Will Fallout the game become Fallout the reality?

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Quagmire69, Aug 22, 2011.

  1. drgong

    drgong It Wandered In From the Wastes

    111
    Aug 13, 2004
    Crni Vuk - here is a question.

    You have a city in a war zone full of civilians in the outskirts of Europe. The forces around these forces may very well kill said civilians unless there is a intervention. What nation in Europe (as a individual or as a group) can project enough force to prevent this from happening?

    Not one.

    And the reasons for this is not for a lack of manpower or a lack of technology or manufacturing. It is just that Europe refuses to spend the resources to have enough of a military to do so.

    And before you said "That won't happen" there is 8,000 men and boys who would disagree, except they are dead.

    And this year you had almost the same thing happen except that European nations talked the US (who spends tons of money on defense) to prevent mass killings in North Africa, well within flight range of Europe.

    This is not referring to adventures in Iraq or Afghanistan, but basic security.
     
  2. Jebus

    Jebus Background Radiant
    Orderite

    Jan 29, 2004
  3. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Dude its not my job to educate you about the political situations in and around Europe.

    Lack of "manpower" is sure not the problem. I would suggest to read more about the European parliament, UNO mandates and the situation between the NATO and the European forces. There are many relations here and it is a very complex field. Sending troops in somewhere sure does not depend on the number of men. Every european nation which is part of it will send Soldiers when ever needed (Kosovo, Afghanistan etc.).

    Though Europe is far away from having a clear and united political course regarding foreign actions leaving alone military actions which is different to the US for example which has the whole control of the military going trough the Pentagon, the defence secretary and the president of the united states. Europe has not even a military administration we are a commonwealth but not a state. Usually the control over operations shifts from nation to nation.

    The issue around preventing "crimes" or "war situations" and genozides like as how they happened in Vukovar (I know my Yugo history) is not because of man power it was the lack of initiative and resolutions on the political side of the European Parliament it is still seen by many as prime example for the fail of the UNO/Europe here. And part of it is because there is so much disagreement in the politics while the French might demand a harsh answer/solution the Germans might propose a diplomatic route and the Netherlands being completelly neutral. See the situation around Kosovo as example which is now a "free state". Yet not all European states acknowledge it. Spain for example because they have their own little problems with their Basque people so it is not in their interest to recognize Kosovo as own state. The attack on Iraq by the US is another example. It divided Europe almost in 2 seperate wings. Those which supported the US (see Coalition of the willing) and those which have been neutral (among most prominent France and Germany)

    Though he is so far right with it many of the nations do not send all their forces. The resolutions by the UNO for example are not mandatory but voluntary. So the UNO has trouble to send in the numbers which means they are not a force which can be send in very quickly (compared to a usual military). There are simply to many political obstacles. I guess no one is happy to send his own troops under the command of a different nation. Not to mention the issues around the language. Theoretically they have the manpower. And it sure is not a problem of resources. Most are just somewhat reserved when it comes to sending troops around the world for peace keepin goperations. For obvious reasons as we have seen in Somalia. Such things just dont do well in TV.
     
  4. Jebus

    Jebus Background Radiant
    Orderite

    Jan 29, 2004
    The question was "which country can project enough power", not if they actually would.
     
  5. drgong

    drgong It Wandered In From the Wastes

    111
    Aug 13, 2004
    The fact is that even when there was a conflict right on the doorstep of Europe, Those nations where unable, or unwilling to protect a declared refuge from genocide. (I am referring to Srebrenica, not Vokovar)

    And Troop size is not a valid way to count the ability of a nation to project power. Algeria has 147,000, but has a hard enough time keeping security in its own borders. Only Britain and France spend enough money to actually be able to go out and carry out a operation. Yes, I am well aware that Germany generally does not want have its forces serve outside of Germany due to historical issues, that Europe is not unified (Heck, I wouldn't blame Germany if they walked away from the Euro for bailing out the likes of Greece, a lot of nations could learn from Germany on how small of a deficit in a budget and how to build a healthy economy.)

    Many of the nations of Europe depend on the US spending a ton of money on defense so they can cut there military to almost nothing. The depend on the US to defend them.


    As for my question Crni Vuk, that was a rhetorical question. The ability to project power include political will, and European nations do not have the will to project power even to prevent a genocide.

    Glad Spain does not recognize Kosovo, as the idea of Kosovo as a independent nation is silly. :wink:
     
  6. Jebus

    Jebus Background Radiant
    Orderite

    Jan 29, 2004
    It's not as simple as that. I suggest you educte yourself on what actually happened there.

    I'm quite sure the active forces of no matter which European country are going to be better trained and equipped that the Algerian army.


    If they wanted too, most other European countries can extract more than enough money to fund whatever operation.

    I can see the unification of the European armed forces happening in my lifetime, at least. It seems inevitable.

    Actually, no. Ever since the cold war ended (and I'd like to point out that Europeans often had quite sizeable armies during the hight of the cold war), Europe simply doesn't need to defend themselves from anyone. Who the hell would want a war with any European nation? Who's going to invade us, or declare war on us for whatever reason? Russia? Turkey? Morocco? China? Not bloody likely.
    The one time it happened, 'recently', was the Falkland crisis - and the UK proved itself more than capable of defending its own intrests.

    The ability to project power depends on political illusion, i.e. that actually projecting power gains a country something in the long run. Europe's history shows that this is not true: since a country acquires more and more percieved 'intrests' the more they 'project' their 'power', it's basically a snowball effect that can blow up in your face.

    The idea of Kosovo as 'part' of 'Serbia' is silly as well. All nationalism is silly.
     
  7. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake. Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Aug 16, 2010
    It's not that we merely don't want to, it's that we are not allowed to by our constitution. The Bundeswehr is supposed to be a strictly defensive army, and their only function was to hold off invading enemies (the USSR back in the day) until the real armies arrive.
    The Bundeswehr is not really allowed to fight in other countries and it's actually quite funny that our politicians always struggle not to use the word "war", because Germany is not allowed to fight any kind of offensive war.
    Instead, they call it "peacekeeping missions" and stuff like that.
    Our old Minister of Defense made a big step there, he said that 'colloquially, the situation in Afghanistan could be called "war"'.
    Another old Minister had a big scandal because of wordings: He tried to justify the german participation in Afghanistan by saying that 'Germany is now being defended at Hindukush'.
    But that was then, and now people don't seem to care that the Bundeswehr suddenly defends our commercial interests, a.k.a. oil.

    Anyway, the situation with the german armed forces is very complex.
    I am pretty sure though that the big european countries are more than capable of putting up enough force to solve situations like you described.
    But they are not willing.
     
  8. :::SILUS:::

    :::SILUS::: Look, Ma! Two Heads!

    313
    Aug 18, 2011
    China doesn't need to fght a war to beat US and finally get on top. China will eat US alive, one limb at a time. China is growing like an eczema on a leppard while the rest of the world is suffocating in it's self-cooked turdpot.

    Ruskies are in no shape to compete and are too busy trying to keep Syberia. When Syberia and it's riches fall, it's all over for the ruskies.

    US is a nation of 5 000 000 different factions and agendas. The sudden rise of the ultra right nutjobs is not very ecouraging either.

    Europe is like always too self-involved in it's petty squabbles to see the big picture and currently trying it's best to keep the union alive. I'm too affraid to even think what will happen to Europe if the union falls.

    Most of the Afrika is already living in a fallloutish world for the last two centuries and is just waiting to be colonized once again.

    The latin nations on South Amerika are just..............i don't know, maybe a Fallout-like world is not that far away.
     
  9. drgong

    drgong It Wandered In From the Wastes

    111
    Aug 13, 2004
    Getting back on topic, while I would love to have SCIENCE! in real life, as it would be awesome. We are much more likely to have fallout in the sense of total economic collapse then nukes flying right now.
     
  10. :::SILUS:::

    :::SILUS::: Look, Ma! Two Heads!

    313
    Aug 18, 2011
    Bro, sadly it's exactly what happened. People came to UN checkpoints in hope of salvation and the checkpoints just closed in front of them. UNPROFOR soldiers just stood their and watched as paramilitary rapists who get off on cutting people's throats and carry special knives just for that little ritual dragged the said people to their mass grave while singing cannibalistic songs.

    Lieutenant-Colonel Karremans was filmed drinking a toast with genocide suspect and Serb general Ratko Mladić during the bungled negotiations on the fate of civilian population.

    Industrial bulldozers then pushed the bodies into mass graves. According tto French policeman Jean-René Ruez, some were buried alive, streets littered with corpses, people committing suicide to avoid having their noses, lips and ears chopped off, and adults being forced to watch the soldiers kill their children.

    The Serbs began at a certain point to take girls and young women out of the group of refugees. They were raped. The rapes often took place under the eyes of others and sometimes even under the eyes of the children of the mother. Some of them had their throat cut. others were beheaded. A Dutch soldier stood by and he simply looked around with a walkman on his head. He did not react at all to what was happening. It did not happen just before my eyes, for I saw that personally, but also before the eyes of us all. The Dutch soldiers walked around everywhere.

    Testimony of Ramiza Gurdić:

    A young boy of about ten was killed by Serbs in Dutch uniform. The mother sat on the ground and her young son sat beside her. The young boy was placed on his mother’s lap. The young boy was killed. His head was cut off. The body remained on the lap of the mother. The Serbian soldier placed the head of the young boy on his knife and showed it to everyone. A pregnant woman was slaughtered. There were Serbs who stabbed her in the stomach, cut her open and took two small children out of her stomach and then beat them to death on the ground.
     
  11. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    well to be fair you cant expect from the react in any different way. Everyone wants to go home. Without getting killed.

    The whole situation was wrong from the beginning. The UNO failed here very hard to help the people.

    But what would have been the alternative ? A war inside of Serbia ? That might have made things even worse. Who knows. I personally would have loved to see some action. Getting justice for the innocent people which died. But those are just feelings. Things are usually more complicated then that. We all scream for justice and we all want the people which died in such ways revenged. But things become quiet once the first plastic bags with own soldiers return home. And then war is suddenly not so funny anymore. And the feeling of revenge or justice leaves a very shallow taste.
     
  12. :::SILUS:::

    :::SILUS::: Look, Ma! Two Heads!

    313
    Aug 18, 2011
    WHAT :shock: It's a global professional army send on an international mission. "I wanna go home to my mommy" is not a............ WHAT ?!?!?!?!? :shock:
     
  13. valcik

    valcik So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Dec 20, 2008
    Well, but what was a goal of the mission? Military intervention, or just a humanitary aid?
    Anyway, you are right with the mentioned brutality. The same happened in Chechnya for example, people were slaughtered, raped and tortured by russian soldiers the same way. (There was refugee camp Adamov in Slovakia for people from Chechnya, just few km from my home. I know what I'm talking about.) The same in Rwanda, Africa.
    Hm, and what do you think about an Abu Ghraib camp? Locals were tortured, raped and killed by a liberators.
     
  14. :::SILUS:::

    :::SILUS::: Look, Ma! Two Heads!

    313
    Aug 18, 2011
    Protecting the civilians and creating a safe tampon zone.
     
  15. drgong

    drgong It Wandered In From the Wastes

    111
    Aug 13, 2004
    Sorry if I a bit surprised by the comment of "They just wanted to go home".


    The example is that the UN and others set up a safe haven to prevent genocide, and then didn't even lift a finger as the said genocide happened. I hate to bring this up as it might be Godwin's law, even if it a rare case where it would be actually a argument, but it would be like saying "Such and such city is safe for Jews, Gypsies, and political dissidents", place troops to protect them, then have the troops watch as they care carted away. As Everyone knew that a mass killing was highly likely, and the Euro troops just watched as people who they where supposed to protect where butchered.

    Even if they where unable to stop it, they needed to make a good faith effort to stop it, even if that means that some folks would not go home. That is a risk you take as a soldier, and defending civilians from genocide is about the best reason outside of defending your home and family to fight.
     
  16. Two-step

    Two-step First time out of the vault

    35
    Aug 24, 2011
    It is not in China's interest to go to war with the United States. One only needs to look an see just how much we owe them... nearly 40% of our national debt is to China... second place going to Japan who is the second largest lender to the US.

    If anything, I would suspect that the US would default on loans to China and then simply allow China enough influence to integrate their control over the US. As far as a physical war between the US and China, I simply don't see it happening... at least not in the foreseeable future.

    I would be more concerned with a war between the US and Mexico, especially if the Mexican and US government do not do something right, to stop the drug cartels from taking over Mexico. I don't think that it would be very hard for the Cartels to figure out how to get "one of their own" into a power. Then we would be in for a real problem... worse than what we have right now.

    Just imaging the problems there would be, especially along the US/Mexico boarder if the drug cartels gained political and military power of Mexico.
     
  17. Makenshi

    Makenshi Ahoy, ye salty dogs!

    Jul 28, 2006
    I still say that future US battles will be among it's member states, who will separate from the federation. But Kharn will probably refute this with solid arguments that will put me to shame, if he posts here.
     
  18. Wintermind

    Wintermind Vault Senior Citizen

    Jan 21, 2011
    You're attaching a lot of stuff to 'liberator", there.

    They're still liberating shit. A-10's liberate the ever loving fuck out of tanks (or whatever looks at 'em funny, like the occasional helicopter).
     
  19. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Well it is somewhat interesting how many think the US is on a decline as "empire" to say it that way.

    If its true ? I have no clue. But true is that they cant keep up with their current course. The recent actions have been a pretty huge stress on their economy not to mention the other crises. Having several conflicts around the globe and a huge debt probably don't mix well together.
     
  20. Yoshi525

    Yoshi525 Vault Senior Citizen
    Orderite

    Dec 10, 2006
    True. They do have F-22's and a dozen Nimitz class though.

    Agree with Europe united - minus England and Wales.