European army?
- Thread starter Ghoullove
- Start date
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Heh, wow. Who do these soldiers swear loyalty to? Is this like the UN Peacekeepers?
Although the drawbacks in simply having a unified command are apparent, there shouldn't be a combined military force when people still have too many national ties. Poland will want to use its soldiers for its political interests, and so on and so on.
Although the drawbacks in simply having a unified command are apparent, there shouldn't be a combined military force when people still have too many national ties. Poland will want to use its soldiers for its political interests, and so on and so on.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
The problem with that, though, is that you have to seperate their national identities from their identity as EC soldiers. There can never truly be a unified military when your fighting men will put their homelands before the purposes of the Union.
we need a unified army with a real chain of command, but if it's actually possible to achieve is a whole other subject...
there are some dangers in unifying the armies though. you're quite likely to be pushed into a specialist role. belgium for instance is good at (de-)mining (land & sea) & low altitude cargo drops just to name a few. it's likely we'll be asked to specialise in this.
i think it's more likely to start a 'new' army, loose from domestic armies. each country 'detaches' a part of their armed forces & assign it to the newly formed european army. even if this force would be limited, it'd be good to have an independent army with it's own chain of command. of course, countries will bicker forever about whose general should be head honcho...
there are some dangers in unifying the armies though. you're quite likely to be pushed into a specialist role. belgium for instance is good at (de-)mining (land & sea) & low altitude cargo drops just to name a few. it's likely we'll be asked to specialise in this.
i think it's more likely to start a 'new' army, loose from domestic armies. each country 'detaches' a part of their armed forces & assign it to the newly formed european army. even if this force would be limited, it'd be good to have an independent army with it's own chain of command. of course, countries will bicker forever about whose general should be head honcho...
Jarno Mikkola
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
The Global Defence Incitive hasn't been unified as of yet, but the Brotherhood of NOD has come along quite well. 
Well in reality, a unified army will happen, but it will take a hundred or two years.
Well in reality, a unified army will happen, but it will take a hundred or two years.
I wonder, in what Polish army is good at?
Running?
Drinking?
I guess GROM is a pretty decend polish special unit. For Europen standards at least. But there are dozens of good special units in ue, so we wont have much to offer.
Besides there will be huge problem with coordinating those forces, even with one chain of comand. So i agree that unification of european armies will last very long
Running?
Drinking?
I guess GROM is a pretty decend polish special unit. For Europen standards at least. But there are dozens of good special units in ue, so we wont have much to offer.
Besides there will be huge problem with coordinating those forces, even with one chain of comand. So i agree that unification of european armies will last very long
for European standards?Slaanesh said:
do you really believe american spec ops are better? bigger, sure, but better is up for debate (some even say they're worse now)...
the present problem with american spec ops is that they're all growing too big. too big = lower quality. (ironically, too big also = no longer special
)all in all, many of the European spec ops are up to par with their american equivalents.
Bradylama said:
Bradylama, I fail to see how that would happen. European Union is more about money that military force, and I suspect most of the cost of the Polish contingent would be covered by countries other than Poland. So really, this would not give us much of an edge.
As for the loyalty issue, Euro troops would swear allegiance to the President of the European Commision; However, if they were still members of a national military force at the time, their allegiance to their national head of state would come first; So only way for a true European army would be for it to be an independently estabilished and financed military force. Expensive, but possible, IMHO.
Silencer; we would have to get a more logical, elected President of the EC then.
The EU is not a military alliance nor is it shaped to handle being one. Not going to happen anytime soon, not even worth considering.
The EU is not a military alliance nor is it shaped to handle being one. Not going to happen anytime soon, not even worth considering.
Slanesh said:
As far as I know, it's one of the best special forces unit on the planet, gringo.
Brady said:
Um. What? How? As Silencer said, I don't see how it would happen. Political interests in the East? There are more effective means than to scare people with our big, conscript underequipped army.
Ontopic, I think the EU should have, if not a common army, at least a reaction force powerful enough not to rely on the yanks were another balkan-style thing to happen.
I believe it's something that's being developed, actually.
Still miles and decades away from a unified army per se.
Kharn said:
What's wrong with the President of the Commission?
Also, as Wooz said, start off with a rapid reaction force. It will still be a long time before any unified Army. But a small force, which could take advantage of national infrastructure and facilities, is possible.
What's wrong with the President of the Commission? He's the head of nothin' but a bit of bollocks. The Commission is one of the biggest democratical deficits in the EU's system, they even show slight tendencies towards tyranny at time (for instance by trying to pass bills that further fund Euro-wide parties but not Euro-sceptic ones).
Making an army loyal to the undemocratically appointed head of bureaucratic institute would go against everything that makes Europe democratic.
A small force is not possible. Who would command it, when would it react, how would it react? Every nation has sovereignty to react, but every nation is also allied. In case of an attack we would react jointedly anyway. A small strike force would be an offensive means, which makes no sense as we can never agree whether to attack or not.
Making an army loyal to the undemocratically appointed head of bureaucratic institute would go against everything that makes Europe democratic.
A small force is not possible. Who would command it, when would it react, how would it react? Every nation has sovereignty to react, but every nation is also allied. In case of an attack we would react jointedly anyway. A small strike force would be an offensive means, which makes no sense as we can never agree whether to attack or not.
Everybody seems to be missing the most basic point here.
A military appatus is first and foremost an extension of foreign policy. As long as Europe has no full-fledged common foreign policy, a European army would make no sense.
To apply it to recent events, for instance: how would the European army have been used during the Iraq war? Certain memberstates would've voted for intervention, certain memberstates would've voted against intervention - and if the 'for' votes would've been the majority, certain nations would've disagreed in sending 'their' soldiers along with the force, etc. etc.
Basically: you'd need to unify foreign policy first. How to do that I do not know: all I know is that it should be democratic. A logically elected European parliament and government - as opposed to the mess it is now - would go a long way as to make that happen.
A military appatus is first and foremost an extension of foreign policy. As long as Europe has no full-fledged common foreign policy, a European army would make no sense.
To apply it to recent events, for instance: how would the European army have been used during the Iraq war? Certain memberstates would've voted for intervention, certain memberstates would've voted against intervention - and if the 'for' votes would've been the majority, certain nations would've disagreed in sending 'their' soldiers along with the force, etc. etc.
Basically: you'd need to unify foreign policy first. How to do that I do not know: all I know is that it should be democratic. A logically elected European parliament and government - as opposed to the mess it is now - would go a long way as to make that happen.
That must be the reason i didn't mentioned them.SuAside said:
It was for sure, but its not the best now, not without Gen. Roman Polko.Wooz said:
As far as combining miltary forces, i agree with Jebus. First common foreign policy, then military.
Edit: It looks like gen. Polko is back in charge of GROM now. Good for him.
welsh
Junkmaster
A European defense agreement- you mean like the Western Europan Union?
See also official webpage.
A rapid reaction force like Eurofor?
Or the European Rapid Reation Force?
Projects for a wholly European military force were also negotiated between French and Germany. See Eurocorps.
I think the question that the Europeans should ask is-
(1) do they really need such a military?
(2) are these better than current relationships?
(3) can Europe afford to develop a military?
Considering that one of the reasons why the European Union developed was because NATO allow Europe to overcome the security problems in the first half of the 20th century, it might be worth considering if developing a military would facilitate or handicap a more unified, democratic and progressive European community.
See also official webpage.
A rapid reaction force like Eurofor?
Or the European Rapid Reation Force?
Projects for a wholly European military force were also negotiated between French and Germany. See Eurocorps.
I think the question that the Europeans should ask is-
(1) do they really need such a military?
(2) are these better than current relationships?
(3) can Europe afford to develop a military?
Considering that one of the reasons why the European Union developed was because NATO allow Europe to overcome the security problems in the first half of the 20th century, it might be worth considering if developing a military would facilitate or handicap a more unified, democratic and progressive European community.
1) for when W finally notices that we've got WMD's (even Belgium has those! sure, they're american, but still).
2) we don't want to rely on a former ally/guarddog that's cought rabies...
3) most Eurotrash armies can use new gear (belgium needs to replace it's C130's for instance). why not directly put that money to work on a coordinated force instead of toying around in your own sandbox? (economy of scale & scope ^^)
2) we don't want to rely on a former ally/guarddog that's cought rabies...
3) most Eurotrash armies can use new gear (belgium needs to replace it's C130's for instance). why not directly put that money to work on a coordinated force instead of toying around in your own sandbox? (economy of scale & scope ^^)
welsh
Junkmaster
(1) THere has never been any doubt that Europe has nuclear weapons.
(2) Happily the W administration will be gone in two years. The problem is that militaries are inherently political. That might not be such a problem if Europe had a unified notion of 'nationhood' but it doesn't yet. There are a lot of folks that are not happy with how the EU is going. Are these militaries going to remain national armies within an international organization? If so than you might have security imbalances with in the EU that might upset the balance. One of the reasons the Europeans have done so well (both in terms of political integration and in terms of quality of life) is that you don't have to pay a lot for having a military.
(3) and the problem there is (A) armies are damn expensive. (B) they are non-productive. (C) the main public goods you could get from an army- security- you already got.
Why bother?
For European nationalism? For the nationalism of individual states?
(2) Happily the W administration will be gone in two years. The problem is that militaries are inherently political. That might not be such a problem if Europe had a unified notion of 'nationhood' but it doesn't yet. There are a lot of folks that are not happy with how the EU is going. Are these militaries going to remain national armies within an international organization? If so than you might have security imbalances with in the EU that might upset the balance. One of the reasons the Europeans have done so well (both in terms of political integration and in terms of quality of life) is that you don't have to pay a lot for having a military.
(3) and the problem there is (A) armies are damn expensive. (B) they are non-productive. (C) the main public goods you could get from an army- security- you already got.
Why bother?
For European nationalism? For the nationalism of individual states?
I don't see how or why should european countries already in NATO, spending billions, now have an extra army...or step out of NATO?
Even if something so ludicrous would happen that army would have no purpose because it would have no goals, no directives, not enough agreement of those who supply the troops and the equipment on anything.
Especially if some serious crisis arise.
They'll just stand there bleating like the sheep...expressing their concerns.
Even if something so ludicrous would happen that army would have no purpose because it would have no goals, no directives, not enough agreement of those who supply the troops and the equipment on anything.
Especially if some serious crisis arise.
They'll just stand there bleating like the sheep...expressing their concerns.