Eu Army - Do We Need One? Watch

Ewan
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#41
Report 10 years ago
#41
(Original post by LearningMath)
Not saying this is my personal view, but for the sake of being sceptical...
How can you possibly know the UK has the second most 'powerful' military in the world? I'm pretty sure the chinese wouldnt be in a hurry to spill their secrets to you. :p: Furthermore... how exactly do you 'rate' military might.
Large defence spending, the UK has the second largest in the world, but still 10 times less than America. Your right though, how accurate it is I dont know.
0
reply
Chemical_Scum
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#42
Report 10 years ago
#42
(Original post by LearningMath)
Not saying this is my personal view, but for the sake of being sceptical...
How can you possibly know the UK has the second most 'powerful' military in the world? I'm pretty sure the chinese wouldnt be in a hurry to spill their secrets to you. :p: Furthermore... how exactly do you 'rate' military might.
from its capacity to mobilize and wage an effective campaign. for a stunning example of how we are FAAAAAR ahead of the other EU countries in terms of our military effectiveness do you remember when the bears flew towards our airspace? they went unnoticed by everyone until they got near the UK where the Typhoon was immediately scrambled and intercepted them before they got in to British airspace. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph...7-_643411a.jpg
theres far too much to go into but I know the UK has the 2nd most effective military in the world. China is nowhere near an effective military yet. massive army=useless in a conflict between china and the UK. its all about power projection.
0
reply
Captain Biggles
Badges: 2
#43
Report 10 years ago
#43
(Original post by MuseValheru)
You might see it as cool but there are far to many political complications involved. Remember that NATO already exists as does the UN. Both of these organisations aim to act as a force for good across the world. There is no need for an EU army.
Exactly. A lot of NATO's work involves European countries combined with America whereby they protect their members. Well, bit naive to completely assume that, but if any member country came under attack NATO would move to 'neutralise' the threat.

There really is so many reasons why a European Army would not be able to function.
reply
tucker672
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#44
Report 10 years ago
#44
(Original post by LearningMath)
Not saying this is my personal view, but for the sake of being sceptical...
How can you possibly know the UK has the second most 'powerful' military in the world? I'm pretty sure the chinese wouldnt be in a hurry to spill their secrets to you. :p: Furthermore... how exactly do you 'rate' military might.
We do have the 2nd best military in the world and dare I say the first as I think George Bush would just let us blow him up he is so dumb :P:

BUt also disagree like you with the guy you quoted. Why should briatian share its military skills and dilute our forces. I know it sounds selfish but Britain should keep its skills to itself. And by the sounds we wouldnt need to produce lots of Tanks and ships becuase it seems like this ARMY WOULD BE FOR PEACEKEEPING AND NOT WAR.
0
reply
Mrgd291190
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#45
Report 10 years ago
#45
We already have a form of an army - the EU Battlegroups do some work towards this.

It is necessary, in my opinion, as if it is an efficient force, could respond faster then the UN could with it's various peacekeeping forces (though I would prefer a permanent UN force). Look at the French-led deployment to Chad or the DRC (Artemis, to supplement the UN).

If it became an actual army of the EU, not just battlegoups raised from all the various countries, then language would be the main and possible sole barrier. With recruits from 27 countries, the common language would have to be English. The EU would have to come above national ties for the soldiers. It would have to be under the Council or Parliament command and with no ties to the countries - same with the UN.

And Ireland does contribute somewhat - it offers bomb-disposal experts and is part of the Nordic Battlegroup with 80 soldiers. To distrust Germany by now is, to be frank, simply racism. They didn't precisely start the 1st WW and WW2 was, essentially, a follow-on. Germany hasn't been doing this sort of thing for 60 years, mainly because of the Cold War but since then they've been joining us in Afghanistan and have been begged to offer more. Similar to Japan, which is building up its own forces for a possible link with Australia but that's something else.

Britain apparently lags behind, I think we actually contribute the least of the main countries despite our spending being the highest.

To all who will tell me that the EU will erode Britain's autonomy and the like, there is a reason I'm unconcerned. I prefer the EU. It's far from perfect but holding it back won't do anything. If I wasn't a pacificist/defencivist I'd rather join an EU/UN army then a British one - it actually means something to me, that's all. Britain fails to move me. Nothing personal.

I think that's it...I wrote an essay on it recently and I've tried to recall everything. Just, y'know, my two cents.
0
reply
LearningMath
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#46
Report 10 years ago
#46
(Original post by Mrgd291190)
We already have a form of an army - the EU Battlegroups do some work towards this.

It is necessary, in my opinion, as if it is an efficient force, could respond faster then the UN could with it's various peacekeeping forces (though I would prefer a permanent UN force). Look at the French-led deployment to Chad or the DRC (Artemis, to supplement the UN).

If it became an actual army of the EU, not just battlegoups raised from all the various countries, then language would be the main and possible sole barrier. With recruits from 27 countries, the common language would have to be English. The EU would have to come above national ties for the soldiers. It would have to be under the Council or Parliament command and with no ties to the countries - same with the UN.

And Ireland does contribute somewhat - it offers bomb-disposal experts and is part of the Nordic Battlegroup with 80 soldiers. To distrust Germany by now is, to be frank, simply racism. They didn't precisely start the 1st WW and WW2 was, essentially, a follow-on. Germany hasn't been doing this sort of thing for 60 years, mainly because of the Cold War but since then they've been joining us in Afghanistan and have been begged to offer more. Similar to Japan, which is building up its own forces for a possible link with Australia but that's something else.

Britain apparently lags behind, I think we actually contribute the least of the main countries despite our spending being the highest.

To all who will tell me that the EU will erode Britain's autonomy and the like, there is a reason I'm unconcerned. I prefer the EU. It's far from perfect but holding it back won't do anything. If I wasn't a pacificist/defencivist I'd rather join an EU/UN army then a British one - it actually means something to me, that's all. Britain fails to move me. Nothing personal.

I think that's it...I wrote an essay on it recently and I've tried to recall everything. Just, y'know, my two cents.
I'm taking your word for it, and by main, you mean France, Germany, and Spain ? Anyway, the UK has way more forces abroad than any other EU country, we have many commitments around the world, and hence to contribute more soldiers to this battlegroup would be foolish given, in terms of manpower, we are over-stretched.
0
reply
jgupta
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#47
Report 10 years ago
#47
I think language barriers would be a MAJOR issue...they would essentially function as separate armies anyway as a result of it.

Perhaps a stronger connection between the european armies, but not a single EU army
0
reply
flugelr
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#48
Report 10 years ago
#48
No.

I dislike the EU anyway.

Some EU troops are ok, but many I would not like to be on the same continent as, let alone fighting alongside.
0
reply
Cattleman
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#49
Report 10 years ago
#49
The army of the united communist states of europe. I believe I once heard Robert Kilroy Silk accuse the EU of being a "communist conspiracy". I'm inclined to agree with him.

No thankyou.
0
reply
tucker672
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#50
Report 10 years ago
#50
This place is suppose to be a forum of debate and now I have neg rep becuase I said you can't deny the world wars Ia m not even being racist as I have German ancestary I was just stating History.

I have accpeted people's views on The United States of Europe and haven't given them neg rep just because I disagree. Honestly why can't people jsu tspeak there mind :mad:

Freedom of Speech - I wasn't being racist.

Grant
0
reply
billyboymccoy
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#51
Report 10 years ago
#51
I wouldn't mind it. For it to be an effective presence on the world stage it'll need some military capabilitys. Something like Kosovo would have been the place to deploy an EU army, but then I suppose USA wouldn't be too happy about us basically replaceing nato.

And if they were to make an EU army I'm sure the regiments would be along national lines .
0
reply
greenwaytph
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#52
Report 10 years ago
#52
well we have UN peace keepers who sort of act as a combined army but obviously are not just european.
0
reply
tucker672
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#53
Report 10 years ago
#53
(Original post by billyboymccoy)
I wouldn't mind it. For it to be an effective presence on the world stage it'll need some military capabilitys. Something like Kosovo would have been the place to deploy an EU army, but then I suppose USA wouldn't be too happy about us basically replaceing nato.

And if they were to make an EU army I'm sure the regiments would be along national lines .
First of all we have to get a one language Europe probably english or Spanish. :confused:
0
reply
jacketpotato
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#54
Report 10 years ago
#54
Whatever the objections to Europe on principle, the fact is an EU army would be hopelessly inefficient. The EU can't do beaurocracy efficiently, and we have seen how shockingly inefficient UN peace-keeping troops were. Its a recipe for wasting resources by having an inefficient army.
0
reply
meenu89
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#55
Report 10 years ago
#55
EU army would be another thing for the EU to be really bad at
0
reply
Jaager
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#56
Report 10 years ago
#56
we already have EUFOR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EUFOR
and Eurocorps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocorps which the UK is not a key member of, but at least a contributor

(Original post by Varsity)
There is totally no reason for an EU Military.

1) Control
There will simply be too many people with too many voices, just take a look at Afghanistan and you can see how hard it is to get people to fight together.
Controlled by EU defence commissioner??

It would actually be better if we did have a single defence force, because it would mean that the power to go to war would be with the union, therefore it would take a majority vote, and conflicts could be avoided!

(Original post by Varsity)
There is totally no reason for an EU Military.
2) Equipment
Starting an EU Army would require everyone to start standardizing their equipment, and you can bet your bottom dollar that will mean we all end up buying French!
We wouldnt buy french, if we had to standardise equipment it would probably be German (weapons like H&K G36 + varients) Or Belgian (weapons like FN2000). The way i see it working in practice though is that all member states would have their own Militaries, but will have to put in troops on a rota basis, therefore EU troops would use their own nations equipment. Most nations use 5.56x45 NATO rounds anyway, and most rifles used by EU militaries are compatable with STANAG magazines except some eastern european countries who havnt addopted 5.56 yet, or those countries who use the Steyr AUG or H&K G36...

(Original post by Varsity)
There is totally no reason for an EU Military.
3) Doctrine
The different nations of Europe all conduct wars in different ways, and many are at very different levels of training and equipment.
True, but many nations have adopted similar structures, there is a NATO rank system (your the same nato rank, even if you country calls the British rank Lance Corporal the Rank of Major General of the army -ok that is a bit OTT but..) Also, many NATO countries have similar operating priciples which could be brought together. The main problem would again be those from former Warsaw Pact nations, who are still adjusting to post soviet military doctrine....

To all those saying Germany is an Issue, WTF! The German Consitiution is designed so that nothing like the world wars can happen again, you are intollerent little *****, go grow up and learn about other countries before making idiots of yourselves
0
reply
MuseValheru
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#57
Report 10 years ago
#57
(Original post by Mrgd291190)
If I wasn't a pacificist/defencivist I'd rather join an EU/UN army then a British one - it actually means something to me, that's all. Britain fails to move me. Nothing personal.
Any particular reason for this? What would an EU/UN army mean to you? Why doesnt the British Armed Forces mean anything to you?
0
reply
Mrgd291190
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#58
Report 10 years ago
#58
(Original post by MuseValheru)
Any particular reason for this? What would an EU/UN army mean to you? Why doesnt the British Armed Forces mean anything to you?
Personally, Britain means little to me. My main nationality is Welsh (which I get a lot of stick for on these boards) and Britain just...doesn't move me. I wouldn't feel moved to defend it unless it was also utterly necessary. But I consider myself a European, that ideal means something to me. Humanity itself means even more.

Just a personal preference.
0
reply
MuseValheru
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#59
Report 10 years ago
#59
(Original post by Mrgd291190)
Personally, Britain means little to me. My main nationality is Welsh (which I get a lot of stick for on these boards) and Britain just...doesn't move me. I wouldn't feel moved to defend it unless it was also utterly necessary. But I consider myself a European, that ideal means something to me. Humanity itself means even more.

Just a personal preference.
As a patriotic individual it saddens me to hear that but I can respect people have different preferences. The way I look at things is that the history of my country is something to be proud of. I would not like to think that freedoms earned by the actions of past generations could be lost to unelected european bureaucrats, whom do not in all instances hold the same values as the British public. I would like to stress that this is just my opinion.
0
reply
Jaager
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#60
Report 10 years ago
#60
(Original post by MuseValheru)
As a patriotic individual it saddens me to hear that but I can respect people have different preferences. The way I look at things is that the history of my country is something to be proud of. I would not like to think that freedoms earned by the actions of past generations could be lost to unelected european bureaucrats, whom do not in all instances hold the same values as the British public.
MEP's are elected... Also members of the commission are elected members of their nations parliaments and the commission is legitamised by the vote of approval from the parlement.

Also do you mean the values of the British Public or the British press?:rolleyes:
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (377)
37.29%
No - but I will (77)
7.62%
No - I don't want to (71)
7.02%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (486)
48.07%

Watched Threads

View All