Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trier)
    It is a duty, but certainly not the only one.
    Is it the main duty?

    And, if you are going to equate this security with military strength, then such a theory is clearly disproven by glancing at the pitiful european forces.
    Only if you consider relying on the goodwill of other countries to be security.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Is it the main duty?
    Not in my opinion, no.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trier)
    Not in my opinion, no.
    What is the main duty?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    What is the main duty?
    The duties of government constantly change with society and the importance of each changes with the situation and individual conditions of each country.

    What is your point?

    And how does it tie in with determining which country is 'best'?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trier)
    The duties of government constantly change with society and the importance of each changes with the situation and individual conditions of each country.

    What is your point?

    And how does it tie in with determining which country is 'best'?
    Suppose a country decided that the security of its citizens should not be a priority, and that the priority should be their economic well-being. Would it not be logical for that country to allow itself to be conquered by a more prosperous country (with the precondition that it would gain economic privileges in this country)? The same can be said for any other goal.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Suppose a country decided that the security of its citizens should not be a priority, and that the priority should be their economic well-being. Would it not be logical for that country to allow itself to be conquered by a more prosperous country (with the precondition that it would gain economic privileges in this country)? The same can be said for any other goal.
    Correct.

    Which is why I believe that government is far more sophisticated than having one simple goal that overrides all others.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No it's not.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trier)
    Correct.

    Which is why I believe that government is far more sophisticated than having one simple goal that overrides all others.
    If a country is guaranteed internal and external security, it can pursue other goals (such as educating its people, increasing their quality of life, etc.). A country with a good economy or an educated populace can be destroyed from within or without at any instant.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    If a country is guaranteed internal and external security, it can pursue other goals (such as educating its people, increasing their quality of life, etc.). A country with a good economy or an educated populace can be destroyed from within or without at any instant.
    Yes, but if such 'instant' threats no longer exist, security is no longer an overt concern of government at such a time i.e. doesn't require extensive military forces.

    Although, obviously, I would have to concede that it is the base concern of government, it doesn't mean that government cannot evolve past such concerns.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trier)
    Yes, but if such 'instant' threats no longer exist, security is no longer an overt concern of government at such a time i.e. doesn't require extensive military forces.

    Although, obviously, I would have to concede that it is the base concern of government, it doesn't mean that government cannot evolve past such concerns.
    And what happens when some countries don't "evolve" past such concerns and decide to teach those that did a lesson?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    And what happens when some countries don't "evolve" past such concerns and decide to teach those that did a lesson?
    That is why Europe has undergone limited re-armament.

    The UK, for example, has the 'security' to defend itself from any possible threat, but does not pursue military strength or political power as its greatest goal.

    International relations have moved on from the simple acquisition of power to the MAD stance.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trier)
    That is why Europe has undergone limited re-armament.
    That's a good one. All of the EU as a whole doesn't have the capability to win a war against any country outside of Africa.

    The UK, for example, has the 'security' to defend itself from any possible threat, but does not pursue military strength or political power as its greatest goal.

    International relations have moved on from the simple acquisition of power to the MAD stance.
    There are far more ways to harm a country than just physically attacking it. Blocking access to markets or strategically important resources for example. Why do you think most European countries don't dare to condemn Putin's policies?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    That's a good one. All of the EU as a whole doesn't have the capability to win a war against any country outside of Africa.
    You'd have to explain that?

    (Original post by Bismarck)
    There are far more ways to harm a country than just physically attacking it. Blocking access to markets or strategically important resources for example. Why do you think most European countries don't dare to condemn Putin's policies?
    And if the US was blocked from a market/resource, what could it do that the EU wouldn't?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trier)
    You'd have to explain that?
    Europe's military forces are outdated, too small in manpower, and incapable of projecting themselves to many areas of the world. France and Britain are the only ones with a capability to win an offensive war against weak countries on other continents. And even then, those countries would have to be within easy reach of British and French bases and not have a large population or landmass.

    And if the US was blocked from a market/resource, what could it do that the EU wouldn't?
    Threaten war. Then use its military and political power to "persuade" other countries to back its position, thereby making war unnecessary. Of course the very existence of American power would make threatening war unnecessary, since the threat of war is implicit in all diplomacy.

    "diplomacy without power is feeble, and power without diplomacy is destructive and blind"
    -Hans Morgenthau
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Europe's military forces are outdated, too small in manpower, and incapable of projecting themselves to many areas of the world. France and Britain are the only ones with a capability to win an offensive war against weak countries on other continents. And even then, those countries would have to be within easy reach of British and French bases and not have a large population or landmass.
    A quick count of the CIA factbook would get EU spending on the military to about $210,000,000,000 a year.

    No-one other than the US gets even remotely close.

    So, that appears adequate for anything other than challenging US domination.

    And what country, exactly, does have such powers of projection other than the US?

    Unless other countries do have such power, then there is little reason to aim for it, unless attempting to challenge the US.

    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Threaten war. Then use its military and political power to "persuade" other countries to back its position, thereby making war unnecessary.

    "diplomacy without power is feeble, and power without diplomacy is destructive and blind"
    -Hans Morgenthau
    The EU has shown its capability to do such things several times.

    In fact, it is usually US interference that makes such a position untenable.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trier)
    A quick count of the CIA factbook would get EU spending on the military to about $210,000,000,000 a year.

    No-one other than the US gets even remotely close.
    But what is the money being spent on? In most cases, it's to pay the salaries of soldiers/officers and to maintain outdated equipment.

    And what country, exactly, does have such powers of projection other than the US?
    On a global basis, none. On a regional one, quite a few.

    Unless other countries do have such power, then there is little reason to aim for it, unless attempting to challenge the US.
    Other countries are aiming for it, and if you wait until they catch up, it will be too late.

    The EU has shown its capability to do such things several times.
    Is that why the EU couldn't even fix a mess in its own neighborhood without overwhelming American support (as in America provided 90% of the military force)?

    In fact, it is usually US interference that makes such a position untenable.
    Like in Bosnia and Kosovo, right?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    But what is the money being spent on? In most cases, it's to pay the salaries of soldiers/officers and to maintain outdated equipment.
    Perhaps you could inform me of who has up-to-date equipment then, other than the US?

    Isn't the eurofighter an advance in european military technology?

    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Like in Bosnia and Kosovo, right?
    I was thinking of the Suez Canal actually- that flattened all european attempts at projection.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    What other nation has so much beauty, splendor and freedom? Where else can you enjoy vast streaches of nature, legally own fully automatic assault weapons and have half gallon tubs of 7-11 fountain drinks all from the comfort of your automobile? Not to mention 5 lb burritos from el Pollo Loco!
    first point is subjective and if I wanted to see beauty I would not think to go to America, for all the fat people!

    vast streched of nature? try pretty much anywhere else.

    legally own weapons is stupid - isnt it something like 40 times as many americans die from guns than in the UK. cool. may seem like freedom to the carrier, but not those who have died from it!

    patriotism sucks
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trier)
    Perhaps you could inform me of who has up-to-date equipment then, other than the US?

    Isn't the eurofighter an advance in european military technology?
    How many eurofighters will you build once you develop it? I'm far from a military expert, but I have yet to hear a single one claim that Europe has any military strength to speak of.

    I was thinking of the Suez Canal actually- that flattened all european attempts at projection.
    Why? France/Britain/Israel easily won the war. If not for the Soviet Union, which no longer exists, and the US, which is not going to make the same mistake it did in '56, France and Britain can potentially have strong militaries. Britain had 80,000 troops stationed in Egypt alone as late as 1954.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    How many eurofighters will you build once you develop it? I'm far from a military expert, but I have yet to hear a single one claim that Europe has any military strength to speak of.
    I believe around 200/300 Eurofighters have been ordered.

    You also have to look at things in relative terms.

    Compared to the US, Europe has a small, out-of-date military- but it is still several notches above any other military force in the world.

    Do you really think that $212,000,000,000 is only spent on maintaining out of date equipment?
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.