Quote:
Originally Posted by woxxy
Victory towards europe... with that? You think a nation would move the whole manpower for attacking europe?
Ok, just for you to notice, 'Available Military Manpower Ger:36,830,650 Usa:134,813,023 '. Since when every man in USA is now a part of military?
Also, germany =/= navy, where instead Netherlands would rather be near to the number of USA.
This means, two nations are enough, if they're paired up correctly, to stand USA.
And to say another thing, you are considering the loser of world war, which was under the control of other powers for what regards military for a while. Germany is not the strongest military. It's England, France and Spain before Germany.
This data just shows how Germany has got one fourth to one half of the stuff USA got. beside airplanes. Aren't you kinda overthinking of USA's power...
|
First of all, lulz at calling Germany a loser and Spain, France, and England winners. Far as I remember, France was taken pretty quickly by the "losers" in Germany, as was quite a bit more of Europe, and large chunks of Africa. Military might is just as much organization as feet on the ground.
Not really. The Vietnam War showed that an overwhelming majority would rather face the draft than leave the U.S., so the available military manpower would be close to 90% or so of men in the U.S., especially if some manner of mandatory public service were required (been on the books a few times).
Secondly, you assume the nations you list
could be paired up quickly enough to withstand the unified U.S. forces. Culture aside, the simple fact that the branches of the U.S. military work constantly with one another means that, while they may bicker and fight a bit over who's tougher, they're quite ready to work together to combat foreign troops. Pairing Germany and the Netherlands would require determining which military leader would be in charge of both forces, who would be in the chain of command, synching up codes and procedures for communication, sharing intelligence services, all things that would take up precious time in the event of an attack.
It's also likely that the U.S. would be able to play up infighting among the E.U. members, who haven't really cohered into a collective culture yet. All of this counts against the E.U. as a military power. This doesn't even take into consideration the amount of U.S. military bases in Europe, or the nuclear capabilities of the U.S. I like Europe, but, face it, if America ever really got pissed, Europe would be fighting one long, losing war. They'd fight well, and hard, but they'd eventually lose.
I don't think the E.U. will attempt to match the military power of the U.S. either. It's just not got that same arrogance or agressiveness the U.S. has traditionally had. Along with that, it hasn't had the same sort of easy-going friendly attitude the U.S. shares with its friends either. E.U. confrences are rife with politicking and contests of power, one nation holding its vote over all the others in order to gain some concession. They're both less agressive and more agressive than the U.S. The E.U. tends towards less agression with less friendly nations, more agression with friendly nations.
Anyway, it isn't even the military that really makes a superpower. For quite a long time, England was a great superpower, with most of its military being made up of foreigners who could have, quite easily, banded together to crush England. But, England made itself so powerful in attitude and economy that it was easier to work with them than against them. America has done rather the same. We may be called bullies by the rest of the world, but we play relatively softly compared to most of the history of the E.U. members. We just insert ourselves as the pinnacle of, well, everything, and the attitude and economy of the U.S. causes most others to grudgingly accede to American wishes.
The E.U. is rather like a retiree, just doesn't have the drive to really push itself onto other nations at this point. They're quite a bit more worried about more mature aspects of their society, and working towards building a more socialistic society. That just doesn't mesh with the aggressive attitude required to be a superpower. For that, look to the relatively less developed nations, raring to take their piece of the global pie.
And can we please quit with bashing each other, Americans and Europeans? Sure, we each have things we don't like about the other, but, in all honesty, we're not as far apart as we think, and we've both got quite a bit of blood on our hands. We can drag up arguments that Europe set up the situation today, and the U.S. has made it worse, but that doesn't really help tell anyone what some other nation will do tomorrow to either worsen the situtation or make it better.