NationStates Jolt Archive

Where will it be and between whom? I would put up a poll, but i am too lazy.

I think most people would say in Eastern Europe or in the Balkans, which, lets be honest, is probably the most likely place. However, lets push aside those troublesome areas and focus on Western and Central Europe. Does anyone forsee a complete break down of diplomacy in the EU, and a great war ensues between France and the UK, or perhaps Germany and Italy?

The next great war will be between France. France will lose.

Its a massive war against Belarus.

Its a massive war against Belarus.
\

I could see something like that happening, but with Russia having the back of Belarus, which would make it a big problem.

Does anyone forsee a complete break down of diplomacy in the EU, and a great war ensues between France and the UK, or perhaps Germany and Italy?
No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO)

In that case, Europe vs. the Belarus-Russian Alliance. :)

The next great war will be between France. France will lose.

Bigtime. Once dropped never used FAMAS rifles will flood the black market and gunshops in the US as thousands of VETs bring home Trophy rifles....


And the US economy will grow even stronger as we sell guns,ammo, and supplies to both sides and then financing the rebuilding of the warring countreis after it's all over.

Where will it be and between whom? I would put up a poll, but i am too lazy.

I think most people would say in Eastern Europe or in the Balkans, which, lets be honest, is probably the most likely place. However, lets push aside those troublesome areas and focus on Western and Central Europe. Does anyone forsee a complete break down of diplomacy in the EU, and a great war ensues between France and the UK, or perhaps Germany and Italy?

I don't think there has been a war between two democracies in 150 years, so if there is another European war chances are it won't involve one democracy fighting another.

The next great war will be between France. France will lose.
And there's our "France's military sucks" joke for the thread.

Anyway, there won't be a new war in Europe anytime soon. At least, not one that consumes the whole continent. The only way I could see a continental war occuring is with a civil war in one nation--such as, say, France--with one faction declaring war on the rest of Europe. But not only is that highly unlikely, it's just plain stupid.

Defin. something involving Belarus. That Lukashenko...does anyone in Belarus like him? Except the 86% who voted for him. :rolleyes:

No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO)

True, Nato DOES have teeth.

And there's our "France's military sucks" joke for the thread.

Anyway, there won't be a new war in Europe anytime soon. At least, not one that consumes the whole continent. The only way I could see a continental war occuring is with a civil war in one nation--such as, say, France--with one faction declaring war on the rest of Europe. But not only is that highly unlikely, it's just plain stupid.

http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=6/16101575068.jpg&s=f5

You asked for it.

Surrendering
Because fighting to the end just isn't your style.

True, Nato DOES have teeth.
And a good number of European nations are so fully integrated (http://www.arrc.nato.int/divisions/7gediv.htm) that they can only engage major combat together with their allies. And there are a whole lot of combined units (http://www.eurocorps.net/organisation/subordinate_units/german_french_brigade/) with parts from many different nations.

It's hard to say. Not being European and lacking the needed knowledge about the internal workings of the EU, I can't make a guess. Luxembourg vs. Liechtenstein would be cool.

If there is another great war in Europe...it's going to ruin my travel plans for the next couple years. :cool:

Everyone against The Holy See....:eek:

Some eastern-European skirmish is always possible.. of course, it's never a bad idea to keep a wary eye on the Germans.. :p

Liechenstein/Luxembourg/San Marino alliance against Monaco/Andorra/Malta
:mp5::sniper: :)

Where will it be and between whom? I would put up a poll, but i am too lazy.

I think most people would say in Eastern Europe or in the Balkans, which, lets be honest, is probably the most likely place. However, lets push aside those troublesome areas and focus on Western and Central Europe. Does anyone forsee a complete break down of diplomacy in the EU, and a great war ensues between France and the UK, or perhaps Germany and Italy?

I don't foresee a complete breakdown leading to major war. OTOH, I'm not convinced that the EU will be sucessful in creating a USE. (Insert the appropriate de Gaulle quote about cheeses here.)

I don't think there has been a war between two democracies in 150 years, so if there is another European war chances are it won't involve one democracy fighting another.

That's of a myth, which, in part, really depends on defining democracy in a very narrowly limited sense (and is usually formulated as "never" - the 150 years formulation tightens it up better). However, if you do define democratic in a very narrow and modern sense, and add capitalist to the equation, yes, that's more or less true.

The next "great" war will not result from European action. If anything war will only "spill over" into Europe from the Middle East.

Frankly that is the new "hot spot" in the world, and if any kind of "world war" were to occur its roots would be there.


If I had to guess I would say increasing oil dependence by "first world" nations eventually leads to large scale rivalry with the United States slowly losing hegemonic dominance in all three areas of power: ideological (political/diplomatic), coercive (military), and economic. This leads to inreased tensions in the Middle East eventually culminating in an attack on Israel and Israel defending itself with nuclear arms. Once the nuclear weapons get used then a downward spiral occurs. The world energy market will teeter on the verge of collapse and in an effort to secure energy production for their country in the future nations will intervene in the Middle East. World War ensues. Coupled with the breakdown of the energy market a true depression occurs. Corporate reliance on electricity and global communications (out sourcing does require global communication) causes the world's conglomerates to fail.

Now war may well spill over into Europe, but the fighting ostensibly will have nothing to do with Europe. And who comes out on top in the above scenario? Can't really say with any degree of certainty, but I can say that no one comes away unscathed.

NT

Where will it be and between whom? I would put up a poll, but i am too lazy.

I think most people would say in Eastern Europe or in the Balkans, which, lets be honest, is probably the most likely place. However, lets push aside those troublesome areas and focus on Western and Central Europe. Does anyone forsee a complete break down of diplomacy in the EU, and a great war ensues between France and the UK, or perhaps Germany and Italy?
There will be no war in Balkans for another 39 years.

montenegro v serbia

montenegro v serbia
Doubt it.

What's more likely is Belarus and Russia take on the rest of Europe, but as pessimistic as I am, I can't really see that happening.

Chances are, if war does reach Europe, it'll either be imported from another region, or it'll be a cultural war between the 'native' and the 'imported' cultures. Just looking at the rise of extreme-right political parties (yeah, they're small now but growing not only in size but in the number of people who'll publicly stand up as members/sympathizers) and the culture clashes already going on locally (recent example: requests to the city by muslims to move a WWII war monument away from where it's been for decades because the cross on it could be offensive to the muslims visiting the mosque-in-building accross the street and the public outcry and unbelief from the Dutch).

montenegro v serbia
:)
Montenegro have an population of 45% of Serbs, 17% Albanians, 3% Croats, 15% Bosniaks and 20% of Montenegrins, let alone the fact that Montenegrin hymn has one strophe "serbia, our dear mother" and "on Lovcen Negos sleeps, wisest Serb ever"

Whoever fights, Sweden gains from it. Yay!

Whoever fights, Sweden gains from it. Yay!
Yay, more immigrants, yay... (yup, that was sarcasm)

Yay, more immigrants, yay... (yup, that was sarcasm)
Well, Sweden came out richer after the last big war in Europe than before it, so... And I like immigrants, they spice it up a bit.

Well, Sweden came out richer after the last big war in Europe than before it, so... And I like immigrants, they spice it up a bit.
Pst... That could have to do with iron ore etc. Better hush about that one, oh you neutral one ;)

Pst... That could have to do with iron ore etc. Better hush about that one, oh you neutral one ;)
It's already out in the open. Also, since we didn't lose any men in the war, we had the strongest industry for some time after the war.

Russia may start getting uppity about an increasing EU presence on it's doorstep.... the EU stance on Iran, a Russian ally.... the gas supplies, turning them off to the Ukraine earlier this year....could happen again... Belarus could be a factor.

Let's not forget Greek and Turkish Jet Fighters have dog fights over disputed territorial waters everyday, but never to fire on each other, the Turkish are always the ones who start it, sending their Jets intentionally over to Greek claimed waters, the Greeks respond, it's reported.

We saw them have a collision between fighter jets.....there's the Cyprus question....

Eastern Europe a bit volatile...

We've had endless major wars in our history....we've had enough.

I don't think there has been a war between two democracies in 150 years, so if there is another European war chances are it won't involve one democracy fighting another.

I'm not sure about that, but I *do* know that no two countries with McDonalds have ever fought against one another.

McDonalds is in: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and Yugoslavia.

So, any war in Europe must take place between:
Albania, Andorra, Bosnia & Herzogovina, Belarus, Iceland, Norway, Estonia, Latvia, Lichtenstein, Lithuania, Luxemborg, (the former Yugo Rep of) Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, San Marino, Turkey, Ukraine, and/or Vatican City.

... they can go to war with each other, or with an McDonalds nation. Seems like an awful lot of possibilities to me. Moldova gets uppity and insults Malta and *boom*! :D

I'm not sure about that, but I *do* know that no two countries with McDonalds have ever fought against one another.


If to you, a test of whether a country has a Democracy or not is whether they have a McDonalds or not, then I must say, your view of what democracy is, eating a hamburger and fries and drinking a large coke, rather than enjoying political and civil freedoms, is rather worrying, and puts the fear into me about where we, as a human existence, are heading.

Is that what we are coming to?

Where a democracy is measured by whether you can have a Big Mac, and not by saying what you think without persecution, and a form of Governance is elected by the people?

I'm not sure about that, but I *do* know that no two countries with McDonalds have ever fought against one another.

McDonalds is in: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and Yugoslavia.

So, any war in Europe must take place between:
Albania, Andorra, Bosnia & Herzogovina, Belarus, Iceland, Norway, Estonia, Latvia, Lichtenstein, Lithuania, Luxemborg, (the former Yugo Rep of) Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, San Marino, Turkey, Ukraine, and/or Vatican City.

... they can go to war with each other, or with an McDonalds nation. Seems like an awful lot of possibilities to me. Moldova gets uppity and insults Malta and *boom*! :D

What a short memory - Yugoslavia vs Nato was only 7 years ago, so this doesn't even work for Europe.

Let's see... There was the 1999 Kargil war between Pakistan (1st McDs in 1998) and India (1996) and also the US war with Panama in 1989 (1971). I'd also note that the Kargil war occured undere Pakistan's democratic civilian government, and was thus a war between two democracies. And finally, just to cut short the third myth in this vein, nuclear powers have also gone to war (the Korean War and the Kargil war).

If to you, a test of whether a country has a Democracy or not is whether they have a McDonalds or not, then I must say, your view of what democracy is, eating a hamburger and fries and drinking a large coke, rather than enjoying political and civil freedoms, is rather worrying, and puts the fear into me about where we, as a human existence, are heading.

Is that what we are coming to?

Where a democracy is measured by whether you can have a Big Mac, and not by saying what you think without persecution, and a form of Governance is elected by the people?

hehehe - no, he's talking about Thomas L. Friedman's "Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention", which boils down to "no two countries that both had McDonald's (have) fought a war against each other since each got its McDonald's". Like I pointed out, that's been busted.

I'm not sure, but I suspect The Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention ("No two countries that are both part of a major global supply chain, like Dell’s, will never fight a war against each other as long as they are both part of the same global supply chain”) is a bit stronger, but we'll probably see it go down as well.

It's already out in the open. Also, since we didn't lose any men in the war, we had the strongest industry for some time after the war.
I know - it's been discussed on NS in abundance, too.

As for the OP:

If there is another great war in Europe... I'm not going. Simple as that.

What a short memory - Yugoslavia vs Nato was only 7 years ago, so this doesn't even work for Europe.
It wasn't "Real" war.

It wasn't "Real" war.

Ummm... no, it was real. I have friends who served there.

Not so much a great war, but Turkey VS. the EU.

And who comes out on top in the above scenario?

The guy with the biggest guns/most people willing to die of course

Not so much a great war, but Turkey VS. the EU.
Take a boat and sail from Greece to Turkey, ya will be shot down, sail a boat from TUrkey to Greece, ya will be shot down

Ummm... no, it was real. I have friends who served there.
Where? In what army?

Where? In what army?

In Kosovo, one in the US Air Force, and one with the 2-505 PIR.

In Kosovo, one in the US Air Force, and one with the 2-505 PIR.
hahaha.... Serbs fighted on Kosovo against Albanian insurgents (i am talking about ground battles). Anyway that war lasted about month, and during that time Srbs win all ground battles there. Only with international pressure they left the province, so you can't really say that it was real war.

hahaha.... Serbs fighted on Kosovo against Albanian insurgents (i am talking about ground battles). Anyway that war lasted about month, and during that time Srbs win all ground battles there. Only with international pressure they left the province, so you can't really say that it was real war.
If people are shooting at each other, and there are whole armies involved, and a whole bunch of other nasty stuff (ethnic cleasing)

I think all that counts as war

hahaha.... Serbs fighted on Kosovo against Albanian insurgents (i am talking about ground battles). Anyway that war lasted about month, and during that time Srbs win all ground battles there. Only with international pressure they left the province, so you can't really say that it was real war.

1) To paraphrase, "you forgot Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, and the US." All of those countries had military forces in theater. And I'm sure my friend from the 2-505 PIR will be surprised to find out he wasn't there on the ground.

2) The war lasted almost 4 months.

I suggest you go refresh your memory.

1) To paraphrase, "you forgot Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, and the US." All of those countries had military forces in theater. And I'm sure my friend from the 2-505 PIR will be surprised to find out he wasn't there on the ground.

2) The war lasted almost 4 months.

I suggest you go refresh your memory.
Maybe, but during war there wasn't other troops in province than Serb. even Albanians were kicked out. Maybe your friend were staying in Albania or Macedonia, but hat doesn't count for Kosovo.

I know that. My first neighbour fought in that war in Serbian Army.

If people are shooting at each other, and there are whole armies involved, and a whole bunch of other nasty stuff (ethnic cleasing)

I think all that counts as war
Not armies - Serbian Army and Albanian rebels. Either way, Albainans don't have an McDonald.

There probably won't be another war in Europe for a while yet, as long as we don't count the Balkans. I doubt that even Greece and Turkey will go to war. The only country that I would be worried about is Russia, what with them throwing their weight around over gas prices, but I doubt that even they would start a military war. Nope, for the forseeable future, the only warfare in Europe is going to be economic.

It wasn't "Real" war.

Tell that to the dead in the mass graves.

Fargozia']Tell that to the dead in the mass graves.
What mass graves?

There probably won't be another war in Europe for a while yet, as long as we don't count the Balkans.
Greece is on Balkans, so it's kind a hard not to count Balkans as part of Europe. However you speak truth, and Balkan is "again" on the verge of war.

What mass graves?

Ah. I get it. Pretty good I give you a 8.5 out of 10.

There probably won't be another war in Europe for a while yet, as long as we don't count the Balkans. I doubt that even Greece and Turkey will go to war. The only country that I would be worried about is Russia, what with them throwing their weight around over gas prices, but I doubt that even they would start a military war. Nope, for the forseeable future, the only warfare in Europe is going to be economic.

I agree that the Russian scenario seems likely. The only shooting-conflicts I can see happening are further civil wars. Maybe an uprising by Turkish Kurds unless conditions improve, or possibly more ethnic strife in the former Yugoslavia.

How about a non-European country trying to invade Europe?

I agree that the Russian scenario seems likely. The only shooting-conflicts I can see happening are further civil wars. Maybe an uprising by Turkish Kurds unless conditions improve, or possibly more ethnic strife in the former Yugoslavia.
Yup, probably in Bosnia.

All I know, is that if France goes into a major war where its an actual conflict(not an ivory coast/etc thing), I will be going over to do whatever I can for it.

If Europe ever decides that Lukashenko's regime is a threat it could be taken out pretty decisively. The Belarussian military likely consists of Soviet relics, hell, I bet Poland alone could defeat them (not that they'd have to, the Poles have allies with Europe). I think that the possibility of Russia intervening is minute - and if they do, what are they going to do? Die of AIDS at us? Ooooooh, I'm so scared.

The European Project has successfully eliminated the prospect of another "Great War" - however, when the USE comes into being it is possible that that state may descend into civil war at some point... But that is unlikely, and very far off...

*Enjoys European stability...*

Civil war in France, maybe spreads to Spain... Ahhh we can all dream for now.

*votes Wales Vs Italy.

A civil war in Ukraine between pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian factions. Russia and Belarus get involved on the pro-Russian side. Central Europe and NATO come to back the Ukrainian gov. Then from there it turns into a mess. Rest of Eastern Europe and the Balkans become unstable, and major conflicts start popping up around the Black sea and the Balkan states. Then more shit flies and the whole thing spreads into the rest of eastern europe and central Asia. Chechnya becomes hotter than ever due to Russia being distracted. Iran declares support for Russia and mobilizes troops into central Asia and around the Caspian sea. Use your imagination from there.

British football hooligans vs German Neo-nazis. It's just days away! Brace yourself!

If Europe ever decides that Lukashenko's regime is a threat it could be taken out pretty decisively. The Belarussian military likely consists of Soviet relics, hell, I bet Poland alone could defeat them (not that they'd have to, the Poles have allies with Europe). I think that the possibility of Russia intervening is minute - and if they do, what are they going to do? Die of AIDS at us? Ooooooh, I'm so scared.

The European Project has successfully eliminated the prospect of another "Great War" - however, when the USE comes into being it is possible that that state may descend into civil war at some point... But that is unlikely, and very far off...

*Enjoys European stability...*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus/Military If they were desperate they could do some damage. And they'd most likely have Russian backing, no doubt.

Whatever it is, it will involve france, World cup, Soccer, and Lootie.

What a short memory - Yugoslavia vs Nato was only 7 years ago, so this doesn't even work for Europe.

Let's see... There was the 1999 Kargil war between Pakistan (1st McDs in 1998) and India (1996) and also the US war with Panama in 1989 (1971). I'd also note that the Kargil war occured undere Pakistan's democratic civilian government, and was thus a war between two democracies. And finally, just to cut short the third myth in this vein, nuclear powers have also gone to war (the Korean War and the Kargil war).

At that time, there were no McDonalds in Yugoslavia. The war's been over for some time now.

If to you, a test of whether a country has a Democracy or not is whether they have a McDonalds or not, then I must say, your view of what democracy is, eating a hamburger and fries and drinking a large coke, rather than enjoying political and civil freedoms, is rather worrying, and puts the fear into me about where we, as a human existence, are heading.

Is that what we are coming to?

Where a democracy is measured by whether you can have a Big Mac, and not by saying what you think without persecution, and a form of Governance is elected by the people?

I never said that. I said that no two countries that had McDonalds had ever gone to war. No more, no less.
I DO believe that several democracies, however, have gone to war. Off the top of my head:

* Germany was a democracy in WW2.
* Most certainly Mexico was a democracy in 1840 (during the Mexican American War). The Presidents were Santa Ana and Pena.
* Both sides in the US Civil War were democracies.
* The Boer War.
* Turkey invading Cyprus.

At that time, there were no McDonalds in Yugoslavia. The war's been over for some time now.

There most certainly was a McDonalds in Belgrade at the time. I very distinctly remember seeing footage of a rioting crowd trashing the place on the news just before NATO started dropping the bombs. They've been there since the '80s. [1 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DEED7143EF932A1575BC0A960948260)].

There most certainly was a McDonalds in Belgrade at the time. I very distinctly remember seeing footage of a rioting crowd trashing the place on the news just before NATO started dropping the bombs. They've been there since the '80s. [1 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DEED7143EF932A1575BC0A960948260)].

And the country Yugoslavia fought that also had a McDonalds?

I never said that. I said that no two countries that had McDonalds had ever gone to war. No more, no less.
I DO believe that several democracies, however, have gone to war. Off the top of my head:

* Germany was a democracy in WW2.
* Most certainly Mexico was a democracy in 1840 (during the Mexican American War). The Presidents were Santa Ana and Pena.
* Both sides in the US Civil War were democracies.
* The Boer War.
* Turkey invading Cyprus.

India-Pakistan
USA-England (England's democracy may have been limited in 1812, but it was a democracy.)
WWI (Germany had an elected parlement, competing parties, and universal male suffrage.)



Of course, again, if you tighten up the definition to exclude these and other examples, you end up a meaningless rule of thumb due to an extremely short time frame (modern tightly defined democracies are quite new), the low numbers (essentially NAmerica, Western Europe, and a sprinkling of others), and external factors (the Cold War prevented the Western Europeans and NAmericans from fighting, the Neutrals were sandwiched between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and the rest were too far spreadout).

And the country Yugoslavia fought that also had a McDonalds?

:eek: Did you forget this war involved the US? Also, most, if not all, of the other NATO states have McDonalds (as per your list above).

And even if you discount NATO-Yugoslavia, you still have to account for the two others for this to be true. It's these exceptions that caused Friedman to rename it the Dell Theory and recouch the terms.

At that time, there were no McDonalds in Yugoslavia. The war's been over for some time now.
Wrong. Yugoslavia have a McDonalds since 1989.

India-Pakistan
:eek: Did you forget this war involved the US? Also, most, if not all, of the other NATO states have McDonalds (as per your list above).
Since i was in Serbian (Yugoslavian is an insult) army during Kosovo war, i can say that i didn't see not even ONE NATO soldier during the war. Only when war was over they arrived from Macedonia and Albania. Too bad they didn't try that during the war...

The next Great European War will be fought by the New Republic of Quebec and Venezuala. Although these are not "technically" European Nations, they will fight in Europe because of scheduling difficulties, logistic concerns and favorable currency conversion rates. The war will spread like wildfire engulfing the entire Iberian peninsula and spreading quickly to Mongolia and finally Hawaii. It will be an enormous clash of the two dominant religions: Mormon and Shinto.

Where will it be and between whom? I would put up a poll, but i am too lazy.

I think most people would say in Eastern Europe or in the Balkans, which, lets be honest, is probably the most likely place. However, lets push aside those troublesome areas and focus on Western and Central Europe. Does anyone forsee a complete break down of diplomacy in the EU, and a great war ensues between France and the UK, or perhaps Germany and Italy?There won't be another Great War anytime soon. The economies are much too interlinked. Russia won't do anything to Western Europe because it needs Western Europe to buy all of its natural gas. Western Europe wouldn't do anything because they will need Russia's NG in the future, once Norway and Scotland run out of oil. The Balkans is the only place anything might start, but considering how closely some of the states are now linked to the EU, it would be unlikely that the others will try to alienate themselves.

In all, war in Europe is hardly likely in this day. War has become much too expensive.

* Germany was a democracy in WW2.You're kidding, right?

Only when war was over they arrived from Macedonia and Albania. Too bad they didn't try that during the war...
You'll be glad to hear that that seems to be the sentiment of most of the NATO personnel that were around at the time as well.
But perhaps it was better this way. At least Serbia is still intact this way.

You'll be glad to hear that that seems to be the sentiment of most of the NATO personnel that were around at the time as well.
But perhaps it was better this way. At least Serbia is still intact this way.
Perhaps...

And how silly that would have been. Another one of those wars where in hindsight it is hard to tell just why it was really waged.

Perhaps...
Surely, even a soldier or patriot from Serbia would have preferred this outcome to a NATO invasion. For about a week or so there might've been war, and afterwards you'd have ended up in some prison camp.
And as BogMarsh pointed out before, during the Kosovo campaign the rules of engagement were quite harsh at times - destroying the target came before potential civilian causalties.
So the choice was between a face-saving political defeat for Serbia, and the country being annihilated politically, militarily and economically.

Surely, even a soldier or patriot from Serbia would have preferred this outcome to a NATO invasion. For about a week or so there might've been war, and afterwards you'd have ended up in some prison camp.
And as BogMarsh pointed out before, during the Kosovo campaign the rules of engagement were quite harsh at times - destroying the target came before potential civilian causalties.
So the choice was between a face-saving political defeat for Serbia, and the country being annihilated politically, militarily and economically.
Or NATO soldiers would end-up just like Germans, Austrians, Turks, Bulgarians and Hungarians in the past.

Dead, or running home to their mommas.

During the first month of aggresion NATO financed Albanian troops to try to take an control over Albania-Serban border. They ended up dead, scatered and humiliated. After that Serbs sent Spec Ops unit in to the North Albania, wich attacked and sucesfully destroyed an hellipad with eight Apaches and ammo depot. you can guess what happened to NATO soldiers there. After that US stopped advocating ground war, and thus leaving UK as only NATO country wich wanted an ground war.

Or NATO soldiers would end-up just like Germans, Austrians, Turks, Bulgarians and Hungarians in the past.Except there were no Russia or Western Allies to draw off most of those NATO forces...

Except there were no Russia or Western Allies to draw off most of those NATO forces...
Especialy when France was conquered, Britain having problems in North Africa, and CCCP and Germany have signed Non-Agression treaty...

Or NATO soldiers would end-up just like Germans, Austrians, Turks, Bulgarians and Hungarians in the past.

Dead, or running home to their mommas.
Whatever dude.
Third-rate ancient Soviet equipment, command positions and communication lines cut off and just generally too slow to react, against NATO, the most powerful military force in history.
And you would've won. All thanks to your superior Serbianness.

Whatever dude.
Third-rate ancient Soviet equipment, command positions and communication lines cut off and just generally too slow to react, against NATO, the most powerful military force in history.
And you would've won. All thanks to your superior Serbianness.
Not Soviet - Serbian. Serbs use mixed west/east weapons, but all these weapons and equipement are modified and changed, so Serbs use pretty unique weapons.

Do you know how Serb command and field units operated duing the war? Using Cell phones:D !

And what makes you think that Serb army is slow to react?

I don't know who would have won, but NATO would suffer high losses.

Next war in Europe will properly be a civil war possibly; France between those who are extreme nationalist and those who are socialists.

Luxembourg vz Sino-Russia.

Luxembourg to win by an innings and 6 wickets.

Not Soviet - Serbian. Serbs use mixed west/east weapons, but all these weapons and equipement are modified and changed, so Serbs use pretty unique weapons.
Unique, perhaps. I'm not a specialist on these things, but I think we can agree that a T-55 or M-84 are probably no match for an Abrams, Leopard II or Leclerc.
Same goes for pretty much any category of equipment. It's simply a reflection of the West's vastly greater economic power.

Do you know how Serb command and field units operated duing the war? Using Cell phones:D !
Those can be scrambled or targeted, if need be.

And what makes you think that Serb army is slow to react?
That they didn't have enough motorised vehicles to move their soldiers around for example. Especially if NATO has air superiority (which they obviously did).

I don't know who would have won, but NATO would suffer high losses.
I suppose it depends. If they'd had to go in suddenly, then maybe. But if they had been able to wait, prepare and choose their moment, then chances would be that it would've been a walkover, like it was against Iraq during Desert Storm.

Unique, perhaps. I'm not a specialist on these things, but I think we can agree that a T-55 or M-84 are probably no match for an Abrams, Leopard II or Leclerc.
Same goes for pretty much any category of equipment. It's simply a reflection of the West's vastly greater economic power.

SNIP
.


Dear me. We've got all the T55s we want ourselves.
In museums.

Dear me. We've got all the T55s we want ourselves.
In museums.
Hey, it is the Serb Army's (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/serbia/army.htm) most numerous (400) tank design. They have a modified T-72 called M-84 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-84) as well, which may be useful, but still I don't think it's quite up to the level of an Abrams.

Hey, it is the Serb Army's (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/serbia/army.htm) most numerous (400) tank design. They have a modified T-72 called M-84 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-84) as well, which may be useful, but still I don't think it's quite up to the level of an Abrams.

I know about the Serbian TOE.
I know what an M84 is, and what it can do.
There is no MBT in production anywhere ( and that includes current chinese or indian designs ) that has a problem tearing through that kind of opposition.

Unique, perhaps. I'm not a specialist on these things, but I think we can agree that a T-55 or M-84 are probably no match for an Abrams, Leopard II or Leclerc.
T-55 is just an ordinary trash can, on the other hand M-84 is more than good enough to match any of those tanks, except leopard II wich didn't existed during that war

Same goes for pretty much any category of equipment. It's simply a reflection of the West's vastly greater economic power.
You would be suprised, how much Serbian army is even now advanced in equipement category. Personal weapons, gear and uniformes are better than in most NATO countries

Those can be scrambled or targeted, if need be.
Yeah, than you would get an 50.000 potential sources. As smart bombs are extremly dumb, they can easily be fooled with ordinary camp fire, i know this because we did that in war.


That they didn't have enough motorised vehicles to move their soldiers around for example. Especially if NATO has air superiority (which they obviously did).
Wrong, Serbs have more than enough military vehicles to move around.


I suppose it depends. If they'd had to go in suddenly, then maybe. But if they had been able to wait, prepare and choose their moment, then chances would be that it would've been a walkover, like it was against Iraq during Desert Storm.
Don't mix desert war with the one in Serbia especialy for the terrain configuration wich in some parts of Kosovo and southern Serbia extremly mountanious.

leopard II wich didn't existed during that war
The Leopard II has been around since 1979. The A5 entered service in 1995.

You would be suprised, how much Serbian army is even now advanced in equipement category. Personal weapons, gear and uniformes are better than in most NATO countries
Superior uniforms, hey? Excellent. As for rifles, I'd say that accuracy-wise the Serb Kalashnikov-modifications were lacking against M-16s and G-3s used by NATO, not to speak of things like the G36 (introduced in '95) or the FAMAS. But guns aren't my specialty.

Yeah, than you would get an 50.000 potential sources.
True. Nonetheless, movement and communication would be difficult under a sky ruled by NATO air power.

As smart bombs are extremly dumb, they can easily be fooled with ordinary camp fire, i know this because we did that in war.
Once things go down to destroying an army rather than infrastructure, smart bombs probably would've gotten ditched in favour of more direct approaches - A-10s would come to mind.

Wrong, Serbs have more than enough military vehicles to move around.
Not when planes are looking for every convoi and greater troop movement. The reason the Serb Army wasn't destroyed by the NATO air forces was because they hid and didn't move around in the open.
If NATO armoured columns are moving into the country, they wouldn't be able to stay that low-profile.

Don't mix desert war with the one in Serbia especialy for the terrain configuration wich in some parts of Kosovo and southern Serbia.
The comparison is more with regards to an army which considered itself pretty capable just not being able to stand up to the force of modern shock & awe warfare and the enormous technological superiority of NATO.
The terrain would obviously have been considered by NATO commanders.

The Leopard II has been around since 1979. The A5 entered service in 1995.
My mistake, i mixed him with Chalenger II


Superior uniforms, hey? Excellent. As for rifles, I'd say that accuracy-wise the Serb Kalashnikov-modifications were lacking against M-16s and G-3s used by NATO, not to speak of things like the G36 (introduced in '95) or the FAMAS. But guns aren't my specialty.
AP M-80 (Serbian version of AK-74) is even better than anscient M-16, did you know that Albanians threw away M-16 given to them bu US military and took back Serb made AP M-80? Same things did Croats and Muslims.
There is an Serbian company (MD) wich produces equipement for NATO and SERBIAN army, even during Slobodan Milosevic.

True. Nonetheless, movement and communication would be difficult under a sky ruled by NATO air power.
True.

Once things go down to destroying an army rather than infrastructure, smart bombs probably would've gotten ditched in favour of more direct approaches - A-10s would come to mind.
A-10s actively took part in war. During war only 3 (three) Serbian M-84 were destroyed. i believe that some 4 or 5 A-10s were shoot down.

Not when planes are looking for every convoi and greater troop movement. The reason the Serb Army wasn't destroyed by the NATO air forces was because they hid and didn't move around in the open.
If NATO armoured columns are moving into the country, they wouldn't be able to stay that low-profile.
Yes, especialy when attacking NATO from ambushes

The comparison is more with regards to an army which considered itself pretty capable just not being able to stand up to the force of modern shock & awe warfare and the enormous technological superiority of NATO.
The terrain would obviously have been considered by NATO commanders.

If war has started this would be NATO strategy: Attack from Hungary and Albania/Macedonia with constant air support, I believe that Albanian and Macedonian attack could be rebuffed, but attack from Hungary would be lethal, "thanks" to the lowlands in Northern Serbia.

My mistake, i mixed him with Chalenger II
A Challenger I would still be a match for an M-84 though.

AP M-80 (Serbian version of AK-74) is even better than anscient M-16, did you know that Albanians threw away M-16 given to them bu US military and took back Serb made AP M-80? Same things did Croats and Muslims.
There are probably various Americans on this forum who know more about this. I remember a long discussion about the relatively greater accuracy of the M-16 over the AK, but nothing was said about Serb modifications.
Suffice to say that training would probably have been better on the NATO side, making relative rifle accuracy fairly insignificant.

There is an Serbian company (MD) wich produces equipement for NATO and SERBIAN army, even during Slobodan Milosevic.
What sort of equipment?

A-10s actively took part in war. During war only 3 (three) Serbian M-84 were destroyed. i believe that some 4 or 5 A-10s were shoot down.
I'd say two things:
First, the reason so few Serb military units were destroyed was because they were not the main things NATO wanted to attack. The plan was instead to attack the Serb government and infrastructure to force Milosevic to call his troops back without them having to be fought and defeated. Nonetheless, A-10s did fly missions (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200108/ai_n8957349), which were usually quite successful. Now imagine that sort of weapon when it doesn't have to look for targets, but can simply engage the Serbs as they come out to attack NATO ground forces. It would be carnage.
Secondly, planes that do the sort of missions that A-10s are made for are bound to be in the firing line and suffer casualties. However, it should be noted that most planes weren't damaged, and that the A-10 is very good at taking damage without crashing.

Yes, especialy when attacking NATO from ambushes
That's an issue when NATO can have eyes and ears everywhere. Their units would be powerful and quite capable of defending themselves, requiring large Serb forces to concentrate. And whenever they do, NATO just calls the planes that are constantly overhead.

If war has started this would be NATO strategy: Attack from Hungary and Albania/Macedonia with constant air support, I believe that Albanian and Macedonian attack could be rebuffed, but attack from Hungary would be lethal, "thanks" to the lowlands in Northern Serbia.
The US particularly (and chances are that they would be the main party on the side of NATO) doesn't enter combat unless it has absolute superiority in materiel. If there was a chance that attacks could be beaten back, they'd rather make them even stronger.

Secondly, planes that do the sort of missions that A-10s are made for are bound to be in the firing line and suffer casualties. However, it should be noted that most planes weren't damaged, and that the A-10 is very good at taking damage without crashing.

No A-10s were lost during operations over the Balkans.

One F-16 was shot down, and one F-117 Stealth Fighter was shot down.

No A-10s were lost during operations over the Balkans.
Oops, I forgot the link (http://members.tripod.com/YUModelClub/war_over_yugoslav/a10.htm). Anyways, are you sure?

A Challenger I would still be a match for an M-84 though.
Yes, and likeways

There are probably various Americans on this forum who know more about this. I remember a long discussion about the relatively greater accuracy of the M-16 over the AK, but nothing was said about Serb modifications.
Suffice to say that training would probably have been better on the NATO side, making relative rifle accuracy fairly insignificant.
Maybe they threw them away because US give them old versiones, that probably didn't work?
Yes, NATO have better training, but you forget that more than 60% of Serbian troops are battle-hardened veterans from Croatia and Bosnia wars.

What sort of equipment?
Kevlars, uniforms, helmets... here is the link:
http://www.armyequipment.com/

I'd say two things:
First, the reason so few Serb military units were destroyed was because they were not the main things NATO wanted to attack. The plan was instead to attack the Serb government and infrastructure to force Milosevic to call his troops back without them having to be fought and defeated. Nonetheless, A-10s did fly which were usually quite successful. Now imagine that sort of weapon when it doesn't have to look for targets, but can simply engage the Serbs as they come out to attack NATO ground forces. It would be carnage.
Secondly, planes that do the sort of missions that A-10s are made for are bound to be in the firing line and suffer casualties. However, it should be noted that most planes weren't damaged, and that the A-10 is very good at taking damage without crashing.
Yes, NATO wanted to Serbs stop fighting, so they could avoid ground battle. That's why they focused on infra, not on the military targets.
What would have happen if war started noone knows.

That's an issue when NATO can have eyes and ears everywhere. Their units would be powerful and quite capable of defending themselves, requiring large Serb forces to concentrate. And whenever they do, NATO just calls the planes that are constantly overhead.

Not everywhere. And Crna Strela doesnt't need to be close to open fire.

The US particularly (and chances are that they would be the main party on the side of NATO) doesn't enter combat unless it has absolute superiority in materiel. If there was a chance that attacks could be beaten back, they'd rather make them even stronger.
That is why they didn't enter combat. They send Albanians to probe Serbian defences, and when Serbs easily rebuffed Albanian attacks, who had FULL support of NATO airforce, they just calculated that war would be too bloody and too expensive, althou i am sure that eventually NATO would win

...war would be too bloody and too expensive, althou i am sure that eventually NATO would win
Which was my original point - namely that it was better that Serbia was defeated in this way, rather than in a full-scale war. Both for NATO, which saved money and effort and for Serbs, which didn't get their country blown up from under them.

Which was my original point - namely that it was better that Serbia was defeated in this way, rather than in a full-scale war. Both for NATO, which saved money and effort and for Serbs, which didn't get their country blown up from under them.
Heh, and i thought that your point is that war would be walkover....

Heh, and i thought that your point is that war would be walkover....
Just went back to read from 'The Transformation of American Air Power'.

Apparently, Clinton placed severe, unreasonable, and seemingly random restrictions on US fighter aircraft operating over Serbia and Kosovo - restrictions that did not apply to other NATO aircraft, but were instrumental in getting US aircraft shot down at a rate far higher than expected.

This included keeping US aircraft in repeated, specified lanes at the same altitude and same time every day, and overflying known SAM sites even though Air Force doctrine forbids this. The micromanagement of the air campaign by the White House was unparalleled since the McNamara micromanagement of the Vietnam air campaign - with similar results. The Air Force attributes the shoot down of the F-117 to this very problem.

The Serbs had observers at the Italian air force base that the F-117s flew out of - and since the planes took the exact same route at the same time every night, it was easy for observers and listeners along the way to track the aircraft visually (even at night). They were kept in constant observation and were likely hit by a SAM fired on a visual boresight.

The flight restrictions were also responsible for the shootdown of the F-16 piloted by Scott O'Grady, who was flying, per instructions from the White House, just above cloud cover so as not to provide a visually menacing presence - a position where he was not able to see the SAM that was fired at him in time to react.

If the Air Force is used in a way where it is not micromanaged from the White House by people who have no idea how to use airpower, it works a lot more effectively with far fewer losses.

Don't forget about two other F-117s, one that landed in Macedonia and other in Croatia. They never flyed again...
Just curious: do you know who was the man that shoot down F-117 in Serbia?

Where will it be and between whom? I would put up a poll, but i am too lazy.

I think most people would say in Eastern Europe or in the Balkans, which, lets be honest, is probably the most likely place. However, lets push aside those troublesome areas and focus on Western and Central Europe. Does anyone forsee a complete break down of diplomacy in the EU, and a great war ensues between France and the UK, or perhaps Germany and Italy?
No. If there will be a major conflict it will be between the muslims and the rest. More like a civilwar.

Or NATO soldiers would end-up just like Germans, Austrians, Turks, Bulgarians and Hungarians in the past.

Dead, or running home to their mommas.

During the first month of aggresion NATO financed Albanian troops to try to take an control over Albania-Serban border. They ended up dead, scatered and humiliated. After that Serbs sent Spec Ops unit in to the North Albania, wich attacked and sucesfully destroyed an hellipad with eight Apaches and ammo depot. you can guess what happened to NATO soldiers there. After that US stopped advocating ground war, and thus leaving UK as only NATO country wich wanted an ground war.
Im not underestimating veteran Serbian soldiers but that crusader attitude would have done little help if NATO actually allowed a medium sized Turkish force to systematically clean target areas. Turkish military is the only army known in the world that achieved success against guerilla war with regular army. Our standart blue berets are an another story, mountain commandos and parachute commandos are capable of marching and fighting hundreds of kilometers in the most rought terrain. Excellently trained for urban combat too. And they are not just that good in turkish army but turkish soldiers in french legion and other european armies are highly esteemed by their commanders too. Their value is not in their violence but in their discipline.

Any european special force would have got good results if acted on their own accord but they were commanded from far and forced to stay on plans dictated. The NAto forces have good experiance on working together but by their field commanders, not from politicians far away. Because as far as I know the Nato forces are highly trained and excellent in modern tactics. The serbians may have thrown m-16's because they are not efficent in fire control but highly disciplined nato forces can create devastating results with them at higher ranges and higher accuracy. Its 5.56 ammuniton doesnt have as much impact as 7.62 counterpart yes, but Natos main approach is different. Its decided to create a more and more controlled power than just increase overall devastation. Its more focused on crippling enemy resistance.
As much as Ak-74 may be advanced then Ak 47 its still a crude weapon mostly for lowly trained guerillas. It pulls up like a mule when firing. ı much prefer new advanced m-16. Or if fighting against guerilas good old G3. Has 7.62 ammo but much more accuracy, can be used effectively in semi auto as it can give light machine gun support. Its an old weapon with lots of add ons like effective scopes that enable sniping, shotguns, bomb throwers, a simple bipod that will be of tremendous help too. Germans make good weapons as always.

By the way as far as I remember in all combined crusades against turks serbians with other balkan nations to aid Byzantine Empire, they were pretty much slaughtered. Our cavalary of 10000 pretty much destroyed enemy forces of 60000 (which was gathered by order of Pope 5.th Urban) with a good old night raid. After that war Bulgars surrendered then Serbians too etc. etc. after bringing more turks from asia we continued to conquer further. It was the beginning of Ottoman Empire and still they were relatively small and not so powerful. Later there were another crusades but the Ottoman cannon brigade was founded and armies grew ever bigger.
So dont get cocky ;) You may brag to those who dont know about balkan history but not to me.
Here read some, this site has very little information but at least you will learn something. http://www.theottomans.org/english/index.asp

Well, i was talking about 18th-20th century, when Serbian Army defeated Turks in most battles, despite being outnumbered, like in Misar, Deligrad, Ivankovac...

And Serbs defeated Albanian terrorists, only when NATO agression ended they returned.

I don't think that Turkish army could defeat Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece...

And i clame that IF Turkish army enter the war, in the end of the War, there would be no Turkish army...
with all due respect...

http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/bravo/balkan1912.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/first-balkan-war

I forget to add: AK-47 (or Serbian version AP M-80) is most reliable weapon in the world! M-16 is simply too large, and it have "choke" problem.
Why do you think that most Eastern European countries alowed AK to remain in service? It's fine, good and trustworthy, easy to maintain and operate, very easy to modificate and use weapon. Also Serbian military have in it's ranks some G4s, and new 5.26 M21s Automatsku Pusku.

The next time around, the US should sit out the war, and eat popcorn.

Maybe we'll get to see Europe do the encore of The Hundred Years War (or maybe just The Thirty Years War, Redux).

We can keep it going by randomly airdropping guns and ammunition in one area or another.

The next time around, the US should sit out the war, and eat popcorn.

Maybe we'll get to see Europe do the encore of The Hundred Years War (or maybe just The Thirty Years War, Redux).

We can keep it going by randomly airdropping guns and ammunition in one area or another.
Damn' straight!

The next time around, the US should sit out the war, and eat popcorn.

Maybe we'll get to see Europe do the encore of The Hundred Years War (or maybe just The Thirty Years War, Redux).

We can keep it going by randomly airdropping guns and ammunition in one area or another.

You do realise, don't you - that Americans cannot refrain from minding other people's business?

The reason that the US somehow always slips out of Isolationism-mode ( in the same way that it slips out of Prohobition-mode ) is that it goes entirely contrary to the American Mindset.

I can't see there being another great war between European nations. Perhaps there could be some more skirmishes in the Balkans, but I doubt that would end up leading to WW2-style chaos across Europe. If there was going to be another major conflict across Europe I think it would take the form of a sort of transnational civil war, which would pit the muslims and some indigenous European left wingers against the anti-muslim European forces. The increasing islamisation of Europe seems to make this a more realistic possibility all the time.

I would say that, if it was between nations and not terrorists, it would be between American and Europe - especially the UK, which is, results show (and I agree) sick of the one-way special relationship with America.

Where will it be and between whom? I would put up a poll, but i am too lazy.

I think most people would say in Eastern Europe or in the Balkans, which, lets be honest, is probably the most likely place. However, lets push aside those troublesome areas and focus on Western and Central Europe. Does anyone forsee a complete break down of diplomacy in the EU, and a great war ensues between France and the UK, or perhaps Germany and Italy?

If there ever would be another great war within Europe it will be insurrection and rebellion stemming from discontent with the Western policy toward Arab immigrants. Russia, with a circumstantial alliance with China in defense of Iranian interests, will seize upon the disorder and clamp down on its former satellites. Any war within Europe will result in the involvement of virtually the entire world.

I would say that, if it was between nations and not terrorists, it would be between American and Europe - especially the UK, which is, results show (and I agree) sick of the one-way special relationship with America.

I doubt that there will be a war between America and Europe in the foreseeable future. Of course, if an Arabic-Muslim insurrection (or similar radical change in the governance of western European nations, or the institution of a radical president and congress even crazier than Bush), then war between the US and Europe would be quite possible.

Since i was in Serbian (Yugoslavian is an insult) army during Kosovo war, i can say that i didn't see not even ONE NATO soldier during the war. Only when war was over they arrived from Macedonia and Albania. Too bad they didn't try that during the war...

Was the NATO bombing and (limited as it was) ground excursions accross the border during the bombing (just because you didn't see NATO ground forces doesn't mean they weren't there - boots on the ground are boots on the ground) to be a war or not? If the Golden Arches Theory is accurate, then you don't consider the trashing of your homeland by a foreign military force, whether those acts were primarily aerial or lkand based, to be a war. If you consider it a war, then the Golden Arches Theory falls back to (at a minimum) the wars between Panama-US and India-Pakistan, and thus still fails.

The next time around, the US should sit out the war, and eat popcorn.

Maybe we'll get to see Europe do the encore of The Hundred Years War (or maybe just The Thirty Years War, Redux).

We can keep it going by randomly airdropping guns and ammunition in one area or another.

To agree with Danekia (probably to his (?) surprise...), damn straight! I'm for getting the hell out of Europe, Africa, the Middle east, Latin America, etc., and sitting back selling them all enough arms to sort out their problems.

Was the NATO bombing and (limited as it was) ground excursions accross the border during the bombing (just because you didn't see NATO ground forces doesn't mean they weren't there - boots on the ground are boots on the ground) to be a war or not? If the Golden Arches Theory is accurate, then you don't consider the trashing of your homeland by a foreign military force, whether those acts were primarily aerial or lkand based, to be a war. If you consider it a war, then the Golden Arches Theory falls back to (at a minimum) the wars between Panama-US and India-Pakistan, and thus still fails.
We had an ground war: Serbs vs. Terrorists
We had an aerial war: NATO vs. Serbs

I am sure that during the war we controled entire Kosovo.

It was terrorist vs Regular Army units, on Serbian territory fight, quite common in the world (North Ireland, Kurdistan...), WITH aerial and logistic support of the NATO, wich supported terrorists.

To agree with Danekia (probably to his (?) surprise...), damn straight! I'm for getting the hell out of Europe, Africa, the Middle east, Latin America, etc., and sitting back selling them all enough arms to sort out their problems.
Exactly! Now sit at your home, sell weapons to whomever you like, but do not interfere (except when US is directly threatened).

We had an aerial war: NATO vs. Serbs

As long as you'll agree that NATO vs Yugoslavia* a war, aerial or otherwise, it constituted a war between not only one, but several states with Micky Dee's GAs. Thus, along with the other example, negating the Golden Arches Theory.

Exactly! Now sit at your home, sell weapons to whomever you like, but do not interfere (except when US is directly threatened).

I'd like nothing better. Too bad too many of my countrymen are interventionist idiots.


*Call it an insult if you want. I don't give a flying fuck. However, everything I read at the time had you still calling your state Yugoslavia at the time...

*Call it an insult if you want. I don't give a flying fuck. However, everything I read at the time had you still calling your state Yugoslavia at the time...
And everything BBC/SKY at the time said is "Serb forces did this, Serb forces did that"

But i guess Serbia didn't tehnicaly existed back then, and since it was HUNGARIAN guy who shoot down an F117, Yugolavian is right term to use.

EDIT: Don't swear, behave nice!

The EU is too pussy to do anything, and I'm pretty sure that Serbia learned its lesson.

I highly doubt that any possibility of a war between a number of European nations could exist, as the governments won't go to war or anything. Maybe with organised crime or terrorists, but not in the conventional sense, no.