It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

EU military non existant

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 04:31 AM
link   
To all those who think the EU has a military force it does not.
the EU is purely econnomical at the moment.
there are plans to make a reaction force AKA a defense force not an offensive force.
to quell any rumours no the EU is not planning to take the world i doubt they could do to the interconnecting econic chaos it would cause and they at present couldnt do it. they would make a good stab at it and cause a lot of damage.




posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Correct.
We do have www.eurocorps.org... but it is not yet a true EU Army.
The idea is to create a rapid reaction force for Peacekeeping Missions and the like.
It is offensive in a way but not meant to start world war 3



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Is the non-existence of a single EU army a good or a bad thing and for who?

[edit on 22-11-2004 by Countermeasures]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Countermeasures
Is the non-existence of a single EU army a good or a bad thing and for who?

[edit on 22-11-2004 by Countermeasures]

well it is good because then there is no chance of world dominance or domination over one country in mind.
BUT the down side is many small forces with diffrent plans. sometimes the plans will contradict each other.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I read an article about this in my local paper. If the EU created an army, the problem I forsee is who would be in the front running it. I would assume that the UK would take the reins, as they seem to be the leading authority on military strategy/preparation in Europe, but it just seems to be too much of a difficult attempt. I don't think that the EU will be able to resolve the issues to see this whole thing through. On the other hand though, if a peacekeeping force would be assembled, that could become redundant. The UN already has that force. Why create a whole other P.K. force that would basically include the same nations? Just my two cents on the situation.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by rrobert5425
I read an article about this in my local paper. If the EU created an army, the problem I forsee is who would be in the front running it. I would assume that the UK would take the reins, as they seem to be the leading authority on military strategy/preparation in Europe, but it just seems to be too much of a difficult attempt. I don't think that the EU will be able to resolve the issues to see this whole thing through.


It won't be Britain. One reason: If France cannot lead a defence project, it leaves. E.G: NATO, the Horizon project, the Eurofighter project, the new carrier project they wanted to take over. This will be harder than NATO, because they will simply veto anyone running it they do not approve of, and they hate us.

I think any major allied force outside of the EU will have to rely on NATO's ARRC. Luckily it's well-armed, plus it's led by a British three-star.

If the EU manage to deploy ten divisions (equivalent to ARRC) to a crisis zone outside of NATO help quicker than ARRC could I'll eat my hat. Europe* simply doesn't have the lift capability

*not UK, I'm assuming the UK would be left out as it would side with the US/NATO.

[edit on 22-11-2004 by Cjwinnit]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

to quell any rumours no the EU is not planning to take the world i doubt they could do to the interconnecting econic chaos it would cause and they at present couldnt do it. they would make a good stab at it and cause a lot of damage.


I dont know if I can agree with making "a good stab at it" taking the world. Trying to fight China,Russia and the US alone at the same time let alone the world, Nobody is making a good stab at doing that.

If they do make a EU military force how will it even be directed? Would every member nation have to have their own say before any military action could be taken? Or would you have a few members sending soldiers from other countries to fight?

[edit on 22-11-2004 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 02:37 PM
link   
More to the point. What would be the real point of having an EU army, you guys are missing the whole idea of the EU. It is a co-operation and alliance between countries, not an attempt to make a new countryy. If you think any different you are misinformed. Each country has its own army, they work together.

What could be more perfect than that.

[edit on 22-11-2004 by Kriz_4]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kriz_4
More to the point. What would be the real point of having an EU army, you guys are missing the whole idea of the EU. It is a co-operation and alliance between countries, not an attempt to make a new countryy. If you think any different you are misinformed. Each country has its own army, they work together.



There is a substantial body of opinion on the European continent to making one federal Europe. the "each country has it's own forces, they work together" idea is NATO not the EU. NATO wrote the book on coalition-building, and the EU sucks at it.


Originally posted by ShadowXIX
If they do make a EU military force how will it even be directed? Would every member nation have to have their own say before any military action could be taken?


Exactly. Compare the ARRC (run by one country under guidance by the others involved, after all NATO countries (North Atlantic Council) agree. It's a "Here's your mission, here's your troops, here's your authorization, go for it" idea.

The EU would probably go for a "everyone must agree on the tiniest thing, and every point must go back to national governments for authorisation". That's exactly how the French wanted Gulf War I ran, and that's why they had such little say in how the battle was run.

[edit on 22-11-2004 by Cjwinnit]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Pretty hard to read but quite interesting:
www.geopowers.com...

Kosovo showed us that we need such an army. We still needed US Support because our armies were designed for defense only.

US should be glad that there will be another cop in town.
Plus NATO will work more efficiently because an EU Army will require more Integration and standardisation.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 04:46 PM
link   


There is a substantial body of opinion on the European continent to making one federal Europe.


I assume you mean by that, that there is a large amount of people wanting Europe to head that way.

Absolute rubbish, I assume you do not live in Europe.



NATO wrote the book on coalition-building, and the EU sucks at it.


You honestley think the EU is no good at working together? Wow.... The EU is doing a very good job at being what it is supposed to be. Relationships and economies within are doing very nicely, the Euro is doing great and other nations are looking very favourably towards the union.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 05:07 PM
link   
NATO didnt the UN did since they formed a multi nation force to take down the nazi's.

i respect NATO but mabye it should join with the UN.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kriz_4
I assume you mean by that, that there is a large amount of people wanting Europe to head that way.

Absolute rubbish, I assume you do not live in Europe.


I'm English.

And I didn't mean the people want it, I mean a few european governments do, and not the UK I know that for sure (apart from the b****** lib-dems).

Hmm, let's see. CAP and CFP are a waste of everything, having the parliament in two places was dumnb and france-polishing, the Commission no longer is solely elected by goverments, not every country is in the euro and those that aren't are treated like dirt..... need I go on?

Anyway,..


Originally posted by tsuribito
Pretty hard to read but quite interesting:
www.geopowers.com...

Kosovo showed us that we need such an army. We still needed US Support because our armies were designed for defense only.

US should be glad that there will be another cop in town.
Plus NATO will work more efficiently because an EU Army will require more Integration and standardisation.


I hope it works, and NATO european forces are generally good at working together.

We do have some strategic airlift. the UK has 4 C-17's and 51 C-130's, plus the rest of Europe has 85 C-130's. Integrating it will be a lot harder..

(note: I haven't read your PDF link yet, so if the following seems copied, it's just coincidence)


Integrating old systems (like, say, C-130 and tornado...) would be hard but "pooling" newer systems will be a hell of a lot easier. We already have a pool of Sentry aircraft in NATO, it would just add more joint stuff.

Integrating air systems is a lot easier than anything else, because not only is almost all stuff standardised, almost all crews speak the same language.

I think the major forces should look hard at having a joint force of, say, Typhoons and A400M, maybe EH101's too, then if the Germans and others get new refuelling aircraft, maybe do what the British are doing and get a bunch of modified Airbus A330-200's. Not only is it built in Europe, but it uses British angines and is fully NATO compatible. Perfect! Plus working with the German is always good, you lot have awesome beer


[edit on 23-11-2004 by Cjwinnit]

[edit on 23-11-2004 by Cjwinnit]



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cjwinnit
[quoteI'm English. And I didn't mean the people want it, I mean a few european governments do, and not the UK I know that for sure (apart from the b****** lib-dems).


- You should be very careful trying to 'project' your views there Cjwinnit.
The English are not unanimous, nor the entire UK, (and many many Scots, Welsh and N. Irish are very pro EU) and you absolutely cannot claim this imagined UK view is widespread in continental Europe.

Hell, the so-called anti-EU 'mood' in the UK is also matched by a very widespread opinion (as polls continually show) that the UK general public doesn't believe it has heard a balanced story about Europe and the EU at all.
We have heard decades of the anti stuff but very little of the pro side....and people know it.

As for a 'federal' Europe?
You do realise that the 'UK definition' of 'federal' is actually just about the opposite to it's actual meaning?



Hmm, let's see. CAP and CFP are a waste of everything,


- Oh really? ......and how many CAP enriched English/British farmers told you that then?

How many English/British fishermen (who sold their CFP fishing licences to French, Spainish etc etc fishermen) now stand up to tell the full story about that little episode?

That's what I mean.
Go beyond the narrow UKIP/tory nationalistic half-story.


having the parliament in two places was dumnb and france-polishing,


- Well, ok, that's your opinion.
Others might well say, with complete accuracy, that they did not want a culture of a 'capitol of the EU' growing up.

Think about how many people in the UK see London skewing evertything to the SE of England.
The EU has successfully avoided all that by the duel centre arrangement.


the Commission no longer is solely elected by goverments


- Now this is a funny one.
Talk about trying to have this one both ways!
The Commission was once supposed to be the 'proof' of how 'inflexible, dictatorial and fascistic' the EU was.
Now the democratically elected EU Parliament have punctured this myth it gets written off as weak and pointless!
Very funny.

So what that the commission is no longer solely appointed by the governments?
Just because a single member was rejected this time from the panel nominated by the national governments hardly takes the national governments out of the equation!


not every country is in the euro and those that aren't are treated like dirt..... need I go on?


- Now this is interesting. "Treated like dirt"?! How?

Mind you this is typical.
A country rejects the terms, risks and responsibilities of the 'full' membership of the 'club' yet expects every benefit the same as those that do?


If there is a 2 speed Europe developing then the fault for the UK not getting the full benefits (which you appear to believe and understand the others are enjoying) lies entirely with those anti-EU tory governments (and their foreign owned media pals) who spent almost 20yrs in gov - and ever since in opposition - criticising the whole thing from the sidelines and creating a false and utterly illogical "they're trying to take us over" mentality here.

As for the military?
Europe is not interested in an 'EU military' as such. A combined cooperative rapid reaction force fitting in between the national and NATO tiers is a different matter. That is being developed. .....and what?
Europe has been cooperating together in a serious and meaningful way one way or another since the early 1950's.
Big deal.





[edit on 23-11-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 08:13 AM
link   
An interesting piece on how to integrate EU military forces (it's definately a good read) is here (needs Adobe Acrobat).


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey


I will reply to this, but it may take a while, there is a lot there to comment on. Needless to say I'm pro-American and pro-NATO.

Just checked the BBC news site, apparently the EU RRF (more duplication of NATO? Hope not) Here.



[edit on 23-11-2004 by Cjwinnit]



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cjwinnit
Needless to say I'm pro-American and pro-NATO.


- So are you saying you feel this is exclusive or that you have to be an anti-Europe European!?

Why do you feel the need to say this?
How come being positive about Europe is getting twisted into anti-US or anti-NATO?

I am a European.
I agree whole-heartedly with the aims of the EU and applaud it's successes (whilst recognising that, like all human cinstructs, it is not perfect and can be criticised.....but let's stick to genuine criticisms and not the stupid stuff we're regularly served up.....bent bananas anyone?
) .

But

I also have American family.
I am not anti-American.

(.....and let's just remind ourselves that Bush and the nutty US right wing are not 'America', only a part of it. - in fact the current neocon nutty right-wing are only a part of the 'US right' themselves)


Just checked the BBC news site, apparently the EU RRF (more duplication of NATO? Hope not)


- No.

There was a time when the Bush crowd supported this RRF but it appears now that anything that can possibly stand as independant to the US (especially in view of Europe's less than enthiusiastic response to the 'WOT') is to be criticised.

The RRF is intended to 'fit' between the gaps left between national response and NATO response.
It is not a duplication of NATO.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- So are you saying you feel this is exclusive or that you have to be an anti-Europe European!?

Why do you feel the need to say this?


I never said that.

You are missing my point. The idea of NATO is not only to provide collective security, but to provide standardisation (so, for example, US navy planes can be refuelled by RAF tankers, etc etc...) The other reason for NATO is to provide an offensive force into a troublespot using ARRC. Now, having franework nations (one country co-ordinating it with NATO help) is probably the way to go but ARRC is unlikely to deploy in sizes of less than 1 division.

Why can't this format be simply copied in battalion sizes? If there is a problem, say, in Kosovo, have a framework country (Italy would be a good one for this op, it's basically next door and has suitable facilities) form a command and other NATO countries offer support? Ad hoc "coalitions of the willing" if you will.

Here is the clincher: Not every country has to offer troops, it just has to agree in principle to the operation. So, the US (or anyone else) could simply say "We agree with the action, but we don't particularly feel inclined to put our troops in harms way (the US have been hinting this about future balkans operations).

I simply don't understand where NATO couldn't do this and the EU needs to come in.

I get the feeling this is an EU plot to undermine NATO.

By the way, I am pro-European, I just don't agree with the EU becoming a country, the Euro, or a European army. I think NATO is just fine for this. I just wish France and the EU would support it more. Ireland would do well to join for example.

On that point: What is the point of the European army? It can't do anything because Finland and Ireland are neutral countries..

[edit on 23-11-2004 by Cjwinnit]



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Let's face it : NATO is dead, it was predestined to die already after the collapse of USSR. All the humanitarian actions in the 90s was just a last attempt to keep it together. In 20 years EU will form it's own military aliance (although NATO will maybe formally still continue). The euro will become common currency and the local goverments will lost much power, the important things will be decieded in Brusel, and states will become similar to todays regions. Just look at the EU constitution, it's everything there. The only thing that could change it, is the economicall collapse, or something like that.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
The only thing that could change it, is the economicall collapse, or something like that.



Google "Demographic time bomb" than look at the birth rates of Spain and Italy.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cjwinnit
Google "Demographic time bomb" than look at the birth rates of Spain and Italy.


Well China has "1 child" policy, maybe EU will soon have "3 children" policy.


[edit on 23-11-2004 by longbow]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join