Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

New World Super-Power forming in Europe?


Karlis
 Share

Recommended Posts

Greece has been broke since King Otto... that was in 1833. Nothing new. The EU will provide. Else every Greek will be in Europe trying to find a job.

Isn't this the second time this year the credit of Greece has been down graded? if this keeps up, no one will buy Greece debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 274
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • stevewinn

    41

  • keithisco

    26

  • questionmark

    56

  • MARAB0D

    34

The US should be able to pull out of Europe with no problems. From what I skimmed off Wikipedia on European standing armies, there are more then twice as many troops in the countries of continental Europe then there are in continental North America. (Not including Russia.)

2 Million Active Duty Soldiers.

4.25 Million Reserve Soldiers.

3500 Combat Aircraft

8 Aircraft Carriers

11500 Tanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union

The US has 1.45 Million Active Duty and 800 thousand Reservist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_USA

Why should US troops have bases to defend Europe? There are no bases in the US with European troops to help protect us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The U.S. forces in Europe are an insurance policy, not a replacement for European militaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Insurance against what???

Seriously?

Potential threats to already established states? These threats ranging from foreign to domestic of many different forms.

A solidifier for a military alliance?

Projections for mutualism between the country operating the base and the country that base is built in?

Increase of strength and the ability to project that strength for both countries involved in the owning and leasing of military bases?

You really can't see the reasons? Or do you assume that the only threat the USA and NATO ever had and ever will have was the USSR and that diplomatically, politically, and economically the presence of US forces in allied nations serves no purpose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would scratch out UN and and NATO too. Also Russia and China are not superpowers, they are regional powers with some superpower capabilities. US stays practically alone, as EU cannot become a superpower until British and French nukes go under Brussels control (which would probably happen only after Second Coming of Jesus, and even then its nuclear capability would be a joke).

It all depends on your definition of "Superpower". What qualifies a nation as being such?

The EU certainly is regarded as a "Superpower" by some yardsticks, and I would question whether UK and French Nuclear Arsenals (standing at some 500 collective warheads) using the most sophisticated launch and delivery systems available could ever be considered a "joke".

In a very real sense of course, with 21 member nations of the EU also being in NATO (the other 6 following neutral policies) then already the EU has Nuclear Protection as an attack on one member of NATO is considered an attack on the collective NATO nations - so really your point is moot.

With almost 500 million citizens, the EU combined generates an estimated 30% share (US$18.4 trillion in 2008) of the nominal gross world product
WIKI

I guess the EU IS actually a "Super-power"

Edited by keithisco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It all depends on your definition of "Superpower". What qualifies a nation as being such?

The EU certainly is regarded as a "Superpower" by some yardsticks, and I would question whether UK and French Nuclear Arsenals (standing at some 500 collective warheads) using the most sophisticated launch and delivery systems available could ever be considered a "joke".

In a very real sense of course, with 21 member nations of the EU also being in NATO (the other 6 following neutral policies) then already the EU has Nuclear Protection as an attack on one member of NATO is considered an attack on the collective NATO nations - so really your point is moot.

WIKI

I guess the EU IS actually a "Super-power"

Superpower is a comparative thing. US possesses a huge nuclear potential and advanced capability to project the forces worldwide. EU lacks this capability and has a miserable nuclear arsenal. 500 is miserable as it cannot strike any serious country - with the standard local missile defence shield working @ 90-95% efficiency, it leaves no more than 50 missiles, which is a serious but not a deadly factor. Enough to make Russia angry... Moreover, differently from, say, US, China and Russia, EU cannot withstand even a small nuclear strike, as its territory is of a dwarf size and it is populated extremely densely. Thus EU at the moment is better fit for defending itself than for an offensive war, which excludes the status of superpower.

I do not think NATO together with EU also makes a superpower, because it lacks united political leadership. It is simply an alliance, created to resist Communist takeover, the countries of NATO lack any other common geopolitical interests - de-facto such countries as Italy, Greece, Germany, Austria, Turkey are oriented to the East, not to the West at all. I think at the first sign of an approaching serious military crisis, NATO would be immediately disbanded as hardly one can dream of any consensus then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Superpower is a comparative thing. US possesses a huge nuclear potential and advanced capability to project the forces worldwide. EU lacks this capability and has a miserable nuclear arsenal. 500 is miserable as it cannot strike any serious country - with the standard local missile defence shield working @ 90-95% efficiency, it leaves no more than 50 missiles, which is a serious but not a deadly factor. Enough to make Russia angry... Moreover, differently from, say, US, China and Russia, EU cannot withstand even a small nuclear strike, as its territory is of a dwarf size and it is populated extremely densely. Thus EU at the moment is better fit for defending itself than for an offensive war, which excludes the status of superpower.

I do not think NATO together with EU also makes a superpower, because it lacks united political leadership. It is simply an alliance, created to resist Communist takeover, the countries of NATO lack any other common geopolitical interests - de-facto such countries as Italy, Greece, Germany, Austria, Turkey are oriented to the East, not to the West at all. I think at the first sign of an approaching serious military crisis, NATO would be immediately disbanded as hardly one can dream of any consensus then.

Marabod,

Firstly the majority of the Nuclear Missiles are ICBM's - most of them carried on Nuclear Submarines - so the ability to project this force worldwide (heaven forbid) is obvious. I do do not understand your comment "cannot strike any serious country" as (again heaven forbid) this arsenal can be delivered to ANY nation on earth!! What is a "Serious country?"

Think again, it's not just quantity, but capable delivery systems that determines the deadly intent of such weapons.

50 Missiles would wipe out every major population centre in the USA or Russia, or China, or indeed in the EU.

This part I am sorry to say, is just laughable "Italy, Greece, Germany, Austria Turkey are all oriented to the East" unsure.gif Where on earth do you get your information from Marabod??ph34r.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't this the second time this year the credit of Greece has been down graded? if this keeps up, no one will buy Greece debt.

I would welcome that, Greece could than be the first Western country to live within its means for a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would welcome that, Greece could than be the first Western country to live within its means for a long time.

Very true QM. Living on credit, even at national level, is a recipe for disaster, if not in the Medium then certainly in the long-term. Profligacy by one generation leads to poverty in a later... IMO

Edited by keithisco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marabod,

Firstly the majority of the Nuclear Missiles are ICBM's - most of them carried on Nuclear Submarines - so the ability to project this force worldwide (heaven forbid) is obvious. I do do not understand your comment "cannot strike any serious country" as (again heaven forbid) this arsenal can be delivered to ANY nation on earth!! What is a "Serious country?"

Think again, it's not just quantity, but capable delivery systems that determines the deadly intent of such weapons.

50 Missiles would wipe out every major population centre in the USA or Russia, or China, or indeed in the EU.

This part I am sorry to say, is just laughable "Italy, Greece, Germany, Austria Turkey are all oriented to the East" unsure.gif Where on earth do you get your information from Marabod??ph34r.gif

But you messing up the terms! Force projection has nothing to do with nuclear strike. It is the ability to quickly send army forces to remote area and establish secure supply lines for them. USA can do this to two separate remote spots on the planet at once, no one else can do the same.

On nukes you are complete amateur. 50 missiles cannot win a war, because they cannot destroy the adversary's arsenals, strategic runways, nuclear silos etc. Such attack is absolutely suicidal, even in the worst times of Cold War USSR was never considering using ICBMs against Europe, as it only takes from 45 minutes to 2 hours to have it fully occupied, possibly even without massive usage of small nuclear tactical charges. Europe is SMALL.

ICBMs were designed to be used between USA and USSR, not for the neighbours. Neither side ever targeted to completely destroy the adversary, and the massive amount was built only to overcome various missile defense systems (they exist since late 1960s) and DISARM the opponent to prevent a retaliative strike. The first strike gives a lot of advantages, but makes no sense if as a result the opponent preserved enough means for the retaliation. For this the first wave of submarine-launched missiles targets not the cities at all, but strategic installations and runways (+ highways can be used for the nuclear bombers to land and take off). One needs hundreds of missiles to accomplish this in the first 15 minutes - and then only the second wave comes of land-based ICBMs, which takes 40 minutes between the countries. EU with its deterrent arsenal cannot afford the first strike, specially now, when all its missiles are ages old, while the new ones simply cannot fly (as Ariana project proves, EU does not even want to test it anymore and hires Russia to launch the satellites). EU is a peaceful country.

The countries I named have all their means of existing located in the East side of Eurasia. European countries like Germany and Austria, its financial proxy, mainly invest in Eurasian countries; Turkey dreams to unite all Turcic people of the East into one state (Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan) and Russia does not express a serious opposition to this project, at least openly. Greece is a natural Russia's ally for already 1000+ years, same as Bulgaria and Serbia. As I said, NATO is only good for the peace times, as there is no more Cold War or a Communist threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would welcome that, Greece could than be the first Western country to live within its means for a long time.

You wouldn't have any social programs or military. the government would have to sell off assets and you would welcome that? the lower your credit rating is the higher the intrest rates will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Keith, I was probably wrong about EU capacity, it is not useless at all, but just has strong limits to its application. In such case as Russia and USA falling into a full scale conflict and rendering each other damaged beyond repair, EU would have enough power to confront China in a war for Russia's resources and win. In this case it would of course become a super-power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wouldn't have any social programs or military. the government would have to sell off assets and you would welcome that? the lower your credit rating is the higher the intrest rates will be.

If they cut the cheese and quit building highways that nobody needs, big city ports in every minor island and subsidized air and sea travel for the islanders they will have plenty of money for social programs. Squeezing the ship owners to finally pay their taxes as required would also help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The threat of the "only solution total destruction" from the tiny 5th nuclear power country under the governorship of the Zionists today is real. In possession of many atomic bombs and planes and means to deliver them I like to suggest a few targets: The Vatican, Mecca, London and Washington DC.

The climate hoax of ballooning conferences where many matured boys and girls can meet. But to follow the rules of the New World Order is another thing. The Zionist entity is very interested in all the countries come together. Europe is 27 languages rich, there is a better time ahead when we reap clean air but it is the "Weather Wars" they want to curb. It would be a good thing if we could get HAARP to tell us about earthquakes and magnetic lights aurora... Weather control by Tesla's electro technical inventions. Directional beams mirrored with stationary satelites to places causing storms, etc. Steering hurricanes to high pressure aereas of ionized cloud areas can

A perfect rumble..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such attack is absolutely suicidal, even in the worst times of Cold War USSR was never considering using ICBMs against Europe, as it only takes from 45 minutes to 2 hours to have it fully occupied, possibly even without massive usage of small nuclear tactical charges. Europe is SMALL.

Sorry Mara but that sounds quite laughable considering the Soviet Union couldn't even fully occupy Afghanistan and then to suggest they could occupy France, UK, Germany, Italy etc. in 2 hours is amazingly optimistic. I doubt even the most fanatical KGB officer would have believed that. :D

ICBMs were designed to be used between USA and USSR, not for the neighbours. Neither side ever targeted to completely destroy the adversary, and the massive amount was built only to overcome various missile defense systems (they exist since late 1960s) and DISARM the opponent to prevent a retaliative strike. The first strike gives a lot of advantages, but makes no sense if as a result the opponent preserved enough means for the retaliation. For this the first wave of submarine-launched missiles targets not the cities at all, but strategic installations and runways (+ highways can be used for the nuclear bombers to land and take off). One needs hundreds of missiles to accomplish this in the first 15 minutes - and then only the second wave comes of land-based ICBMs, which takes 40 minutes between the countries. EU with its deterrent arsenal cannot afford the first strike, specially now, when all its missiles are ages old, while the new ones simply cannot fly (as Ariana project proves, EU does not even want to test it anymore and hires Russia to launch the satellites). EU is a peaceful country.

EU is a peaceful conglomerate of countries and I doubt they would get into a war that easily unless they're attacked first. Lets not forget one of the reasons the EU was created was to stop wars between european countries that had been at each other for milleniums. And if they were attacked the US would have to join the fight as a NATO member and also because they have bases in europe and too many financial interests as well.

I doubt Russia could handle being attacked from the East and West and if they fired their nukes they'd be hit from the east and the west as well. Though this is unthinkable and most unlikely to happen, if there was ever a single possibility of NATO being defeated in a war, it may only happen by an alliance between Russia and China. Though, as I said, this would never happen because there would be no winners in such a war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Mara but that sounds quite laughable considering the Soviet Union couldn't even fully occupy Afghanistan and then to suggest they could occupy France, UK, Germany, Italy etc. in 2 hours is amazingly optimistic. I doubt even the most fanatical KGB officer would have believed that. :D

45 minutes was the estimate for the occupation of Western Germany alone, as far as I remember. It was considered as one of possible scenarios only, as in practice we were taught a much more complex set of actions in a form of a tactical nuclear conflict - but not the ICBM usage at all. I was studying this within the Tactics course in 70s, as we were trained as radioactive/chemical defense and scout officers. Afghanistan cannot be compared at all, as its terrain and population are different from Europe.

EU is a peaceful conglomerate of countries and I doubt they would get into a war that easily unless they're attacked first. Lets not forget one of the reasons the EU was created was to stop wars between european countries that had been at each other for milleniums. And if they were attacked the US would have to join the fight as a NATO member and also because they have bases in europe and too many financial interests as well.

I doubt Russia could handle being attacked from the East and West and if they fired their nukes they'd be hit from the east and the west as well. Though this is unthinkable and most unlikely to happen, if there was ever a single possibility of NATO being defeated in a war, it may only happen by an alliance between Russia and China. Though, as I said, this would never happen because there would be no winners in such a war.

Basically all such scenarios are mad and present purely hypothetical cases; there is an extremely low probability of them ever happening. But the other side of this is the possibility for some country to wage a smaller scale, even nuclear, war, hoping that the others would remain neutral because of fears to trigger one of these mad scenarios. Say, Russia did not dare to protect Serbia in 1998 despite even Kissinger was expressing such concerns - and Russia plans to take off Poland, hoping that NATO would not dare to interfere. They are all punting somehow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if I gave Marabod the wrong idea. The whole point of having a Nuclear Arsenal, largely deployed on submarines, is that in the cold war days, the then, USSR could not launch an offensive against the USA (one has to presume that this would be their main target) without knowing that no matter how many USA launch capabilities they neutralised, there were still 500 warheads that they could not anticipate trajectories for.

500 might be a "miserable" number from Mara's perspective, but I bet it weighed heavy on any USSR ambitions. Given an average yield of 10 MTons (Compared to the 20-40 ktons of Hiroshima, Nagasaki) this damage alone would have been unconscionable to USSR hawks.

Today the world is a much safer place (with the exception of fanatical groupings, including Christian/ survivalists - Tim McVeigh springs to mind, along with Islamic suicidists) and the threat of global annihilation has receded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if I gave Marabod the wrong idea. The whole point of having a Nuclear Arsenal, largely deployed on submarines, is that in the cold war days, the then, USSR could not launch an offensive against the USA (one has to presume that this would be their main target) without knowing that no matter how many USA launch capabilities they neutralised, there were still 500 warheads that they could not anticipate trajectories for.

500 might be a "miserable" number from Mara's perspective, but I bet it weighed heavy on any USSR ambitions. Given an average yield of 10 MTons (Compared to the 20-40 ktons of Hiroshima, Nagasaki) this damage alone would have been unconscionable to USSR hawks.

Today the world is a much safer place (with the exception of fanatical groupings, including Christian/ survivalists - Tim McVeigh springs to mind, along with Islamic suicidists) and the threat of global annihilation has receded.

Keith! Both sides knew all possible trajectories from all existing submarines with an hourly update! There was never a case that a strategic sub was in the sea alone, they were always going in pairs - one American and one Soviet. It was not like that only for a short period between 1992 and 1999, when these patrols were suspended and then re-established after Kosovo War. As soon as one sub prepares to take a launch position the other would torpedo it and make a launch on its own. Normally an American sub always hangs nearby Russia's submarine base waiting for yet another boat going for a long patrol and vice versa, this is why they sometimes even collide! As soon as one sub tries to escape the following one, this is already a strategic alert case.

USSR was trying to overcome this problem by developing the systems, capable to fire from underneath the Arctic ice shield, and some old missiles had such capability to go through ice few meters thick, unsure what happens today, but as soon as the bases are control the subs still could not get on patrol alone. Also, SLBMs are not designed for a retaliative strike, basically they are pre-targeted to the military installations - but after the first strike has happened, all the missiles from these installations are already gone, so they must be reprogrammed, which takes some time (and they do not have this time because they are followed!). Consider the subs dead if they did not strike first!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes was the estimate for the occupation of Western Germany alone, as far as I remember. It was considered as one of possible scenarios only, as in practice we were taught a much more complex set of actions in a form of a tactical nuclear conflict - but not the ICBM usage at all. I was studying this within the Tactics course in 70s, as we were trained as radioactive/chemical defense and scout officers. Afghanistan cannot be compared at all, as its terrain and population are different from Europe.

LOL. Reminds me of that film, K-19: The Widowmaker where these Russian sailors had to cool the nuclear reactor leak by going in a radioactive contaminated area with raincoats. I hope you guys were better equipped than that. :D

Basically all such scenarios are mad and present purely hypothetical cases; there is an extremely low probability of them ever happening. But the other side of this is the possibility for some country to wage a smaller scale, even nuclear, war, hoping that the others would remain neutral because of fears to trigger one of these mad scenarios. Say, Russia did not dare to protect Serbia in 1998 despite even Kissinger was expressing such concerns - and Russia plans to take off Poland, hoping that NATO would not dare to interfere. They are all punting somehow.

Agree completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL. Reminds me of that film, K-19: The Widowmaker where these Russian sailors had to cool the nuclear reactor leak by going in a radioactive contaminated area with raincoats. I hope you guys were better equipped than that. :D

Not really much better :) I believe in a real situation the scouts are sorta martyrs, as the job is to go ahead of the troops in a special vehicle and mark the radiation levels, standardising them to 1 hour after explosion. And levels of Chemical weapons too. The idea suggests the troops having no dosimeters themselves or being unable to use them; perhaps it was considered safer not to inform the troops of the radiation levels they are crossing. The standard action was to throw a tactical nuke 100-150 km ahead and then in 24 hours take control of the affected land, then repeat and go deeper and deeper. The levels on the ground tend to decrease exponentially with time, so as a result the personnel gets minimum possible exposure. But the scout group is treated as disposable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really much better :) I believe in a real situation the scouts are sorta martyrs, as the job is to go ahead of the troops in a special vehicle and mark the radiation levels, standardising them to 1 hour after explosion. And levels of Chemical weapons too. The idea suggests the troops having no dosimeters themselves or being unable to use them; perhaps it was considered safer not to inform the troops of the radiation levels they are crossing. The standard action was to throw a tactical nuke 100-150 km ahead and then in 24 hours take control of the affected land, then repeat and go deeper and deeper. The levels on the ground tend to decrease exponentially with time, so as a result the personnel gets minimum possible exposure. But the scout group is treated as disposable.

Wow, I hope you didn't volunteer to become a scout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Wow, I hope you didn't volunteer to become a scout.

LOL, of course not! I am a very peaceful person, it was just a compulsory part of the tertiary education, as we all had military specialities. The boys were trained in various fields. but mostly related to chemical and nuclear warfare, the girls were trained as commanders of deactivation and degasation units. My wife back there was a captain in reserve, but I managed to skip the final officer rank exams and remained a private. I was not seen as entirely politically reliable and loyal:) But this later saved me from being sent to Chernobyl site clearing, so I am happy, as most of my male schoolmates spend few month there and many got a dose. On the other hand, instead they tried to send me to Afghanistan :lol: - but also unsuccessfully. Those days one had to watch out what else they may decide to do to you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.