European army backed

Europe has the US beat by population and total economy, but:

2011 military spending:

US: 741.2 Bil., 5.2% of GDP

France: 54.4B, 2.6%
UK : 51B, 2.4%
Germany: 42.2 B, 1.5%
Italy: 31.3B, 1.8%
Spain: 16.3B, 1.2%
Greece: 14.3B, 4.3%
Poland: 11.8B, 1.7%
Netherlands: 10.5B, 1.6%
Austria: 8.4B, 2.6%
www.globalsecurity.org...

Those countries make up the majority of the EU economy and military spending, and they combine for around a third of American military spending. Also, you'll notice that military spending as a percentage of GDP in Europe is far less than in America.

Total estimates of European Union defense and security spending vary between $200 and 300 billion, depending on what is included. That might be well under half that of the United States, but by some assessments it still outstrips both Russia and China combined.

www.acus.org...

So, the EU would hardly contend for overtaking the US as the worlds top military power if a single army was implemented, unless defense spending were doubled. Doesn't seem likely in the context of budget problems.

However, there would be an advantage against other powers, namely Russia.

Even, so, it is probably in America's interests to oppose this because of the imperial history of Europe. If a single EU military were to happen, I'd imagine a worldwide cringe would take place (especially in Asia and Africa). History shows that Europe is willing to be aggressive towards foreign nations.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

Even, so, it is probably in America's interests to oppose this because of the imperial history of Europe.

As much as I oppose European integration and a single European military, with all due respect it has absolutely nothing to do with the US.

If a single EU military were to happen, I'd imagine a worldwide cringe would take place (especially in Asia and Africa). History shows that Europe is willing to be aggressive towards foreign nations.

And the US isn't?

reply to post by Freeborn


It has nothing to do with the US?

It has huge implications for the entire world. There are some positive from the American perspective, maybe a smaller burden on our military that currently acts as world police. But mostly it's a potential shift away from America as super power.

And Europe has a far deeper and pervasive imperial history than America. America itself is a European colony. So are all of the countries in both North and South America. The vast majority of Africa was colonized, as were the Middle East and India, Australia, and many islands.

reply to post by stumason

If you're going to try and be smart, I'd do my homework. The people in Europe 12k years ago are not the same people who now occupy Europe from France eastwards. The people of present day UK are largely (something like 69% gentically) of the same group that was here Pre-Roman times with the bulk of the continental population having migrated after the fall of the Empire in c600AD

I simply pointed out that the UK was covered in ice not so long ago. Everyone in the UK is an immigrant...If you think I was being smart maybe its you that needs to do some homework.

Please eleborate on your ambigous comment. What do you mean 69% are of the 'same group' that means nothing to me. What group are you talking about. Has this group got a name or is it one of those convenient truts..

whoop!! another i hate the English thread nice

reply to post by Freeborn


On the contrary, it has everything to do with the US.

We have soldiers buried all over Europe, along with your own soldiers that paid a high price for defending Europe, your country in general.

What is the main goal behind an EU? The EU? Economics?

What is the purpose behind a National/EU military? To defend against, who? Themselves?

Or is it to keep their own people, Europeans in line?

Do these people hate their own countries that much?

Are they self haters?

Will this EU military take the place of national (now states) armies?

Or does it take the place of NATO?

And is this New Army friend or foe to the USA?

No, me Amigo, It has a lot to do with the US.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

It has nothing to do with the US?

I have no intention of being disrespectful or even dismissive of the US and I'm certainly not that naive that I don't realise that it would have implications and ramifications for the rest of the world and possibly more so the US than anywhere else considering the relationship between Europe and America.
And obviously many Americans will have valid opinions.

However, at the end of the day it will be Europeans who will decide what direction Europe takes and the US should have absolutely no say or influence on the outcome.

And Europe has a far deeper and pervasive imperial history than America. America itself is a European colony. So are all of the countries in both North and South America. The vast majority of Africa was colonized, as were the Middle East and India, Australia, and many islands.

The US is far younger as a nation than most European nations yet it hasn't done too badly with it's own particular brand of imperialism.

reply to post by Freeborn


Alright, misunderstanding. You're right, I'm not implying that America should have any say whatsoever on the decision making process. But, inevitably they will have some sway and I suspect it will be opposing.

And typically, I see the imperial agenda not in terms of nations but as an international artistocratic mechanism. Just saying, from the perspective of many non-Western countries throughout the world this movement may be seen as a resurgence of European dominance.

reply to post by ollncasino
Most of that increase will likely be from muslim immigrants. The future of Europe is islam.

The British need to be removed of all powers military-wise as soon as possible and all powers should be handed over to the EU.

The British are war mongers, a savage, violent nation. A country that has never been without a war for more than 30 years.

Month after month the UK removes rights and freedoms from its citizens. The EU court tries to protect us but I don't think they can keep up.

reply to post by ollncasino

I don't like this idea at all.

First of all, there is no need for an EU Army.
We already have strong alliances and train with Americans, Brits and the French all the time.
Why is NATO insufficient all of a sudden?
What enemy would this army fight NATO wouldn't obliterate anyways?

Also, there are still some hawks within our military and politics who'd like to surpass our armed forces limitations enacted after WW II.
Same particular group would also like to solve foreign political issues in a more aggressive way.
I don't think it's wise to give them any opportunities.

This is just another case of EU-centralists pushing for their idea of a United States of Europe, blatantly disregarding all our respective national souvereignties in the process.

After all, centralizing and alienating the control over our armed forces away from democratic legitimacy is unconstitutional.

reply to post by dmsuse

The British need to be removed of all powers military-wise as soon as possible and all powers should be handed over to the EU.

Because those continental Europeans are such peaceable loving chaps who've never been to war with anyone.

Month after month the UK removes rights and freedoms from its citizens.

Hell, I'm no fan of Cameron and his bunch of self-advancing, corrupt and amoral smug bastards, (or Milliband and his equally unscrupulous bunch), but I think that's exaggerating things.

The EU court tries to protect us but I don't think they can keep up.

And how exactly do they do that?

reply to post by ollncasino


That's a great idea look at what it did to your currency the euro The EU has tried to become a conglomerate style powerhouse by joining forces. Isn't that what we call the united nations anyway?

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


Military spending is a very bad metric to compare armies, the cost of maintaining and suppling an army is very distinct. Consider the costs only regarding a soldier in the US is comparison to China, in Europe depending on how the army is populated the costs can vary much one would expect that it would be populated by volunteers and volunteers often come from depressed societies or environments (not all but a large majority) even in the US, making the cost in Europe probably be smaller than the us.

Then we get to the armament the costs of support the US military complex, R&D and ordnance, missiles and bombs is extremely high. Complexity and intellectual property cost large sums of money in maintaining above the curve army. What we have witnessed in recent conflicts is that the tech is not that useful in the ground, it is significant in having air superiority and debatable in the navy, there the submarine seems the most important item.

The other consideration is the type of operations, I doubt that the cost of operations of an EU army would be half the cost of the US. It will mostly focus on securing the EU borders and water economic interests.

This move also would signify a decrease of participation in NATO, something would needing change there. This will signify a greater reliance in European armament and know how, an overall reduction of costs across the board.

reply to post by Panic2k11


I agree it's not a perfect metric, but it's not a very bad metric. If looked at per capita, since Europe has more people than the US and way less spending, the difference is even greater. Pricing differences aren't all that much. The point is that military in the US is a higher priority than in Europe and spending reflects it, I don't think that could be argued. Also, I don't think an EU army would be more powerful than American for these reasons. Is that the goal in all this? To give Europe the world's top military? Don't think that's what we need here, a Euro-American arms race.

Spending reflects a nation's capability, especially when it comes to equipment.

You're right that a big part of it is the few number of operations compared to US. Can the Eurozone afford to increase this type of activity? Aren't they at just as big a risk from Islamists as America, maybe even more so because of geography. An EU army might be a good thing for the US, we're fighting the war at a higher proportion than we should.

Originally posted by purplemer
It is about time this happened. Europe has a shared and very bloody history.It would be nice to see us working together. The US made a sham in Kosovo it would be good to see such matters dealt with internally..

Actually the EU made a sham of Kosovo. The US only came in to clean up their mess, back then there was talk of a EU Army and the USA thought "great, finally some help". Shortly afterwards the EU proved how inept it was and America began looking towards China as a future global partner.

reply to post by korathin

Actually the EU made a sham of Kosovo. The US only came in to clean up their mess, back then there was talk of a EU Army and the USA thought "great, finally some help". Shortly afterwards the EU proved how inept it was and America began looking towards China as a future global partner.

The US refused to allow ground troops and instead dropped bombs from above. This enraged the situation below and as a result a lot of people died..

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


I do not think that it would signify and end of collaboration or the start of a Euro-American arms race. It permits a increased independence from the American leadership and empowers European states to no be lead into actions they do not fully support (note past US/UN lead efforts the French fries debacle etc) and increases the balance against the Anglo-American establishment and arms manufacturing and technologies.

Can the Eurozone afford to increase this type of activity?

I do not think we will witness an increase of activity just the contrary, Europe has long ago moved from using force projection to get its way, I doubt that it will regress in that policy and the world will be better off by this move away from the new follies of NATO. We will probably also witness a better relation with the ex-soviet satellites and an increase in relations with Russia (even more if they get their act together in governance and democracy, this may help it).

I see only good things coming from this move if done correctly and in a sane way. I fully expect that the UK will again as usual try to throw a spanner in the process. The move for Europe is to go full federal, and in the process streamline and diminish centralization and bureaucracy at the same time it normalizes taxations and tax renews, economic policies, stops subsidies (especially to agriculture, the problem here is France) and comes together in energy independence (solving a lot of issues).

The UK will fight tooth and nail to prevent an European Federation...

reply to post by Panic2k11


I agree with pretty much that whole post. Personally, I don't have a problem with it. My military spending stats were more of a counter to the premise that a bigger economic unit means an equally bigger military. I was pointing out that US spends a far higher percentage of budget than Europe.

i think its time the uk told eu to go fly a kite. because they will lose out as part of eu