United European States, possible or not?

[Mage246]

Actually, the onus is on Falkner, which means that in all likelihood, he'll say something vague for a post or two and then say that the discussion is over in his usual style of cop-out.

Type "Top 10 Strongest Militaries" on Google, and see if you can find a single, even slightly reputable source that ranks any European army above Russia and China.

As for our politicians kissing up and bending over backwards for the US, you need look no further than the NSA scandal. All the hustle and bustle the EU raised over the issue was just that: hustle and bustle. In the end, the US just told them to remember their place, and they did. The idiots with the Guy Fawkes masks may still be protesting in the street (they're not anymore, they've pretty much forgotten all about it by this point, but that's besides the point), but the governments know how this relationship between us and the Americans really works.

Oh FFS. This entire argument has been based on combining all European armies in to one for purpose of comparison. Not only is it not relevant where 1 single European army ranks, but it's ridiculous to bring it up as an objection.

Ok, then let us delve into that then. How would a combined European military stack against other superpowers? It's not an easy question, as the premise itself is complex. Simply adding numbers together to make a theoretical United Europe Bureau of Defense (I got whimsical, so sue me!) wouldn't be enough. Among the manifold issues to resolve are:


Who's command style will be the template?
How would one nation's coordinate logistics with the other?
What hardware is actually viable and war ready, rather than simply existing somewhere?
Who's rank structure will we use?
What language will be used in general?
How will differing theories of war be reconciled with each other?

Those are just a few examples off the top of my head. Note I am not saying you make a bad point, in fact I agree with you, the argument is only honest if we consider a unified European military. But you have to understand that there are many, MANY issues to resolve before you consider what would be a REALISTIC unified European military.

As I am well aware. If you read back in this thread you will see that I already brought those exact points up. It does not make Falkner's statement any less ridiculous.

 

[Sir Gordon of Ramsay]

Actually, the onus is on Falkner, which means that in all likelihood, he'll say something vague for a post or two and then say that the discussion is over in his usual style of cop-out.

Type "Top 10 Strongest Militaries" on Google, and see if you can find a single, even slightly reputable source that ranks any European army above Russia and China.

As for our politicians kissing up and bending over backwards for the US, you need look no further than the NSA scandal. All the hustle and bustle the EU raised over the issue was just that: hustle and bustle. In the end, the US just told them to remember their place, and they did. The idiots with the Guy Fawkes masks may still be protesting in the street (they're not anymore, they've pretty much forgotten all about it by this point, but that's besides the point), but the governments know how this relationship between us and the Americans really works.

Oh FFS. This entire argument has been based on combining all European armies in to one for purpose of comparison. Not only is it not relevant where 1 single European army ranks, but it's ridiculous to bring it up as an objection.

Ok, then let us delve into that then. How would a combined European military stack against other superpowers? It's not an easy question, as the premise itself is complex. Simply adding numbers together to make a theoretical United Europe Bureau of Defense (I got whimsical, so sue me!) wouldn't be enough. Among the manifold issues to resolve are:


Who's command style will be the template?
How would one nation's coordinate logistics with the other?
What hardware is actually viable and war ready, rather than simply existing somewhere?
Who's rank structure will we use?
What language will be used in general?
How will differing theories of war be reconciled with each other?

Those are just a few examples off the top of my head. Note I am not saying you make a bad point, in fact I agree with you, the argument is only honest if we consider a unified European military. But you have to understand that there are many, MANY issues to resolve before you consider what would be a REALISTIC unified European military.

As I am well aware. If you read back in this thread you will see that I already brought those exact points up. It does not make Falkner's statement any less ridiculous.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion on his statements, but as for those issues already having been mentioned, well then... Great I'm satisfied on that point then lol.

 

[Falkner92]

Actually, if you think about it, even the assumption that the whole of Europe would immediately decided to work together and act in the face of an Eastern invasion is pretty far-fetched. I can tell you my country, for one, wouldn't lift a goddamn finger.

 

[Mage246]

If only there was some sort of common framework already in place for collective military action. Oh wait, there are already 2. 1 for NATO, the other for the EU.

 

[Sir Gordon of Ramsay]

Actually, if you think about it, even the assumption that the whole of Europe would immediately decided to work together and act in the face of an Eastern invasion is pretty unlikely. I can tell you my country, for one, wouldn't lift a goddamn finger.

Which is why talk about a theoretical United Europe always gives me a small chuckle. No personal offense to anyone here, but "you people" have a rich and deep history of not thinking very highly of your neighbors. It may lie beneath the surface in modern times, but, let's be real; moves towards a United Europe would open wounds that are decades, even a century or more old. If it were to happen, it would be so gradual and slow as to take more than the next 100 years and by the time it happened no one would have noticed anyway.

Well, that's just my opinion anyway.

 

[Sir Gordon of Ramsay]

If only there was some sort of common framework already in place for collective military action. Oh wait, there are already 2. 1 for NATO, the other for the EU.

Point taken, though, "collective military action" is not the same as one unified solitary military arm.

But yes of course they would give an excellent starting point.

 

[Falkner92]

If only there was some sort of common framework already in place for collective military action. Oh wait, there are already 2. 1 for NATO, the other for the EU.

NATO is under the command of the US, and even then, they have trouble following their orders, can't imagine what it would be like without the US. The EU isn't good for anything besides sitting around and discussing pointless ethics and morals, they wouldn't do anything.

 

[Jhessail]

Just a quick question, does that only really apply to their armour, or is it true for the other areas of the Russian military? I was always under the impression that their aircraft was more on the "Inferior in most ways, but far cheaper" scale of things. And as a follow up, would the Mi-24 be an exception to that "trend" since IIRC it's been in active service for about 40 years, so they must've done something right there if it's still being used in many countries for that long, right?

Yes and no.

For example, it's not that T-34 - to follow the earlier examples - was a bad tank. Or that the T-90 is a bad tank. Panther was just slightly better than T-34 and any modern Western tank is either equal or better than a T-90. Up until the 1990's, strength in numbers was still very important - and it still is today, though not quite so prominently. If you have 10 perfect tanks, they can still only cover so much ground. If your enemy has 100 mediocre tanks, they can just encircle and cut you off. Germans in 1943-1945 had equal or better tanks than Soviets but they still lost - because they were very heavily outnumbered.

Now, Mi-24 is a great close-support and attack helicopter. It's heavily armoured and carries a lot of firepower. Is it better than AH-64 Apache? In some aspects, yes, in others, not at all. Russian equipment, generally, is cheap, sturdy and easy to use. But it would be a grave mistake to think that ALL Russian equipment is technically inferior to Western stuff because of those things. MMontage pointed out several good Soviet planes that were at least comparable - roughly equal - to their Western counterparts.

Those are just a few examples off the top of my head. Note I am not saying you make a bad point, in fact I agree with you, the argument is only honest if we consider a unified European military. But you have to understand that there are many, MANY issues to resolve before you consider what would be a REALISTIC unified European military.

You do know that there is this thing called NATO? That has existed for a pretty long time now, and has worked to solve those exact issues? That there are multi-national EU Battlegroups that train annually to keep up skills outside of the NATO hierarchy? Those problems are well handled.

Actually, if you think about it, even the assumption that the whole of Europe would immediately decided to work together and act in the face of an Eastern invasion is pretty far-fetched. I can tell you my country, for one, wouldn't lift a goddamn finger.

I am now very curious about your homeland. Since everything else that you've "stated" has been utter bull****, I'm expecting more of the same.

NATO is under the command of the US, and even then, they have trouble following their orders, can't imagine what it would be like without the US. The EU isn't good for anything besides sitting around and discussing pointless ethics and morals, they wouldn't do anything.

Again, more of your filthy lies that have nothing to do with reality. NATO isn't under US command any more than EU is under German command.  Obviously US has the majority role in NATO, as the biggest member - just like Germany has a lot of pull in the EU, but they definitely do not run the organization. Again, more evidence that you don't really have a clue regarding any of the stuff you keep farting about.

 

[Sir Gordon of Ramsay]

Jhessail again I just would like to point out that NATO is a good framework to get started from, but it's not exactly the same as a solitary military arm of 1 sovereign nation. But like I said to Mage, of course it would be a great launching point.

隐藏

And just because you claim something or someone is bull**** doesn't make it so

 

[Falkner92]

Again, more of your filthy lies that have nothing to do with reality. NATO isn't under US command any more than EU is under German command.  Obviously US has the majority role in NATO, as the biggest member - just like Germany has a lot of pull in the EU, but they definitely do not run the organization. Again, more evidence that you don't really have a clue regarding any of the stuff you keep farting about.

That is a pretty accurate comparison actually, both countries are in command of both organizations in every way except the official way. But you still haven't realized I'm a devoted pragmastist, and hence don't give a hoot about how things supposedly should be, just how they are, so whatever...

 

[BenKenobi]

Speaking just to the Mi-24 question; like the AK-47, the Mi-24 is a sturdy and insanely reliable piece of equipment that is relatively easy to mod to keep with the times, which I would think explains its lengthy service history for what it is and its popularity outside its country of origin. It's a sturdy thing that gets the job done well. And I say this as one who is generally of low opinion towards Russian hardware.

It was Millenium Falcon at the time it was made. Not exactly under twelve parsecs, but quite close to it.

 

[Sir Gordon of Ramsay]

Speaking just to the Mi-24 question; like the AK-47, the Mi-24 is a sturdy and insanely reliable piece of equipment that is relatively easy to mod to keep with the times, which I would think explains its lengthy service history for what it is and its popularity outside its country of origin. It's a sturdy thing that gets the job done well. And I say this as one who is generally of low opinion towards Russian hardware.

It was Millenium Falcon at the time it was made. Not exactly under twelve parsecs, but quite close to it.

I suppose Afghanistan is Kessel now?

lol

 

[Jhessail]

Jhessail again I just would like to point out that NATO is a good framework to get started from, but it's not exactly the same as a solitary military arm of 1 sovereign nation. But like I said to Mage, of course it would be a great launching point.

隐藏

And just because you claim something or someone is bull**** doesn't make it so

Read the thread. Or go back about 15 pages or so, when Falkner starts his BS campaign. Count the number of sources he has posted, to support his ridiculous claims. Then come back and lecture me on how debates go.

Why would you demand that European military should work that way? NATO and EU military co-operation has just one aim - to have unity of purpose and command. National armies will still operate mostly on their own, at least on the operational level. You won't have Belgian, Spanish and Romanian soldiers in a single platoon. The most important stuff that EU is doing is not flashy or sexy at all - it's endless conferences where industry members and supply officers hammer out unified logistics for European militaries. All European nations (part from the Swiss, AFAIK) take part.

But you still haven't realized I'm a devoted pragmastist, and hence don't give a hoot about how things supposedly should be, just how they are, so whatever...

No, you're a deluded moron who doesn't care how things actually are, to maintain your ****ed up fantasies of "reality".

 

[Sir Gordon of Ramsay]

Man, this is a rough place!

 

[Falkner92]

No, you're a deluded moron who doesn't care how things actually are, to maintain your ****ed up fantasies of "reality".

Yawn...

Would you like to add an actual point to that?

 

[BenKenobi]

Falkner, war against Jhess' inserted insults is not something you'll ever have hope of winning.

 

[Jhessail]

Yawn...

Would you like to add an actual point to that?

Why should I? You'll just keep running around with your fingers in your ears, screaming madly to preserve your fantasies. Even though multiple posters have pointed it out, you still haven't linked even a SINGLE thing that would support ANY of your claims - most of which can be checked to be bull**** even by going to Wikipedia. Or by having some general knowledge and some common sense.

 

[Falkner92]

Falkner, war against Jhess' inserted insults is not something you'll ever have hope of winning.

Don't be so quick to underestimate me. Even if she's pretty much been given carte blanche to say whatever she wants, we Aspies are remarkably persistent and we have an uncanny ability to not give a damn about what other people think or say.

Yawn...

Would you like to add an actual point to that?

Why should I? You'll just keep running around with your fingers in your ears, screaming madly to preserve your fantasies. Even though multiple posters have pointed it out, you still haven't linked even a SINGLE thing that would support ANY of your claims - most of which can be checked to be bull**** even by going to Wikipedia. Or by having some general knowledge and some common sense.

I've pointed out how the reality we live in doesn't really seem to be in accordance with the points you've made here, and you didn't even try to contest that, you just said I was full of it and kept hurling insults like a 5-year-old throwing a temper tantrum. Sticks and stones, my dear.

 

[Goker]

...we have an uncanny ability to not give a damn about what other people think or say.

So you're not denying the "running around with your fingers in your ears" part.

 

[Falkner92]

...we have an uncanny ability to not give a damn about what other people think or say.

So you're not denying the "running around with your fingers in your ears" part.

Point missed. Oh, well...