EU Army?

[Deleted]

Africa is not part of Eurasia, and by your standards, Europe is fairly insignificant to Eurasia.

Zbigniew Brzezinski observed:
“... how America "manages" Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates “Eurasia” would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control “Eurasia” would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent. About 75 per cent of the world’s people live in “Eurasia”, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. “Eurasia” accounts for about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources.”

[Doctor Funkenstein]

I think I can claim in the name of every European, citizens and politicians and leaders of nations alike... nobody here wants to be like the US.

Tell yourself what you need to. The EU is exactly the same as the US when it was being formed, except you failed at it. Miserably. Embarrisingly so. And it's all because you can't get over yourselves.

well when we didn't have our petty squables, we conquered literally the entire world, except for Mongolia, Ethiopia, and the inner parts of China.

And how long did that last again? You know, before your petty squabbles (and uprisings; the British couldn't even handle a bunch of guerilla fighters in the New World for fuck's sake) ruined everything and left you in shambles? Nevermind how cruel and downright evil you were, all while desperately trying to paint yourselves as heroes. (By the way, India would still like their jewels and all the other shit you stole from them back, as would pretty much every other country Europeans plundered and raped.) (And how did you guys respond to that request again? I can't seem to remember...)

[Deleted]

And how long did that last again? You know, before your petty squabbles (and uprisings; the British couldn't even handle a bunch of guerilla fighters in the New World for fuck's sake) ruined everything and left you in shambles? Nevermind how cruel and downright evil you were, all while desperately trying to paint yourselves as heroes. (By the way, India would still like their jewels and all the other shit you stole from them back, as would pretty much every other country Europeans plundered and raped.) (And how did you guys respond to that request again? I can't seem to remember...)

I'm not British, and it lasted 500 years.

[Ehrenpanzer]

I like the idea. Problem would be the language, but I'm pretty sure that'll be overcome fast enough.

And it will defend everyone, while Germany gently encourages everyone to take part in its funding until they've reached the part where they contribute "enough". It's how the EU seems to operate on a fiscal basis. Germany gets enough out of the Union to be able to afford to look like it's paying for everyone every now and again.

Paying for everything is so American, the whole point of such an army would be to be able to occasionally tell them to fuck right off.

That would be great, then we wouldn't have to listen to Europe snivel and whine for us to protect them every 20 fucking days when Russia decides to annex something else. On behalf of North America, we sincerely urge you to grow a pair of balls and defend yourselves for a change.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

I'm not British.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, seeing as how they fared the best in the New World.

Nevertheless, the point stands: Europe was notoriously the bad guys throughout the entirety of their "reign," and every time people got fed up enough, they got ROFLstomped by the indigenous people unless they happened to have superior at the time in the vast majority of the cases. And throughout it all, they continued (and still continue) to think that they were the good guys. England especially.

And, of course, even duing the "prosperity" of their "glorious empire," they were rife with international bickering, wars, and acting like the worthless little self-important cocks they were.

So much so that even today, they still can't stick together for more than a couple of decades without losing their shit and acting like infants when it comes to working together. (And again, I'm being very, very generous with "a couple of decades.")

[Skroe]

There are multiple roadblocks, but the current one is the necessary consolidation of the European defense industry (that's been a project for decades already).
And that's what they are talking about now, and trying to make a concerted push.
if you are any good with the search feature and are interested, @Skroe wrote up a decent post on the matter a few months ago i believe.

I just want to underscore how hard this is, because I really think that unless people read about the defense industry's industrial status, they miss it.

30 years ago, my state, Massachusetts, was a MAJOR Arms manufacturer. The largest employer was (and remains) Raytheon. Other states provided the manpower to the armed forces. We provided the weapons to a great degree.

Today, we are still a major arms state, but it's mostly in the field of missiles and R&D. The state did manufacture the forward fuselage of the F-22 though.

However 30 years ago, we had several major military bases, today we have about one and a half.


Critics of US military power often lament how the US has 800 bases around the world. You know who agrees with that lamentation? The US Military. The large portion of that base number is within the continental US and by their own admission, domestic spare capacity of the US Military is at least 25% above their need. it could be as high as 40% according to independent measures.

This is no idle concern. It costs tens of billions a year to keep facilities open... to keep roofs from caving in in 50 year old forts and the like. These bases support local economies though, that as soon as the base closed, would go into a local recession, just like happened in Massachusetts when the arms industry changed and bases left. It took local economies turning those facilities into business parks and the state becoming a world leader in Biotech, for it to economically recover. But jobs were permanently loss. Blue collar weapons builders were replaced with White Collar chemists who occupied the same ex-Raytheon or ex-Lockheed or ex- General Dynamics facility.


The US military wants to shutter hundreds of undeeded, expensive, aging facilities. But it can't because congress won't let it because of the local economic impact. And that is just within the United States.

Now imagine having this discussion across the EU. At least in the US, we have the notion of "American Taxpayer dollars", keyword American. The concept of "Massachusetts taxpayers" is a bit less relevant in most ways. But in the EU, what of Spanish Taxpayers paying for German Troops to be in a Polish base? It requires a new level of "we're all in this together" thinking at the level of the individual.

The EU Army is a worthy goal. But it's an enormous problem to do right, and for good reasons. Americans who think it's no big deal should ask ex-New York Shipbuilding how Naval orders moving elsewhere effected them. One year they were building carriers, 5 years later, they were pink slipped.

[Deleted]

Now imagine having this discussion across the EU. At least in the US, we have the notion of "American Taxpayer dollars", keyword American. The concept of "Massachusetts taxpayers" is a bit less relevant in most ways. But in the EU, what of Spanish Taxpayers paying for German Troops to be in a Polish base? It requires a new level of "we're all in this together" thinking at the level of the individual.

The only was an EU army will ever work, is if its not made up of the individual countries armies, but individuals from the entire EU who volunteer.
Sort of like the US national guards and the US army, but the other way around.

[Slant]

Tell yourself what you need to. The EU is exactly the same as the US when it was being formed, except you failed at it. Miserably. Embarrisingly so. And it's all because you can't get over yourselves.

The EU is really not comparable to the 13 states that started the US. Really, really not. For starters, the EU didn't fail at anything. The EU, at this point in time, has made a conscious decision not to pursue the nation thing for the time being. It may be picked up as an idea later on, but right now, there is no interest in making the EU a nation. Mostly, because the support is not there in the population. It's not about "getting over oneself", it's about listening to what the people want or don't want. This isn't a failure, it's a success story of western democracy. In that, perhaps, we are a bit like the US, albeit from a vastly different taste.

But... you are so desperately in need of hating on the EU, so go on hating. I honestly don't give a shit what you think about the EU. We're quite okay doing things at our pace and not having to prove anything to anyone but ourselves.

[Skroe]

The only was an EU army will ever work, is if its not made up of the individual countries armies, but individuals from the entire EU who volunteer.
Sort of like the US national guards and the US army, but the other way around.

US history is very interesting and instructive in how this came about. Because the "state militia" was really a thing and for most of our history and it was the states that were principally responsible for equipping and training military force.

The Navy, such as it was (which is to say, vacillating between respectable and a joke depending on the decade), was always kind of a national affair. But The man-power intensive army was largely a State affair until before World War I (although there was some national-level movement in the 20 years prior). And even after World War I, it was not until really just before World War II that the last vestiges of the State-Militia order of things was replaced by the National military as we know it.

World War II "baked" that in, in a sense.. the Cold War's requirements refined it further.... but the process took a century.

An EU Army is basically in pre-Civil War America right now, in terms of development towards an all-continent solution. That's not to say it'll take a century, or that in someways it isn't closer, but just underscores how much of a process it was for a highly federalized single country, never mind a union of historic states.

[Slant]

I am trying to understand why this topic has devolved in an US vs EU topic when an EU Army would be of great service to the EU but of even greater service to the US. An EU Army means that the US can have a massive and credible deterrent securing Europe, Africa, the Middle East and most of Russia allowing them to cut down on local costs and fully dedicate themselves to the Pacific. It is something of enormous benefit to the US. Heck if there was a true effort being made to create an EU Army the US should do the best it can to stop US companies from creating additional competition in the strained EU markets at least until consolidation happened so that the project did not fall apart.

It's not US vs. EU. Not really, at least. Some bickering is always fun, but really it's just explaining the peculiarities of the EU and why we can't just flip a switch and turn ourselves into having a combined armed forces. It just can't be done as easily as that. Everyone agrees what the smart move would be, I'm sure even politicians are well aware of the advantages it would have. But there's a tiny little problem... we're "only" 70 years out of the crazy 2000 year let's kill each other episode that Europe went through. The problem isn't the army. We know how to war. If anyone on this planet is the all time champion of warfare it's us. The problem is that we're only now learning how to peace. So, give us a little more time to test this novel concept of not killing each other a little before we start bossing everyone else around again.

[Kellhound]

Zbigniew Brzezinski observed:
“... how America "manages" Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates “Eurasia” would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control “Eurasia” would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent. About 75 per cent of the world’s people live in “Eurasia”, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. “Eurasia” accounts for about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources.”

And Europe is an insignificant portion of that by your standards. It is also meaningless in this discussion because the land routes are totally incapable of handling the flow of commerce between Europe and East Asia as it stands, and even the upgrades China is pushing will not be able to handle it. Thus, keeping the SLOCs open will remain a concern for the EU.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

The EU is really not comparable to the 13 states that started the US.

I know, it's more embarrassing for them that established countries with "enlightened" leaders can't get their shit together, and instead devolve into petty bickering, whining, and shit-slinging. And if a third world war does come about, it's not going to be the United States leading it (if it were, that would have already happened with that fucktard Trump in office), it's going to be Europe.

Again.

But... you are so desperately in need of hating on the EU, so go on hating.

I never said once that I hated the EU. Feeling pity and embarrassment for them because they can't do what a ragtag bunch of Europeans could do over two hundred years ago isn't the same as hating them.

[Slant]

I know, it's more embarrassing for them that established countries with "enlightened" leaders can't get their shit together, and instead devolve into petty bickering, whining, and shit-slinging. And if a third world war does come about, it's not going to be the United States leading it (if it were, that would have already happened with that fucktard Trump in office), it's going to be Europe.

Again.

I never said once that I hated the EU. Feeling pity and embarrassment for them because they can't do what a ragtag bunch of Europeans could do over two hundred years ago isn't the same as hating them.

Then I have no idea what you're babbling about. Nothing the EU does is embarassing, really. Unless you fail to grasp the magnitude of what the EU means.

- - - Updated - - -

And Europe is an insignificant portion of that by your standards. It is also meaningless in this discussion because the land routes are totally incapable of handling the flow of commerce between Europe and East Asia as it stands, and even the upgrades China is pushing will not be able to handle it. Thus, keeping the SLOCs open will remain a concern for the EU.

Eeeeeh, I'm not even sure just how much cheaper a ship is in comparison to trains. I mean, it is cheaper, but it's also slow as fuck. A proper landline by train could fuck up all kinds of ship routes.

[Deleted]

That would be great, then we wouldn't have to listen to Europe snivel and whine for us to protect them every 20 fucking days when Russia decides to annex something else. On behalf of North America, we sincerely urge you to grow a pair of balls and defend yourselves for a change.

What will Russia decide to annex next? Please, make a guess, and I'll explain you why that wouldn't happen.

The only time USA defended anything was in WW2. Which was half of Europe versus the other half of Europe. The most important thing the Americans did there was to give the Soviet Union the hardware they required to defeat Nazi Germany. It was a brilliant political and military move, but nobody will fucking mess with the EU in its current state. Individually, Russia has the strongest military force in Eurasia, true. But it doesn't have anything close to enough manpower or hardware to annex anything that is a part of a European sovereign country by force.

Try reading some European thoughts on the matter, or even some Russian ones. European countries, and most importantly, European people have defended themselves for centuries against foreign powers. It's easy to sprout inaccurate and uneducated opinions from the other side of the world, but people here have learned from centuries and centuries of history. They've gone through hardship that Americans of that time couldn't have even imagined, and lived that way for years. Not saying they should've, of course.

Point is, the US used to speak softly and carry a big stick, and that's the reason people liked it back in the day. Now it waves a big club around and makes aggressive grunting noises. Before someone gets offended, that's a metaphor for the latter years' political touch of the US and world's view on them. Not about how Americans are stupid, which they're not.

I know, it's more embarrassing for them that established countries with "enlightened" leaders can't get their shit together, and instead devolve into petty bickering, whining, and shit-slinging. And if a third world war does come about, it's not going to be the United States leading it (if it were, that would have already happened with that fucktard Trump in office), it's going to be Europe.

Eh, one man's petty bickering, whining and shit-slinging is another man's debate. I've yet to witness those things in any EU talk to the extent that I've seen some Republicans (and the occasional Democrat) stir shit. I mean, just look at the way Orban and that Polish MEP speak in front of the EP, in bold, civilised language. Sure, they might be speaking some A-level bullshit, but at the very least they're not shutting down all discourse. And the EU can work surprisingly fast when it wants to.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

Eh, one man's petty bickering, whining and shit-slinging is another man's debate.

There's a difference between bluster and actually breaking apart a union over incredibly stupid, petty shit. Sure, California postures towards doing that on occasion, as does Texas and a few other states, but they never actually have. Nor have they ever, you know, started any World Wars let alone any Crusades for that matter, or all of the other abhorrent shit Europe has collectively done over the centuries. Or that they still would if they could get away with it. Thankfully the rest of the world gave them a solid backhand and put them in their place, at least for the last seventy years or so.

But you know, whatever. "They're OUR crown jewels now, and we're keeping them! We raped, pillaged, and plundered you fair and square! <stomp!> And we're the good guys, dang it! Don't you remember WWII?! Remember the Spitfires?!?!?!? That makes up for everything, cause we totally helped the Jews out! It didn't have anything to do with knowing we were going to get raped, pillaged, and plundered... it was 100% because we're good and wanted to save the world from the Nazis! Not a single bit had to do with self-preservation! WE'RE GOOD, DAMMIT!" --All I Ever Hear From England

[Kellhound]

Then I have no idea what you're babbling about. Nothing the EU does is embarassing, really. Unless you fail to grasp the magnitude of what the EU means.

- - - Updated - - -



Eeeeeh, I'm not even sure just how much cheaper a ship is in comparison to trains. I mean, it is cheaper, but it's also slow as fuck. A proper landline by train could fuck up all kinds of ship routes.

Ships are cheaper, especially when you consider the MASSIVE amount of building a robust rail network. A modern container ship can haul 10,000 40' containers, a train carries about 200. So 50 trains are needed.

[Deleted]

There's a difference between bluster and actually breaking apart a union over incredibly stupid, petty shit. Sure, California postures towards doing that on occasion, as does Texas and a few other states, but they never actually have. Nor have they ever, you know, started any World Wars let alone any Crusades for that matter, or all of the other abhorrent shit Europe has collectively done over the centuries. Or that they still would if they could get away with it. Thankfully the rest of the world gave them a solid backhand and put them in their place, at least for the last seventy years or so.

But you know, whatever. "They're OUR crown jewels now, and we're keeping them! We raped, pillaged, and plundered you fair and square! <stomp!> And we're the good guys, dang it! Don't you remember WWII?! Remember the Spitfires?!?!?!? That makes up for everything, cause we totally helped the Jews out! It didn't have anything to do with knowing we were going to get raped, pillaged, and plundered... it was 100% because we're good and wanted to save the world from the Nazis! Not a single bit had to do with self-preservation! WE'RE GOOD, DAMMIT!" --All I Ever Hear From England

Oooh, you have no idea how much I agree with you. Then again, England makes the UK look bad.

Europe hasn't done anything 'collectively' in the centuries, that's the point. You don't have 'Europe' up until maybe 20 years ago. You have over thirty countries with thousand year history among them, different languages and different culture. The EU has made sure people don't kill their neighbours over whatever is the war of the century. Most Brits (or Scots, I have a lot more experience with those) won't argue that Empire was a horrible regime. Most of them would also argue that the state of affairs right now is completely different, and that's mostly because of the EU.

I also would like to state that while the US hasn't started any World Wars, it has certainly made that up in Across The World Wars.

And about the raping, pillaging, plundering, and war crimes, I do seem to recall a certain local populace being subjected to almost complete genocide by a certain nation. Trail of Tears ring a bell?

All I'm saying is, people've done horrible shit in the past, but to hold a country responsible for something done multiple generations ago is insane. Were the Nazis a horrible regime? Yes. Does anyone who's not clinically insane in Europe believes the Germans nowadays are waiting for a button to be pushed, and they'll all switch back to Nazism? No. (We know it for a fact. We're onto you, Slant.)

What abhorrent shit would Europe be willing to start? Have you been to Europe, talked to actual Europeans? I've been to about a dozen countries in here for long enough to talk to people, and I've lived in three EU countries for years at a time. Not calling names or anything, but I'd imagine my opinion on the matter is a little bit more educated than yours, and it'd be the other way around if I start talking about the US. Which I also would like to visit at some point.

EDIT: On topic, if there is an EU army, that'll allow the US to scale back on its military, among other things, and focus on other pressing matters, like infrastructure or whatever shit needs fixing there. We're not going to get an army to help the US infrastructure, of course, but it's an opportunity nevertheless.

[Slant]

Ships are cheaper, especially when you consider the MASSIVE amount of building a robust rail network. A modern container ship can haul 10,000 40' containers, a train carries about 200. So 50 trains are needed.

But they're there in under a week. Unlike a ship.

[Mazeari]

If eu combines forces it will be the 3rd largest force in the world. Not to mention it should be more cost efficiently aswell for most countries.

[Slant]

Slant mate, you are embarassing yourself Shipping is significantly cheaper and more efficient than transporting goods by train. Sea Lines of Communication are also traditionally safer in this day and age than land lines (and Eurasian land lines need to either pass through Russia or through the Middle East).

Speed is irrelevant. Procurement happens well in advance when there are proper projections. Lack of speed is only a problem for JIT manufacturing but train is still far too slow to facilitate JIT anyway.

The concept of a new silk road is a decade long, trillion euro (and yuan and ruble) project that would require massive infrastructure building not to mention negotiating the relevant customs agreements. And it would still not be seen as a replacement for shipping.

I know! It sounds insane, but why do they speculate about it, though? Why is China pushing for it? I can't help but be fascinated by the idea, though. Pointless as it is. I'm sure there has to be some gain out of it, otherwise they wouldn't dump so much money into that idea.