WW3: Another Hypothetical (LONG POST)

[USArmyStrong89]

The European Union is purely a political and economical organization. The constitution of the European Union does not state member nations must defend each when attack.

Eh, wrong.
EU common defence has been around since the Nice Treaty.
With two exceptions, Ireland and Denmark. If a sovereign state attacks any member of the EU, you can be pretty sure that the others will help.

European Union is not a military alliance or a mutual defence pact. The European Union is purely a political and economica organization.

What amendment or article within the EU constitution can a member state invoke if an external party (Russia) violates their sovereign territory? There are none. A mutual defence pact for the EU is non existant because many of the 27 member nations are already in NATO to begin with.

Furthermore, There is not common unified European Union military like there is with NATO. I'm sure you are mistaking the EU with NATO.

Just because you are a part of the EU and if you are attacked, it doesn't mean that all the other members of EU would come to your aid.

Example: If Russia invades Finland, (member of EU, not a member of NATO), No EU member would be obligated to send forces to repel Russian invasion of Finland You can expect condemnation from EU members, but military response and mutual defence does not apply.

Which considering China's growing population despite it's One Child Policy, and the World Food "Crisis", is possible.

There is the Himalayan mountains to worry about... Think about the logistics of mobolizing forces through Tibet and pass the Himalayan mountains. The PLA would probably rely on one or two key railroad tracks that winds its way through the Tibet. Vulnerability of possible air attack against these vital track lines is high. The lack of improved roads through the Himalayan mountains would simply be a distaster for movement of heavy equipment like self-propelled howitzers, artillery, armor, and etc...


SUGGESTION for Realism:
Also, China's hunger for natural resources would force them to look at the Russian Far East for natural resoures and probably Russia's Sakhalin islands.

It would also establish military alliances with African governments and establish bases in Africa to secure vital mines for minerals and iron ore and etc....

 

[IrishHitman]

1. What amendment or article within the EU constitution can a member state invoke if an external party (Russia) violates their sovereign territory?

2. Furthermore, There is not common unified European Union military like there is with NATO. I'm sure you are mistaking the EU with NATO.

3. There is the Himalayan mountains to worry about... Think about the logistics of mobolizing forces through Tibet and pass the Himalayan mountains. The PLA would probably rely on one or two key railroad tracks that winds its way through the Tibet. Vulnerability of possible air attack against these vital track lines is high. The lack of improved roads through the Himalayan mountains would simply be a distaster for movement of heavy equipment like self-propelled howitzers, artillery, armor, and etc...


SUGGESTION for Realism:
4. Also, China's hunger for natural resources would force them to look at the Russian Far East for natural resoures and probably Russia's Sakhalin islands.

It would also establish military alliances with African governments and establish bases in Africa to secure vital mines for minerals and iron ore and etc....

1. The EU has no constitution... But it does have treaties:
The Nice and Lisbon Treaties.
Article 17 of the Nice Treaty (Which respects NATO countries' right to membership as well as lays down the foundation for common defence).
Treaty of Lisbon, Article 2, section 3 ("The EU shall promote territorial cohesion"), Article 10A (a) + (b), Article 11 '1, Article 28A (a) '1, (c) '3, section 4, 5 + 6.
On top of this, the mutual defence pacts of the WEU are being transferred to the EU. Furthermore, any EU member state can request military aid, and it must be considered.

NATO, would of course, play a key role, and the EU uses it to a certain degree for common defence needs.

2.
Most of the older EU countries use NATO-standard equipment, and the younger ones use Russian equipment. Even Ireland uses NATO calibre sizes etc. NATO isn't really a common unified military either, it's a military alliance.
The difference between the EU's defence policy and NATO is that the EU is limited to peacekeeping and defence actions only, whereas NATO could act offensively if it wishes.

3.
There are 101 reasons China could justify military buildup in the area beforehand. China's modernisation of it's airforce would undoubtedly help, but whether they can fight in the Himalayas remains to be seen. I doubt China would simply ignore the possibility of air attack on the railways, they'd set up as many SAM sites as possible if they couldn't get decent aircraft up.

4.
I also thought about a Chinese-Russian front, but ruled it out due to economic and military points, mainly about trade between the two. Russia has a nice military market in China, although it's somewhat strained because of the reverse engineering going on. I can only see China invading Russia for oil, to be perfectly honest. And if Russia supplies China to replace it's EU market, that isn't possible...

 

[USArmyStrong89]

1. The EU has no constitution... But it does have treaties:
The Nice and Lisbon Treaties.
Article 17 of the Nice Treaty (Which respects NATO countries' right to membership as well as lays down the foundation for common defence).
Treaty of Lisbon, Article 2, section 3 ("The EU shall promote territorial cohesion"), Article 10A (a) + (b), Article 11 '1, Article 28A (a) '1, (c) '3, section 4, 5 + 6.
On top of this, the mutual defence pacts of the WEU are being transferred to the EU. Furthermore, any EU member state can request military aid, and it must be considered.

NATO, would of course, play a key role, and the EU uses it to a certain degree for common defence needs.

"The Treaty of Nice also deleted from the Treaty on European Union a number of provisions concerning relations between the WEU and the Union.

Collective defence, a primary responsibility of the WEU, now falls within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's (NATO) sphere of competence"
hhttp://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/western_european_union_en.htm

"The Defence commitment in Article 5 in the Western European Union Treaty was not taken over by the EU when other Western European Union functions were subsumed in the EU at the beginning of 2002."
hhttp://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/cfsp/esdp/index.htm

Recap: The role given to the WEU in the Amsterdam Treaty, was removed by the Nice Treaty and the European Constitution gives the role of collective defence to NATO.

WEU is replaced by NATO, When WEU was tranferred to EU, Defence committment article was removed, so EU does not require mutual defence committment amongst members.

NATO isn't really a common unified military either, it's a military alliance.
The difference between the EU's defence policy and NATO is that the EU is limited to peacekeeping and defence actions only, whereas NATO could act offensively if it wishes.

"As regards military capabilities, the EU has set itself the goal of being able to deploy by 2003 a force of up to 60,000 personnel within 60 days, and to sustain it on the ground for at least one year, for the purposes of humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping, and crisis management – including peace-making. It should be noted that the military and defence dimension of the EU does not include territorial defence. "

hhttp://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/cfsp/esdp/index.htm
NATO is a collective defense organization. It is not offensive in nature and does not coordinate attacks without causa bellum (only when attacked) During the Cold War, this was supposed to mean matching defences at the level rendered necessary by the Warsaw Pact's offensive capabilities without spurring a further arms race. It was not meant to be a collective defense orgnaization, not a offensive one.

 

[IrishHitman]

"The Treaty of Nice also deleted from the Treaty on European Union a number of provisions concerning relations between the WEU and the Union.

Collective defence, a primary responsibility of the WEU, now falls within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's (NATO) sphere of competence"
hhttp://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/western_european_union_en.htm

"The Defence commitment in Article 5 in the Western European Union Treaty was not taken over by the EU when other Western European Union functions were subsumed in the EU at the beginning of 2002."
hhttp://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/cfsp/esdp/index.htm

Recap: The role given to the WEU in the Amsterdam Treaty, was removed by the Nice Treaty and the European Constitution gives the role of collective defence to NATO.

WEU is replaced by NATO, When WEU was tranferred to EU, Defence committment article was removed, so EU does not require mutual defence committment amongst members.


"As regards military capabilities, the EU has set itself the goal of being able to deploy by 2003 a force of up to 60,000 personnel within 60 days, and to sustain it on the ground for at least one year, for the purposes of humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping, and crisis management – including peace-making. It should be noted that the military and defence dimension of the EU does not include territorial defence. "

hhttp://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/cfsp/esdp/index.htm
NATO is a collective defense organization. It is not offensive in nature and does not coordinate attacks without causa bellum (only when attacked) During the Cold War, this was supposed to mean matching defences at the level rendered necessary by the Warsaw Pact's offensive capabilities without spurring a further arms race. It was not meant to be a collective defense orgnaization, not a offensive one.

The European Constitution was rejected. It's irrelevent.

Your quote about the defence dimension of the EU is pre-Lisbon, and most likely pre-Nice as well, i.e. redundant.

Furthermore, you aren't reading what I'm saying about NATO at all.
The EU is using NATO capability and "competence" as part of the EDSP.
Not all EU countries are doing so, however, and therein is the difference.

To say that the EU wouldn't defend itself collectively would be a mistake.
If Finland was attacked, there can be no doubt that the EU would act.
There's no way NATO would allow it either, bringing the US, Norway and Canada into the mix. Therefore, the whole debate is pointless anyway.

 

[chris]

Since we are not talking yet about the scenario itself, but for the reasons that led to it, let me give you an alternative that will probably break EU defence from NATO but not completely.

Before all that happens,
EU decides to collectively set its sea borders to 12 nm following international treaties. Greece complies as a member of the EU, even though there is a casus belli from Turkey in doing so. That is before Turkey enters EU.

You have a war between Greece and Turkey on an EU mandate. Both are NATO members but only Greece is EU member. EU must help Greece defend against a NATO ally.

By the time the scenario starts the war is over but the alliance is not what it used to be. EU must defend itself.

 

[IrishHitman]

Since we are not talking yet about the scenario itself, but for the reasons that led to it, let me give you an alternative that will probably break EU defence from NATO but not completely.

Before all that happens,
EU decides to collectively set its sea borders to 12 nm following international treaties. Greece complies as a member of the EU, even though there is a casus belli from Turkey in doing so. That is before Turkey enters EU.

You have a war between Greece and Turkey on an EU mandate. Both are NATO members but only Greece is EU member. EU must help Greece defend against a NATO ally.

By the time the scenario starts the war is over but the alliance is not what it used to be. EU must defend itself.

A war between Greece and Turkey would destroy any chance of Turkey ascending...

 

[chris]

A war between Greece and Turkey would destroy any chance of Turkey ascending...

Is this critical in the scenario?

Maybe it is since it creates a new player in it. Turkey with some former USSR states of turkish origin, in fear of Russia (and maybe aligned with USA) , plus some loose islamic understanding in middle east.

I fail to see where middle east stands in your scenario. And believe me, I say this, not against it but in real concern about it.

 

[IrishHitman]

The Middle East would not be initially involved.
I presume that the US would still be present in some shape or form (again, it depends on the elections this November), but the belligerents in this war are the initial ones.

More would become involved later on in the war, including Middle Eastern countries. Which ones and at what level is beyond debatable.

As for Turkey, it isn't particularly vital to the EU war effort, it's included because it is reasonably likely that Turkey will ascend in the next few years..

 

[swerve]

...
India

Do not be so sure than India will not form a stronger alliance with China in the future, anti-American sentiment is high and India will not be told who to deal with, hence the Iranian gas pipeline deal. The PRC needs to seriously strengthen its anti-US coalition. ...

India is currently cosying up to the USA, buying US weapons for the first time ever, having joint military exercises. The Indian & Chinese armies are facing off along their border, as they have been for the last 46 years. What the PRC needs is irrelevant to India, as India has no interest in joining any anti-US coalition, but is moving in exactly the opposite direction, trying to use the USA as a counter to China. Indian resentment at US arrogance is minor compared to Indian concern over China as a military threat.

 

[chris]

Well, that puts US into strain. You may have US mainly trying to keep control over Middle east and have it out of the EU theatre completely. You can have India and China involved just for the resources.

 

[USArmyStrong89]

To say that the EU wouldn't defend itself collectively would be a mistake.
If Finland was attacked, there can be no doubt that the EU would act.
There's no way NATO would allow it either, bringing the US, Norway and Canada into the mix. Therefore, the whole debate is pointless anyway.

"The EU responded by feebly attempting to counter this worrisome imbalance of influence with a Common Foreign and Security Policy and a now rather defunct rapid deployment force. Still, NATO's chances of replacing the EU as the main continental political alliance are much higher than the EU's chances of substituting for NATO as the pre-eminent European military pact. the EU is hobbled by minuscule and decreasing defence spending by its mostly pacifistic members and by the backwardness of their armed forces."
hhttp://samvak.tripod.com/eunato.html

There is nothing in the EU Constitution that says members must act to defend member states in case of attack. EU was not constructed for common defence. All defence related matters is the job of NATO, which predates the EU. You are essentially saying that the EU is a military alliance which it is not. NATO serves the purpose for which EU is not established for.

Its like saying NAFTA or ASEAN would come to the economic aid of each other when clearly NAFTA and ASEAN are political and economical forums. The EU is no different.

 

[USArmyStrong89]

The Middle East would not be initially involved.
I presume that the US would still be present in some shape or form (again, it depends on the elections this November), but the belligerents in this war are the initial ones.

More would become involved later on in the war, including Middle Eastern countries. Which ones and at what level is beyond debatable.

As for Turkey, it isn't particularly vital to the EU war effort, it's included because it is reasonably likely that Turkey will ascend in the next few years..

The first thing that will happen when USA is stuck in a quagmire in Europe and Taiwan is every nation in the middle east would gang up on Israel. Iran would be the among the first to shoot missiles at Israel. You also mentioned that China had developed a true blue naval capability. The past decade, China had been modernizing its navy aimed at limited engagement against a high tech adversary in a war with Taiwan.

 

[IrishHitman]

The first thing that will happen when USA is stuck in a quagmire in Europe and Taiwan is every nation in the middle east would gang up on Israel. Iran would be the among the first to shoot missiles at Israel. You also mentioned that China had developed a true blue naval capability. The past decade, China had been modernizing its navy aimed at limited engagement against a high tech adversary in a war with Taiwan.

All of that seems very likely if the US is involved with China.
It's not like Israel would sit and take it though.
(That is the kind of discussion I want )

I didn't say that China had successfully created a blue water navy.
Unless they start planning carriers tomorrow, it would be difficult by 2015.
They would have alot of blue water capabilities by then though.

India is currently cosying up to the USA, buying US weapons for the first time ever, having joint military exercises. The Indian & Chinese armies are facing off along their border, as they have been for the last 46 years. What the PRC needs is irrelevant to India, as India has no interest in joining any anti-US coalition, but is moving in exactly the opposite direction, trying to use the USA as a counter to China. Indian resentment at US arrogance is minor compared to Indian concern over China as a military threat.

India wouldn't ally with China. Full stop.
They're too close to the Russians and now the West.

 

[chris]

The first thing that will happen when USA is stuck in a quagmire in Europe and Taiwan is every nation in the middle east would gang up on Israel. Iran would be the among the first to shoot missiles at Israel.

All of that seems very likely if the US is involved with China.
It's not like Israel would sit and take it though.
(That is the kind of discussion I want )

Well, it seems that you have every major oil producer against US/EU. You must find some resources or the conflict will not last for long. I think that US will prefer to get stacked in a quagmire in Middle east than one in Europe or Taiwan.

 

[Feanor]

Anyway, nukes are out simply because this is a hypothetical conventional war.

Again the whole Russian military doctrine is based on nuclear weapons. You can't just rule them out. It's like me saying, ok hypothetical Russia America war but aircraft carriers aren't allowed. Don't forget the only way Russia has of sinking american aircraft carriers is also nuclear :wink: so in that regard you scenario simply falls through.

 

[swerve]

...
There is nothing in the EU Constitution that says members must act to defend member states in case of attack. EU was not constructed for common defence. All defence related matters is the job of NATO, which predates the EU. You are essentially saying that the EU is a military alliance which it is not. NATO serves the purpose for which EU is not established for.

Its like saying NAFTA or ASEAN would come to the economic aid of each other when clearly NAFTA and ASEAN are political and economical forums. The EU is no different.

1. Stop repeating yourself, when your arguments have already been countered. There is no EU constitution (it was rejected, remember?), so what the proposed (& rejected) document said has no significance.

BTW, the WEU (military alliance, remember?), which has been taken over by the EU, predates NATO.

2. If you really think the EU is no different from NAFTA & ASEAN, you merely prove your complete ignorance of the nature of the EU. It is not just a "political and economic forum".

Come over here & travel around. Note the common currency used by the majority of members, & which the majority of others link their currencies to. Note the plethora of common institutions, physical links (last I noticed, a bigger proportion of the EU was on a common electricity grid than the continental USA), lack of border controls, shared rights (I can work in any EU country, rent property etc., with no permits - and I've done so - not true of NAFTA or ASEAN). Count the lorries with French, Czech, etc. registrations on British roads - how many Mexican trucks delivering in Chicago? Oh dear, they're not allowed to. Look at our common vehicle safety standards, food safety rules, the millions of us who live & work in each others countries legally (there are millions of cross-border commuters, who live in one country & work in another), the fact that when I had a skiing accident in Italy payment to the local state hospital consisted of showing my identity documents & filling out a form (do NAFTA & ASEAN have such arrangements?), cross-border military units, sharing of military assets, number of military exercises & degree of co-operation between states, the right of EU citizens to vote in local elections in other EU states, & you suddenly realise how wrong you are. Most of Europe is entangled in a web of alliances, agreements, treaties, & habits of co-operation built up over generations. Some of these are due to the EU, some pre-date the EU but have been assimilated into it, & some are separate. Most are formal & legal, others are not. But the overall effect is that Europe functions as something unique, neither a unified state nor a collection of separate states, & the EU is the centre of this loose confederation, or tight alliance, or whatever you want to call it. It is in no way comparable to ASEAN or NAFTA. Ask any Mexican trying to get into the USA, or a Burmese migrant to Thailand, or Indonesian labourer in Malaysia, or anyone from one ASEAN or NAFTA member trying to buy a house or set up a business in another.

And whether there is a formal obligation for EU states to aid each other militarily or not, it is universally taken for granted that they would. It is unthinkable for an EU member to be invaded & the other members not to immediately protect it.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Again the whole Russian military doctrine is based on nuclear weapons. You can't just rule them out. It's like me saying, ok hypothetical Russia America war but aircraft carriers aren't allowed. Don't forget the only way Russia has of sinking american aircraft carriers is also nuclear :wink: so in that regard you scenario simply falls through.

Good point, you have to allow nukes or the whole scenario is completely unrealistic. However when you do i think this will actually limit their use and the conflict itself. Thats a realistic scenario, several limited conflicts between the major powers in the several points strategic interest, with nukes stopping the total, state on state stuff we saw in WW2.

 

[Dr Freud]

Nukes isnt the only way Russia has to sink a carrier

 

[IrishHitman]

Good point, you have to allow nukes or the whole scenario is completely unrealistic. However when you do i think this will actually limit their use and the conflict itself. Thats a realistic scenario, several limited conflicts between the major powers in the several points strategic interest, with nukes stopping the total, state on state stuff we saw in WW2.

I like this idea.
Care to expand on it based on what we have so far?
Now we're getting somewhere.

Well, it seems that you have every major oil producer against US/EU. You must find some resources or the conflict will not last for long. I think that US will prefer to get stacked in a quagmire in Middle east than one in Europe or Taiwan.

Saudi Arabia? Canada? The US itself? The North Sea? Nigeria? Angola?
All of those oil supplies are effectively NATO controlled...

 

[chris]

Saudi Arabia? Canada? The US itself? The North Sea? Nigeria? Angola?
All of those oil supplies are effectively NATO controlled...

Just a quick net search and here are some numbers.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves (there is a production in barrels per day in there)
www. nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption (take the space out, no links for me yet)

don't know how accurate these numbers are but they give us an idea. The oilfields you mentioned doesn't even cover US demand. I'll even put Iraq on the list as a happy ending of the Iraq war or major US forces still there by 2015. And of course we have a war and you divert more resources to the military, civilian use drops, but you cannot stop your economy and most important, your production. Most of your players have the same problem, so Middle east is going to be one of your main main theatres.

The first thing that will happen when USA is stuck in a quagmire in Europe and Taiwan is every nation in the middle east would gang up on Israel. Iran would be the among the first to shoot missiles at Israel.

It's not like Israel would sit and take it though.

Let me requote. We have a major Arab-Israel war and you expect Saudi oil to ship as usual? Take a look at the production charts again. Take Middle east out and you just have your strategic reserves.

Back to my point. In that scenario, the bulk of US Army, Navy and part of the Air force is stucked in the Middle east. Most other players have their main focus there as well.

For example... A couple of tactical nukes on the oilfields there and you have most of the western armies looking for a gas station.