Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "TLDR News EU"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
@alexanderlipowsky6055 (FYI, this is partially a response to you and partially also going broader)
I'd say that an EU army should be defensive in nature and only can be deployed outside of EU/allies borders with express permission of the EU parliament (2/3rd permission or so, not easy to get).
However I'd have 'national guard' units that are directly under the command of the national memberstates and payed for by them (for example everyone has to give 2% of GDP to the EU army, but can get 0,2-5% or so back for the national guard units). The goal of these units could be two fold:
1) it can be easily deployed by that nation/memberstate within their own country for example against terrorist activities, natural disaster relief , ...
2) it can be used as expeditionary forces. For example if France wants to still do something in Africa, they can send these units. Why give that option? Because otherwise resentment can build up and nations might want to leave this common EU defence army to reclaim more independence.
Now memberstate can obviously call in help from the EU army for internal matters like terrorism and disaster relief, though nations with national guard units would be expected to use these first.
So nations wouldn't necessarily need national guard units, for example a memberstate like Luxembourg is too small for a usefull guard unit and a memberstate like Germany might not want one because it doesn't wishes to deploy troops outside EU borders without a clear EU mandate.
FYI a defensive focus shouldn't mean the EU army isn't focused on doing offensive operations either, rather just that it won't do these unless with clear permission or for defensive reasons. Any effective army should be capable to do both offense and defense and have the means for it. For example a few aircraft carriers might be usefull in that regard, but not too many, 2-4 could be a good number.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JustAGuyWhoLikesStuff. Like I said in my first comment, even if we decide to go nuclear now, it won't be operational untill around 2040, by which time we also can get a fully reliable renewable system.
And one of te problems of using current new nuclear next to renewables is the cost. If renewables undercut nuclear in price, it will cause nuclear to be shutdown. Ofcourse it isn't good for nuclear to be shutdown, from a technical standpoint, but even more from a financial one. Since nuclear that doesn't operate as a baseload will get even more expensive, giving renewables even more opportunity to undercut it. In the end the government would have to ensure that the nuclear powerplants need to run a certain amount of the time, even if this means cheaper renewables can't be used. And this isn't just going to impact the next 2-3 decades, but more like the next 6-8 decades, which is a very long time.
I do believe there can be a time and place for nuclear, but I am thinking more about gen 4, rather than gen 3. However since there isn't a single gen 4 yet in commercial operation (for so far I know), we don't know if gen 4 will meet the expectations (especially on price) and European governments aren't going to bet fully on gen 4 nuclear untill it has at least had a running commercial plant/reactor for a few years.
2
-
@cedrickropp
because for now it’s the only technology we could start build right now and we needed to start last decade in order to get renewables as reliable as nuclear in the next 3 decades.
This already shows me you don't know anything about current gridstorage development.
Absolutely no one is Willi to allocate like a third of government spending on energy solutions
No would that be necessary.
and if countries like Germany with perfectly good regulatory oversight remove their nuclear
It was a bad decision of them, not going to argue with that.
countries like Poland with at best questionable oversight over what goes on in their economy will have to build their own solutions.
No, they wouldn't. Poland will always need to go outside their own country to get nuclear plants build. Germany likely would need to do the same thing, considering their latest nuclear powerplant was build 30 years ago and I don't think they have any company building nuclear power plants.
Also you have international oversight organisations regarding nuclear power production, so it isn't like Poland could just fuck it up.
which they now stopped producing because no one wanted to buy the damned thing.
It actually is the opposite, it was so popular (as a city car) due to its low price (in Germany with incentives only around 11 914€) demand was outpacing manufacturing for the e-up (already 16 months wait time) and because of the low price, it wasn't really profitable for VW, so because they now also sell the ID.3 and 4, they temperorarily suspended new orders, the question ofcourse is whether these will eventually restart again.
BTW the reason why it is so cheap is because it is a very tiny car with a tiny battery, giving less than 100km of reach, the id3 has between 350km and 550km of range, quite the difference and ofcourse it is also larger.
and build up coal
no one in Europe is building up coal, advocating for it or has plans for it.²
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@toddfulton2280
I hear politicians in the US warming up to nuclear
Politicians aren't warming up to nuclear, most never were anti-nuclear to start with. The only reason they talk more about it is because it is either renewables or nuclear when we're talking about reducing air pollution. And thus if they aren't pro-renewable, they need to look to an alternative: nuclear
even some talk of tech companies wanting reactors to power their data centers and transferring excess to the grid
This makes sense, I even imagined using nuclear to power industrial area's (especially those running almost non-stop). However in the end it will be cost that will decide it, and so far I don't see favorable costs for it. Then again maybe the profit these datacenters will generate and non-reliance on other factors (like the grid) will make the extra costs worth it.
but that doesn't mean it was the sole motivation or even the primary motivation
It indeed wasn't the sole one, but imo the main one. Ofcourse stop strengthening our adversaries is also a good thing, however some would argue that creating economic ties with them will make them stop being adversaries entirely. Overall most Europeans would like the EU to become more neutral on the world stage, with good/decent relations with all main countries. Also the US is helped by a threatening Russia, it causes European nations to look more at the US for support.
The idea that improving material conditions in those countries will prevent conflict hasn't panned out.
I don't think that is the right take away. Just because it didn't work out now, doesn't mean it doesn't work out in other occasions. There also have been many times it did work, but obviously it isn't a magic bullet that always finds its mark. Also for all we know in 10-15 years we'll be talking about a democratic Russia with its leaders being inspired by the economic relations we had before the invasion. Making guesses on the long term based on just the past few years is dangerous.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@alexsilent5603 Actually, yes, I think that Ukrainian government knew that rebels have such weapons
No, they didn't. If they did they could accuse Russia of supporting the rebels with strong military weapon systems. And the risk of a plane taken down is not worth the money. Hell, even if they closed air space above Donetsk and Luhansk, this would just mean a minor detour around Donetsk and Luhansk, the planes would still fly over the rest of Ukraine => money would still be received.
BUK is a weapon system, doesn't mean it is all just one easy to use truck or whatever, it consists of several trucks with their own specialised equipment (missile, radar, tracking, ...) and isn't just easily used.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Zahary7
Look at Spain with Catalonia, the UK with Scotland or Canada with Quebec.
Both Scotland and Quebec had referendums on independence which failed. They failed due to popular support, not some "America wouldn't allow it" theory.
Catalonia is something else, but that is mostly due to internal Spanish problems, not indicative of some wider conspiracy. But yes, nations likely where silent about it to not scof the Spanish allies.
Catalan independence is "illegal", while Kosovar independence isn't
Probably because Kosovar independence is a consequence of ethnic fighting and Serbia wasn't meaningfull to anyone. I don't agree with the Spanish stance on Catalan independence irregardless.
Belgian dissolution would be a nightmare for American.
Depends on how it happens and what the stance is of the new countries. Most likely the split parties would just join NATO and it wouldn't really matter much for America. Wallonia likely would remain in NATO as Belgium imo, while rejoining NATO would go fast for Flanders unless Wallonia is being difficult. The EU is a different topic and this likely would see Flanders economy being ruined. But this isn't really as important to the US.
what would be quicker would be Union with the Netherlands, France and Germany for every linguistic part
I don't at all agree it would be quicker. France and Germany have essentially already infered they don't want to take (back) these regions and the Flemish definitely don't want to join the Netherlands. It would take many years to get to a conclusion on this, if it even is possible.
Belgian dissolution would just cause a big nuisance in Washington.
Nah, Belgium isn't that important to be more than a small nuissance (relatively speaking), the biggest nuissance would be whether or not to move the NATO headquarters somewhere else (from a US point of view, not european).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Honestly the EU level should either replace the national level or the regional and national level should become one, long term ofcourse.
Most things done on a national level can easily be done (better) on a european level (defence, borders, immigration, mobility, environment, infrastructure...) and the things that can't (like cultural affairs, education, ...), can be given to the regional governments.
But ofcourse anything like this is very far off, if ever achieved.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@terron7840 The birthrate decline and aging population isn't just a European phenomenon, but a developed world phenomenon. The higher the living standard, the more the birthrate goes down. Ofcourse there are other factors, but this is a trend. One that eventually will have to be changed by incentivizing getting children (lower costs, more free time, ...). But at this moment the problem is that there is the idea that we already overpopulate the planet, thus we shouldn't incentivize a more than status quo birthrate (2 children per woman/couple). Untill this idea changes, we will probably see an aging population appearing in all nations with high living standards.
As for unelected bureaucrats, popular notion when criticizing the idea, but unsubstantiated.
And then we have your initial claims.
- Manpower: the EU has 110 million more citizens than the US. The combined EU armed forces consists of 1,43 million active personnel, the US has around 1,35 million active personnel. So no, the EU does not lack the manpower to be a super state (if you consider the US one that is).
- Economic capacity: the EU has the 2nd largest GDP in the world, it has the most trade in the world and its currency is the 2nd most used in global trade.
- Industry: the EU has the 2nd largest industrial capacity, right inbetween China and the US (China 4,566, EU 4,184 and US 3,602 billions USD)
So on all these points, the EU definitely has the capacity to be a superpower if you consider the US one.
As for renewables, you do know that renewables make a nations overall less reliant on other countries. Currently what is used? Oil? Gas? Nuclear material? All comes from outside the EU. Only coal is found in the EU.
2
-
2