Will the EU ever Rival the US as a Worlds Superpower

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Oct 24 2007, 11:32 PM) [snapback]530115[/snapback]</div>

That is essentially how I see it...

dberman, you can start here:

GlobalWorkingFamilies.org Harvard study on EU worker policies.

Making Better Energy Choices ~ WorldWatchInstitute

BP statistical review of global energy consumption in .xls
There are a ton of different sources for this type of info. Just Google

The only bad deal with judging economies based on GDP is GDP is NOT an indicator of the health of a society. Just look at our health stats vs GDP. It's quite sad really.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 25 2007, 09:15 AM) [snapback]530222[/snapback]</div>

I'm confused... you said my post didn't have any relevance, yet you agree with it?

Yes, i think it could. That's the whole point of my post - The US grew up from separate states that were in form much like the EU is today. Why can't they follow the same path?

You make a good point about their history, however with the exception of Germany, they've all gotten along pretty well in the past 100 years or so. Even Germany is playing nicely now. The part you're missing, though, is the intermixing of cultures. They broke down their borders a while ago. They're encouraging internal trade and cooperation. Given time (even if it does take 100 years), their cultures will intermix and intertwine. Who cares that several hundred years ago some French guys killed some English guys and vise versa? Heck, we rebelled from England, fought a war against them for our independence, and now they're one of our closest supporters.

So while there are some that will hold onto that antagonistic past, i think a vast majority of the population won't. It's only a matter of time before their military becomes a true superpower. Their economy is already there.

Heck, the first superpowers all were in Europe to begin with - Rome, England, Spain, etc. I think it's entirely possible, and probably even likely, that they'll combine to form another superpower.

 

Is military might the only thing that makes a country a superpower?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 25 2007, 10:55 AM) [snapback]530248[/snapback]</div>

In part, I think the EU can become a world superpower BECAUSE THEY DO NOT spend significant $ on defense (relative to the US) and BECAUSE they don't tend to resort to force as a form of diplomacy. I believe our decline is inevitable because we do those things without the means to pay for them.

But in your narrow view, I gather you think an entity is only a superpower if they can smack down whoever they want whenever they want and prove it by doing so. My opinion is those who resort to that have numbered their days as being a superpower. So someone will have to take our place when we fall, and the EU looks like a pretty good possibility.

 

Lets look at the definition of a Superpower, shall we?

Kim Richard Nossal of McMaster University:

Lyman Miller (Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School):

Former Indian National Security Advisor Jyotindra Nath Dixit:

By all those definitions, the EU fits the bill. They're a huge, stable economy. They occupy a significant, continent-sized landmass. They have nuclear first- and second-strike capability. They are able to project their power into the world (most importantly, their economic power). As it's been shown, they are responsible for a larger portion of the UN military force than the US is. The fact that they haven't exercised their military to invade and occupy foreign soil with no due cause is really besides the point.

What about China or Japan? Are they a superpower? They hold a lot of our national debt, and could bring the US to its knees in a matter of hours if they wanted to - all without firing a shot. I'd say thats a better projection of power than having to wait a week to get military assets in place. Or what about the OPEC? If they cut off oil, the US would again be very badly hurt - and they could do this in a matter of hours, maybe days.

Being a superpower isn't about military spending anymore. Economic and diplomatic pressures are a much more effective (and much less costly) way to project your power than a military.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 25 2007, 07:55 AM) [snapback]530248[/snapback]</div>

Look closer...

The overall health of our nation is very poor for one who is king of the GDP game. In fact it is interesting to note that our national health indicators are almost inversely proportional to our GDP. Why is that? I am willing to bet that a large part of that problem has to do with exploitation of other countries, and exploitation of our own society. If you look at the general trends you will find more and more people becoming "poor" while the rich become richer and make the poor shoulder the results of capitalistic ventures. This in my mind, is a classic example of a nation on the downhill slope of it's peak power. If you look past the illusions of freedom there is a very real sense of slavery hidden in the glamor of fancy cars, giant starter-castles, and fanstasy football.

In fact I see us as spoiled rich kids who are living off an inheritance with very little income. If we do not change our attitudes we will end up bankrupt OR going to war with everyone so we can steal their resources and enslave them in our Matrix-like global capitalism utopia. Oops, my bad. We are trying to do that already.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Oct 25 2007, 06:36 PM) [snapback]530527[/snapback]</div>

Awesome

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 26 2007, 05:03 AM) [snapback]530645[/snapback]</div>

What I am saying is that the U.S. is going to falter because of it's greed, corruption, apathetic public, and lack of foresight. The EU with it's future planning already firmly in place will likely be a "superpower" again. China may get there first due to economic might but with it's degredation so firmly in place I doubt it would last long.

I think your definition of "superpower" being based so strongly on military power is what is confusing people. Military might alone does not make a country anything special. It's kinda like the bully on the playground that nobody likes. In the end the bully always falls for one reason or another.

 

read very carefully, Berman - you aren't seeming to grasp the concept.

Lets say i've lent you money - more than you can earn in 10 years time - so you can buy a fancy house and a fancy car and a fancy TV in a snobby neighborhood. No, so long as i sit here and let the debt collect interest, no one really cares - you go on living your life, i live mine. But, if i call in that debt, what happens? I take your house, your car, and everything else you possess and leave you homeless on the street. Thats where our country is right now. We have a ton of debt, and no way to pay it off if it comes due. If people start dumping our debt, it'll cause the value of the dollar to plummet. That $100 TV from China will cost you $1000, $5000, $10,000 or more if that happens. Our economy will grind to a halt due to the massive inflation. That will hurt us way more than someone dropping a few bombs on us.

The same is true with OPEC. If they cut off our oil, we won't have the capacity to fuel our trucks and cars and monster SUV's. Your average person (remember, the average person in the US is horribly overweight) will have to walk to work - in many cases 30+ miles! - because they can't find or afford gas for their vehicle. Shipping across the country will grind to a halt, as we can't fuel the trucks that carry goods from one state to another. Food will have trouble getting to groceries and end up rotting in the fields. What do we do then?

Power isn't always about military strength. It's about getting what you want. And if you have the capability to cause enough damage to a country through economic means, you don't need a military that can project its force around the globe. The EU is a larger part of the worlds economy than we are, which gives them a lot of force in this area. Military strength isn't everything, and i would even go so far as to say it's becoming less and less important as time marches on. Nations, in general, are becoming less confrontational and more dependent on their neighbors, creating a whole new balance of power.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 26 2007, 07:22 AM) [snapback]530684[/snapback]</div>

Or as David Korten would call it; A Global Community.

Nice post

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 26 2007, 07:31 AM) [snapback]530643[/snapback]</div>

Your total fixation on that single point is causing you to miss all the excellent points made by others in this thread. The EU already is a military powerhouse, dbermanmd. They have lots of nuclear weapons and tanks and airplanes and the financial resources and industrial base to do what they wish in the world to a very large degree. And I and a number of other posters have made very excellent and thoughtful points about why the EU is probably in a better position that the US to continue to be a superpower well into the future. We should pay attention and stop and think every now and then about what we are doing with our power, and contemplate how we might go about continueing to be one ourselves.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 26 2007, 10:22 AM) [snapback]530684[/snapback]</div>

That is about as good a post as I have seen on Priuschat. Well said! The US could cease to be a superpower in a matter of months if certain entities (China, OPEC) decided that was in their best interest. We could be litterally brought to our knees due to our absurd spending habits and complete dependence on fimported fuel. We are in an extremely tenuous postion. I beleive the EU is much better positioned for the future.

 

doberman,

I am inferring here that for you "defence" is defined as attacking other countries to further your political and economic interests. In British English we would call that "offence". We find it useful to have separate terms for these quite different concepts.

I agree that the EU's structure means that that sort of offensive operation is unlikely to happen in a co-ordinated fashion, although individual members may choose to join in with such an assault, such as Britain and Spain joining in with the USA to destroy Iraq.

But I see no reason to suppose that the EU as a whole would be unable or unwilling to act in a coordinated fashion to defend itself, were it to be attacked. The only possible exception would be if the US were to choose to attack Europe - the USA's military capability is frankly in another league to any other nation on earth. (This is because it is largely used for offence, whereas most other nations settle for a defence capability.)

 

"Boeing is no longer the largest passenger aircraft manufacturer. That title now belongs to Airbus."
(http://thetravelinsider.com/2003/boeing3.htm)