Recently, I read a very impressing article in another thread describing the differences between Europe and the US, not too objective, but a great
article overall, in my opinion. It's called Power And Weakness
by Robert Kagan, a
right winger who is also a co-writer of A New American Century
The remark of Kagan, that Europe is in military terms not technologically
advanced and cannot be categorized as military superpower amazed me.
What many Americans seem to forget is that Europe is a continent consisting of countries
, not of states. Countries with very own ideas, habits,
and cultures, which is in my opinion the reason why the launch of a Union's army has not been realized yet.
Some years ago Europeans drew up plans for a Union's military, major cultural differences, chauvinism and the leadership question are in my opinion
the prime reasons , which should be tackled.
A Union's army would further minimize the risk of violent escalations or war on European soil by one of it's members, increase the feeling of being
a unity, decrease military costs, improve military strength and balance.
Do you think a Union's military will soon be realizable and do you support the idea?
Let's analyze the European military industry now, defined to be weak and not advanced, if we may believe the writer.
I strongly disagree with his assertion and I firmly believe that the European industry is equally and in some fields even further advanced than the US
military. A Union's army would lead to an even greater technological boost. Currently, European countries do cooperate and develop projects together,
however, an even tighter policy would likely to lead to better results.
Is European technology inferior to US technology?
A few examples:
Saab Gripen JAS39
BAE Sea Harrier
Howitzers / PZH2000
I wouldn't define it as inferior.
[edit on 30-10-2006 by Mdv2]