A European Army ?

Ok I'm bored and this is a good topic. :2thumbsup:

I thought I made it quite clear about the ability to project force. It's not just about the current, foreseeable threats but the future unknowns. You go to war with what you have is more than a chiche. If Europe needed to project force it would need to do so right away, not 10 or 20 years down the road when it's built up it's capacity to.

Oh and this is classic:

Quote:

---

If Russia decided to withold gas / oil, can the EU attack, even if it could make up its mind? Well, it'd be illegal.

---

We're not talking about some theoretical international law we're talking about foreign aggression. Besides, if you can't enforce a law it really isn't a law. If an aggressor threatens the security of a country they need to know that there will be a cost. If, in the future, Europe is perceived as being weak and her allies apathetic, those with less than honorable intentions will take advantage of her.

In the 1930's Europe built its capacity in about 2 years, America in the same timeframe. Now Europe manufactures weapons for export. There is the same ability to increase capacity.

OK I was thinking of the use of force in the diplomatic framework of the world, not going completely off the wire and doing it for the hell of it.

The odds of the second bieng of long term benefit are very slim.

To fight future unknowns it would be better to plan what they are likely to be rather than to invest in hardware now that will be of no long term use.

So, we project force. I thought that I was clear that projecting force is a great oppourtunity for one's foes to cause damage at very little risk to themselves. Afghanistan with either the Soviets or at the moment, Iraq and Palestine are all bieng used as oppourtunities by others to attack their enemies covertly.

To speak that one can attack because the "security" of the country is threatened is going into very murky waters. Are you saying that if energy is cut off that is an excuse to attack? Or that preparations that may be taking place might lead to real threats in the future - so attack now?

Basically that leads to the world descending into mindless thuggery, and is not something that is worth preparing for.

I fail to see what sudden threats are going to appear that would be improved by the existence of a large conventional European army. For such threats a comparative small defensive force is sufficient. Such countries as the UK that have more wide ranging commitments need a more mobile force. Others have no need.

~:smoking:

When tailoring your force you prepare for the most likely threat now and in the forseeable future.

The current threat is Islamic terrorism, which requires the ability to project an occuping force capable of peace-keeping and re-construction but able to move up to peace-enforcement and then war-fighting. The UK has experience in this from the wars in Northern Ireland and Bosnia.

The US sucks at this, they jump straight to war-fighting, which is why they are losing.

In the future the threat is probably once again industrial war, al 1939-45, against either China, Russia or the US. The current military thinkers are preparing for this, which is why a European army has been mooted. It looks big and scary.

A large army, especially a multi-national one is difficult to wield.

As for the next war, and the economical influence. Why do you think all that money went to subsidising farmers and some other mostly non-important things? Simple, self-sufficency. With the interdependent nature of modern economy, in war one is cut off from access from important resources. Thus, it is necessary to ensure that some of the most basic remain avaible even when blockaded. Food is one of the most important.

Also, two of the five largest weapons producers of the world are in the EU, and there are a lot of experienced officers and soldiers, even if from peacekeeping missions.

It is not so much of how many men a country (or, in this case, an alliance) has, but how long it can last. Israel has a pretty impressive army, but a long-term war would destroy them, even if no enemy set foot on their territory. While Europe's population is passive and pacifistic, it can easily be motivated, and would lack no volunteers ... if the people believe they fight a just war.

As far as the missiles-vs-ships debate goes. Missles are useful, but they need to be launched from somewhere, and large, modern ships have little trouble keeping missiles away. Yes, missiles will inflict casualties, but, if you concentrate on them only, the enemy will achieve naval domination and will be able to pull a D-day at will.

In terms of the terrorist war, I don't think that occupying and rebuilding countries helps matters. There's yet to be a situation where this has worked. Money is better spent on intelligence services home and abroad. If troops are needed for peacekeeping, that is what the UN is for.

An indistrialised war against China, Russia or America is theoretically possible.

Leaving aside the why for a moment, one then turns to the where.

America is an ocean away. Given that defence is easier than offence it is likely that neither would get anywhere. Ships would be sunk way before getting close to land. So teh war would be one of planes and subs. But we have few fighters that can reach that far, and bombers would be taken apart by opposing fighters. So then one is left with chucking missiles at each other. conventional ICBMs or worse.

Russia: Much easier. We are next to them. They've not got a modern armed forces, so if we get to a point where they have rebuilt everything it'd be a meat grinder as chances are they'd be using very similar equipment to our own.

China: Far side of Russia. It'd be difficult to fight them at all. Of course if there's a will there's a way. So, ships? Again, these are vunerable. And a land war isn't possible.

Then there's the war by proxy. Both sides sending help to their killers of choice.

How to build armed forces that are supposed to fight over such differing terrain? Short range and ICBMs are going to be useful regardless, as would cruise missiles, but against the above threats an army is going to be slaughtered way before it gets near to the homeland of their foes.

One plane is anything from 50 million to 100 million or more. Missiles are more like 1 million each. It's easy to see where defensive investment should be placed.

~:smoking:

But look how countries are competing at the moment. The war isn't military, it's economic. They are buying into countries, gaining access to natural resources far more cheaply than invading.

An european army, please don't! It will only bring mutiny, the smallest thing has to happen and we will see how firm our friendship is, what if two european go to war? It will devide the entire army, and we will be busy fighting eachother. Europe shouldn't pretend to be something it's not.