EU Army on way? EU cannot rely on NATO and needs new defence policy...

[May90]

assuming that the nations supplying the troops would be on the same page, which they often aren't. Couple that with problem you would have with the rank and file members of the military. Do you think a French sergeant is going to be okay with a German Officer giving him orders to run across a field of fire? doubtful.

Well, joint operations are not exactly novelty, so such situations are no issue. I just don't see the point of having a separate EU army, when we already have NATO which essentially serves interests of both North America and Europe.

[Skroe]

Well, joint operations are not exactly novelty, so such situations are no issue. I just don't see the point of having a separate EU army, when we already have NATO which essentially serves interests of both North America and Europe.

You know what the best part about this is - and you're completely right by the way - it's that this entire conversation, even 15 pages in, ignores half the purpose of NATO.

There are two NATOs.

There is the more well known NATO, headed by the Supreme Allied Commander-Europe, always a US Flag Officer, based in Mons, Belgium. This NATO's real name is SHAPE - Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe. The head of SHAPE is also the head of US European Command.

Then there is the behind the scenes NATO that does the heavy lifting. It is called Allied Command - Transformation. It is based out of Norfolk, Virginia. It employs more people and has more facilities. It's commander, under a 2009 agreement, is always a French Flag Officer. It's job is to ensure logistical, technological, planning, equipment and training are compatible and/or uniform across all of NATO's 28 country's, plus it's global partners (Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan, Colombia most notably).

Let's just think about the enormity of that task. While SHAPE is focused on Operations, ACT is focused on making sure of everything from compatibility of radios and ammunition, to standardization in training and procedures, to planning how to spread new technology across dozens of countries.

A EU-only alternative to NATO, if it just was an alternative to SHAPE, would be comparably superficial. SHAPE may be prestigious and well known as "NATO" in the vernacular, but ACT (and it's predecessor before the 2003 reorganization that created it) is what makes NATO what it is. It's the one that makes sure that when an F-16 takes off from Maryland and lands in Germany, Italy or Greece, the maintenance crews there care for it in the exact same way (as an example).

And it's already headed by a Frenchman.

[Kellhound]

Next obvious question Kell: Do you allow them to do so?

Yes, because we are not anal about allies flying in our airspace. But that wasnt part of your original question. You are moving goal posts because you dont like the answer.

[Theodarzna]

I'm sorry, what country won the Cold War and dominated the international system today? Yeah so we screwed up a few times. We built NATO and grew. Japan was rebuilt. We became massively wealthy. Our enemies became poor and fractured.

It's produced 75 years an counting of security, and isn't likely to stop soon.

Nice try Djalil. You know it's funny in a sense, that I'm opposed to Brexit, because the act of Brexit itself is illustrative that not even other EUropeans entirely buy into your integration through trade delusions.

.... Theoretically America, though lets see, that's 25 years? Call me in a century and tell me how its panning out. 25 years, in which continued chaos and problems emerge as well as the ticking time bomb of climate change and demographic decline, well, again call us in a century or two and tell me how it worked out.

[Nihilist74]

I hope they don't do it like America does where we spend 20000$ on toilet seat that goes in a bomber so that some contractor can get richer off the tax payers dollar.

[Theinquisition]

Well, joint operations are not exactly novelty, so such situations are no issue. I just don't see the point of having a separate EU army, when we already have NATO which essentially serves interests of both North America and Europe.

joint operations don't mean that your giving up command of specific units to foreign entities, it just means your working in concert with them. I've participated in joint exercises with British, German, and Pilipino troops, we've never had to take orders from them, just work with them.

I think NATO is a wonderful defense apparatus for both us and Europe. the EU would be silly to scrap that.

[GennGreymane]

Makes things cheaper for the US

[Theinquisition]

.... Theoretically America, though lets see, that's 25 years? Call me in a century and tell me how its panning out. 25 years, in which continued chaos and problems emerge as well as the ticking time bomb of climate change and demographic decline, well, again call us in a century or two and tell me how it worked out.

Well, climate change is going to effect everyone, not just the U.S. and what exact demographic decline are you speaking of?

- - - Updated - - -

Makes things cheaper for the US

how exactly do you figure that?

[GennGreymane]

Well, climate change is going to effect everyone, not just the U.S. and what exact demographic decline are you speaking of?

- - - Updated - - -



how exactly do you figure that?

Less Nato emphasis, a Europe that is now collectively pooling resources to where its needed instead of necessarily needing the US to flip the bill.

[Sorrior]

Am I the only one who feels like almost all European nations and the US are on the verge of some catastrophic shit happening?

[Theodarzna]

Well, climate change is going to effect everyone, not just the U.S. and what exact demographic decline are you speaking of?

One of the trends that worries me the most, other than Climate Change, though for the US its very dangerous because we are at the centre of trade, I mean Skroe is correct, we somewhat do run the world, if the foundations crumble the tower falls, as does the King sitting on his throne. For demographic decline I speak mostly about the unsettling fact that all these Neo-Liberal capitalist countries in the west seem incapable of breeding enough people to sustain themselves long term.

Which can have a bad effect militarily. Mainly that each and every soldier needs more and more equipment and gadgets to compensate for less manpower, but that also makes each and every soldier more expensive and thus more precious and us less able to endure losses.

To quote the General Pyrrhis, "One more victory and we are ruined." after the better trained Greek warriors soon learned all that skill amounted for shit if there are so few of you that every loss is just devastating.

[Mormolyce]

I think this is some more "blue-sky thinking" about the EU.

It may happen in the future though.

We don't want to do it anymore, go pay for your own shit, thank you.

Oh the US wants out of NATO?

Something tells me they don't

[Theinquisition]

Less Nato emphasis, a Europe that is now collectively pooling resources to where its needed instead of necessarily needing the US to flip the bill.

sounds good, until the EU army lets brushfires turn into major conflicts because the politicians are too busy hand wringing about what to do.

I want to make it clear however, that every military force ive worked with from Europe has been very professional and capable. Unfortunately their politicians are spineless.

- - - Updated - - -

One of the trends that worries me the most, other than Climate Change, though for the US its very dangerous because we are at the centre of trade, I mean Skroe is correct, we somewhat do run the world, if the foundations crumble the tower falls, as does the King sitting on his throne. For demographic decline I speak mostly about the unsettling fact that all these Neo-Liberal capitalist countries in the west seem incapable of breeding enough people to sustain themselves long term.

Which can have a bad effect militarily. Mainly that each and every soldier needs more and more equipment and gadgets to compensate for less manpower, but that also makes each and every soldier more expensive and thus more precious and us less able to endure losses.

To quote the General Pyrrhis, "One more victory and we are ruined." after the better trained Greek warriors soon learned all that skill amounted for shit if there are so few of you that every loss is just devastating.

I don't necessarily disagree. We need more programs in place (I.E. tax writeoffs and credits) for middle class people that have kids

[Tempguy]

Those "crazys" who felt the Eu was trying to become a country called this already.

It's clear that the EU will follow in the steps of the United States. Except you guys won't get to vote on your presidents...

- - - Updated - - -

Am I the only one who feels like almost all European nations and the US are on the verge of some catastrophic shit happening?

Would make sense. All empires go through cycles. I would not be shocked if in 100 or so years, a few countries get smaller and other get bigger. One thing will be certain though, Somalia will still be trash.

[Skroe]

Well, climate change is going to effect everyone, not just the U.S. and what exact demographic decline are you speaking of?

Theodarzna is a fact free individual. He is either again confusing the US demographic future with the European one (ignoring the US is going to be growing and diversifying) or he's going to go on yet again how the robots and AI are going to take all our jerbs in order to justify his basic income handout scheme (as a computer scientist who works with robots, that bullshit is mostly pushed by non-scientists talking out of their ass).

[Theodarzna]

I don't necessarily disagree. We need more programs in place (I.E. tax writeoffs and credits) for middle class people that have kids

I could agree, though I am one to note, in the case of demographics, no country has successfully stemmed the tide. And indeed every sort of method from cash incentives to give aways to constant government prizes has been attempted.

- - - Updated - - -

Theodarzna is a fact free individual. He is either again confusing the US demographic future with the European one (ignoring the US is going to be growing and diversifying) or he's going to go on yet again how the robots and AI are going to take all our jerbs in order to justify his basic income handout scheme (as a computer scientist who works with robots, that bullshit is mostly pushed by non-scientists talking out of their ass).

I suppose 1.9 is better than 1, but yes we are falling down in fertility rates, but no, go on about the 1000 year American Imperium you hope for, though will obviously never personally fight for as that would get in the way of pretending to be a big shot in tech with daddies sweet trust fund money.

[Skroe]

One of the trends that worries me the most, other than Climate Change, though for the US its very dangerous because we are at the centre of trade, I mean Skroe is correct, we somewhat do run the world, if the foundations crumble the tower falls, as does the King sitting on his throne. For demographic decline I speak mostly about the unsettling fact that all these Neo-Liberal capitalist countries in the west seem incapable of breeding enough people to sustain themselves long term.

Which can have a bad effect militarily. Mainly that each and every soldier needs more and more equipment and gadgets to compensate for less manpower, but that also makes each and every soldier more expensive and thus more precious and us less able to endure losses.

To quote the General Pyrrhis, "One more victory and we are ruined." after the better trained Greek warriors soon learned all that skill amounted for shit if there are so few of you that every loss is just devastating.

I trust you can read graphs?




Also...




The US is such a large economy, the vast majority of our business is the internal market. As it should be in a post-industrial advanced economy.

Militarily, manpower has shrunk because of technological change. Massive armies of conscripts existed because they worked. They were militarily potent. Then professional, smaller, high tech armies replaced them. This is natural. if "Iron Man" becomes real one day later this century, as the Pentagon intends, don't be surprised if the US Army eventually has only about 50,000 "combat troops", in that armor for example (and another 100,000 support troops). But Iron Man would have several times the offensive power as an entire unit today.

We've seen this already in another form. Our supercarriers are designed to hold 90 aircraft, but they usually only go to sea with 60-70 (although they can be surged to 90 if needed). That's because all 90 were needed when the Navy used more specialized aircraft - more types for all the different jobs the airwing needed cover. In 1991 they had:

2 fighter squadrons (VF) of 10-12 F-14 Tomcats, including TARPS photo reconnaissance aircraft
2 strike fighter squadrons (VFA) of 12 FA-18 Hornets
1 medium attack squadron (VA) 10 A-6Es (including 4 KA-6D tankers).
1 early warning squadron (VAW) of 4-6 E-2Cs
1 tactical electronic warfare squadron (VAQ) of 4-6 EA-6Bs
1 anti-submarine squadron (VS) of 8 S-3A Vikings
1 helicopter anti-submarine squadron (HS) of 6 SH-3H Sea Kings or 6 SH-60F and 2 HH-60H Seahawks
1 Detachment of ES-3A Shadow ELINT aircraft from a fleet air reconnaissance squadron (VQ)
1 detachment of C-2A Greyhound aircraft for Carrier Onboard Delivery (COD)

Today they have:

4 Strike Fighter (VFA) Squadrons, with twelve F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, or ten F/A-18C Hornets, each (over forty fighters total). Eventually 2 wings of 10 F-35s replacing the F/A-18Cs.
1 Electronic Attack (VAQ) Squadron, made up of five EA-18G Growlers.
1 Carrier Airborne Early Warning (VAW) Squadron, with four E-2C Hawkeyes (or five E-2D Hawkeyes)
1 Helicopter Sea Combat (HSC) Squadron of eight MH-60S Seahawks
1 Helicopter Maritime Strike (HSM) Squadron of eleven MH-60R Seahawks (3-5 of which are typically based in detachments on other strike group ships).
A Fleet Logistics Support (VRC) Squadron Detachment of 2 C-2 Greyhounds;

There is no question that today's air wing is vastly more potent. And in 10 years, don't be surprised when 20 stealthy drones are integrated into air wings, bringing it back up to 90.

Your comment about depreciating returns is nonsense in this regard. Quantity matters, but quality wins more often than not.

- - - Updated - - -

I suppose 1.9 is better than 1, but yes we are falling down in fertility rates, but no, go on about the 1000 year American Imperium you hope for, though will obviously never personally fight for as that would get in the way of pretending to be a big shot in tech with daddies sweet trust fund money.

1.9 is population replacement. With immigration it's growth. See above.

My father hasn't paid for anything in a decade and change.... I'm sorry that my scientist father actually stuck around to guide me into my career though unlike some peoples. Wait no. Correction. I'm not sorry.

And I don't "pretend to be a big shot in tech". I have a tech job. I worked hard to get where I am. I'm very good at it. But that's the extent of it.

You've gotten shriller since Bernie Sanders lost badly.

[Sorrior]

Those "crazys" who felt the Eu was trying to become a country called this already.

It's clear that the EU will follow in the steps of the United States. Except you guys won't get to vote on your presidents...

- - - Updated - - -




Would make sense. All empires go through cycles. I would not be shocked if in 100 or so years, a few countries get smaller and other get bigger. One thing will be certain though, Somalia will still be trash.

Tbh I kinda am half expect a new world war to break out. Weirdest thing is the timing fir all of this is weirdly close to the star trek timeline..next thing ya know Vulcan will be real lol

- - - Updated - - -

I could agree, though I am one to note, in the case of demographics, no country has successfully stemmed the tide. And indeed every sort of method from cash incentives to give aways to constant government prizes has been attempted.

- - - Updated - - -



I suppose 1.9 is better than 1, but yes we are falling down in fertility rates, but no, go on about the 1000 year American Imperium you hope for, though will obviously never personally fight for as that would get in the way of pretending to be a big shot in tech with daddies sweet trust fund money.

In my experience women just don't want kids. O know FAR more men who want children then women.


Then theur is how we are almost expected to offer a middle class life and be paying off/own a home befire we even think of having a child

It used to be parents/grandparents would help with the child allowing us to reproduce in our early years(when we also have the energy and health to handle a hyperactive 5 year old) rather then waiting till we are worn out by life.

[Ironhorn]

Germany has no army.

Um yes it does.

[Skroe]

Tbh I kinda am half expect a new world war to break out. Weirdest thing is the timing fir all of this is weirdly close to the star trek timeline..next thing ya know Vulcan will be real lol

No. Russia and China aren't strong enough.

The danger from Russia is that it's declining, and it's going very badly. To quote the former US Ambassador to Russia, "Putin is holding it together by a cat's whisker". The danger from Russia is that as the Federation, the latest incarnation of the old dream of a Russian Empire, falls down mount Olympus, it drags the rest of Eurasia to Hades with it.

China is a rising power militarily (though possibly in economic decline). China's problem is more complicated. On the one hand, they're intensely ideological about Chinese destiny. They feel the 20th century (and 19th, and 18th...) wronged them, and that they must reverse the course of history and establish China as the leading world power again. The other side of the problem is that, as far as top-level security issues go, China is a rank amateur. it doesn't have the experience, nor the understanding, of the consequences of its actions. During the Cold War, the US and Soviet Union had a pretty good understanding of each other's limits. They knew where the line was. They'd walk up to the line, but their relationship was transparent and cooperative enough that neither crossed it. Maybe they tried to move the line. But brazenly cross it? Didn't happen. China has no idea where the line is, and isn't really interested in finding out where it is. The danger from China is that they do something without fully comprehending the consequences of that something. War with China is more likely to be by accident, than a calculated pearl harbor.

If we want to reduce the risk of a conflict spilling out of Russia, the West needs to be prepared for Russia's hard landing in the 2020s and 2030s. That the 3 Turkish ISIS bombers were Russian citizens shows one potential angle. The simmering Islamic fundamentalist problem could explode just as the Russian State implodes. That's the contingency that needs to be planned for.

With China... Japan, the US and others all try this but China isn't playing ball... the US needs to create military-to-military linkages, badly, so that in the future, the next Chinese President is advised by Admirals and Generals who have experience working with their American counterparts, so they can advise the President of where the line is. Right now, that simply doesn't exist. This will be even more critical when the Chinese Real Estate Debt Bomb explodes, and China feels the need to assert state power.

All things considered, things have worked out pretty well for America, slightly worse for Europe, compared to Russia and China, both of which are besieged by immense problems. A world war or anything is a remote possibility. If anything, the security question on the other side of the current ISIS war is "what is the future of Russia?". Trapped between the economic juggernaut that is the European Union and the economic+military titan that is China, a demographically, economically and politically declining Russia cannot stand for long.