European Union, a military superpower?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Not sure where you got that from, Dan. The RFA is the force responsible for manning the fleet support vessels, such as tankers and armaments. As to your question, the RFA deals with fleet logistics and the Royal Logistic's Corp with land logistics. The RAF takes care of it's own. If the RFA was disbanded, the RN would be buggered.


I googled the wrong thing Royal Fleet or Royal Navy


Royal Navy Auxiliary Service

Do you have any info on the 120 RORO ships devilwasp was talking about?


Originally posted by stumason
Dan, not wanting a wang measuring contest, just pointing out some misconceptions. The US is bigger and more powerful, I agree, but corrections needed to be made for the benefit of all.


I'm here to learn



Originally posted by stumason
Emphasis mine. Using the above example, one could argue that US weaponry is equally as "untested", having only been used against 2nd/3rd rate countries. We all know, however, that it is very capable though.


Yeah I get your point. Lets all put our zippers on safety




posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   
I believe DW was refferring to the cross-channel ferries.

They were designed with possible use in wartime in mind, what with Russia being such a nuisance. They are not, however, ideal for extensive blue water operations, having limited range and being somewhat unstable in very rough seas. The specific use that the MoD has for them would be rapid deployment of men and arms to the European continent, not a deployment half way round the world.

What we would probably do if the need arose in that context would be to commandeer large cruise liners to transport the men, use merchant vessels for the heavy equipment and the Bay class for the actual landing.

We would commandeer these ferries using the DOTR Act I entioned earlier, although that would be a last resort.



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 04:24 AM
link   
Dear Mr Wild,

The point I was trying to make was that you stated there were no areas you were aware of that European nations had technical superiority (your words not mine) over the US in military technology.

I was merely listing areas where the European nations had technical superiority and even so far that the US had decided in some cases to buy it rather than develop it themselves.

Nowhere did I state that this was super high tech stuff that is your assumption to feed your own premise.

Nowhere did I state that the US could not develope these items on their own if they wanted.

Again there are areas where the Europeans have technical superiority over the US and this is proven by the fact that the US buys it .. How can that be stated any clearer .....I know the US could do any and all of this if they wanted, why would anyone doubt that ? I did not and do not doubt any such thing.

If you want to make silly statements and then change what you meant to say later, and attack the person who points out that what you say is FACTUALLY innacurate that's fine with me but everyone on here saw you do it .. Very poor show I think...



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 05:47 AM
link   
I always liked the acronym used for ships commandeered under the DOTR act

Ships
Taken
Up
From
Trade

In the case of a lot of them (e.g.atlantic inveyer in the falklands), they were well and truly STUFT!!!!!



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Dear Paper

I am sure you meant CONVEYOR.... It conveyed many Chinooks and its Captain to the south atlantic depths.
Aparently he was a heavily bearded chap who looked like Captain Birdseye...

Off topic a little but have you read the released report on the Sheffield sinking. Very critical of the crew..20 of whom died in the attack.



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 06:39 AM
link   
year thats what i ment, not doing well with my typing today!!! sorry



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6
Yeah I didn't know that. I first googled Royal Navy Auxialiary only to find out that that service was disbanded in 94 and had to deal with anti-submarine warfare(which wasn't a problem any more). What are the other services that handle transport and logistics?

RFA is the main body although there are smaller sub contractors that do the jobs (they are also contracted out to other countries which is rather intersting.)



Maybe I was being a little arbitrary.

A little?



Okay good point I know when I'm beaten waives white flag.

lol sorry long day yesterday, have a cold...life is bad.



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6
Do you have any info on the 120 RORO ships devilwasp was talking about?

Its quite simple, as stu said many of them ARE ferries but what about all those nice cars we buy every year from china and the US? RORO's. These can be anything in size from a small ferry to over a 100 metres long, simply look up department of transport.
www.dft.gov.uk...
Hope that helps.

And yes stu the new RFA ships are the bay class, infact I had the pleasure of meeting the commander in charge of them last year, on another note the first one to have sea trials had its engines blow up. Salt water got into the exhaust
instant hydraulic lock= big mess.

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deharg

Originally posted by danwild6
Technologically speaking Europe may equal the US in a few areas but I'd don't know of any field where Europe actually surpasses the US.

Just listen to yourself .......

Air to air missiles, BROACH warheads (go look it up), body armour, MBT guns, MBT Armour, 155mm SP field artillery, HUD (smiths industries supplies the f22...LOL). Light support mg (minimi)...I can't be bothered with more than this. this is not a p*****g competition, it's called trade ...LOL
Do some research friend before making statements like that.

Enjoy...


Um, two things. First, are you talking deployment or simple simple manufacturing? Because a lot of those things, like the MBT gun (Rheinmetal gun I think), are actually deployed and produced (all major military hardware is manufactured here) in the US. Second, a lot of those aren't really full systems, just components. For example the AA missiles require a platform to launch them, and an F22 will beat anything Europe has for that. I would like to see European systems, not just componenents, that are better than what the US has.

Disclaimer: This is not a rant against the Europeans. I respect a lot of European engineers. I just don't think you can reasonably argue that Europe has better systems than America.



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Personally, I'd rather see the European Union take the reigns as the world superpower off America, Europeans are more open to diplomatic channels than Military hedgemony.

I simply think that Europe would be far more responsible in terms of keeping world peace than America has ever been, not least with the current administration.

Also, I'd rather see European culture take over as popular instead of the Americanisation we have of my country currently (Australia), I'm sick to death of American Coca-Colonisation of the world.

Go Europe!



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrBones666
Personally, I'd rather see the European Union take the reigns as the world superpower off America, Europeans are more open to diplomatic channels than Military hedgemony.

I simply think that Europe would be far more responsible in terms of keeping world peace than America has ever been, not least with the current administration.

Also, I'd rather see European culture take over as popular instead of the Americanisation we have of my country currently (Australia), I'm sick to death of American Coca-Colonisation of the world.

Go Europe!


Do I need to remind you who set up the world America is trying to work with? Might want to check out who decided Iraq should be a single nation, dividing up the map without regards to the local populations, or which nations had Africa divvied up until a few decades ago. Maybe looking at which country America was trying to help in Vietnam would be enlightening (hint: it wasn't Asia). And people say the American education system is bad...



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrBones666
Personally, I'd rather see the European Union take the reigns as the world superpower off America, Europeans are more open to diplomatic channels than Military hedgemony.

Please take a look at history not Just post WWII. Europe has been the cause of much grief that is currently going on in the world. Don't take this a EU bashing, currently they are good allies and friends and do well in the world community. I just point out that it wasn't always so.



I simply think that Europe would be far more responsible in terms of keeping world peace than America has ever been, not least with the current administration.


Tell that to all the colonies that Europe used and abused over the years and then left a mess border wise in Africa and the Middle East. Yes, Europe currently is peaceful mainly due to Americas emergence as a Superpower. Europe was not so Peaceful prior to America's rise to Superpower status, consult your history books if you doubt that.



Also, I'd rather see European culture take over as popular instead of the Americanisation we have of my country currently (Australia), I'm sick to death of American Coca-Colonisation of the world.


Soon you will be complaining about the Chinese-Colonization or the Euro-Colonization of the world. Right now it's America's turn to be envied/despised, just like it was the British Empire's turn. No one likes to play second fiddle in the world orchestra and everyone thinks they can be the better first violin. Same as it ever was, Same as it ever was.



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deharg
Dear Mr Wild,

The point I was trying to make was that you stated there were no areas you were aware of that European nations had technical superiority (your words not mine) over the US in military technology.


Thats right I was unaware. I wasn't saying their weren't any.


Originally posted by Deharg
I was merely listing areas where the European nations had technical superiority and even so far that the US had decided in some cases to buy it rather than develop it themselves.


Okay I take your point.


Originally posted by Deharg
Nowhere did I state that this was super high tech stuff that is your assumption to feed your own premise.


Well we have a failure to communicate then. The title of this thread is European Union, a military superpower? Being a citizen of the current reigning superpower I will measure the military might of a rival or a friends military based on their technological capacity. That is Stealth, Directed Energy Weapons, Autonomous technologies such as UAVs and the like. Not rifles, artillery pieces and other equipment that while very valuable will hardly determine the future war fighting capabilities of your military.


Originally posted by Deharg
Nowhere did I state that the US could not develope these items on their own if they wanted.


Well if we can manufacture them ourselves then you're hardly superior technologically then are you?


Originally posted by Deharg
Again there are areas where the Europeans have technical superiority over the US and this is proven by the fact that the US buys it .. How can that be stated any clearer .....I know the US could do any and all of this if they wanted, why would anyone doubt that ? I did not and do not doubt any such thing.


No just that it makes more sense to buy it from you then develop it ourselves. Are you saying because Europe won't buy the Raptor that it is not technologically superior fighter to the Typhoon?


Originally posted by Deharg
If you want to make silly statements and then change what you meant to say later, and attack the person who points out that what you say is FACTUALLY innacurate that's fine with me but everyone on here saw you do it .. Very poor show I think...


Telepathic are we? C,mon how do you know what I meant? And my friend it was you who attacked me. Claiming I was purposefully trying to troll on the board. If you want to take issue with my post then do so but don't impeach my integrity based on a mere difference of opinion.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 12:01 AM
link   
There are always some who, no matter what, will envy the US and attempt to get their wangs out to prove a point.

The US is indisputably the worlds superpower militarily. Diplomatically, maybe not.

The EU is indisputably very powerful militarily, assuming that we can ever agree on anything, but we have strengths were the US does not. We have good diplomatic relations that work to our advantage, arguably alot better than US "diplomacy", which is of the old British Empire Gunboat diplomacy variety, if you get my meaning.

What we should be looking at is the EU and US combined. We are obviously all good friends and share alot of stuff. Using each others strengths is the best and arguably the only way forward.

Now there's a force no one would mess with.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
There are always some who, no matter what, will envy the US and attempt to get their wangs out to prove a point.

The US is indisputably the worlds superpower militarily. Diplomatically, maybe not.


Definately not with the current Administration.


Originally posted by stumason
The EU is indisputably very powerful militarily, assuming that we can ever agree on anything, but we have strengths were the US does not. We have good diplomatic relations that work to our advantage, arguably alot better than US "diplomacy", which is of the old British Empire Gunboat diplomacy variety, if you get my meaning.


Yeah if the EU wanted to become a supepower they undoubtedly could(but at a cost). I personally am not opposed to a European superpower.


Originally posted by stumason
What we should be looking at is the EU and US combined. We are obviously all good friends and share alot of stuff. Using each others strengths is the best and arguably the only way forward.


A great combinnation. After all the most powerful alliance in history of the world is NATO.


Originally posted by stumason
Now there's a force no one would mess with.


Quite right. We staired down the Soviets together is there really a question that we could do the same thing with Iran.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
What we should be looking at is the EU and US combined. We are obviously all good friends and share alot of stuff. Using each others strengths is the best and arguably the only way forward.



I agree completely with the above statement. One of the reason's our relationship, Europe and America works well, is that we compliment each others abilities, kind of like the good cop / bad cop routine. Like it or not the world is changing and we need to realize that there are certain things that are in our common interest that we can shape together. Not NWO stuff, just common interests.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   
I’ll just post my views on this subject here, when people talk about europes history that’s in the 'past' every nation in the world have a violent history, its all part of how mankind as evolved today...america hasn't had any real history (still a new nation) and to be honest i think its a very old fashioned country with old fashioned foreign policy’s (iraq/alfgahistan/iran/korea/syria), europe have been through all that, we have now moved on but america seems to be left behind with all this....id like to ask an american this question, just picture yourself as a neutral at the moment, how would you view your country’s policy’s?, would you look at america and think "arrogant beeeeps?"

I don't hate america i think its a great country, but I feel america has lost what its all about...they have gone from the most liked/sympathised country prior 9/11 to the most hated for the simple fact of their attitude "nobody hits us" and all the cover-ups for oil called the 'war on terror'.

about europe being a superpower, i can't talk for EVERY european country’s as i don't really take any notice of all the military equipment other european nations have, but britain is known as europes strongest country, (diplomatic and military, currently we have:-

1) the worlds 2nd largest navy
2) the worlds 2nd highest spenders on our defence
3) 2nd highest spenders on military science and technology
4) 2nd highest power projection capablitys to the US….

en.wikipedia.org...

the projects we have in the making, new carriers/type45's destroyers (other naval equipment) will make britain have a true ‘blue water’ navy once again, (something we have not been since the 1970's).

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

being able to project a substational force anywhere around the global is what a 'superpower' is on a military scale….i don't want to go into ALL the other projects we have in the works, but i will mention we are getting the f-35 which is americas big boy along with the f-22....now with that and the typhoon britain have 2 out of 3 the best fighters money can buy….equipment on the battlefield, again theres much debate in british press on how our government have let our troops down (especially ammo) in alfghanistan/iraq, but the mod always provide our troops with the best equipment money can buy, from body armour to tanks (challenger2).

people forget the next generation in air superiority is the rise of the machines (ucavs), now when i look at projects country’s have in the making from britain to even pakkistan, america is looking over it’s shoulder.

The question is though is it good/bad for the world, with nearly EVERY country with powerful technological capabilities such as (stealth ucav's), thats a whole different debate altogether


[edit on 4-11-2006 by Sepiroth]



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sepiroth
I don't hate america i think its a great country, but I feel america has lost what its all about...they have gone from the most liked/sympathised country prior 9/11 to the most hated for the simple fact of their attitude "nobody hits us" and all the cover-ups for oil called the 'war on terror'.


I would agree that many in the world look at America as arrogant. That comes with the territory being the sole Hyperpower left in the world. I know, that's arrogant too, but true. It's part of the envied/despised thing. For the most part most Americans neither need nor want, nor seek other nations approval, just part of our independent way I guess and I'm sure it comes off as arrogant, when it really is indifference.

As for the world having the U.S. as the most liked/ sympathized country pre 9/11, I would have to disagree. Many in the world community have been burning U.S. flags and protesting well before 9/11. There were many against the U.S. well before 2001.

Being the leader of a collection of independent Western nations means you set the pace, not follow in the footsteps. Setting off on a new course of action is undoubtedly opposed by many for whatever reason. Look at the uproar over the Pershing II's during the Reagan Administration. It was opposed by quite a few people over there, but it was one more straw on the Soviet Union's back which led to the Freedom of many nations in Eastern Europe.

I wish Europe would step up to the plate more in world affairs, why doesn't it push harder for action against Sudan? For the most part, North Korea is not even on the table with EU nations. If you aspire to be a Superpower, you must take constructive steps outside of your sphere of influence, like how France, Germany and the U.K. are in regards to Iran or what the EU did with the Middle East Road map. Of course you risk the notion of "sticking your nose in other people's business" like everyone complains about with the U.S.

I applaud recent European initiatives taken lately. Even in bike races it is good to sometimes not be in the lead all the time and draft behind someone else for a while. Europe has been drafting behind the U.S. for some time, time to switch up places for a few laps IMO. We are, for the most part, on the same team are we not?



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Dear Mr Wild

I am truly sorry we do seem to be at odds here .

I was not aware you were specifically refering to areas of high tech systems, this is perhaps because you did not say so in your original post. This has lead to me suggesting that you made a silly statement that there are no areas of military technology (your words again) where Europe has technological superiority.

I am afraid that no I am not telepathic and no I did not know you were exclusively refering to areas such as you mentioned in your last post. For that I apologise. I am sure if I search hard enough in the medical section I can find a reference to some herbal remedy that will in fact confer full telepathic capabilities if I just drink thirty gallons of foul tasting tea.
I also apologise too if I suggetsed you were trolling, I specifically did not use that word (you did) so as not not make false accusations.
I was truly surprised anyone would make such a bold and demonstrably false statement and, so obviously asked if you were serious as I did not and do not believe anyone who has the knowledge of the state of world affairs as you so obviously do could actually believe such a rediculous thing. I apologise if I seem to have accused you of trolling that was not my intention.
If you search hard on the rediculous arguments on here for M1A1 SEP vs Chally II threads there are references to the electric force shield armour protection system being developed by the QUINETIQ organisation in the UK. You also may not be aware that LASERS have been deployed on RN ships for many years. Only recently removed after it was decided it was not nice to blind the guy trying to sink your ship.
You may also not be aware that the RN has had for many years autonomous systems (not you but another poster mentioned this sort of system) for hunting and subsequently destroying mines.

Your basic premise is correct in that the US has a gigantic technological advantage over any other nation on the planet in almost every area you can think of. However there are reasons that the RN was given specific responsibility within NATO to hunt and sink russion subs, we are the best at detecting them and so forth. Not massive sexy high tech stuff but dull as ditch water down on the ground good at it.
I am sorry we have stepped off on the wrong foot because I believe we basically agree on almost everything. What I do not agree with is the silly statement that there are no areas where Europe has technical superiority. I am sure you can now see that this was perhaps a liitle too broad a brush with which to paint. I apologise if you have taken offence at my responses I do not mean to belittle either the US or you personally. ( My Brother is an American ....)
Perhaps we can agree to disagree and start again....? What do you say ?????

Sorry for the huge post I am also sorry for boring everyone except Mr wild to death after the first paragraph..

Love to debate with you some more Mr Wild ..

Kindest Regards

Martin.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   
pavil, you are changing my point to what i was getting across…..i said europe was in many ways INFRONT of the united states, europe was 'invading' hiding behind false claims 100 years ago, britain invaded iraq in the early 20th century, we came with the same motive:-

---
"Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators . . .so the Arab race may rise once more to greatness"
---

(source). www.globalresearch.ca...

sound familar?


oil in middle-east is a scheme the british saw 100 years ago, due to ww1 britain had to abandon its interests but now the threat of the world wars/cold war as gone (just 10 years after 9/11), the united states are carrying off where britain left off, its all there in that link above....'war on terror' = perfect cover-up.

i also do not agree with that statement you say by the united states leading other western countries, or europe 'drafting' behind the united states, i feel the EU leads the way on most issues in the world, maybe a few decades ago (60's/80's) the united states had the loudest voice and carried the reins, i don't believe this the case anymore now the EU as developed further than what was originally intended.

about burning flags of the united states before 9/11, every country have had that, i bet if you count most burnt flags over the years I bet it would be the union jack would be on top
before 9/11 britain have been the most hated country due to our history, you only have to see the hatred from europeans on ATS ‘outside the united kingdom' on topics regarding the UK.

Back to the point, i think over the years america have always tried to do the 'right thing' but this war on terror is a joke, the US government know the public around the world know its a joke.

1) oil,
2) surveillance of people
3) censorships

all can be brought into the 'war on terrorism' issue, these are all topics western governments have been wanting to do for a long time, but they have never had the balls to do...war on terror gives the perfect excuse to set-up such systems.

[edit on 4-11-2006 by Sepiroth]





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join