It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


EU - becoming a superpower? EU Aircraft Carrier Group

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:03 PM
The EU was prophesied in Daniel and again in Revelations of the Bible. It is the great beast empire wherein iron mixes with clay (a euphemism for the mixed cultural makeup of the empire). It is a form of the prophesied revived Roman empire.

Some things to look forward to according to the prophetic record.

A horrible dictatorship led by the god-man antichrist.
A powerful military that will crush all world resistance (for a time).
An EU led invasion of Israel.
Massive persecution and slaughter of christians.
Initially given a green light by the pope, the EU and the antichrist will destroy the Vatican.
The EU will eventually be challenged by China and perhaps Russia.
The EU forces along with all the other worlds forces will be destroyed by the coming of Jesus Christ in Jerusalem.

So yes, I believe the EU will develop a powerful military.

posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 10:27 AM
I don't hold a very high opinion of prophesy.

I'd say the language barrier is possibly the largest problem, but less so with navies or planes - English is the universal language of both the sea and the air.

German, French and English are the three most spoken languages in the EU by more than just their own populations, and the Dutch speak wonderful English.

I think you'd end up in a position where officers that speak all three, or just two of those languages are in a position to be better paid, and you'd end up with either divisions of troops that speak the same language, with NCOs that speak several or the adoption of a single language for within the military structure. Now, I'd vote for the former, because it's easier to pull, but so long as all the troops are taught the same hand signals and know enough of each of the three main languages to understand basic instructions, it would work reasonably.

As for what technology they would use, I think if there was a unified command, they'd pool resources to develop new tanks based on the best of their designs. It's not a matter of picking between which is currently the best. There is already a lot of mixing between countries, so technology is probably the easiest thing to solve.

In its current state, the EU has little hope of getting very far with a military, as it's more bureaucracy than political system.

Still, if you start small with a carrier task force, probably speaking English, with individual ships speaking in their native tongue, then you can create an effective structure. I doubt the EU will ever turn dictatorship, as that would have to transcend national disputes. Could one single leader effectively command the entire population? Of course not. Although, creating a unified command structure might make a military coup easier...

posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 06:50 PM

Originally posted by SevenThunders
The EU was prophesied in Daniel and again in Revelations of the Bible. It is the great beast empire wherein iron mixes with clay (a euphemism for the mixed cultural makeup of the empire). It is a form of the prophesied revived Roman empire.

Some things to look forward to according to the prophetic record.

A horrible dictatorship led by the god-man antichrist.
A powerful military that will crush all world resistance (for a time).
An EU led invasion of Israel.
Massive persecution and slaughter of christians.
Initially given a green light by the pope, the EU and the antichrist will destroy the Vatican.
The EU will eventually be challenged by China and perhaps Russia.
The EU forces along with all the other worlds forces will be destroyed by the coming of Jesus Christ in Jerusalem.

So yes, I believe the EU will develop a powerful military.

Good lord... look, just because the Germans went nutso, doesn't make Europe a bad place...

Europeans need to get over the guilt, it's not like Americans don't suffer from this on the slavery issue too...

Europeans are alright, i'm a jew and like most germans most young Germans seem to be ravers and liberals... one good aspect of a war it tends to bleed off allot of people who like to fight.

Europe could totally build a united military and it would stregnthen not harm the US by allowing us to project and defend better and covering a major front against Russia and the middle east...

European forces should equal or surpass our own...

someone said "yanks don't like to be 2nd" you know what, I'm a Yank and i'm not worried about Europeans invading the US anytime soon lol, allies it is, that's not going to change despite some banter over policies and war...

Europe sits on the Middle east and borders Russia it Needs in reality a strong defense more than we do...

because seriously, seriously, no one is going to be mounting a land invasion of North America... Russia had trouble in Afghanastan... try occupying the whole of the Rockies from Alaska to Arizona... let alone conducting battles on the great plians or removing rebels from the Grand canyon... o marching across death valley if we blow out the roads or coming from the north across the canadian artic...

Europe needs a strong military, really we do not... we are just idiots and take advantage of the fact that we have no enemies and create them ourselvs for profit

posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 07:08 PM
I am sorry but a Unified EU Military is not going to happen.

There is discord now amongst the European NATO countries, imagine what it would be like with 27 separate EU nations ....... I just cant see a unified EU military at all.

I can just see the bickering going on from landlocked EU nations, like Luxenbourg, saying that ''why should they spend X amount of Euros on a Navy, when they have no coastline''.

The EU cant even sort out the Common Agriculture Policy and that arguement has been going on for decades, let alone a military policy.

As for joint EU military projects ...... well, they have been a bloody joke, albight a bad one on the taxpayers of Europe, eg: Tornado, Eurofighter, Puma, etc, etc.

Then we come to the problem of Allegience .......... to whom or what?

Not to mention that there are some 'neautral' countries within the EU as well.

A Unified EU Military is just Fantasy.

[edit on 22/6/08 by Wotan]

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 03:35 AM
Miliband backs strong EU military force


Europe must develop its military capabilities along the lines proposed by the EU's French presidency if it is not always to wait for America and Nato to be ready to intervene, David Miliband, the foreign secretary, will say today.

But in a controversial passage cleared by Downing Street, Miliband will take on the eurosceptics over defence saying he supports the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy's, proposals on EU defence. Sarkozy has argued for a build-up in European military capability, including EU troops going into conflict zones.

Miliband will say: "What strikes me about the French priorities for their presidency is how closely they tie with our own ambitions for the EU, as set out in our global Europe policy statement last autumn whether on energy and climate change, migration, near neighbourhood policy and the next steps on European defence."

Good that British politicians support Sarkozy. I know many Brits make fun of France and I think the situation is somewhat comparable to how Dutch people think of Germans and the other way around, but that should be no reason for not willing to strengthen our security.

The Netherlands, for instance, has a strong military, currently deployed in Afghanistan, Chad, the Balkan and other places. However, due to the fact that our country is rather small we cannot operate as efficient as we could with support of other militaries (particularly support such as aircraft carriers and air transport support).

French military response to Sarkozy's plans:

[url=]Source[ /url]

In an anonymous letter, the officers from across the armed services slammed France's new defence doctrine, outlined by Mr Sarkozy this week, which calls for 54,000 military and civilian defence job cuts in return for investment in intelligence and hi-tech equipment.

"We are abandoning European military leadership to the British, when we know their particular relationship with the United States," wrote the group calling itself Surcouf – the name of a legendary French corsair who captured dozens of British ships in the Napoleonic wars.

People really need to set aside national pride. Our security is more important to me than some snobby French and Brits. If they cannot cope with it, simply kick them out of the military. There are enough capable military people who are not as short sighted as they are.

I could see an organization with an English commander for EU naval forces, a French commander for the air force and a German commander for ground forces, thus dividing ''power positions'' among the three big militaries of Europe, while giving commanding positions for smaller specific areas such as the Atlantic, Mediterranean to Italy, Spain and the Netherlands.

One central command centre with military capable commanders from all member states should take care of the decision making procedures.

[edit on 3-7-2008 by Mdv2]

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 03:55 AM
I wouldnt take much heed to what David Milliband and his cohorts in the current UK government say ... they will be 'out' in under 2 years.

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 01:30 PM
Given the choice between Labour and the Conservatives, I'd take Labour any day, at least you know their positions, rather than the slip-sliding of Cameron.

The problem with dividing power is that there is a lot of contention between the French and British. The French don't like the idea of letting the British be the major power in Europe - they have almost 1,000 years of wariness to give cause to that belief - especially not when we act like America's lapdog.

It is a fantasy in real terms, but it would be a brilliant thing if people would set aside idiotic follies and do something which benefits them in so many ways.

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 03:17 AM
The conflict in Georgia has shown that Europe needs its own military more than ever before.

The peace deal between Georgia and Russia was brokered by European Union officials rather than by American counterparts, showing that the US is gradually losing power on global politics, the reason being its double standards.

A European military wouldn't be needed to counter a Russian attack, rather to discontinue NATO, which has no relevance anymore. After all, it was founded in times that we were constantly at the verge of war with the Soviet Union, which has collapsed long time ago. Continuing NATO doesn't give Russia a sign we really have honest intentions regarding political relations with them.

It is in our interest to embrace Russia, stimulate democracy and strengthen our political and economical relations to eventually minimize the possibility of war on European soil once again.

It's time to stop the fear mongering and thus, to discontinue NATO and create a defence force that has both a military function as well as a political gain.

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:26 AM
reply to post by mopusvindictus

I don't disagree that europe needs a strong military. It certainly does. The US is bankrupt and can no longer foot the bill. I'm just pointing out what must eventually happen in europe based on the amazingly accurate and detailed Biblical prophecy.

Unlike rubber I have a very high opinion of Biblical prophecy. It's track record is unsurpassed. The Bible predicted the exact date of the arrival of Jesus Christ. It predicted the revival of Israel in the last days and it's prior destruction at the hands of the Romans. Daniel in particular predicted the triumph of the Greek empire prior to Christ, including it's division into four regional powers. He also predicted the rise of the Roman empire.

When he predicts that this same empire will be reborn (as does Revelations), I take note. It will happen. Europe is already drifting towards a dictatorship. Most of the powerful, shadowy EU ministers are unelected. Javier Solano is a good example of this. Soon the antichrist will seize power. He will probably be elected to office, as Hitler was and will be the most popular politician the world has ever seen.

For this reason an Obama makes a better antichrist archetype than Bush does.

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 12:40 PM
reply to post by SevenThunders

The bible is completely useless for making predictions. It's very easy to line up the vague mysticism present in the bible with actual events after the fact, but no-one has been able to use it to actually predict something, which renders it useless for making predictions.

But that won't stop this insanity. Carry on.

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 12:45 PM
reply to post by Mdv2

Which language would they speak? How would they be organised? Who would control it? Where would those-in-control get their go-ahead from? Who elects those? Would the specialist units be disbanded to align the entire force? Would equipment be standardised? What weapons would be used? Who will provide the training? Who will pay for it? What will happen to existing armed forces?

Until you, or anyone else, can answer those questions (and thousands more), AND demonstrate solutions, the EU will not have its own centralised armed forces.

What makes sense is having each member state's armed forces under the control of each nation, and allowing them to agree between themselves when to use them. There are already enough joint training missions out there that allow all the EU member armed forces involved to work efficiently together that there essentially IS an EU armed force.

They should just do a UN-blue-helmet deal and operate under that, while still remaining their own militaries. Each armed force in EU is completely different from all the others, due to the landscape and threats each one has faced in its history. Trying to stick them all together after (in some cases) a thousand years of history seems pretty futile.

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 03:11 PM
I think they should create a unified military and work for a unified European Union. They will be the worlds second superpower and likely the most influential nation in the world if they do. Yes, NATO will be throw out the window, but a new alliance can be created, a world military alliance (US, EU, Canada, Australia, Japan, Israel etc.) to counter Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. Frankly, I don't see what the problem is. A 1 million+ strong EU military will give Russia pause.

posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 02:53 PM

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 09:25 PM
reply to [url=]
Guys....look closer. The EU is in effect its own country now. And if you check for offical imformation the EU makes approx $3 trillion more in GDP a year more than the USA.
Another thing- the EU military at present time is infact larger by number of aircraft,tanks,ships and personal. And we spend less than half of what we could to spend more than the USA.
I think in approx 8/10 years the EU will be the biggest,most advanced an powerfull in the world!!!
But, imagine us (EU) and the USA combined. That would keep Russia an China from getting too cocky.
And for the record- I'm a British patriot, but i see us (Great Britian) joining with the Europeans as a federation;the way forward in the best of all our interests

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 09:35 PM
As an American, I say do as you wish. I recall a story about the days before the invasion of Europe in 1944.

DeGaulle, without a nation, without an army, without a navy, and without an air forced insisted on leading the invasion.

He was told that if he remained quiet, he could stay in the room.

And for decades, the SOB held that against the US and Britain. They didn't want to be part of NATO. They wanted no part of joint planning.

I think what is being proposed, is another French-dominated coalition if European countries.

I could be wrong, but then again . . .

posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 09:37 AM
Personally, I have no problem with the EU having a carrier, or even a battlegroup.

The US has 6 Nimiz class super carriers and 2 ampibious assault carriers.

The total number of carriers is 13, one retiring one being launched.

USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63)
USS Constellation (CV-64)
USS Enterprise (CVN-65)
USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67)
USS Nimitz (CVN-68)
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69)
USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70)
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71)
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72)
USS George Washington (CVN-73)
USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74)
USS Harry S Truman (CVN-75)
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76)
USS George H. W. Bush (CVN-77) (under construction)

All that said, having 1 battle group does not make the EU a superpower.

posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 09:55 AM
If Europe wants to have a formidable force it needs to change A LOT!

Example, the new Airbus 380, biggest commercial liner developed by 'Europe'. The logistics were a nightmare. Everybody demanded a fair share of the pie: jobs/investments. Which meant, for example purposes only, that the wings were made in the UK, the engines in France, the electronics in Germany, the wingtip in Holland etc. You can imagine that it probably costs twice as much to just develop it in one place with the scientists/workforce of all countries concentrated.

Example 2, the European parliament moves twice every year! From Strasbourg to Brussels and back. The amounts of money wasted on logistics is insane.

Why? Because of pride of the separate countries. Can't blame them, I'm proud of mine but it stands in the way of a smooth running machine. And I don't see any country in Europe giving up their identity for the whole. Ego, the source of many problems.

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 08:16 AM
It's rare now that I actually make a post, for good reasons I'm sure many are thinking...but I feel compelled to comment here.

1) Why is it at the mention of Europe or the EU that there is a horde of posts condemning the French? "Ohh those surrender monkeying French! They just want to rule the world!" I mean seriously , one invasion 60 years ago means they're all surrender monkeys? By that logic then the whole nation of Scotland are skirt wearing women who bow to the English at the first sign of their army. For once can we have a discussion where France is not portrayed as an evil yet toothless tiger?

2) The EU has combined units , in fact the Nordic Battlegroup shows that other nations besides zee Fwench are wanting this. Strangely though the Irish are in this battle group but heh its their army! It may not be a bad idea to have a new local military alliance after all, they might be a little more willing to help than other allies and may be better equipped to help. But heh why listen to me?

3) Europe does have a military I'm afraid , for all those wanting for Americans to leave European bases....well to be honest its not a one way street you know. Without said bases then the war on terror would have been rather more difficult and all those rendition flights that "Didn't" happen managed to come through several European not far from where I live actually...

Just a few random thoughts from a lowly Scotsman....

- Al'

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 08:25 AM

Originally posted by dooper
I could be wrong, but then again . . .

Then again the US is bankrupt and that already influences the US military (e.g. F-22 program).
Line II

[edit on 22-1-2009 by Mdv2]

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:22 AM

Originally posted by mrmonsoon

All that said, having 1 battle group does not make the EU a superpower.

The EU has more than one battle group. 18 to be precise.

The Nordic Battlegroup (NBG) is one of eighteen European Union Battlegroups.


new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in