[EU] European Bloc signing deal to integrate its 23 armies

[Kellhound]

In case of nukes, nobody cares about any type of army, weapon or logistics very much. You haven't really thought your post through very much, have you?

Well, the EU only has a max of 290 nuclear warheads (not including the soon to be gone 120-215 warheads of the UK), which is only about 25% of that needed for MAD, which makes a small scale nuclear war theoretically winnable for Russia.

[Slant]

Well, the EU only has a max of 290 nuclear warheads (not including the soon to be gone 120-215 warheads of the UK), which is only about 25% of that needed for MAD, which makes a small scale nuclear war theoretically winnable for Russia.

And in that case we still don't care about army, weapons or logistics in Europe, on account of being toast.

Seriously, do people not realise that the nuke argument kills any and all discussions? Stop doing that. It's pointless and boring.

[Kellhound]

And in that case we still don't care about army, weapons or logistics in Europe, on account of being toast.

Seriously, do people not realise that the nuke argument kills any and all discussions? Stop doing that. It's pointless and boring.

It actually doesn't in the face of a limited exchange, which the low number of nukes the EU would have at its disposal could encourage.

[Slant]

It actually doesn't in the face of a limited exchange, which the low number of nukes the EU would have at its disposal could encourage.

I sincerely doubt there is a "limited exchange of nukes" in this day and age. We launch nukes, they launch nukes, the US launches nukes, everyone fucking launches nukes. The chain reaction is not quite unlike that of the diplomatic situation in Europe prior to WW1.

So, stop that nonsense and stop fantasizing about "limited nuclear exchanges". The only thing limited about an EU-Russia nuclear conflict is that Russia only needs a limited amount of their arsenal to obliterate Europe, while Europe has to spend its entire arsenal just to get rid of St. Petersburg and Moscow and the surroundings.

[Xarkan]

It actually doesn't in the face of a limited exchange, which the low number of nukes the EU would have at its disposal could encourage.

I am unsure

Are you suggesting stockpiling more nukes to encourage the opponent using more nukes to destroy more of your land?

That does not sound like a winning strategy..

[Kellhound]

I sincerely doubt there is a "limited exchange of nukes" in this day and age. We launch nukes, they launch nukes, the US launches nukes, everyone fucking launches nukes. The chain reaction is not quite unlike that of the diplomatic situation in Europe prior to WW1.

So, stop that nonsense and stop fantasizing about "limited nuclear exchanges". The only thing limited about an EU-Russia nuclear conflict is that Russia only needs a limited amount of their arsenal to obliterate Europe, while Europe has to spend its entire arsenal just to get rid of St. Petersburg and Moscow and the surroundings.

If the EU is standing on its own feet and claiming it needs no help from the US, the US would have no reason to launch any nukes at Russia. Russia would not obliterate all of Europe, just high value targets knowing it will win the exchange without leaving itself vulnerable to China. Its a numbers game that some people may be willing to bet on....

- - - Updated - - -

I am unsure

Are you suggesting stockpiling more nukes to encourage the opponent using more nukes to destroy more of your land?

That does not sound like a winning strategy..

No, the point of stockpiling nukes is to ensure that the enemy knows it cannot win a full nuclear exchange, thus removing the possibility until such time as the enemy has nothing to lose (so it also serves as a temper to total conventional war).

[Crispin]

Eh, quite skeptical about this tbh, the Eurofighter/Rafale project clearly showed how incapable EU countries are at deeper cooperation, the amount of potential profit made on military contracts, will end up like it always does.

1, someone needs to build ships
2, 7 countries chip in where 3 are capable of building the proper ships
3, a country that isnt ideal for the contract gets it cus of lobbying and (we'll vote for you next time if you vote for us blabla)
4, France says "va te faire enculer" (again) and builds their own ships, cus they arent going to pay for subpar ships made in Spain

The idea is good, but the EU isnt the US, I think I prefere Denmark out of it, because the EU is at it is (and great for many other things) and I doubt this will be a success in the long run, besides we already build our own ships and are pretty good at it. Heck it would probably work alot better, if we decided to buy all hardware from the US, and a few countries within the EU, didnt end up profiting hugely on it.

[Mayhem]

If the EU is standing on its own feet and claiming it needs no help from the US, the US would have no reason to launch any nukes at Russia.

They would have no obligation, not no reason.

[The One Percent]

Sounds good, the EU should be taking care of it's own defenses.

[Slant]

If the EU is standing on its own feet and claiming it needs no help from the US, the US would have no reason to launch any nukes at Russia. Russia would not obliterate all of Europe, just high value targets knowing it will win the exchange without leaving itself vulnerable to China. Its a numbers game that some people may be willing to bet on....

As long as the US is in NATO, the US doesn't need a reason to launch, it would happen automatically as in they would have no choice unless they suddenly mean to break the treaty and betray us in the most literal sense of the word betrayal. I think many things about the US these days, but disloyal and traitors? Not the terms that spring to mind when I talk about the US.

- - - Updated - - -

Slant, if the Chinese built a Silk Road through Russia, we will emphatically care about Eurasia.

Not really. As a trading partner, yeah sure. But not as much as we care about Europe. There is no alliegance, no common grounds, no place for friendship with Russia whatsoever. They cannot be trusted at this point in time. When they get rid of Putin and actually install a democracy, we'll talk shop again. Until then I will treat Russia just a tad bit better than NK. And only because the Russian people are actually not to blame for this.

[Slant]

Oh no, we would not care for Russia in that scenario. We'd mostly care about how China would use Russia to displace EU countries from Middle Eastern and former Soviet markets where several EU countries have made significant trade in-roads. It's a threat to our existing trade relations.

China doesn't "use" Russia. Those two don't really like each other. Russia would just as soon tell China to fuck off rather than cooperate with them against the EU. See, the sad thing is... Russia wants to be European. They're far more interested in our friendship than they are in Chinese friendship. Or, let's say influence, since Russia doesn't know what friendship means these days.

And there is no silk road, so no risk to trade relations. And our trade to/fro China is doing just swell via the ocean.

[Noradin]

That is what the EU is doing. What I'm telling you is that the US is out of its jurisdiction in China's backyard. They're only causing more trouble than there already is.

Yes, it is doing that, and I hope it continues to do so, but for that we need to improve our cooperation because China will continue to improve their economy, too (which I do not begrudge them), and they are already unified (if in a way I do not wish on the EU).

Concerning the USA? Why are you telling me that? I never claimed it was in the USA's jurisdiction to begin with.
What I do disagree with is calling it "China's backyard". It is not in China's jurisdiction either.

- - - Updated - - -

I feel like your opinion is sort of rooted in these old European nightmares of some tide of third world revanchism against the former colonial masters. In truth, Chinese demand for European products is probably the key to the future of your economy, because for better or worse European goods have acquired a sort of cultural cachet that make them more valuable than similar or even better products being made in China, India, or even the USA. As much as the Chinese government likes to push propaganda about the century of humiliation and Asian pride, the average Chinese person absolutely LOVES everything European, as the hordes of tourists flocking to your shores amply demonstrate.

Hardly, I'm not British.
I just like where Europe got regarding customer's rights and worker's protection, and would like for the economically weaker European states to improve their employment rates and wages. And I love the idea of democracy and I think the EU can protect that, but for that to work it must be strong and united enough to matter.
Otherwise it will be China that matters, because China will probably be strong and (forcefully/undemocratically) united. Do you want to get rated as a person for every thing you do the way China does to its residents? If not then we need to be strong enough economically to outlaw it here and to make it matter.

- - - Updated - - -

Well the Chinese policy has always been based in naked self interest rather than any kind of principle. Once they have all the technology they need, they'll become the staunchest defenders of intellectual property to try and keep anybody from copying their stuff.

Exactly. Thus they may never turn out the voice that matters most, because they will make it the only voice that matters. And with "they" I mean their rulers, because their residents are managed like children.

- - - Updated - - -

That is the point, though, isn't it? It won't be UK, France and Germany agreeing on system purchases. It will be a EU defense contract going for system purchases. That's a centralized procurement institution making one decision for all members. Germany and France will hand over a bit more of their authority. That's how the EU works. It won't be Germany and France each having to ratify each procurement. They'll have to ratify ceeding that authority to this central institution once and that's it.

The UK, of course, will at that point be quite outside of anything that matters in the EU and will do their own thing.

Not "hand over" for now, "delegate for a yet unspecified duration".
EU member states delegate things to the EU, they do not hand them over.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, the EU only has a max of 290 nuclear warheads (not including the soon to be gone 120-215 warheads of the UK), which is only about 25% of that needed for MAD, which makes a small scale nuclear war theoretically winnable for Russia.

And you think Russia would just assume the UK stays out of it if Russia were to nuke the EU all around it?

- - - Updated - - -

If the EU is standing on its own feet and claiming it needs no help from the US, the US would have no reason to launch any nukes at Russia. Russia would not obliterate all of Europe, just high value targets knowing it will win the exchange without leaving itself vulnerable to China. Its a numbers game that some people may be willing to bet on.....

What part of Russia would be left "not vulnerable to China"?
Irkutsk? Vladivostok and Yakutsk? Some settlements out there in Siberia?

- - - Updated - - -

Slant, if the Chinese built a Silk Road through Russia, we will emphatically care about Eurasia.

IF.
But we would still rather not rely on that alone given where that would lead through.
Ships are much preferable and we want to keep China out of our connection to Japan and Korea.
(Which is one reason we do not want them to block that sea route with their illegal artificial islands. It's illegal for a reason.)

[Deleted]

Well, the EU only has a max of 290 nuclear warheads (not including the soon to be gone 120-215 warheads of the UK), which is only about 25% of that needed for MAD, which makes a small scale nuclear war theoretically winnable for Russia.

You're delusional if you think Russia could win an exchange with Europe, considering French nuclear doctrine is to explicitly destroy Russia's 60 biggest cities with nukes, not military bases. Good luck trying to find any Russian alive after that happened.

[Macaquerie]

I honestly think that China's extremely ambitious plans for a silk road are pretty much a way to make Russia their de facto vassal and displace the EU as a trading partner in the Middle East.

I do find China's strategic planning to be a bit dubious, because what exactly are they hoping to accomplish? As far as I can tell, the Belt and Road Initiative is just them spending billions of dollars to build infrastructure abroad, money that's not being used to provide basic services for an increasingly demanding population, in order to secure the loyalty of a bunch of even more impoverished and generally unstable countries, most of which have historical bad blood with China, which is why they have to be paid off in the first place.

[Noradin]

I honestly think that China's extremely ambitious plans for a silk road are pretty much a way to make Russia their de facto vassal and displace the EU as a trading partner in the Middle East.

I honestly agree that these plans are "extremely ambitious" (read: its a nice fantasy).

[Noradin]

Yup, I think so too. It's mostly grandstanding for investors.

But . . .

If the EU actually works with the US and punishes Russia as hard as it deserves, Russia may well face enough of a crisis to make the very dangerous choice of becoming a Chinese satellite.

But the "new silk road" won't be what causes that, it is more likely to go the other way, because it is practically just another Trans-Siberian Railway just a bit further south and through a politically much more unstable region.

[Macaquerie]

It's a massive investment project that can be justified. It's a way to boost their growth rates and thus keep FDI hooked on China, the same way they have been doing for a decade. Keep building or everything crashes. But more importantly if China wants to be a superpower, it needs a periphery.

A superpower needs allies the same way that the coolest kid in school needs a clique. If you want to be cool, you need to surround yourself with other people that will make you look good so that everyone else wants to join your club too, but can't get in. You don't shower money on the paste eating losers in class to be your friends, that's not really going to help your cred one bit.

[Kellhound]

They would have no obligation, not no reason.

No, the US would have no reason to get involved in a European nuclear war.

- - - Updated - - -

As long as the US is in NATO, the US doesn't need a reason to launch, it would happen automatically as in they would have no choice unless they suddenly mean to break the treaty and betray us in the most literal sense of the word betrayal. I think many things about the US these days, but disloyal and traitors? Not the terms that spring to mind when I talk about the US.

- - - Updated - - -



Not really. As a trading partner, yeah sure. But not as much as we care about Europe. There is no alliegance, no common grounds, no place for friendship with Russia whatsoever. They cannot be trusted at this point in time. When they get rid of Putin and actually install a democracy, we'll talk shop again. Until then I will treat Russia just a tad bit better than NK. And only because the Russian people are actually not to blame for this.

An integrated EU army and NATO are not compatible for political reasons. If the EU reached the military level you desire, NATO would dissolve.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, it is doing that, and I hope it continues to do so, but for that we need to improve our cooperation because China will continue to improve their economy, too (which I do not begrudge them), and they are already unified (if in a way I do not wish on the EU).

Concerning the USA? Why are you telling me that? I never claimed it was in the USA's jurisdiction to begin with.
What I do disagree with is calling it "China's backyard". It is not in China's jurisdiction either.

- - - Updated - - -


Hardly, I'm not British.
I just like where Europe got regarding customer's rights and worker's protection, and would like for the economically weaker European states to improve their employment rates and wages. And I love the idea of democracy and I think the EU can protect that, but for that to work it must be strong and united enough to matter.
Otherwise it will be China that matters, because China will probably be strong and (forcefully/undemocratically) united. Do you want to get rated as a person for every thing you do the way China does to its residents? If not then we need to be strong enough economically to outlaw it here and to make it matter.

- - - Updated - - -



Exactly. Thus they may never turn out the voice that matters most, because they will make it the only voice that matters. And with "they" I mean their rulers, because their residents are managed like children.

- - - Updated - - -


Not "hand over" for now, "delegate for a yet unspecified duration".
EU member states delegate things to the EU, they do not hand them over.

- - - Updated - - -



And you think Russia would just assume the UK stays out of it if Russia were to nuke the EU all around it?

- - - Updated - - -


What part of Russia would be left "not vulnerable to China"?
Irkutsk? Vladivostok and Yakutsk? Some settlements out there in Siberia?

- - - Updated - - -



IF.
But we would still rather not rely on that alone given where that would lead through.
Ships are much preferable and we want to keep China out of our connection to Japan and Korea.
(Which is one reason we do not want them to block that sea route with their illegal artificial islands. It's illegal for a reason.)

The UK would have no reason to destroy its self for the sake of the EU.

In a limited exchange, nothing would be left vulnerable because RUssia would still maintain MAD against China

- - - Updated - - -

You're delusional if you think Russia could win an exchange with Europe, considering French nuclear doctrine is to explicitly destroy Russia's 60 biggest cities with nukes, not military bases. Good luck trying to find any Russian alive after that happened.

France does not have sufficient nuclear stockpiles to do that. They have small yield warheads, and only a single SSBN is out to sea at a time (making 3/4 of their SSBNs subject to a first strike). They only have 40 air launched warheads. Nuclear warfare is a numbers game that does not favor France in this instance.

- - - Updated - - -

How do you make these things up?

Looking over the history of major European weapons programs...

[Slant]

No, the US would have no reason to get involved in a European nuclear war.

An integrated EU army and NATO are not compatible for political reasons. If the EU reached the military level you desire, NATO would dissolve.

I disagree with you on this one. NATO isn't founded on the idea that the US protects Europe. It's founded on the idea that Europe and North America share the same ideals and values. That they need to protect each other against outside forces.

Here:

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.
They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty :

Nowhere does it mention "We pledge to defend those weak ass Europeans until they finally wisen up and build a proper army on their own".

[Noradin]

The UK would have no reason to destroy its self for the sake of the EU.

In a limited exchange, nothing would be left vulnerable because RUssia would still maintain MAD against China

No they wouldn't, because there wouldn't be anything worthwhile left of the UK if Russia nuked the EU out of the picture.
Just like there would be nothing worthwhile left of Switzerland and the Vatican.

One of the problems with nukes is the collateral you see.

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree with you on this one. NATO isn't founded on the idea that the US protects Europe. It's founded on the idea that Europe and North America share the same ideals and values. That they need to protect each other against outside forces.

Here:


Nowhere does it mention "We pledge to defend those weak ass Europeans until they finally wisen up and build a proper army on their own".

How dare you bring up fact and try and tear down a fantasy world.