EU army

[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]

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.

[Franconicus]

Quote:
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.
No, England is right. I guess the Scots, Irish and Welsh will join

This is why we need an European army:

1. This will boost the integration. A common army will force the EU to a common policy
2. It will keep the balance. To secure peace you have to integrate Germany as much as possible. Today everything is fine. But only if we get our European identity the balance in Europe will be there for a long time. I know that some nations think they will loose influence in a European State. Completely wrong. If you have a European democracy every single individual has the same influence. If you have not, the big nations rule.
3. The US only respects military strengh. So if we want to get influence on the international politic we must increase our military strenght. We must have our own CIA, our own spy satelites, our own GPS.
4. If we want to reform the UN to a real powerful organisation we can only do this from a position of strength, military strenght, not only moral.

To the standards: Most European nations are member of the NATO and so have common standards. I know that Poland spend a lot of money to introduce them. There is already a command structure. There is no need that every unit uses the same trucks. France has to be integrated. There is even a kind of European army, the Western European Union.

GB:
I guess the strength of the British army is overestimated. They reduced their military spendings as much as any other European nation after the cold war. I do not believe that the British will join the army. I think it is more likely that they quit Europe (maybe try to become 51st state of the US). That is o.k.. It is their decition. Europe will be stronger without them being half in half out. I think the other big ones will join: Germany, France, Italy, Spain, also some of the smaller ones. Maybe the northern and eastern states will join too.

[JAG]

I am a huge advocate of an EU army, I believe it solves so many problems.

An EU army will allow each country in the EU to specialise their military expertise, which will allow not only less money to be wasted on individual states armed forces, but a better level of defence in the EU. With less money spent on the military by each nation they can focus more on their domestic priorities, it is win, win.

[Ja'chyra]

[QUOTE=Franconicus]Quote:
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.
No, England is right. I guess the Scots, Irish and Welsh will join

[QUOTE]

Was that a joke? If so I don't get it.

[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.

[derF]

A European Unified Armed Force (EUAF) is inevitable. It is simply a matter of time. There are several benefits this could bring:

- Greater step toward globalisation.
- European military campaings and operations will greatly supercede quality and success in comparison to todays best leading military force, U.S.
- Virtually un-corruptable.
- Greater potential rapidity in executing operations.
- Numerous consequential benefits.

Having said that, there are a few problems too:

- Communication.
- Equipment standardisation. Who will supply? What will happen to un-selected suppliers?
- There is a chance that because each country is very different, there will never be total consent regarding proposition of actions.

The knock-on benefit effects are very important too:

- Eventually, non-EU countries will become attracted to the EUAF and sign-up to begin the Global Defence Force (GDF).

Conclusion: Todays general Eurpean Economic system provides a major stumbling block for this concept to go forward even into consideration. This problem is that regarding what will happen to Military manufactureres that are not selected for standardisation. Europe has many suppliers, the main ones of which being; Steyr, Beretta, Fabrique Nationale, GIAT, Heckler & Koch etc... So suppose FN are selected as the manufactureres of the standard issue assault rifle for the entire EUAF, will all other manufacturers gladly bend over and recieve a monumental financial shafting? No.

This is just one of the major problems. But as i said, its inevitable. I predict about 5 generations from now there will be major talks about implementation.

[Husar]

What about manufacturers working together? Or just ordering weapons from different manufacturers, it worked with the Eurofighter and the US have more than one manufacturer for rifles and planes as well... At least concerning aircraft and missiles, european companies are working together already, though some countries still want to push forward their own projects.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

how does a European army imply the following:

- European military campaings and operations will greatly supercede quality and success in comparison to todays best leading military force, U.S.
- Virtually un-corruptable.
- Greater potential rapidity in executing operations.

These are all possible but it all depends on the sort of European military that is established. If current political attitudes towards the military do not change then there is no chance in the world that the first two would be accomplished.

What exactly would the global defence force be? A global army?
Wouldn't a global army exacerbate every single potential problem that has been raised about a common Euro Army?

[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.

[Husar]

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?

A democratic vote of all member states? Do we like democracy now or don´t we?

[Al Khalifah]

A democratic vote of all member states? Do we like democracy now or don´t we?

So British troops could be made to go to war despite the fact that the people of Britain are completely opposed to the war in question?
Would this be a qualified majority vote or would it need to be a unanimous vote? Either way you are going to get problems.
With majority voting, only slightly more than half of the population of Europe would need to be in favour of military action, yet the army of every member state would have to commit. With unanimous voting, the disaproval of, for example, Malta could stall the war machine of all Europe.

There's one place democracy does not belong and that's in the armed forces. Questions, due process, debates, fair play, discussions, votes get people killed.

[Meneldil]

So British troops could be made to go to war despite the fact that the people of Britain are completely opposed to the war in question?
Would this be a qualified majority vote or would it need to be a unanimous vote? Either way you are going to get problems.
With majority voting, only slightly more than half of the population of Europe would need to be in favour of military action, yet the army of every member state would have to commit. With unanimous voting, the disaproval of, for example, Malta could stall the war machine of all Europe.

Yeah, that's right. And that's why it will never work without an european super-state (which wil never exist anyway).
In 1952, when the EDC was proposed, it was supposed to be a step in favor of a super state. Now, a super-state would be a step in favor of an european army.

[Kagemusha]

So British troops could be made to go to war despite the fact that the people of Britain are completely opposed to the war in question?
Would this be a qualified majority vote or would it need to be a unanimous vote? Either way you are going to get problems.
With majority voting, only slightly more than half of the population of Europe would need to be in favour of military action, yet the army of every member state would have to commit. With unanimous voting, the disaproval of, for example, Malta could stall the war machine of all Europe.

There's one place democracy does not belong and that's in the armed forces. Questions, due process, debates, fair play, discussions, votes get people killed.

You are right.It wont work with Democratic decision making.I think every country should decide itself whether or not get involved in certain conflicts.For lets say a local conflict that would need to be adressed European countries wouldnt even need to use that much force.Only operation that would accuire total mobilization ,would be to defend Europe itself.