Originally posted by Cjwinnit
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...)
- Well that's one idea of why NATO came to be but I think you'll find the actual history is quite different.
It was, to begin with,
all about collective security.
The (standardisation issue) was something that was complained about for decades (especially in view of WARPAC's actual and very real
'standardisation' on mostly Soviet Russian designs).
It's true that some systems were adopted across the various armed forces of Europe (Tornado, the euro F16's and the FN rifle for instance) but it
was hardly any great stride towards standardisation and certainly nothing like WARPAC's .....
......and
if it was to be real and meaningful I think you'd find RAF tankers being able to refuel USAF aricraft a damned sight more useful
that the US navy's! But they never did.
The RAF choice of 'probe and drogue' had nothing to do with anything but the RAF's preferred method. The US navy had nothing to do with
it.....especially as the RAF practically invented the idea!
The other reason for NATO is to provide an offensive force into a troublespot using ARRC.
- Actually this concept is very new and a very recent addition to NATO's 'mandate'.
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.
- Well you describe parts of the situation well enough but that as you acknowledge is not the entire story.
What about EU members that are not members of NATO?
That is one reason why it is useful....because it is not actually NATO. Because it does have neutral members.
I get the feeling this is an EU plot to undermine NATO.
- Well given the constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories in the UK press I am hardly surprised. We are encouraged to 'think' this nonsense at
every turn.
It isn't.
It is very likely to be mostly the NATO rapid reaction assigned forces also having an EU designation (plus neutral troops - like the Republic of
Ireland which regularly sends it's troops on UN peace-keeping duty) for when NATO operation is thought inappropraite or unhelpful to a given
situation or would be too slow to energise.
By the way, I am pro-European, I just don't agree with the EU becoming a country,
- It isn't.
This is just garbage from the anti-EU brigade.
Can you
really see the nations of Europe giving up their nationality?
Are Germans to decide to stop being German? The French French? Greeks to stop being Greek?
The idea is idiotic rubbish and doesn't bear more than a few seconds thought.
the Euro,
- well disagree with the Euro as much as you like. The Euro is now huge.
It is here a reality and it is not going to go away.
Perhaps you might like to consider why the nations that comprise it do so and why the put so much effort and expense into preparing for it and
launching it?
Consider what benefits they believe it brings them and why they are certain to stick with it.
or a European army.
- There are no plans for a 'EU army'. This is pure groundless speculation.
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.
- Instead of impotently complaining about the reality of where NATO falls short why can you not just accept they aren't going to (because they are
not......and trying to 'make' them is surely the kind of dictatorial EU you would rather not see?......or if NATO 'made' them would that be ok?)
and that this might be part of why the alternate idea
will 'get them on board' and more actively involved in the broader concept of European
security?
On that point: What is the point of the European army? It can't do anything because Finland and Ireland are neutral countries..
- There isn't going to be an 'EU army'. Get the idea out of your head.
A relatively small-medium sized EU rapid reaction force is another matter and since the Nice treaty was recently signed all EU countries can be
asked to help form it.
) 
