EU army

[Kagemusha]

Should EU nations create EU army from their current militaries?In EU every country has an army created for Nations self defence.Should we convert these Nationalistic armies into one big EU army?

[Ja'chyra]

It would be unworkable at the minute, it would take decades to get that kind of thing in place.

[Kagemusha]

It would be unworkable at the minute, it would take decades to get that kind of thing in place.

Tell me why?National Armies already have their active command structures.You would have to create only new HQ.Ofcourse shaping those military structures would take time.

[Franconicus]

They should and they will! Although I do not believe that all EU countries will join. GB will not.
There is a cooperation of Germany, France and the BENELUX already.
First of all you must have rules what this army should do. As you know Germany has some selfrestrictions.
Second, they need a common foreign policy as well.

[Kagemusha]

They should and they will! Although I do not believe that all EU countries will join. GB will not.
There is a cooperation of Germany, France and the BENELUX already.
First of all you must have rules what this army should do. As you know Germany has some selfrestrictions.
Second, they need a common foreign policy as well.

If Britain wouldnt join it would shrink the capacity of such army very much ,because GB has the most powerfull army in EU area.
Btw what restrictions German Army still has?

[Ja'chyra]

Tell me why?National Armies already have their active command structures.You would have to create only new HQ.Ofcourse shaping those military structures would take time.

Where can I start, what training levels would they impose, what equipment would they use, whose publications would be used, which system of support would be used, which style of operations would be used, whose rank structure would be used, would it be tri-service, could they still swear to Queen and country, so many questions and so meany personalities would mean it would take decades.

Saying you would only need a new HQ is pretty niaive, no offense but if you don't work in that area you don't really know.

[CBR]

kagemusha:

A EU army can only be possible if EU has the same foreign policy which would mean a stronger EU and I thought you were against that?

Right now EU countries are wasting lots of money when buying equipment so if it could be done in a centralised way that would be a good start.


CBR

[Kagemusha]

Where can I start, what training levels would they impose, what equipment would they use, whose publications would be used, which system of support would be used, which style of operations would be used, whose rank structure would be used, would it be tri-service, could they still swear to Queen and country, so many questions and so meany personalities would mean it would take decades.

Saying you would only need a new HQ is pretty niaive, no offense but if you don't work in that area you don't really know.

What i meant you wouldnt re-organize lets say British army.You could use your own equipment and You could swear to Queen and country as much as you would like.British Army would be an Army group.Commanding of one Army group doesnt effect other Army groups anyway.
It would be up to high command which part of your army would be suitable for certain assignments.Ofcourse in the long run EU would support its own weapons industry for its Army.But you cant say it doesnt work because European Armies differ of each other.You can count how many multi national operations have been succesfully completed after WWII.

[King Ragnar]

. GB will not.

We hopefully wouldn't, i would see no advantage in doing this, it would cost to much and wouldnt be up and running anytime soon, and there would be to much dissagreement on how it would work ranking etc.

[Redleg]

They should and they will! Although I do not believe that all EU countries will join. GB will not.
There is a cooperation of Germany, France and the BENELUX already.
First of all you must have rules what this army should do. As you know Germany has some selfrestrictions.
Second, they need a common foreign policy as well.

That is exactly why it won't work. Some nations have their own restrictions for what the military can be used for. To merge say the German Army into an EU army would create the necessity to ignore the German Constitution or to have the Constitution amended.

Second common foreign policy for all nations in the army would be required - and I don't believe Europe as a whole can formulate a common foreign policy.

And Third - if England doesn't particpate - most likely other nations will also not particapate and that will lessen the crediblity of such a unified force.

Cooperation is different then a unified command - common cause must be the formost consideration for such a force - and once common cause is missing the force become irrevelant because it will disengrate from within.

[Ja'chyra]

I don't see that working either, the training disparities would be enormous as would the capabilities of each army group, also who else would appoint the command structure.

What you are suggesting is a EU equivalent of NATO, not an EU army, which is more workable.

[Ja'chyra]

And Third - if England doesn't particpate - most likely other nations will also not particapate and that will lessen the crediblity of such a unified force.

I'm sure you mean Britain.

[Kagemusha]

kagemusha:

A EU army can only be possible if EU has the same foreign policy which would mean a stronger EU and I thought you were against that?

Right now EU countries are wasting lots of money when buying equipment so if it could be done in a centralised way that would be a good start.


CBR

I wasnt against stronger EU.I was against federal state of EU.
I wiew EU army like monetary Union.Our National armies doesnt anwer the purpose of novadays threads.I wouldnt object that if some country wouldnt like to be part of certain operation ,it coud deny their troops partipication in that operation.Like monetary union,our individual currencies were weak,the same thing could be sayd about our individual armies.The main benefit would be that it would both save both money and resources.

[Redleg]

What i meant you wouldnt re-organize lets say British army.You could use your own equipment and You could swear to Queen and country as much as you would like.British Army would be an Army group.Commanding of one Army group doesnt effect other Army groups anyway.
It would be up to high command which part of your army would be suitable for certain assignments.Ofcourse in the long run EU would support its own weapons industry for its Army.But you cant say it doesnt work because European Armies differ of each other.You can count how many multi national operations have been succesfully completed after WWII.

They were successful because the operations were conducted under one centralized command. There are also a few cases where the unified command broke down and the mission was considered a failure. Somilia for one comes to mind.

What you are describing here is not so much as an EU army but another command structure much like NATO. Which is still in place with many of the nations that are members of the EU. To accomplish what your advocating here - all you have to get accomplished is kick the United States out of NATO - or invite the US into the EU - then the command structure and organization is already in place.

Pretty soon Europe will have so many chiefs that there wont be enough Indians to do the work.

[Kagemusha]

What you are suggesting is a EU equivalent of NATO, not an EU army, which is more workable.

You are right the first phase would be like NATO.You cant create an Army in one day.

[Al Khalifah]

The problems are:
- vast range of hardware used by the various members
- vast difference in quality of training and equipment between various members forces
- different C&C structures
- a standard army pay rate would cause a great economic disparity due to the varied living costs across the EU
- there is no common language for the EU
- the French and British would not agree to the head of the army being from the other nation
- it would require Britain and France to place their strategic forces in the hands of foreign powers

[Kagemusha]

They were successful because the operations were conducted under one centralized command. There are also a few cases where the unified command broke down and the mission was considered a failure. Somilia for one comes to mind.

What you are describing here is not so much as an EU army but another command structure much like NATO. Which is still in place with many of the nations that are members of the EU. To accomplish what your advocating here - all you have to get accomplished is kick the United States out of NATO - or invite the US into the EU - then the command structure and organization is already in place.

Pretty soon Europe will have so many chiefs that there wont be enough Indians to do the work.

It has been sayd before that NATO has served its purpose because the Cold War is over and there is now Warsaw pact anymore.The problem with EU countries that arent in NATO is that they will never join it as long as USA is in it.I think its about time that European countries would stand for themselves in defence matters.It would also benefit USA because they could release their troops from Europe.I think while NATO could be abandoned it wouldnt worse therelationship with Europe and USA.In matter of fact,i think this would benefit us both in the long run.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

You want to create a European Superstate? I hope it will fail, and it will fail. An EU army is a bad idea. You know why? Most of your armies suck already. Do you want to combine the suckage and bring the few good armies down (UK...er...that's all I can think of for the EU, Germany's is decent, but it's too small and weak. France's suck, they couldn't even beat the Ivory Coast. BeNeLux has an army?)?
The EU sucks. Just apply for American statehood, you'll be fine

[Kagemusha]

The problems are:
- vast range of hardware used by the various members
- vast difference in quality of training and equipment between various members forces
- different C&C structures
- a standard army pay rate would cause a great economic disparity due to the varied living costs across the EU
- there is no common language for the EU
- the French and British would not agree to the head of the army being from the other nation
- it would require Britain and France to place their strategic forces in the hands of foreign powers

As i stated before in first phase it would be only commanding structure.

[Al Khalifah]

In that case what would be the point of such a combined army?

An army is designed to act quickly and decisively. By adding more and more layers of hierarchy to delay the C&C decisions, you would essentially be slowing the army's response down which could potentially cost lives.

A unit in an army should never have two masters. This is a disasterous state of affairs.

[Kagemusha]

You want to create a European Superstate? I hope it will fail, and it will fail. An EU army is a bad idea. You know why? Most of your armies suck already. Do you want to combine the suckage and bring the few good armies down (UK...er...that's all I can think of for the EU, Germany's is decent, but it's too small and weak. France's suck, they couldn't even beat the Ivory Coast. BeNeLux has an army?)?
The EU sucks. Just apply for American statehood, you'll be fine

Sorry Capo.EU army has nothing to do Europe trying to create somekind of superstate from herself.It would be about Europe taking responsibility of its own self defence.It suprises me that American patrons doesnt like this idea.It would release more American resources to deploy to the Pacific theatre and for War against Terror.

[Kagemusha]

In that case what would be the point of such a combined army?

An army is designed to act quickly and decisively. By adding more and more layers of hierarchy to delay the C&C decisions, you would essentially be slowing the army's response down which could potentially cost lives.

A unit in an army should never have two masters. This is a disasterous state of affairs.

It would be only the first phase and it wouldnt lead to an situation that the chain of command would be breached.The overall command could only use troops fro countries that would agree to join certain scenario.In the long run we could strip lots of troops from our national Armies that have had been planned to use against eachothers armies and with that money we could create more advanced troops and weaponry together.It would be a long road tough.

[Marcellus]

I would not want all the armies of the EU contries merged together, due to the problems mentioned by others. I would, however, support creating a task force created from detatchments from each member's armies that could be used as part of an EU operation.

[Kagemusha]

I would not want all the armies of the EU contries merged together, due to the problems mentioned by others. I would, however, support creating a task force created from detatchments from each member's armies that could be used as part of an EU operation.

If we would create an European High command structure,we could do that.

[Al Khalifah]

Additionally, the EU cannot agree on foreign policy. What would happen in the event of an issue like the Iraq war, where only some member nations want to commit troops?

[Kagemusha]

Additionally, the EU cannot agree on foreign policy. What would happen in the event of an issue like the Iraq war, where only some member nations want to commit troops?

Then let them do so.How i see it the first priority of EU army would be to defend Europe.As i have stated before im not an federalist.I see EU army as an another opportunity to better work together.

[Ja'chyra]

Anyway, I'm sure that the EU isn't considered qualified to comment on military matters.

Kapo

If we could get a unified European superstate I would think it would be the premier superpower, but you were right the UK has the best military.

[Ja'chyra]

Then let them do so.How i see it the first priority of EU army would be to defend Europe.As i have stated before im not an federalist.I see EU army as an another opportunity to better work together.

An invasion of Europe would see an armies from all of Europe joined in a common cause, it would also sort out the all the red tape as it just wouldn't matter like it would in peacetime.

You are right the first phase would be like NATO.You cant create an Army in one day.

What's the next phase, the first phase would and should be the last until Europe becomes one state, if it ever does which I don't know if I like.

[Kagemusha]

An invasion of Europe would see an armies from all of Europe joined in a common cause, it would also sort out the all the red tape as it just wouldn't matter like it would in peacetime.



What's the next phase, the first phase would and should be the last until Europe becomes one state, if it ever does which I don't know if I like.

The next phase would be to strip of some units from our Armies that are overlapping eachothers and using the money wich comes from that to develop more advanced troop types,basing from the experiences that united efforts would eventually show us.As i stated couple times before.I dont believe that EU will turn to an one huge country,and i wouldnt support that kind progress anyway.What i do believe in is,i believe EU is a great opportunity to us to co operate in many issues.

[Meneldil]

As I said in another thread, it would have been possible 50 years ago, when there was only 6 'EU' (although it was called EU back then) countries that shared a same view of Europe, had the same interest (being able to defend themselves against the bad red guys from USSR) and were somehow willing to create a kind of European super-state.
Unhappilly, the EDC was rejected by the French parliament (in 1954 I think).

Now, I don't see 25 (soon to be 27, and probably 29 or 30 soon) countries that have different interests and views on Europe (basically, Germany, France and a few others want a political EU, while UK, Poland, Irland and a few others want a trade union) creating any European Army.

But then, there's already some kind of project, once again led by France and Germany, of European military cooperation, but it's really not an European army.

Too bad, because an European army could probably achieve what the US can't : defeating a few desert savages.

Edit : I voted yes, but it's never goona happens now, except if EU crumble, and if a few wealthy countries start a new union from scratch.