in conventional warfare to actually hold territory. This is very difficult to do without a lot of outside support.

Also, long term guerilla wars really trash a country. They simply make life miserable for more people for a longer time. This was a big reason that the South didn't resort to irregular warfare after loosing on the conventional battlefield. Lee and Johnston thought defeat preferable to ruining the South in that way.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13581
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:10 pm

You missed one a possible shooting war between Croatia and Slovenia over the nautical border between the two countries.
 
bilgerat
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:43 pm

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:00 am

Lots of hyperbole in this thread  Smile

I see the usual lists of potential conflicts... Korea, Taiwan, Iran, etc. People have been "predicting" these conflicts for years now and nothing has happened.

Why does there have to be a "next" war? Aren't we already fighting enough as it is? Why do we always have to be fighting a war with someone? It was this sort of jingoism that wiped out a generation during the Great War.

Wars are expensive things, and given the current state of globalisation any major war will have a very negative effect on everyone. There is simply nothing to gain for any major players to go to war with eachother, but there is everything to lose.

As for NATO... should other countries be criticised if they don't tow the US line? Remember NATO was formed as a defensive alliance against the USSR during the Cold War - not as some kind of coalition for military adventures around the world whenever the US sees fit. NATO is pretty much obsolete, the only real value it has in the current world is the cross training and inter-operability it provides between Western militaries.

Having said that... certain countries in NATO should start pulling their weight in NATO operations or get out of the alliance.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10945
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Sat Mar 28, 2009 12:14 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 6):
However, the one exception would be if an event were to occur on a NATO member's own soil (other than the U.S.). In that case, I could see NATO getting directly involved militarily. But if something were to happen on U.S. soil (e.g., another 9/11 type event), I could see the rest of NATO telling the U.S. that it's on its own.



Quoting BilgeRat (Reply 21):
As for NATO... should other countries be criticised if they don't tow the US line? Remember NATO was formed as a defensive alliance against the USSR during the Cold War - not as some kind of coalition for military adventures around the world whenever the US sees fit. NATO is pretty much obsolete, the only real value it has in the current world is the cross training and inter-operability it provides between Western militaries.

Other than placing monitoring forces in an effort to prevent "Ethnic Cleansing" NATO and the UN had to be pushed by the US to take more concrete action, I think history has given NATO and the European nations an easy ride on their initial response to something which reminded folks of what took place in WWII

Quoting BilgeRat (Reply 21):
Wars are expensive things, and given the current state of globalisation any major war will have a very negative effect on everyone. There is simply nothing to gain for any major players to go to war with eachother, but there is everything to lose.

It does appear as if the world uses war and conflicts to regenerate itself, imagine the economic power of the US if they had not sunk billions of their own funds into Iraq.
 
bilgerat
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:43 pm

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Sat Mar 28, 2009 4:33 pm

I stand by my assertation that NATO was created as a defensive alliance against the USSR. All the NATO members had a common interest in defending against the USSR which was on our doorstep.

If countries no longer wish to embark on military adventures that are very often not strictly in their own interests then that is their choice, especially when the direction of those adventures comes from just one country with its own interests and agenda.

As for European nations having an easy ride... just remember Europeans had the Red Army camped just over the hill, with many hundreds, even thousands of nuclear weapons targeted at our towns and cities. Had the Cold War turned hot Europe would have been turned to dust. Indeed, many European countries still had compulsory military service for many years. Remember this all happened just after two of the most devastating wars in human history, two wars in which Europeans had a very different experience to the US. Two world wars were fought in Europe, many millions were killed or displaced, cities destroyed, governments toppled and millions of Europeans endured years of austerity. Whilst the US sent many to fight in those wars, the wars never actually touched the US homeland itself. This is what I believe accounts for the profound cultural difference in the way the US and Europeans view the military and wars in general. It seems that in the US the military and past wars are glorified and celebrated, whereas in Europe the wars are remembered in a much less celebratory tone, and although members of the military are respected, they are not feted to the same degree as those in the US.

Maybe Europeans experienced the worst war has to offer in the last century, and aren't quite so eager to go looking for the next one.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10945
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Sat Mar 28, 2009 5:12 pm



Quoting BilgeRat (Reply 23):
As for European nations having an easy ride... just remember Europeans had the Red Army camped just over the hill, with many hundreds, even thousands of nuclear weapons targeted at our towns and cities.

I was under the impression that "ethnic cleansing" occured after the end of the cold war, so what exactly is the correlation???

Quoting BilgeRat (Reply 23):
Remember this all happened just after two of the most devastating wars in human history, two wars in which Europeans had a very different experience to the US. Two world wars were fought in Europe, many millions were killed or displaced, cities destroyed, governments toppled and millions of Europeans endured years of austerity. Whilst the US sent many to fight in those wars, the wars never actually touched the US homeland itself. This is what I believe accounts for the profound cultural difference in the way the US and Europeans view the military and wars in general

The main reasons those wars were fought in Europe is because they were essentially started by Europeans, unless the belief is that the rest of the world used Europe as a proxy? At the end of WWI, many believe that the provisions being placed on Germany were imbalanced and would do no good, history shows they were right because it led to WWII.

During the cold war one could say that the US and Soviet Union used Europe as their proxy, fortunately it never came to a shooting match. Unfortunately, as soon as the cold war was over, Europe once again gave us ethnic strife, which was allowed to linger for a while before violence initiated by non-Europeans was used to quell it.

If the destruction that Europe for a large part bought unto itself is used to justify the delay in dealing with the conflict in the former Yugoslavia then so be it.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Sat Mar 28, 2009 5:41 pm



Quoting BilgeRat (Reply 23):

Excellent analysis, BilgeRat. One of the best I've read on A.net regarding any topic. (I say that sincerely.)

I would, however, take issue with two comments. The first is that, IMO, Europe did become squeamish about war as a result of the two greatest conflagrations in history during the 20th Century. But I think they went too far in the other direction. From this side of the pond, it appears that many in Europe are/would be afraid to fight for even the most obvious and necessary reasons. I know many Americans feel that Europeans would rather give up much in the way of freedom and their way of life before turning to make a stand and fight. At least that is the impression of many from over here.

The second is that our impression of ourselves is that we do not glorify war (beyond Hollywood fantasies), but, rather, we tend to stand firm in our beliefs and believe there are some things that are worth fighting for. That is not a glorification of war; it is a core and unshakable belief.

There is a popular motto here in the U.S.: "Live free or die" and appears on a state's automobile license plates. How many in Europe are such stalwart believers in their values that they would gladly fight and die rather than give up what they value?
 
Thumper
Posts: 520
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 2:12 am

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Sat Mar 28, 2009 9:56 pm

First of all I don't think there will be a nuclear war against the U S ,America could annihilate anybody even if they suffered a first strike. My guess would be Iran against Israel or North Korea against South Korea. I think South Korea would stand a good chance the North.
 
bilgerat
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:43 pm

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:06 pm



Quoting Par13del (Reply 24):
I was under the impression that "ethnic cleansing" occured after the end of the cold war, so what exactly is the correlation???

The point is much of Europe is very reluctant to get involved in wars because of the sheer scale of destruction and devatation wrought on it by two world wars. Don't forget we also have the examples of Vietnam and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to illustrate very well how badly wrong military intervention can go.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 24):
they were essentially started by Europeans

Oh yes I completely agree. We have nobody but ourselves to blaim for the Great War. The tide of nationalism, jingoism and imperial rivalries that swept across Europe in the early part of the 20th Century created a powder keg that was just waiting for a spark.

Then of course the victor's justice at the end of that war should also be cited as the major reason that created the environment in with the Nazis could sweep to power in Germany. That victor's justice came from France, the UK and USA.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 24):
If the destruction that Europe for a large part bought unto itself is used to justify the delay in dealing with the conflict in the former Yugoslavia then so be it.

That is a bit of an oversimplification, but I get your point. I don't see how anyone could have done anything real to stop that conflict without being dragged in themselves. See my point above about Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 25):
From this side of the pond, it appears that many in Europe are/would be afraid to fight for even the most obvious and necessary reasons

I wouldn't go so far to say that Europeans are afraid to fight... it's just we have done so much of it and have seen the most terrible consequences it can bring. I live in South East England and there are relics and remnants of that war scattered all over the place, serving as a very good reminder what happens when entire continents go to war. I'm not talking the kind of war we have today, which is mostly played out on TV for the audiences at home, I'm talking about TOTAL war, where the entire resources of every country are completelly devoted to the war effort and every man, woman and child has their lives touched by the war.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 25):
The second is that our impression of ourselves is that we do not glorify war

It may be a misconception, but the impression I get from many Americans I come across on forums such as this, and indeed from watching your media is that given your military superiority over the rest of the world, you seem to relish war. Fortunately for Americans those wars are fought a very long way from your homes and families, and they do not touch the day to day lives of the ordinary American citizen.

Having said that, perhaps by frequenting forums dedicated to military aviation and politics I am more likely to come across Americans with jingoistic tendencies.


I'm British, and a European. Two generations of my family fought in two world wars. I am a serving member of my country's services, and I have a fiance from a part of the world which was devastated by wars in recent history and remains a volatile place. I understand wars will always happen, and are sometimes inevitable. I just want to know that those wars are not started for all the wrong reasons.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10945
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:36 pm



Quoting BilgeRat (Reply 27):
I just want to know that those wars are not started for all the wrong reasons.

Many are also started when good people stand by and do nothing. Unfortunately those who do the actual fighting do not have much of a voice in the prevention of conflicts, if one agrees that there should be a balance between the military and the political arm, one could easily say that the political and thus civilian arm has been letting the military down for a long time. The notion that free trade allows one to influence the actions of rouge states has been proven time and time again as a failure. If we trade because we want the money and to keep our populations employed we should be up front with that, if we black ball rouge nations we may encourage them to mend their ways, certainely it's worth a try, the other options definately do not work.
War should always be the final option, when initiated it is a failure of adults to come to some form of agreement.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Sun Mar 29, 2009 5:53 am



Quoting BilgeRat (Reply 27):
I wouldn't go so far to say that Europeans are afraid to fight... it's just we have done so much of it and have seen the most terrible consequences it can bring.

I can't argue with that point, but many wonder what it would take for some on the Continent to feel the need to take up arms?

Quoting BilgeRat (Reply 27):
It may be a misconception, but the impression I get from many Americans I come across on forums such as this, and indeed from watching your media is that given your military superiority over the rest of the world, you seem to relish war.

We have military superiority, but I don't think it came about from relishing war. Rather, it reflects our psyche, which is to stand up for what we value and a need to take measures to preserve those values from threats long before they appear on our doorstep. An in-depth read of the early colonies in the U.S., particularly Jamestowne, would imbue one with the sense of why we tend to traditionally value our independence and freedom, and which is paramount to our self-worth. That, in turn, tends to lead us to not shy away from taking up arms, at least not to the extent of others.

Many people conclude that two oceans have historically protected us. That is true to a point. But those two oceans have also isolated us, and that isolation has made us realize that we have to take proactive steps in order to preserve what we value. Isolation tends to breed complacency. And complacency is what drew us - many would say unwillingly - into foreign adventures. It was isolation and an associated sense of ignorance that led the U.S. into every war of the last century, and the current wars that we are engaged in.

Quoting BilgeRat (Reply 27):
I am a serving member of my country's services

My hat off to you, Sir.
 
bilgerat
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:43 pm

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Sun Mar 29, 2009 7:04 am



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 29):
My hat off to you, Sir.

You are a true gentleman.

While I am no fan of the EU in it's current form, I do consider myself to be a European, and I like to think my country can be a bridge between the US and EU. There are many in my country who want to distance ourselves from the US, and many who want to distance ourselves from Europe. I like to think that although we have our differences with both the US and EU, we have a hell of a lot more in common.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 28):
one could easily say that the political and thus civilian arm has been letting the military down for a long time

I completely agree with that point, especially when it comes to the UK. One thing to remember though, is in our countries the military is supposed to work for the civilians, not the other way round.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10945
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Sun Mar 29, 2009 1:28 pm



Quoting BilgeRat (Reply 30):
One thing to remember though, is in our countries the military is supposed to work for the civilians, not the other way round.

And that my friend is where they can let folks like you down. The UK like the US basically have an all volunteer force, those who are entrusted with such commitments - civilian authority - owe it to you and those who are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice nothing short of their very best efforts to ensure that if and when you are called upon, that there was absolutely no other choice.

Be safe.
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1632
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: Next Conflict Involving NATO/EU/US?

Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:08 pm

Quoting BilgeRat (Reply 23):
I stand by my assertation that NATO was created as a defensive alliance against the USSR. All the NATO members had a common interest in defending against the USSR which was on our doorstep.

.... and now it is not? Russia is returning to it's expanstionist roots. Keep that Door Locked.
There is darn good reason that Elmendorf has Raptors.

[Edited 2009-03-29 16:09:37]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ANZUS340, Baidu [Spider], casinterest, GDB, Wildlander and 20 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos