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

[bufferunderrun]

The French are capable of building a nuclear powered aircraft carrier already, and the Brits are building 2 70,000 ton carriers that are VTOL for cost reasons only.

oh really? the de Gaulle is only 40000t and had suffered numerous problem during it's life not really a good example of capability, the two brits aren't even nuclear powered one, the italian is 27000t and isn't nuclear.
I stand by my previous comment even not considering the economic part, EU don't have the competency, the experience and the infrastructures to build supercarriers in a short timeframe.

[Kellhound]

Yes it have, after US deceler its oil embargo agenst Japan. You cant fight a modern war widout oil, historically Japan "solved" the probelm by invading oil-rich Dutch East Indies. So if US did a deal with the Dutch, or "forced protect" Dutch East Indies Iceland style, and deploy US military before the historical Japanese invasion. Back it up by sending US carriers to let say Australia to be ready to attack a Japanes invation fleet. US will have 5? big carriers and ground based air support.

Japan can not make war if they have no oil.... yes they have other oil wells but they pales in comparison with Dutch East Indies.

Japan had more battleships, carriers, cruisers, destroyers, and subs than the US did in the Pacific in 1941. Compare that to the token forces Germany had to face France during the invasion of Poland....

- - - Updated - - -

oh really? the de Gaulle is only 40000t and had suffered numerous problem during it's life not really a good example of capability, the two brits aren't even nuclear powered one, the italian is 27000t and isn't nuclear.
I stand by my previous comment even not considering the economic part, EU don't have the competency, the experience and the infrastructures to build supercarriers in a short timeframe.

de Gaulle is also the only non-US nuclear powered aircraft carrier in the world. The first supercarriers were conventionally powered, nuclear power is not a requirement. Its mostly a cost consideration. The Brits are taking about 8 years to build their supercarriers, and that is because of cost concerns not technical ones. British WWII carriers are advanced enough that the Chinese studied one in order to learn how to build a carrier? Besides, operating a carrier is harder to learn than how to build one, and 4 EU countries know how to. Do not sell European shipwrights short.

[Deleted]

Japan had more battleships, carriers, cruisers, destroyers, and subs than the US did in the Pacific in 1941. Compare that to the token forces Germany had to face France during the invasion of Poland....

So what stop US to transfer most of the heavy units form the Atlantic Fleet? US did have 5 or was it 6 heavy carriers 1941 agenst 6 Japanese heavy carriers, and US can get suported by frendly land air force. Remember the US fleet do only need a stalmate or suffer a minor defeate to protect Dutch East Indies but the Japanes need a overwhelming fleet victory to take Dutch East Indies.

[Deleted]

yup in what dock you build them? lets be realistic without getting any knowledge from the US even if we invest 50-60% of entire eu gdp (even with UK in) we cannot acquire enough competence and we can't build the necessary infrastructure to get a real navy in less than 20-30 year.
Maybe if we ask USA to sell us some second hand nimitz vassels they are about to replace with the new gerald ford the time required could be shortened by 5-10 year.

But the EU has Carrier's - We have all parts of a navy, many times over in all cases actually -

- - - Updated - - -

So what stop US to transfer most of the heavy units form the Atlantic Fleet? US did have 5 or was it 6 heavy carriers 1941 agenst 6 Japanese heavy carriers, and US can get suported by frendly land air force. Remember the US fleet do only need a stalmate or suffer a minor defeate to protect Dutch East Indies but the Japanes need a overwhelming fleet victory to take Dutch East Indies.

US policy regarding Japan was stupid - The man who put together the sanctions (restricting oil) said in a memo that doing this has a very high likelihood of forcing Japan's hand (I.e start a war) - They either knew and wanted a war, and prepared for it poorly, Or, they didn't, because they were idiots, because they were warned.

[Deleted]

Do we even need Carriers?
They would probably be stuck in the Med or Atlantic. I think current bases can already project power into Africa, ME, so a Carrier might be redundant.
And in the Atlantic, we got no enemies or threats. Unless we decide to stop Canada's seal skull bashing hobby.

Seems like a waste of money.

[nonameelf]

Do we even need Carriers?
They would probably be stuck in the Med or Atlantic. I think current bases can already project power into Africa, ME, so a Carrier might be redundant.
And in the Atlantic, we got no enemies or threats. Unless we decide to stop Canada's seal skull bashing hobby.

Seems like a waste of money.

You'd only need carriers if you wanted to project power to the Americas, eastern Asia, southern Africa, or the pacific. I don't know why EU nations would need to project power that far, especially if the goal was to ditch NATO.

[Ulmita]

Do we even need Carriers?
They would probably be stuck in the Med or Atlantic. I think current bases can already project power into Africa, ME, so a Carrier might be redundant.
And in the Atlantic, we got no enemies or threats. Unless we decide to stop Canada's seal skull bashing hobby.

Seems like a waste of money.

Yes they are. Carriers are useless vs countries with advanced military as they are tremendously vulnerable vs diesel electric (quite) submarines.
Also, carriers are an offensive weapon. I don't think EU is going to be invading anyone soon.

[Deleted]

EU? Is this some joke? Without the US in NATO, that military organization would stop existing because only they are serious on spending. An EU military alliance without the US Involved couldn't conquer a French white flag factory! But I hope they try to create it, so we get ridd of that cold war relic NATO, and then that EU military alliance fails n then afterwards they can spend their monies to improve the life for their citizens instead..

Also, with Brexit, n other countries set to follow, this is some joke? Nah, Brussels bureaucrats live in their bubble.

[bufferunderrun]

de Gaulle is also the only non-US nuclear powered aircraft carrier in the world. The first supercarriers were conventionally powered, nuclear power is not a requirement. Its mostly a cost consideration. The Brits are taking about 8 years to build their supercarriers, and that is because of cost concerns not technical ones. British WWII carriers are advanced enough that the Chinese studied one in order to learn how to build a carrier? Besides, operating a carrier is harder to learn than how to build one, and 4 EU countries know how to. Do not sell European shipwrights short.

so what? Comparing any carrier nuclear or not with USA state of the art gerald ford is like comparing an old renault to a ferrari and just to be clear i don't sell european shipwrights short i'm being realistic cuz some people here think that building a navy ship can be done with legos.

But the EU has Carrier's - We have all parts of a navy, many times over in all cases actually

ah?

Do we even need Carriers?
They would probably be stuck in the Med or Atlantic. I think current bases can already project power into Africa, ME, so a Carrier might be redundant.
And in the Atlantic, we got no enemies or threats. Unless we decide to stop Canada's seal skull bashing hobby.

Seems like a waste of money.

Yes they are. Carriers are useless vs countries with advanced military as they are tremendously vulnerable vs diesel electric (quite) submarines.
Also, carriers are an offensive weapon. I don't think EU is going to be invading anyone soon.

this mentality is part of the problem, europeans are extremely short signed and never plan thing for the future especially when it come down to defense, look at what happen after 89' every country in europe just reduced any military expanse to the bare minimum, some countries even dismissed huge part of their arsenal like Netherlands who completely ditched it's armored force;
Anyway did USA build carriers and use them all the time beside parading them around the world? No their use is actually pretty limited but the impact of the r&d spent of them is part of USA superiority and is part of having the best all round force in the world.

[Wildtree]

I got two words for that idea.....

FUCK OFF

[Slant]

I got two words for that idea.....

FUCK OFF

Uh, it's happening on a small scale. We do have European cooperative brigades. Like the French-German Brigade. It's a good thing, it brings countries closer together.

[Ulmita]

this mentality is part of the problem, europeans are extremely short signed and never plan thing for the future especially when it come down to defense, look at what happen after 89' every country in europe just reduced any military expanse to the bare minimum, some countries even dismissed huge part of their arsenal like Netherlands who completely ditched it's armored force;
Anyway did USA build carriers and use them all the time beside parading them around the world? No their use is actually pretty limited but the impact of the r&d spent of them is part of USA superiority and is part of having the best all round force in the world.

We don't need to power project man. We don't need to be in middle east. We don't need to be in Asia, we don't need to be in Africa we don't need to be ANYWHERE ELSE other than inside Europe. We are not Americans.

Our sole purpose should be defending OUR BORDERS, defending EUROPE.

It is <"NO-ONES" Job to play world police besides UNSC. (emphasis on the period)

Netherlands ditched their army so what? Did anything happen to them?

Ohh and USA is using their carriers AS - WE - SPEAK. They are bombing Syria as we speak. They are deterring China, as we speak. They have used them in the past, they are using them now, they will use them in the future.

We are better and smarter than that.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

Interesting. What do you guys think? I personally have been calling for this for a long time now. We do need to differentiate from NATO, we need to pursue our own goals and strategy when it comes to security. Most importantly though, a unified army is a good step towards a super state, a federalized EU.

Britain was the only country that was opposing this and was threatening to veto. But now with the Brits outside the picture a way is paved for the creation of one.

As an American, I'm all for it. Europe providing for its own defense and requiring its people to participate in it might resurrect your warrior culture. You've been able smugly sneer at the "barbaric Americans" while we provide for your defense for far too long. Maybe a unified European national identity will jolt you guys out of your cultural malaise and get you reproducing and protecting your cultural identity again. Though with regards to that a case for the opposite course might be stronger.

Another benefit of the breakup of NATO is we would no longer have to pretend Turkey is our friend. It gives me headaches when we make policy decisions with appeasing the Turks in mind. Also, I'd expect we'd still be on good terms with a Federal EU. Our goals match up far more than they don't.

We'd still be allied with the nations that make up the former British Empire, and let's be honest, those are the most capable and willing allies we have. I would miss the Poles though. Those guys love a good fight. Any chance we could keep them?

[Deleted]

You'd only need carriers if you wanted to project power to the Americas, eastern Asia, southern Africa, or the pacific. I don't know why EU nations would need to project power that far, especially if the goal was to ditch NATO.

There is not even a point - If the EU were to challenge the US, I already has all it requires to dominate Eurasia - And a Eurasian Hegemony, wont really need a navy for the oceans, it just needs the Suez.

- - - Updated - - -

ah?

One or more state currently fields state of the art naval assets for all roles.
Even if you want to be picky and say, Supercarriers, the EU doesn't even need or want them, their naval engagements will never be dominated by ocean warfare.

[Ulmita]

Another benefit of the breakup of NATO is we would no longer have to pretend Turkey is our friend. It gives me headaches when we make policy decisions with appeasing the Turks in mind. Also, I'd expect we'd still be on good terms with a Federal EU. Our goals match up far more than they don't.

You just gave Skroe and Kell Herpes.

[Deleted]

You just gave Skroe and Kell Herpes.

And me too.

Turkey is our friend in pure defense matters. In no way is the cooperation perfect, but the advantages make up for the disadvantages. I'd like 10thMountainMan to elaborate on what exactly he means with that the Turks aren't our friends.

[Shadowferal]

The EU won't want to spend the money...not much to see here.

[Deleted]

I'm all for it. Better border protection, less redtape between national armies coordination, way less old high-ranking generals/admirals scratching their balls in the headquarters. It would be more efficient and cheaper to have an unified command.

- - - Updated - - -

The EU won't want to spend the money...not much to see here.

Except it would spend less comparing to the current situation.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

And me too.

Turkey is our friend in pure defense matters. In no way is the cooperation perfect, but the advantages make up for the disadvantages. I'd like 10thMountainMan to elaborate on what exactly he means with that the Turks aren't our friends.

Their regional spat with the Kurds and insistence that Iraq not be divided is one of the single biggest reasons we were unable to stabilize area. ISIS was able to gain steam for much the same reason. In the Kurds, the US had a regional actor which was willing and able to fight our enemies but our efforts to assist them have been either degraded, or outright prevented because it conflicted with Turkey's goals.

The Turkish alliance had utility when our biggest rival in the region was the Soviets, but this is not Kamal Ataturk's Turkey. They are ideologically and geopolitically more aligned with our enemies than they are with us.

[Deleted]

Their regional spat with the Kurds and insistence that Iraq not be divided is one of the single biggest reasons we were unable to stabilize area. ISIS was able to gain steam for much the same reason. In the Kurds, the US had a regional actor which was willing and able to fight our enemies but our efforts to assist them have been either degraded, or outright prevented because it conflicted with Turkey's goals.

The Turkish alliance had utility when our biggest rival in the region was the Soviets, but this is not Kamal Ataturk's Turkey. They are ideologically and geopolitically more aligned with our enemies than they are with us.

Interesting.

Their spat with the Kurds is indeed atrocious. But there are two primary reasons why this argument doesn't hold up:
1) The Kurds are not a force to be reckoned with. They cannot compete with the Turks on a geopolitical level. Like, at all. They can fight off ISIS, but they have no importance to us after wiping out ISIS, nothing that the Turks can do better. Kurdistan has no strategic importance. Zilch. To put it more bluntly, there are no long-term advantages to supporting the Kurds instead of the Turks.

2) We're talking about NATO here. Ultimately it's a defense organization. If Turkey share our enemies then that's the only reason they need to be our friends. If we were talking about the Turks joining the EU then I'd agree with you 100%.

Dividing Iraq is nothing I agree with either, but that's an entirely different topic.