Not sure if this is the right place. If not, I'm happy for it to be moved.
Let us imagine, without speculating on how such an unlikely situation might come to be, that this time next year the USA has a president-elect who won on a platform of withdrawing from all international agreements except purely practical ones (telecommunications, measurement standards, bank transfers - you know the sort of thing), military disengagement from the rest of the world, as far as is practicable (bases to be kept on US sovereign territory, & perhaps in pliant small countries, but not elsewhere unless judged essential to immediate national interests, & not likely to cause involvement in local quarrels, military aid to be ended, etc.), & promoting a more autarkic (not USSR-style, just strategic stuff, like energy, & pork-barrel industrial protectionism), which will also have the effect of reducing those "immediate national interests". i.e. out of NATO, the WTO, treaties with Japan, etc., no troops in Europe, S. Korea, etc.
Assume this manifesto has the support of a solid majority in Congress, so it's going to happen.
In this situation, let us assume that the various EU countries decide that they really ought to get their collective act together & organise their military properly, 'coz it's a cold hard world out there with no Uncle Sam waving the big stick.
Note that I will not engage in any discussion whatsoever about the politics of this situation, & I strongly urge everyone else to refrain likewise. The above is an artificial situation, posited in full knowledge that the likelihood of it coming to pass is approximately zero, & with no intention to suggest it is desirable (or otherwise). It's purpose is solely to provide a rationale for the question below.
The Question:
It is early 2009. You have been appointed to head the commission tasked with drawing up proposals for restructuring forces for collective defence, including the provision of intervention forces. What do you propose? Your parameters are -
It has been agreed to retain troops in the Balkans & Afghanistan, & replace US forces with EU troops, as the Americans withdraw.
Forces will remain national, & nationally funded. Britain & France have voted through an immediate 10% increase in spending. Countries spending below 2% of GDP have approved an immediate increase to that level. Greece (the highest spender) will keep spending at current levels for now.
You may plan for spending of 2.5% of GDP in 2010 & at least as much in subsequent years. You do not need to take into account operational costs over peacetime base level, as supplementary contingency funds have approved, to be spent if needed.
Standardisation is to be promoted, but you can't ignore national industrial concerns completely. For obvious reasons, preference is to be given to domestic equipment. The USA can be assumed to be happy to sell 2nd line weapons ("JSF-lite", transport aircraft, etc), & spares for existing kit, on strictly commercial terms, but not first-line weapons, e.g. not US-standard JSF.
As for manpower needs, new equipment, upgrades, reactivation of stored stuff, new development - whatever you think best. Both immediate needs & medium-term plans. Focus on your own country, if you wish. Think of that as a subset of the overall proposals.
Remember that for some countries (e.g. Austria, Finland, Spain, Germany, Italy, Belgium) this is a big increase, which may prove difficult to use all at once. Not politically acceptable to transfer money from one country to another directly, but there are ways to do it indirectly, e.g. Germany buying Invincible & funding her reactivation as an LPH, & the UK using the money to boost the RN budget, or Germany building & crewing new ro-ros & transporting other peoples kit in 'em. Those are just examples, not suggestions for what should be done.
Go for it!
Let us imagine, without speculating on how such an unlikely situation might come to be, that this time next year the USA has a president-elect who won on a platform of withdrawing from all international agreements except purely practical ones (telecommunications, measurement standards, bank transfers - you know the sort of thing), military disengagement from the rest of the world, as far as is practicable (bases to be kept on US sovereign territory, & perhaps in pliant small countries, but not elsewhere unless judged essential to immediate national interests, & not likely to cause involvement in local quarrels, military aid to be ended, etc.), & promoting a more autarkic (not USSR-style, just strategic stuff, like energy, & pork-barrel industrial protectionism), which will also have the effect of reducing those "immediate national interests". i.e. out of NATO, the WTO, treaties with Japan, etc., no troops in Europe, S. Korea, etc.
Assume this manifesto has the support of a solid majority in Congress, so it's going to happen.
In this situation, let us assume that the various EU countries decide that they really ought to get their collective act together & organise their military properly, 'coz it's a cold hard world out there with no Uncle Sam waving the big stick.
Note that I will not engage in any discussion whatsoever about the politics of this situation, & I strongly urge everyone else to refrain likewise. The above is an artificial situation, posited in full knowledge that the likelihood of it coming to pass is approximately zero, & with no intention to suggest it is desirable (or otherwise). It's purpose is solely to provide a rationale for the question below.
The Question:
It is early 2009. You have been appointed to head the commission tasked with drawing up proposals for restructuring forces for collective defence, including the provision of intervention forces. What do you propose? Your parameters are -
It has been agreed to retain troops in the Balkans & Afghanistan, & replace US forces with EU troops, as the Americans withdraw.
Forces will remain national, & nationally funded. Britain & France have voted through an immediate 10% increase in spending. Countries spending below 2% of GDP have approved an immediate increase to that level. Greece (the highest spender) will keep spending at current levels for now.
You may plan for spending of 2.5% of GDP in 2010 & at least as much in subsequent years. You do not need to take into account operational costs over peacetime base level, as supplementary contingency funds have approved, to be spent if needed.
Standardisation is to be promoted, but you can't ignore national industrial concerns completely. For obvious reasons, preference is to be given to domestic equipment. The USA can be assumed to be happy to sell 2nd line weapons ("JSF-lite", transport aircraft, etc), & spares for existing kit, on strictly commercial terms, but not first-line weapons, e.g. not US-standard JSF.
As for manpower needs, new equipment, upgrades, reactivation of stored stuff, new development - whatever you think best. Both immediate needs & medium-term plans. Focus on your own country, if you wish. Think of that as a subset of the overall proposals.
Remember that for some countries (e.g. Austria, Finland, Spain, Germany, Italy, Belgium) this is a big increase, which may prove difficult to use all at once. Not politically acceptable to transfer money from one country to another directly, but there are ways to do it indirectly, e.g. Germany buying Invincible & funding her reactivation as an LPH, & the UK using the money to boost the RN budget, or Germany building & crewing new ro-ros & transporting other peoples kit in 'em. Those are just examples, not suggestions for what should be done.
Go for it!
