• Europe forges ahead with plans for 'EU army'
    135 replies, posted
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51010346]That's kinda why I'm asking where the 2% came from - is it just NATO saying "Yeah this is the amount we need" or is it something Denmark (along with everybody else) agreed actually to at some point?[/QUOTE] In theory it's supposed to make sure every member state has a decent military but really it's about how you spend the money, not how much. Still I agree with increasing military spending because I think we shouldn't be cheaping out on military. I mean, haven't we learned anything from our history? Germany took over the Netherlands in three days because we didn't have a proper contemporary military at the time. Can we really trust Putin to not to the same? He's just going to more mad the longer he stays in power. Furthermore, we are engaging in more and more military operations all over the world while cutting military spending. This is counter intuitive.
[QUOTE=Jund;51010294]yeah that's why you're the ones buying f-35s and we're not the ones buying eurofighters[/QUOTE] Anyone comparing the Eurofighter to the F-35 is a retard, the Eurofighter is an air superiority fighter, the F-35 is a multirole, its perfectly reasonable for a nation to have both in their inventory. Its like comparing a sedan to a pick-up truck The US already has thousands of fighters that fit that role which don't need replacing, they were never even offered to the USAF.
[QUOTE=Saturn V;51010058]eu countries pretty much are a single territory dude lol[/QUOTE] I mean I dunno many single territory jurisdictions that have fences on their borders, often opposing foreign affair goals and who constantly antagonize one another. I'd throw in exchanging insults and actively working against your supposed allies, but to be fair this is not typical for most EU countries. I won't lie, although I still think that the ultimate path for Europe will be, or at the very least should be, unity, I am extremely skeptical of our current state of affairs. We've completely mishandled the worst that this decade has thrown at us, and although the EU's administrative bodies have their flaws, this has mostly been due to struggles between [i]member-states[/i]. An EU army would be like a NATO without the US, and is bound to magnify the differences in policy and agendas we already have tenfold. I wouldn't want for example, for Greek territorial integrity to rely on Slovakia, and vice-versa. We have a [B]LONG[/B] way to go before a European army is a decent option.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51010108]i'd be glad for this to go through, so we don't have to spend as much money being europe's military protection[/QUOTE] Do you really think you do it out of the goodness of your heart? How strong do you think America's power projection would be if you didn't have bases in Europe?
[QUOTE=Cructo;51010375]Well, since the EU doesn't even make up for 1/3 of total NATO spending, I'm guessing everyone would have to at least get 2% of their GDP to at least match what America is spending.[/QUOTE] Should Europe match the US' spending, though? The US does a lot more with its military than Denmark does, and NATO is (after all) a defensive alliance - the US wanting to spend a lot of money shouldn't have any bearing on how much Denmark or anyone else should spend. Spending should grounded in what is needed for defense of countries in the alliance, not what some single member spends. Now I don't think that's why NATO has the 2% guideline - it is probably grounded in hypothetical scenarios where Russia attacks a NATO country. Is additional spending actually needed, though, to keep NATO countries safe?
IMO the 2% is an arbitrary specification, functional specifications would've being way more sensible.
[QUOTE=Cructo;51010375]Well, since the EU doesn't even make up for 1/3 of total NATO spending, I'm guessing everyone would have to at least get 2% of their GDP to at least match what America is spending.[/QUOTE] America spends at least 40% of the world's military spending, I don't think we want to match that. It's far too much.
[QUOTE=Lolkork;51010420]Why would a country in the middle east be a military threat?[/QUOTE] dont jinx it europe has gotta prepare for an inevitable attack by the amazingly competent, well equipped and well trained northern cypriot army
[QUOTE=LordLoss;51010398]Anyone comparing the Eurofighter to the F-35 is a retard, the Eurofighter is an air superiority fighter, the F-35 is a multirole, its perfectly reasonable for a nation to have both in their inventory. Its like comparing a sedan to a pick-up truck The US already has thousands of fighters that fit that role which don't need replacing, they were never even offered to the USAF.[/QUOTE] really i thought you guys reclassified the eurofighter as a multirole with the tranche upgrades since the partner states realized having a high end extremely specialized air superiority fighter with almost no atg capability was stupid [editline]6th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51010318]that was literally a question because if he was saying the eurofighter can't get off the ground but the f-35 can, i'm interested to know the reasoning considering the f-35 is still in testing while the eurofighter is in active service[/QUOTE] eurofighters are quite similar to germany's top ww2 tanks: when they work they're great at what they were built to do, but they often don't and are wildly expensive for what little they give. that makes it less attractive for exports, and less units produced means costs goes up which feeds into the loop between eurofighter partner states there are about 500 eurofighters with another 130~ planned/ordered between austria, kuwait, oman, and saudi arabia for the f-35 there are [B]over 2000[/B] units planned for the US alone with 800~ planned/ordered for the UK, italy, australia, israel, denmark, turkey, korea, norway, and the netherlands
[QUOTE=Jund;51010530] eurofighters are quite similar to germany's top ww2 tanks: when they work they're great at what they were built to do, but they often don't and are wildly expensive for what little they give. that makes it less attractive for exports, and less units produced means costs goes up which feeds into the loop between eurofighter partner states there are about 500 eurofighters with another 130~ planned/ordered between austria, kuwait, oman, and saudi arabia for the f-35 there are [B]over 2000[/B] units planned for the US alone with 800~ planned/ordered for the UK, italy, australia, israel, denmark, turkey, korea, norway, and the netherlands[/QUOTE] right, but I wasn't comparing them on performance, i was asking zillamaster why he thinks the eurofighter takes forever to get off the ground, and if he was comparing it to the F-35 which as far as I know hasn't actually gotten off the ground in active service maybe i should have just taken it at face value as a snarky comment
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51010441] Now I don't think that's why NATO has the 2% guideline - it is probably grounded in hypothetical scenarios where Russia attacks a NATO country. Is additional spending actually needed, though, to keep NATO countries safe?[/QUOTE] The 2% GDP guideline is to encourage countries to spend on their militaries. If a country spent almost nothing on their military. Then were invaded or otherwise needed the military, it isn't something they can just go out and purchase. Ukraine is a good example of this. How long did it take for them to get their shit together? Have they even succeeded yet in doing so? A military is way more than equipment and tanks. It takes strategists that know what they're doing. It takes a logistics pipeline that know how to move the equipment the soldiers need where they need it. NATO's involvement in the Afghan war shows how badly quite a few EU countries are in this process. A lot of the time they relied on the US for logistics. Not the actual equipment, but for moving it around. Functional specifications is much better than the 2% GDP. But good luck getting the countries to agree.
[QUOTE=Lolkork;51010081]A nato without the US involved would be pretty good.[/QUOTE] Like a League of Nations without the US.
[QUOTE=Jund;51010530]really i thought you guys reclassified the eurofighter as a multirole with the tranche upgrades since the partner states realized having a high end extremely specialized air superiority fighter with almost no atg capability was stupid [editline]6th September 2016[/editline] eurofighters are quite similar to germany's top ww2 tanks: when they work they're great at what they were built to do, but they often don't and are wildly expensive for what little they give. that makes it less attractive for exports, and less units produced means costs goes up which feeds into the loop between eurofighter partner states there are about 500 eurofighters with another 130~ planned/ordered between austria, kuwait, oman, and saudi arabia for the f-35 there are [B]over 2000[/B] units planned for the US alone with 800~ planned/ordered for the UK, italy, australia, israel, denmark, turkey, korea, norway, and the netherlands[/QUOTE] How can anyone with a straight face call one aircraft expensive and then compare it against the F-35?
[QUOTE=UberMunchkin;51011000][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations#Establishment"]So the League of Nations?[/URL][/QUOTE] "Let us boldly state that aggression wherever it occurs and however it may be defended, is an international crime, that it is the duty of every peace-loving state to resent it and employ whatever force is necessary to crush it, that the machinery of the Charter, no less than the machinery of the Covenant, is sufficient for this purpose if properly used, and that every well-disposed citizen of every state should be ready to undergo any sacrifice in order to maintain peace ... I venture to impress upon my hearers that the great work of peace is resting not only on the narrow interests of our own nations, but even more on those great principles of right and wrong which nations, like individuals, depend. The League is dead. Long live the United Nations" when I originally heard this quote concerning the league of nations, it changed my outlook on supranational entities
When the EU is about to federalize, just watch.
I hope this EU army succeeds in the long run. European countries need to build up their own forces for the future and America can just fuck off.
Where are all the people from the brexit threads calling people idiots for saying that EU want's to be a federal superstate? And this is a shitty idea altogether. Who does the EU army answer to? Who gives the orders? Can you veto where the army goes? Who funds this? How does the training of different nationality armies look like? Do swedes train in Spain and spaniards train in Poland? And of course once this passes, there's effectively no way to leave the EU. Not unless you want to be a country without an army.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51011182]Where are all the people from the brexit threads calling people idiots for saying that EU want's to be a federal superstate? And this is a shitty idea altogether. Who does the EU army answer to? Who gives the orders? Can you veto where the army goes? Who funds this? How does the training of different nationality armies look like? Do swedes train in Spain and spaniards train in Poland? And of course once this passes, there's effectively no way to leave the EU. Not unless you want to be a country without an army.[/QUOTE] For your last point, I think it would hardly replace national armies in the short-term. No one would allow that. Your other points are very valid.
[QUOTE=RB33;51010257]It's seems to be a very popular thought here that Europe is actually disarmed and got no army at all. Are you sure you're not exaggerating a little?[/QUOTE] i mean a large amount of europe's leaders are toothless pussies, so people assume they represent their country
[QUOTE=Abaddabadon;51011180]I hope this EU army succeeds in the long run. European countries need to build up their own forces for the future and America can just fuck off.[/QUOTE] The same hidden hand that directs American society also directs European society. With a single federal europe, they achieve their goals of consolidation of power even more quickly.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51011182]Where are all the people from the brexit threads calling people idiots for saying that EU want's to be a federal superstate? [/QUOTE] Because one of the arguments against Brexit is that the EU wouldn't federalize, and then the whole EU Army idea came along which is one of the last steps to federalize.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;51011313]Because one of the arguments against Brexit is that the EU wouldn't federalize, and then the whole EU Army idea came along which is one of the last steps to federalize.[/QUOTE] EU couldn't have done this if the UK remained. So..the guys using that argument had a point there.
Are we thinking about it in a similar fashion as we would think of our own national forces or is this going to be more multi-national brigade sized forces and battlegroups. For the former, what about procurement? The cost to equip a 'EU Army' would be astronomical, the sheer material needed alone wouldn't be enough and would take years to produce the vehicles and weaponry needed unless they just take from nations militaries which in itself is scary to me.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51011182]Where are all the people from the brexit threads calling people idiots for saying that EU want's to be a federal superstate?[/quote] Well I didn't see anything like that, personally. The EU's goal is to be an "ever closer union" with the end game possibly being some kind of federalization. I don't think that can be really disputed. That said, maybe what was ridiculed was the idea that the UK would be somehow forced into such a superstate. With the UK out of the EU at this point in time, they don't really have any negotiation power to stop the formation of such a state. [quote]And this is a shitty idea altogether. Who does the EU army answer to? Who gives the orders? Can you veto where the army goes? Who funds this? How does the training of different nationality armies look like? Do swedes train in Spain and spaniards train in Poland? [/quote] Couldn't you ask the same questions about Frontex?
[QUOTE=Boilrig;51011313]Because one of the arguments against Brexit is that the EU wouldn't federalize, and then the whole EU Army idea came along which is one of the last steps to federalize.[/QUOTE] One of the last steps? What the fuck? The "EU army" idea is something that has been floating around for decades now, as a method to try and unify the organisational efforts of the separated armies within the EU, provide some form of central command for joint tasks and try to actually give the smaller countries a force that could defend them that isn't NATO. You don't need to federalise to do this. So how is this in the "last steps" of such a thing? The idea has merits anyway, though I expect there are enough countries still against it or unsure about it to the point of veto. This is one of those things that should a country veto it can't really be "pushed through", it'd be ineffective without support from everybody after all.
Obviously it depends on the specific charter and structure but you can definitely form a pan-European military alliance without federalizing into a single country. Federalization for the EU is years away at best given the current turmoil between countries.
I'd like a federalized EU that's still a part of NATO honestly. Would make NATO stronger in the end.
Waiting until the inevitable day where Tom Clancy's Endwar comes true.
next up: commonwealth army/defence force
People also keep forgetting that not every EU country is part of NATO. If every EU country was part of NATO, you could argue this being pointless. But an EU army would cover those non-NATO EU countries.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.