Has Europe ever been more vulnerable?

I was just thinking about some things today. With the U.S. so overextended, if there WERE any agressive tendencies from China and/or Arab nations to seize control of that continent from two sides (from the South and East), now would be the time. China may not be a match for some of the U.S.A.'s war toys, but they have an endless supply of soldiers. And let's face it, when your neighbor is in such close proximity, how effective are nuclear deterents? Now I'm not suggesting that there ARE these aggressive tendencies. Perhaps those kinds of wars are over and it would be more economically wise to figure out a means to co-exist. I don't have nearly enough information about all the backroom deals over resources, space, etc. to begin to determine these things.

And maybe more subtle economic manipulations would be a quicker means to obtain the same ends....I don't know. But I was just thinking today that IF there is a tiger crouching in the woods waiting patiently for a time to strike, this sure seems like it.

:nuke:

These next 5 to 7 years are going to be the most transformative years this globe has ever known. Are the forces of enlightened society going to prevail, or are the basest instincts of mankind going to overtake all reason.

God help us all.

:kick:

The lesson of Iraq, if there is a lesson, is that military
conquest is a mugs game. I suspect Europe can hold it's own
in economic competition, they still have a functional school
system, and in any case you may be sure that Russia and India
would have something to say about all this. The Arabs, BTW
aren't trying to conquer anybody, they just want a chance to
run their own affairs again.

their wealthy leaders who are about to lose their status as major oil producers to the Caspian region as well as others. So their whole basis of wealth is threatened...on top of purported dwindling supplies. So I think they have as much reason as, say, the U.S. has for aggression over resources.

It's all very well to have reasons, but it doesn't go anywhere
unless you have to means to do something about it. The islamic
nations do not. It's not the 7th Century. They do have serious
internal issues, the Saudis and Pakistan for instance, but picking on
Europe will not get them anywhere, and the same comments apply to
China.

various trading blocks...USA/Mexico/Canada, EU, East Asia, etc.
And I hope that is how this globalization process goes...that we all learn how to share power and develop our regional strengths to contribute to the mix. But I just feel that if there are some major things going down behind the scenes where one region feels left out of the loop or simply sees an opportunity and tries to seize it, then the time might be near.

I hope you are right, and that what we learn from America's failures in Iraq and elsewhere is that even powerful nations cannot succeed with aggressive tactics.

the Caspian will not replace Saudi Arabia as the prime oil producing region. All reports I have seen show that in 2000 the estimates of Caspian deposits were way over estimated and major producers have even pulled out.

As far as some kind of mass mobilization of Arabs, it aint gonna happen.

in the middle east. England, France, Germany and Russia all have nukes.

The combined Arab militaries are a joke... and to get to Europe, they've got to cross each others territories, then attack either through the Straits of Gibralter, Turkey, or Ukraine... no, don't see it happening, not for years... like 20-50 years.

As for China threatening Europe, how are they going to get there? It's a long walk through hostile Russia (or India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, and Turkey). And thier homeland a radioactive wasteland before they get halfway there.

Hi,

I don't think Europe is in any danger, in fact I think they are more secure than they've ever been.

They've always been worried equally about the US and Russia causing a problem....well the USSR is no more and the US is chasing shadows.

Also, if there is one thing that the Europeans can agree on....it's hating what we are doing in Iraq. They are united.....like they have never been before...yes they have a long way to go with the EU and there are many parts of the EU and their policies I don't agree with; but they are stronger together than individually.

Cheers,
Kim

logistically how to answer you. For instance, Turkey's alliance with U.S. is tentative and their internal politics is volatile. The Stans (along the Caspian Sea) are also in flux as far as their alliances. Afghanistan is clearly in flux...etc.
No doubt, such a strategy would certainly be very difficult to pull off (not assuming it would be a cakewalk).
But consider, for instance, this scenario...that America suffers something like what the USSR suffered....over extended militarily, over extended debt, resulting internal infrastructure problems, etc.
Any number of contributing factors..a sudden shift away from the dollar, or some combination of things...causes the USA to experience a major economic collapse. While we are recovering, Europe would be very vulnerable defensively..even if they remained economically afloat.


As I already indicated, I'm no strategic expert and don't know enough to read the real potentials...but was simply pondering the bigger picture today and this thought hit me between the eyes. Hope I'm dead wrong....and way off base.

Tell me how any "Arab" Army is going to a) be formed, b) get to Europe and c) invade Europe without being destroyed on the way.

The British Air Force alone would be able to win such a war before it reached the continent.

The invasion of the Huns, the Mongol invasions, the fall of Constantinople, the siege of Vienna all come to mind.

A more realistic scenerio is an incident over Taiwan flaring up. That is a possibility, considering the recent heated exchange in words. Granted these are probably the usual threats issued by the Chinese...so it can be dismissed as saber rattling.

The Chinese economy is growing at an extraordinary pace, and the government there has similar goals as the neo cons in power here. They have plans for their own hegemony. For them, this will be the Chinese century.

At the moment, their military is no match for the US. However some recent estimates have it that they will have similar capability in the next 15 years or so.

For the time being China needs Europe and the US more as trading partners rather than adversaries. Hell, they are even making diplomatic inroads with India, a country with which relations have been pretty cold in the last fifty years (they even fought a war in '62). It would be foolish for them to make any moves militarily, even against Taiwan, because the economic consequences would be too great.

For now, they will make inroads with the central asian republics (the "stans") -- Russia, India, and the US will also make inroads with these nations. This is because of the energy supplies. I'm not sure if these sources provide a good alternative to middle eastern oil, which is seen by most as an unstable region (plus I think it's natural gas reserves that's in the stans). China will also continue to aid Pakistan militarilly to keep India "in check" for the time being. For them India is showing itself to be a major regional competitor for foreign investment, though at the same time they will open better trade relations with India. A joint market would benefit both countries tremendously. Granted, if the situation in Pakistan were to get too unstable, they might ditch it altogether.

I also heard that China and Russia have some border disputes to work out. It has been said that in the next fifty years or so, a war could erupt over them. I may be wrong with this though. For the time being, it seems China is unwilling to act on this.

Apart from Taiwan, there are two more major Asian flashpoints -- Kashmir and North Korea.

China has been one of North Korea's only allies as of late. I think the Chinese also had a part in their nuclear program (actually it was Pakistan, but that technology originated in China). It's very possible that Kim Jong Il could attack SK if he feels threatened. That too, with the US overextended in Iraq, troops from SK could be called up to be stationed instead in Iraq, leaving SK especially vulnerable. The Chinese may help NK were any war to erupt, though they will definetely deny it officially.

Kashmir also involves the Chinese, considering they occupy a part of it. and have been a major ally of Pakistan. If a conflict were to flare up between India and Pakistan, the Chinese could be drawn in. However, it seems unlikely that the Chinese would be interested in going to war to war over Pakistan.

The Chinese are in it for the long haul, and really see themselves as challenging the US in the long term -- as being a GLOBAL superpower. Any military actions now would squander the wealth they have accumulated, for it would also further destabilize an already unstable world.

As for the Arab nations, their militaries are a joke. They can barely take on Israel, let alone the entire EU (and a large part of NATO). However, for the time being Arab nations do have one very powerful tool -- and that of course is oil. They can cut and raise production as they see fit. This will have global economic consequences (as we saw yesterday, rising energy prices caused Asian stock markets to plummet yesterday).

However, were a conflict to erupt between Europe and the Arab world, it would be interesting to see where Turkey would align itself. Being that it is a NATO member, it would seem likely they would join Europe, however, were it to be seen in religious terms, popular demand within the nation could force it to either be neutral or on the side of the Arab nations. Either way, I view such a scenario very unlikely.

> "Unlikely for China to go after Europe"

It's not practical in geographical terms, would be self-harm in
economic terms and would provide no measurable benefit in any terms.

> A more realistic scenerio is an incident over Taiwan flaring up.

If there is any further weakening of US power (e.g., as the result of
a major economic disaster) then Taiwan would be re-absorbed without
even a burp.

> China and Russia have some border disputes to work out.

I think this is quite likely to be a back-burner issue, just simmering
enough to remind the ex-USSR states that China would *really* like to
have the Northern Resource Area in the near future.

No, I think China is only interested in maintaining & strengthening the
ties to Europe, not fighting them.

As for "the Arab world" invading Europe? Not on this planet.
Earlier posters have noted that the only harm would be via OPEC or
isolated terrorist incidents - neither of which are devastating nor
bear any relation to an invasion.

There *are* a few reasons to worry on Europe's behalf but not these.

Even five years ago, war on the Korean peninsula would have involved China. But China has been slowly cutting off North Korea, because even they realize it's a unsustainable regime. If Kim were to make a move against SK, I'm pretty confident that China would see it as an act of suicide and sit out.

Taiwan, of course, always remains the danger zone with them.

I always laugh at these war game scenarios on this site, because they are so misinforned.

What Arab country is going to attack Europe, what army are they going to use, and exactly how are they going to get there? No Arab country has the naval capactiy to cross the Med and attack from the South. And if they did, they don't have the Air Force to protect the ships.

The only entry point by land is through Turkey, which happens to be a member of NATO. If Turkey suddenly left NATO and invited outside armies into its country, I think someone on the Continent would be concerned. Besides, the route to Turkey would be through Iraq, and, um, the 150,000 US troops happen to be there right now.

As for China, are they going to fight there way through Russia first? Besides, China doesn't yet even have the naval capacity to invade Taiwan, yet alone go halfway around the world.

If there is a threat to Europe, it's the same threat as always - internal conflict or an unstable Russia.

"If there is a threat to Europe, it's the same threat as always - internal conflict or an unstable Russia."

The EU armies can easily handle anything the Russians can put together, and they have their own nukes to stand-off the Russian's nukes. Don't be fooled into thinking that because the major EU players didn't go to war in Iraq, that it means they can't against anyone else.

The single greatest threat against the EU right now is the USA, we are more likely to attempt a military confrontation with Europe than any other group/nation at this time.

Jeremy

since more and more natural gas and oil is going to come from Russian pipelines. If those stopped, Europe would have to compete on the world market for oil from tankers (forcing everyone's prices up), and would be well stuffed for electricity generation (apart from France, who would be laughing with their nuclear plants).

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

They(Europe and India) do not seem to me(I could be wrong) have anything close to the imperialist military industrial complex we have and ours is not as rabid as say the German generals and industrialists of the two world wars. Their own officer corps I suspect is better educated and civilized than our newly aggressive, rather parochial bunch.

The instability you are referring to lies with the lesser refined and more ambitious colonels in smaller, poorer, newer countries who can shrewdly make their moves while America is overstretched, offering perhaps insincere assurances about controlling resources we want for our benefit. Some of those turds we ourselves have educated and groomed for just that. Once our juggernaut sputters and freezes like a dying elephant they will settle their own business with impunity. Right now our own junta's coups and adventures are simply stealing the show and setting a very bad example to imitate in the near future.

Europe's problem is more populist. It might be whether dissatisfied and impatient citizens deprived of cultural pride will turn destructively right or if the left will animate a new unity not seen since the days of the Roman Empire.

An old ideal dream this time enhanced with Utopian democracy. Not a Holy Roman Empire(Church and Empire encompassing all) but a liberating federation based on law and social ideals. Whatever the dangers, barbarians on the borders is not the main one, nor was it for ancient Rome.

Neither the Arab countries nor China can physically reach Europe even if they wanted to. They don't have the ships or transports.

War is simply a matter of logistics. You have to be able to "project" your forces. The US is dominant because we can project our forces anywhere in the world. China can act only within Asia. Russia has the capacity to strike in a fairly large area, though it is losing capability dailiy. The Brits have some limited ability. And that's about it. Arab countries can barely project their forces across their borders.

When you start making up these scenarios, you have to ask yourself, "How is Army A going to get there?" Then you ask, "How do you supply it once it is there?"

So, how is an Army from the Middle East going to reach Europe without navies and air forces capable of moving troops and supplies? Tell me. How is China going to do the same?

that so many people have so many opinions on something they know so little about

Welcome, gpandas! :toast:

thank for seeing the humor of us all

unless you're including the ex-Soviet Union - and most of those resources/space are in Asia. What Europe has is a skilled workforce and established industry/commerce - which are the first things you destroy when you invade. It's not that tempting a target, unlike, say, an oil-rich country that has been suffering under sanctions for a decade.

1. As an emerging economy dependent on other developed nations to buy its export products, what does China gain by engaging in aggressive military action right now? What do they gain by attacking Taiwan, a country becoming more economically linked with them with each passing year?

2. How does China project its forces into another theatre without a significant navy or air force?

3. What Middle East Army is going to attack Europe? Once again, how does that army project its forces into Europe?

4. What on earth would any ME country gain by attacking Europe?

China is more interested in doing business than in conquest. And so are most of the Arab countries.

Europe has mostly gotten out of the imperialism business & they aren't making many enemies. That's our job.

. I don't think they are losing sleep over it.

China may have a LOT of bodies to throw at Europe, but it has no way to get the bodies there. And the Arab regular armies aren't going to be any danger any time soon.

We have proved that war is no longer a viable means to gather real estate. It is far too expensive both in terms of capital and lives.

It has, in effect, broken our economy. I think as a result of this war (as well as other bush fiscal policies) the US will lose whatever power we have had in the past. The EU now has a larger population base than the US, is has a more human attitude towards workers, and it will be capable shortly of eating our lunch financially. We are now dependant on others to keep the dollar afloat.

Also, the world is no longer nearly as large as it was. When I was growing up, you got what news was available in the morning paper and the half hour evening news. Now we know what's happening anywhere on earth almost as it happens.

As people become more familiar with those in other countries and cultures, it becomes difficult to label them as 'inhuman' or 'monsters'. They become just people like us. It's hard to work up killing anger at those you can identify with.

Add to all this the fact that the US, with the exception of skirmishes like panama and granada, lost most every war we've had since the end of WWII, and I believe that americans are just getting tired of war. It's about time.

Democracy seems to be spreading around the world. Even china is a democracy of sorts now. In fact the only non democratic countries I see are in the middle east. It will be up to their own people to change that, with the help, not intercession, of others.

Once the middle east is changed, I think that war will be a thing of the past. It's too expensive. It solves nothing. Solutions will be arrived at by conscensus.

Or.....

Global climate change will kill us all.

First of all, China is a democracy? The only non-democratic countries are in the Middle East? (I guess Africa doesn't appear on your map).

Secondly, you sound like a Viennese intellectual circa 1908.