# New Cold War? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 30, 2003, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cold-war/172110 "2003-04-30T11:11:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![elfje](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19b73/32.png) [@elfje](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfje)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cold-war/172110/21 "2003-05-02T11:33:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > \*_Just one more thought. TB is in a tough spot. As America and Europe drift apart_, Britain is stuck in the middle and TB doesn’t want to have to chose whom to go with. This makes perfect sense from his standpoint. He’d be the biggest benificiary of a healing of the Euro/American rift. > > \*I someone hesitate to say “drift apart”, because I still think our similarities and common goals dramatically outweigh our differences. I use that phrase for lack of a better one. \*\* yes, I agree that that’s the main reason (I think) why he’s so scared about a “cold War”. He did nail his colours to the American mast/post. It may be because he wasn’t happy with the position the UK had in the EU, maybe he wanted more power, and saw Bush as his only option (having influence over the most powerful man in the world is no mean feat), I really don’t know. But he’s sided firmly with the US, but his location is Europe. I agree he would be the biggest benificiary from healing the rift, but why do we need to be joined at the hip, though? He would like EU and US be the bestest of buddies, we need to form 1 bloc, as he says. I don’t see the necessity for having 1 super bloc. How’s the rest of the world going to view that? I for my part do not want to be associated with the US as it is at the moment, and their administration’s Foreign Policy, which is creating a lot of bad feelings towards the US. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cold-war/172110/22 "2003-05-02T11:42:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brutus \* > \*\* > > I am sure that fantasy is going through the minds of various Frenchies and Germans, but they have no rock to safely throw. A trade war will hurt them more then us, and they simply won’t spend enough money to rival us militarily. > > America is firmly entrenched at the top. You can’t have a proper ‘Cold War’ when the odds are so uneven. \*\* The only problem here is that you are a little out of the loop with world economy. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cold-war/172110/23 "2003-05-02T11:46:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > \*\* > Is Europe afraid of a US invasion? If so, they are free to spend as much as they like to prepare their defenses. > \*\* Hardly necessary. Attacking Europe would be economic suicide for the US. > [@](#): > > \*\* > The better off Europe is millitarily, the happier I’ll be. In the sense that they will be more self reliant in taking care of issues in their own backyard (hint: Yugoslavia) w/o crying to the US to do it for them. \*\* Sorry, but that argument won’t fly. The US has declared Europe its backyard through membership in both NATO and the OSCE. There is no eating the cake and having it, too. If one wants to use bases in Europe for one’s own goals, as was done in Iraq and numerous other incidents, one can be expected to contribute to the stability of the region. Not to mention that the efforst of the US were more counter- than productive. > [@](#): > > \*\* > There may be people in the US who want some sort of hegemony in Europe, but not me. I’d love to the troops in Germany come home. \*\* Won’t happen. They might be reduced in numbers, but the US is critically dependent on European bases. An operation like Iraq or Afghanistan would be unacceptably more costly without using bases in Europe, both financially and in terms of human life. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cold-war/172110/24 "2003-05-02T11:56:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bayonet1976 \* > \*\*Well, for one thing because the US just showed that, as things stand right now, it has the military might to enforce its will, and will use it when it feels like it. Economically the US economy is also a powerful force. Consequently Europe finds itself in the position of potentially having pissed off the biggest, baddest, strongest kid in the block. I think what Blair is trying to do is to send out for the Charles Atlas program **before** they get sand kicked in their face. \*\* Sorry, but that’s silly. The US economy is far from as powerful as you make it out, since it is critically dependent on consumption within the US itself. Of the huge GDP, little ever sees the light of day. The US gobbles up resources like a black hole, the actual lasting value produced from that is slim. Quite the contrary, plenty of goods need to be imported to keep the machinery going. Conversely, the EU is capable of exporting large parts of its production. With a larger number of inhabitants and a slightly smaller GDP, the EU is using what is has far more efficiently. Europe poses the majority of world trade. The EU is the largest single free market on the planet. Kicking sand into the EU’s face is not a good idea in the long term. The military might of the US is meaningless when talking about its relations with Europe. The US is incapable of bringing its military might to bear against Europe, since it would kill its own economy in doing so. Destroying both demand in the largest market on the planet AND the production necessary to fulfill the import needs is a pretty painful way to do seppuku. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cold-war/172110/25 "2003-05-02T12:03:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by puddleglum \* > \*\*The problem with the EU as a superpower is that without the UK it has no credible military and thus can not project power around the world. > \*\* Factually wrong. A nuke is always quite credible, and France has several of them, and strategic subs on top of that. More, with the streamlining and joining of forces, countries can focus on their individual strengths, and excel in those fields. France is routinely transporting troops all across the globe, as a consequence of its overseas territories. That might not have been very efficient for a while, but France has already years ago started to improve the process and streamline its efficiency in troop deployment. > [@](#): > > \*\* > In order to have a credible military they would have to shift money from social services which is politically untenable. Also the EU bureaucracy is creating another level of taxation and regulation which are drags on European economies. > \*\* Quite the contrary, the EU has helped European economies considerably by reducing and abolishing tarriffs and eliminating the exchange risk in the Eurozone. I believe you are merely reciting typical prejudice of outsiders here, with little actual knowledge of what’s happening. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Combine this with the demographic crisis on the horizon and the rise of Islamism in their cities and the future for Europe looks bleak in comparison with the US. Any thoughts of the EU being a superpower to rival the US is just wishful thinking. \*\* Quite the contrary, the future of the EU looks quite a lot better than that of the US. The joining of Eastern Europe with the EU will make one of the largest areas of growth in the world far more easily reachable for European companies and harder for the US. I am not sure what you are ranting about concerning the ‘rise of Islamism’. As for the demographic crisis, I’d suggest looking at where the US economy would go without hispanic immigrants. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cold-war/172110/26 "2003-05-02T12:16:05Z")
OliverH: I think you misunderstood what I was trying to get at. You are correct about US bases in Europe-- that they won’t go away. I was expressing my own sentiment, not what I thought would actually happen. As for Europe having a credible military might, nukes are only a small part of the equation. Yeah, their great to have as a deterent, but if you want to actually do anything you need the kind of high tech conventional stuff that the US has. A lot of good alll of France’s nukes did them during the Yugoslavian situation 10 yrs ago. I think this spat between the US and Europse is overblown. It’s mainly a political issue, with various leaders jocking for their position on the world stage of influence. Politicians will come and go, but our economic futures together are pretty well assured. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cold-war/172110/27 "2003-05-02T12:45:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > \*\* > > As for Europe having a credible military might, nukes are only a small part of the equation. Yeah, their great to have as a deterent, but if you want to actually do anything you need the kind of high tech conventional stuff that the US has. A lot of good alll of France’s nukes did them during the Yugoslavian situation 10 yrs ago. > \*\* I think you are succumbing to a common misconception about the Yugoslavia situation. For one thing, US military power helped them zilch, either, because they focused on an air campaign which did more harm than good and firmly entrenched serbian nationalist forces. The recent assassination of the moderate Zoran Djindjic could even be called a late consequence. Not the least, the US bombing campaign did serious economic damage among its own allies in Europe by totally disrupting barge traffic on the Danube. In any case, once military action was decided on, France was very willing to get its boots muddy. The US was unwilling to risk casualties. You have to distinguish between being willing to go in with troops and being capable of doing so. For a variety of reasons, France, and much of Europe, today, is highly reluctant to march with troops into someone else’s country and occupy it against the will of the locals. France, not the least, has made bad experiences both on the receiving and on the occupying side. Not being WILLING to go in has nothing to do with military capabilities. The high tech conventional stuff the US has is to a large degree dependent on EU technology. Most FLIR sensors used by US armed forces are ‘Made in Germany’. The main gun of the Abrams is ‘Made in Germany’. It might seem silly that Switzerland stopped all arms exports to the US and Britain due to the Iraq war until you know that the swiss ‘Nitrochemie’ is an important supplier of artillery charge systems and tank ammunition propellants as well as raw nitrocellulose and propellant pastes. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cold-war/172110/28 "2003-05-02T15:06:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brutus \* > Europeans are being terrorized? We’ve been trying to marginalize the United Nations, haven’t we? We’ve threatened “repercussions” against France for opposing the war, haven’t we? We’ve invaded Iraq to prevent Europe (and others) from controlling the oil fields of Iraq, didn’t we? Sure sounds like terrorizing/browbeating/threatening actions to me. But then, I’m one of those nutballs who think nationalism is a crock o’ bullstuff… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cold-war/172110.md?page=1)