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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
Well China has "1 child" policy, maybe EU will soon have "3 childs" policy.


Lol.

It is getting desperate in some EU countries though, some of them are paying new parents thorough the nose to have kids. Lucliky I love the kittens and plan on having a litter one day. I call it "shagging for Britain"


[edit on 23-11-2004 by Cjwinnit]




posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cjwinnit
It is getting desperate in some EU countries though, some of them are paying new parents thorough the nose to have kids. Lucliky I love the kittens and plan on having a litter one day. I call it "shagging for Britain"



Real patriot.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 02:30 PM
link   
"Shagging for Britain" is almost as good as F**k for Forest. Go ahead and practice alot now, so you're prepared



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 03:03 PM
link   


the local goverments will lost much power, the important things will be decieded in Brusel

Already is. BUT
1) Local Governments have to translate the EU "Law" into National Law.
2) If EU Law violates the constitution of a country or is not accepted by the people or the like, it is not adapted. Happens every now and then.
Governments do not lose power.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 03:39 PM
link   
The EU will never have an army unless the whole of the EU is governed by one person in one place which is the capital of it all, like the USSR... and the EU actually becomes one nation. THEN the EU will have an army, otherwise its just a trading orginisation... and is only defended by each countries own army that is in it.

The EU doesn't have an army as such, so for all those who think it does it is ONLY TRADING. End of Story.

Unless something happens; like a devolopment of a new nation named the EU, no army will be formed for it.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 04:52 PM
link   

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.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
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! [/QUOTE]

True, but that's another issue. Maybe the USAF can get pressured by the US navy and the Marine Corps to at least consider it (for example, with the JSF? Long shot I know..) I know they are sticking with our system.

Incidentally, the Brit E-3D Sentry's can be refuelled by both systems. Neat


[QUOTE]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.


The only non-NATO EU members off the top of my head are Ireland, France (kinda, they have political connections to NATO but commit no military units to it) and Finland.

They (not France for obvious reasons) are neutral countries. Surely this means they can't authorise an expeditionary force outside of their own countries, otherwise they aren't neutral, right?

There seems a small conflict of roles. Neitral countries won't allow the RRF to operate outside of the EU, so it's then relegated to european defense. But that's exactly what NATO is for....

Anyway..

Sminky, did you read that article that I gave the link to about unifying some european forces? It's very good.

[edit on 23-11-2004 by Cjwinnit]



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cjwinnit
True, but that's another issue. Maybe the USAF can get pressured by the US navy and the Marine Corps to at least consider it (for example, with the JSF? Long shot I know..) I know they are sticking with our system.

Incidentally, the Brit E-3D Sentry's can be refuelled by both systems. Neat


- I just think the idea of NATO standardising on anything of great consequence no is a bit of a non-starter now.
There will be programs like Eurofighter but, overall, if it couldn't be done during the height of the 'cold war' I just don't see it happening now.

......and there is as much chance for the survival of the snowflake in hell as there is of anyone moving to the UK's preferred system of in-fight refueling (probe & drogue requires far greater piloting skills...... so that's the USAF out for a start!
)

[QUOTE]The only non-NATO EU members off the top of my head are Ireland, France (kinda, they have political connections to NATO but commit no military units to it) and Finland.

They (not France for obvious reasons) are neutral countries. Surely this means they can't authorise an expeditionary force outside of their own countries, otherwise they aren't neutral, right?

There seems a small conflict of roles. Neitral countries won't allow the RRF to operate outside of the EU, so it's then relegated to european defense. But that's exactly what NATO is for....

- Well I know there was an almighty row in the Republic of Ireland over Nice because it did envisage Irish forces being used in this in just that way. Also Sweden would come into this catagory too.
Ireland however still retains it's neutrality and has signed Nice now so I guess they have resolved their concerns.

Nevertheless there are instances where the NATO mechanisms either do not apply or operate too slowly. Hence the 'need' for this.


Anyway..

Sminky, did you read that article that I gave the link to about unifying some european forces? It's very good.


- Yes (just started to), great find, excellent work; its a very interesting discussion paper.
Obviously some very clued in contributors.
I wonder what else is in circulation for consideration?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join