• Europe forges ahead with plans for 'EU army'
    135 replies, posted
[QUOTE=RB33;51011728]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.[/QUOTE] People are concerned with the overlap of nations that would be in both, not those who are outside of NATO.
[QUOTE=G3rman;51011955]People are concerned with the overlap of nations that would be in both, not those who are outside of NATO.[/QUOTE] And why does that matter? An EU Army and the European part of NATO is not the same thing.
[QUOTE=Fantastical;51010238]Yeah, because Europe isn't industrialized at all. You serious? Europe has manpower, funds, and factories. If shit goes down, things can immediately be changed. Factories be repurposed and military funds be immediately upped to supply a powerful army.[/QUOTE] I see you didn't see the words 'with impunity' in my post. The very first thing that'll happen to Europe's industrial capability if something serious goes down is a massive bombing campaign. Europe's ability to make anything will be reduced to ashes within a couple months. We have proven this time and time again throughout history. Europe is NOT safe when shit goes down and it's quite easy to cripple its ability to do much of anything. SRBMs out of the Med, Tu-95s pouring out of Africa, out of former Eastern Bloc states, will ensure of it. Failing that, it's but a few day's drive by T-90m to reach them with ground troops. Factor in resistance and, yeah, six months is about the best they can hope for going it alone. Meanwhile over here on this side of the Atlantic our factories are spooling up without having to worry about enemy aircraft dropping bombs on them, without having to worry about enemy theatrical range ballistic missiles obliterating them. Nothing fixed-wing is getting anywhere near our production facilities, they're too far from hostile territory and our air force is second to none. The only rockets that'd reach us from hostile land are ICBMs which won't be launched in the first place, as you can't tell whether the payload of an ICBM is nuclear or conventional until it detonates and it will be assumed nuclear. You'd trigger MAD trying to use conventional warheads on ICBMs to stop American production capability and SRBMs just don't have the range to reach. Our factories are untouchable to anyone who wants to avoid nuclear armageddon. Please do keep up, read the [i]entire[/i] post you're responding to.
Why spend money on the military when the US are so happy to do it for us
Because you'd end up like france and run out of transport planes to bring your paratroopers to Mali and have to run to America and ask to borrow ours lol
I suppose europe figures they can't alliw us to be a bigger millitary power than them.
[QUOTE=RB33;51012072]And why does that matter? An EU Army and the European part of NATO is not the same thing.[/QUOTE] Have you heard of a conflict of interest?
[QUOTE=SirJon;51012242]I suppose europe figures they can't alliw us to be a bigger millitary power than them.[/QUOTE] This has nothing to do with brexit, they've been planning this from way before that was ever even thought to be possible.
[QUOTE=G3rman;51012263]Have you heard of a conflict of interest?[/QUOTE] I think the majority of NATO's members can decide themselves what they want. This is a decision that is up to Europe to make. It would likely never become enough conflict of interest to become an issue.
[QUOTE=David29;51011015]How can anyone with a straight face call one aircraft expensive and then compare it against the F-35?[/QUOTE] when the program unit cost of the f-35 is already lower than the EFT's while [B]still in LRIP[/B]
Now we just need the formation of a Pan-Asian Coalition and a new ice age and we'll be on track for Battlefield 2142 becoming a reality
This is a bad idea... And i live in brussels ffs. [editline]7th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Jund;51012346]when the program unit cost of the f-35 is already lower than the EFT's while [B]still in LRIP[/B][/QUOTE] Not if you calculate in the project cost. Reason the f35 is cheap is because the manufacturer is underpricing it to make their expected orders now its clear its so shitty
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51012605]This is a bad idea... And i live in brussels ffs. [editline]7th September 2016[/editline] Not if you calculate in the project cost. Reason the f35 is cheap is because the manufacturer is underpricing it to make their expected orders now its clear its so shitty[/QUOTE] Someone's been listening to Pierre Sprey :V But in response to the F35 vs. Eurofighter argument, the Eurofighter was designed in a different time with a fundamentally different design philosophy (the entire dogfight focus of 4th gens) . It's a good A2A and A2G platform with the tranche 3 upgrades, buts its lack of LO and fourth gen information gathering capabilities mean that it's going to remain a fourth gen fighter Plus the Eurofighter was going to be expensive anyways, it was only procured by a limited number of nations and the end of the cold war means that any hopes of low cost due to economies of scale ebbed away
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51011182] And this is a shitty idea altogether. Who does the EU army answer to? Who gives the orders? Who funds this? [/QUOTE] These questions are easily answered: Germany, Germany and Germany.
[QUOTE=Mallow234;51012716]Someone's been listening to Pierre Sprey :V But in response to the F35 vs. Eurofighter argument, the Eurofighter was designed in a different time with a fundamentally different design philosophy (the entire dogfight focus of 4th gens) . It's a good A2A and A2G platform with the tranche 3 upgrades, buts its lack of LO and fourth gen information gathering capabilities mean that it's going to remain a fourth gen fighter Plus the Eurofighter was going to be expensive anyways, it was only procured by a limited number of nations and the end of the cold war means that any hopes of low cost due to economies of scale ebbed away[/QUOTE] The problem with the f35 is that it tries to be decent at everything, and thus is easily countered by anything. an f16 against a f35 1 on 1 the f16 clearly has the advantage if both have ground assist radar for example... you can say 'yea, but that means that if the standoff happens over hostile territory for the f16 its in big problems' but then i would counter with the fact that any nation still fielding f16s is not going to invade the US, and probably it will be the US invading with the f35 against f16s... Fighters will always need to be dogfight first... bombers, gunships and ground attack aircraft following right behind. the F35 is supposed to be a dedicated bomber, ground attack, fighter, reconnaissance and support aircraft all in one... how can even the laymen not see this will end bad? With the EU army im worried we will spend a lot of money into this, thus wanting to get some aircraft quck and cheap and the f35 is a likely target for purchase sadly.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51012896]The problem with the f35 is that it tries to be decent at everything, and thus is easily countered by anything. Fighters will always need to be dogfight first... bombers, gunships and ground attack aircraft following right behind. the F35 is supposed to be a dedicated bomber, ground attack, fighter, reconnaissance and support aircraft all in one... how can even the laymen not see this will end bad? [/QUOTE] The f35 is the multirole complement to our current dedicated air superiority fighter the f22, in the same way the f16 complimented the f15. Multirole aircraft are nothing new, and it shouldn’t be surprising that it isn’t the single most formidable thing in the sky when there are other aircraft dedicated to that purpose. It has its faults, but its design philosophy as multirole isn’t one of them.
[QUOTE=Complifusedv2;51010016]If a load of these counties cant even pay into NATO properly then the EU army is gunna be a bunch of sit on lawn mowers or something lmao[/QUOTE] Pay into NATO? As in spend 2% on their military, military which would also be used as part of the combined EU army. The best part of a combined EU army would be better compatibility between european armies, NATO would also benefit from that. I feel you're only opposed to an EU army because you are opposed to the EU.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51013025]Pay into NATO? As in spend 2% on their military, military which would also be used as part of the combined EU army. The best part of a combined EU army would be better compatibility between european armies, NATO would also benefit from that. I feel you're only opposed to an EU army because you are opposed to the EU.[/QUOTE] I think the point here is that he is rightfully against the united european states, the EU is an economic alliance, not a republic of states and there is valid reason to keep it that seeing as how corrupt it already is with JUST being a trade union...
If EU army becomes a thing it's only a matter of time until it becomes United states of Europe. Sneaky Germans trying to occupy all of Europe again, just through different means.
[QUOTE=rndgenerator;51013102]If EU army becomes a thing it's only a matter of time until it becomes United states of Europe. Sneaky Germans trying to occupy all of Europe again, just through different means.[/QUOTE] Germany is far from the dominant force in the EU, its the single most powerful nation but not by far single most dominant political structure.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;51011544]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.[/QUOTE] Aren't we locked into some law agreement so we can be in NATO?
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51013090]I think the point here is that he is rightfully against the united european states, the EU is an economic alliance, not a republic of states and there is valid reason to keep it that seeing as how corrupt it already is with JUST being a trade union...[/QUOTE] A trade union perhaps but if you are going to trade you either need tariffs or shared regulation (EU chose shared regulation) shared currency makes trade easier but a shared monetary policy requires shared fiscal policy. What is wrong with a federation anyway? The US do it, Russia does it, China practically does it, Germany does it. As long as all members and their citizens benefit (which they do) what rational reason is there not to do it
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51013090]that seeing as how corrupt it already is with JUST being a trade union...[/QUOTE] yo how is the EU corrupt
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51013125]What is wrong with a federation anyway? The US do it, Russia does it, China practically does it, Germany does it. As long as all members and their citizens benefit (which they do) what rational reason is there not to do it[/QUOTE] Each nation in the EU has very different politics then the other. Uk is a socialist totalitarian pseudodemocracy Switzerland is a gun toting super neutral liberalist state Belgium is a catholic social democracy The Netherlands are a pseudo-secular liberal protestant social democracy France is a not-so-liberal peoples democracy. Germany is a right wing economic plutocracy. none of these countries are inherently politically compatible... they are economically but a lot of effort is being put in constantly keeping them economically compatible. An EU army and a joint republic will make it even more so that the political landscape would be flattened to the common average and the stronger economic parties become dominant over smaller countries, the political the EU would either collapse or countries would lose their national political independence and identity... one of the 2 will have to give. As an example if germanies labour laws applied to belgium, a neighbour of germany, we Belgians would riot in the street for months... Heck we already have for individual laws... we are a socialist state where the unions reign supreme and the laborour and the small one mans company is the ideal everyone strives for. germany is an industry focused country where unions are not illegal... but they are basically reduced to the messengers the workers are fed the bullshit through. Its incompatible.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51013160]An EU army and a joint republic will make it even more so that the political landscape would be flattened to the common average and the stronger economic parties become dominant over smaller countries, the political the EU would either collapse or countries would lose their national political independence and identity... one of the 2 will have to give.[/QUOTE] We can still have our say in local politics and be a federation. Lawmaking should remain decentralized because it's what the people want but a federalized Europe could make for greater cooperation on issues which effect the whole of Europe such as fiscal policies and immigration.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51013160]Each nation in the EU has very different politics then the other. Uk is a socialist totalitarian pseudodemocracy[/QUOTE] amazing
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51013192]amazing[/QUOTE] Those discriptions are more to illustrate my point then factual, they are from the perspective of the person writing (me) and for example someone from the US with a right wing ideology would think all the EU countries are social democracies... since they are so far away from his ideology for him the differences are marginal. For people from inside the EU however, each country can be labeled differently depending on their personal political views and the political center of the country they reside in. The reason why the UK is a pseudodemocracy to me for example is because of the house system, house of commons, house of lords, etc etc its not a directly electable democracy and therefore from where i stand is not a true democracy.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51013128]yo how is the EU corrupt[/QUOTE] When it gets serious, you have to lie.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51013125]A trade union perhaps but if you are going to trade you either need tariffs or shared regulation (EU chose shared regulation) shared currency makes trade easier but a shared monetary policy requires shared fiscal policy. What is wrong with a federation anyway? The US do it, Russia does it, China practically does it, Germany does it. As long as all members and their citizens benefit (which they do) what rational reason is there not to do it[/QUOTE] I don't trust the Germans or French to defend and/or even understand the issues smaller countries face. Big countries would dominate the smaller countries even worse than before. Legislation would bend towards dumb French or German standards instead of what works locally etc. Instead of fairly homogenic countries that work rather well managing their issues we get a mishmash of very different cultures trying to force their own values on each other. I'm fine with EU as an entity focused on trade and keeping Europe competitive on the global stage. I'm iffy on the monetary union and I'm definitely not okay with federalization.
[QUOTE=Dutch Flowers;51013187]We can still have our say in local politics and be a federation. Lawmaking should remain decentralized because it's what the people want but a federalized Europe could make for greater cooperation on issues which effect the whole of Europe such as fiscal policies and immigration.[/QUOTE] Those issues are already centralised... both fiscal policy AND immigration are largely handled and coordinated on the EU level... Yes, each country can add their national flavor on top but an EU passport is an EU passport, and tarifs are not legal for any EU country to enforce for example... so what more is there to gain besides encroachment on national identity?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.