European Military

RepublicanEagle

We all know the EU is emerging as an international economic "superpower",some would argue it already has.

However would a future unified European Army under the EU be superior militarily than most (if all)nations outside of the EU?I believe so considering the numbers for a start.

twinytwo

ha

LD 50

It might have good numbers compared to most individual countries, but the 3 superpowers could easily have more each.
I dunno about the tech and armaments side of it, but I doubt the EU could beat them either in that category either.

Evd-Burner

Im sure that if all the eu countries were made pay like 3-5% of there GDP to it that there would be some very very good toys floating about fairly quickly...

LD 50

Or instead of paying money, why not share what's already there. Whatever I designed by these nations militaries, gets used throughout the EU military. Since if a EU Nation was attacked, all the military forces would be involved anyways. And sharing the tech and weapons reduces the pressure compared to training under fire. And in these times, reduces the financial strain

concussion

There is very little standardisation of equipment across the EU. Think of all the different assault rifles, MG's, armoured vehicles, arty and comms equipment which is in use at the mo.

Foxhound38

I think that the EU should have a unified military under the joint political control of the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, with individual member states retaining reduced size Defence Forces in the same sense as US States retain National Guards (for aid to civil power, search and rescue, coast guard operations etc). Each member state contributes 3% of their GDP to the unified military, with recruitment open to each member state. Cheaper on the wide scale, effective, and far less likely to be sent off on hare-brained advertures to the middle east unless absolutely necessary by the politically diverse European Parliament and Council of Ministers than by individual member states and their governments.

A pipe dream considering the amount of paranoia about europe these days, but an interesting one none the less...

Del2005

concussion wrote: »

There is very little standardisation of equipment across the EU. Think of all the different assault rifles, MG's, armoured vehicles, arty and comms equipment which is in use at the mo.

They may have different weapons systems, but seeing as most EU countries are already in NATO they have standardised ammo and integrated comms. Do we use NATO standard ammo?

They've even developed diesel motorbikes as NATO is moving to(or has already moved not I'm too sure) only using 2 fuels.

Tarzan007

Del2005 wrote: »

They may have different weapons systems, but seeing as most EU countries are already in NATO they have standardised ammo and integrated comms. Do we use NATO standard ammo?

They've even developed diesel motorbikes as NATO is moving to(or has already moved not I'm too sure) only using 2 fuels.

" Do we use NATO standard ammo? " Anyone know ?

concussion

We do. However not much more than that is standardised. That's not to say that inter-operability is a huge issue but the EU uses a lot of different equipment.

OS119

Tarzan007 wrote: »

" Do we use NATO standard ammo? " Anyone know ?

yes, you use NATO standard 5.56mm and 7.62mm. it'll fit in any L85/M-16/M-4/G-3/FNC/Minimi/GPMG/M-60/MG-42 etc...

not absolutely sure about the Steyr-AUG magazines though.

with regard to the OP though - just think about both the combined EU defence budget (the UK, France, Germany and Italy alone must push €100billion a year) and the stunning duplication and 'double-spend' of 20-odd militaries all with different air transport, tanking, AWACS, EW, ASW/MPA fleets, not to mention tube artillery, logistics support, and armour.

a single, political entity with access to a defence budget of 3.5% of all the tax revenues in the EU would have ability to create an armed force that would equal that of the US, and dwarf that of Russia and China.

on a much more basic level, even disregarding bilateral defence treaties like that of the the UK and France, if joint procurement of widely used platforms - strategic transport, fleet escorts, helicopters, trucks and artillery - could be brought about, then not only would they have the advantage of interoperability, but one order for 5000 trucks is a lot cheaper than 10 orders for 500 trucks.

concussion

Can you imagine if an EU military was proposed???

Won't somebody please think of our sovereignty??!!

RepublicanEagle

concussion wrote: »

Can you imagine if an EU military was proposed???

Won't somebody please think of our sovereignty??!!

I'm Irish,I wouldn't mind,personally speaking,it would be a positive thing.

concussion

We didn't spend 800 years kicking the Brits just to join the new European Empire!

/hysteria

RepublicanEagle

concussion wrote: »

We didn't spend 800 years kicking the Brits just to join the new European Empire!

/hysteria

Don't worry,they won't steal our potatoes.

minidazzler

The first question I would ask if this was seriously proposed would be, Why is this needed?

I can't really justify it in my head as for the most part, Europe is not war going.

Peace-keeping is done by the UN, which is fair enough I think.

I just don't see a point in it like.

Standardisation is good and all, but how the hell do you get 27 countries to agree on one truck to buy?, and at that, how do you prevent the massive amounts of corruption that comes with Beaurocrats and the Military expenditure.

NATO and the UN already exist, a European Military, would further cement the hysterics of anti-Europe people everywhere.

The US would bitch and moan about it too.

People would draw paralels to the Nazi occupation of Europe, calling it the political way of creating the 4th Reich.

Basically, while it would be possible to actually have a European Military, the probabilities are so low due to politics and policies involved, that it could not happen without some major insurrection.

RepublicanEagle

minidazzler wrote: »

The first question I would ask if this was seriously proposed would be, Why is this needed?

A military structure is extremely important in global stability and preserving and enforcing peace and democracy.As the EU is favorably looked upon,it would be a positive thing.Obviously only a military dedicated to peace and defence as we are not war-going.

minidazzler wrote: »

The US would bitch and moan about it too.

IMHO they can bitch and moan all they want.Look what happened with their declaration of the Armenian genocide,than their submission to the Turks.Don't get me started on their concessions and grovelling to the Chinese,

minidazzler wrote: »

People would draw paralels to the Nazi occupation of Europe, calling it the political way of creating the 4th Reich..

I havn't recalled any recent calls for a second Final Solution.

minidazzler wrote: »

could not happen without some major insurrection.

That is a tad bit dramatic don't you think?

minidazzler

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

A military structure is extremely important in global stability and preserving and enforcing peace and democracy.As the EU is favorably looked upon,it would be a positive thing.Obviously only a military dedicated to peace and defence as we are not war-going.

IMHO they can bitch and moan all they want.Look what happened with their declaration of the Armenian genocide,than their submission to the Turks.Don't get me started on their concessions and grovelling to the Chinese,

I havn't recalled any recent calls for a second Final Solution.

That is a tad bit dramatic don't you think?

I agree a military structure is important, but there is already a military in each European country, most of whom are members of the UN and/or NATO.

Your opinion, while valid here, would not work in the political arena. You can't just say to America, "Tough titty boys, we are doing it." It's quite a delicate thing.

A Reich has nothing to do with the Final Solution, it's an Empire, since the biggest countries are France and Germany, presumably they would be the leaders here, hence my paralels to the Reich. Ostensibly there would probably be a rotating "leadership" but that would be mostly for show.

Insurrection was overly dramatic, but there would be protesting, and alot of it.

I simply don't see the point in a militarily unified Europe given we are already Economically, diplomatically and politically unified, to attempt a single European military would be expensive and seen as a major power play in the political arena.

It's not that I am against it, it's just I don't see a point.

Implementation would be nigh on impossible, it would take some VERY smart leaders to get it sorted.

RepublicanEagle

minidazzler wrote: »

A Reich has nothing to do with the Final Solution.

A poor example I used,I must admit.

OS119

minidazzler wrote: »

...I simply don't see the point in a militarily unified Europe given we are already Economically, diplomatically and politically unified, to attempt a single European military would be expensive and seen as a major power play in the political arena...

the logical reverse of that position is that given that the EU is a unified (ish) political, economic, diplomatic entity, it needs a unified military arm to defend itself and to enforce its will.

being a political/economic/diplomatic entity of 500m population, an economy that produces/earns some 30% of world product (about 18 trillion US$), and having interests in every continent, is going to produce frictions with other powers/blocs. such an entity existing is the major power play, it having a military arm is just a logical, inevitable, consequence of that.

minidazzler

OS119 wrote: »

the logical reverse of that position is that given that the EU is a unified (ish) political, economic, diplomatic entity, it needs a unified military arm to defend itself and to enforce its will.

being a political/economic/diplomatic entity of 500m population, an economy that produces/earns some 30% of world product (about 18 trillion US$), and having interests in every continent, is going to produce frictions with other powers/blocs. such an entity existing is the major power play, it having a military arm is just a logical, inevitable, consequence of that.

I consede that point, but I don't think Europes will/aims is going to be fought for on battle fields, more likely to happen at conference tables.

Del2005

minidazzler wrote: »

I consede that point, but I don't think Europes will/aims is going to be fought for on battle fields, more likely to happen at conference tables.

A big stick can be very handy. You don't even need to use it the vast majority of the time. But it's always better to have one near by instead of looking for one when you really need it.