I just wanted to say that I am very interested in that scenario I mean of a combined European army.I am also very interested in taking up European projects,such as a European modern tak,European fighter/bomber,or anything other.In this era I believe that Europe should stay together by combining its forces,I'm no talking for organising a war-like machine,but organising a common defence plan.Also by taking up projects as I said before Europe could take an advantage over other nations due to its technological superiority,for example imagine all European countries researching for a common ICBM etc,imagine the amount of research that could be processed and the little needed...I can't talk with stats,numbers etc because I'm not an analyst,I'm just fond of this idea...
European Armour
- Thread starter .pt
- Start date
- Status
And who would this common defence plan be set up against, who would be able to join this combined European military, what would be the criteria to join it.
FutureTank
Banned Member
Large defence forces also tend to get pulled into conflicts not of their own choosing, and quite without the intent of doing so. The larger the EU grows, the more varied become its security and defence concerns.
Would NATO or the United Nations be a example of this, probably not as much with the latter mentioned.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
The defense of Europe is still formally vested NATO.
However under the ESDP several capabilities are available or under degrees of development.
The largest component would be the Eurocorps. This consist of approx 60,000 personnel:
[*]European Union Battlegroups
[*]The European Union battlegroups is a project done in the context of the European Security and Defence Policy, its aim being the creation of several rapidly deployable units for international intervention and tasks reaching up to full-combat situations. Interestingly, the EU Battlegroups are to be deployable more rapidly and for shorter periods than the long-planned European Rapid Reaction Force.
[*]A battlegroup is considered to be the smallest self-sufficient military unit that can be deployed and sustained in a theater of operation. Each battlegroup will be composed of 1500 combat soldiers plus support. It is desired that each battlegroup should be ready for launch in 10 days from command, and be in the theater of operations in 15 days. It must be sustainable for at least 30 days, which could be extended to 120 days with rotation.
The Nordic Battlegroup has been discussed elsewhere on DT. But how do you like the Spanish Italian Amphibious Battlegroup
However under the ESDP several capabilities are available or under degrees of development.
The largest component would be the Eurocorps. This consist of approx 60,000 personnel:
[*]Then there are/will be the EU Battlegroups.
[*]European Union Battlegroups
[*]The European Union battlegroups is a project done in the context of the European Security and Defence Policy, its aim being the creation of several rapidly deployable units for international intervention and tasks reaching up to full-combat situations. Interestingly, the EU Battlegroups are to be deployable more rapidly and for shorter periods than the long-planned European Rapid Reaction Force.
[*]A battlegroup is considered to be the smallest self-sufficient military unit that can be deployed and sustained in a theater of operation. Each battlegroup will be composed of 1500 combat soldiers plus support. It is desired that each battlegroup should be ready for launch in 10 days from command, and be in the theater of operations in 15 days. It must be sustainable for at least 30 days, which could be extended to 120 days with rotation.
Note that since Denmark has opted out of the ESDP, it is focusing on providing a NRF battlegroup.
The Nordic Battlegroup has been discussed elsewhere on DT. But how do you like the Spanish Italian Amphibious Battlegroup
There is mission, organisation, participants...
Grand Danois
Entertainer
The defense of Europe is still formally vested NATO.
However under the ESDP several capabilities are available or under degrees of development.
The largest component would be the Eurocorps. This consist of approx 60,000 personnel:
The Nordic Battlegroup has been discussed elsewhere on DT. But how do you like the Spanish Italian Amphibious Battlegroup
However under the ESDP several capabilities are available or under degrees of development.
The largest component would be the Eurocorps. This consist of approx 60,000 personnel:
Then there are/will be the EU Battlegroups.
Note that since Denmark has opted out of the ESDP, it is focusing on providing a NRF battlegroup.
The Nordic Battlegroup has been discussed elsewhere on DT. But how do you like the Spanish Italian Amphibious Battlegroup
There is mission, organisation, participants...
FutureTank
Banned Member
NATO certainly didn't expect to find itself deploying to Afghanistan, nor is it prepared to the sort of operations being conducted.
Then why do you think that they decided to get involved, please give me a honest opinion on this, why Afghan versus Iraq, and please don`t tell me it was because the Taliban were responsible for harboring Bin Laden.
FutureTank
Banned Member
NATO took command and co-ordination of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in August 2003. ISAF is NATO's first mission outside the Euro-Atlantic area. ISAF operates in Afghanistan under a UN mandate and will continue to operate according to current and future UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions. ISAF’s mission was initially limited to Kabul. Resolution 1510 passed by the UNSC on 13 October 2003 opened the way to a wider role for ISAF to support the Government of Afghanistan beyond Kabul.
http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/040628-factsheet.htm
Quite frankly I never understood why the USA did not invoke the NATO treaty after 9/11
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Article 5 was invoked following 9/11.
Yes -if I am not mistaken, NATO actually was flying AWAC missions over the U.S with in 24 hours.
FutureTank
Banned Member
But NATO troops are not in Afghanistan because of Article 5. The link I posted is official NATO policy.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Yes, it has to be mandated by the UN. But I am reasonably sure it also has to be mandated through article 4 or 5 in the NATO charter for NATO to commit.
FutureTank
Banned Member
GD, please look at the page I posted.
I don't think UN is capable of waging the sort of conflict required in Afghanistan
My opinion is the creation of an European army made only by countries members of the European army.As far as Turkey is concerned I'm not sure if this country could participate,we're talking about a European army with a defensive strategy.Turkey is not yet a member,and it isn't sure if will ever be.About the numbers and about the idea that this army couldn't oppose countries such as U.S.A or Russia.My opinion is that this is not the point...I believe thay in the years that will follow we won't see a major conflict between big countries.It is very difficult for example to see U.S.A invading EuropeGoing by memory here.
The EU-25 have defense expenditures of 185 billion €. Include Norway, Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia as NATO members or EU prospects and you should get at least B190€. That's B241$ at an average expenditure of ~1.6% of GDP.
The US uses B445$ at 3.6% of GDP on defense.
EDIT: Oh, forgot Turkey, but don't know the numbers.
Almost impossible,but only the idea of a common European army securing Europe,and the further bonds that will be created between countries,are worth trying this plan.There was a common European defence organisation, & common defence plan, before the formation of NATO. It was then aimed at the defence of W. Europe from the USSR.
It's called the WEU (a name it got several years after its formation, when W. Germany joined). All its members joined NATO when it was formed, & it then became merely an umbrella under which European NATO members (well, some of them - they didn't all belong to it) would discuss things, but it continued to exist, & woke up a little in the 1980s. Joint operations by European NATO members outside the NATO area, e.g. in the Persian Gulf, were taken under the auspices of the wEU until it was agreed that NATO could do such things.
Around the same time, most of the functions of the WEU began to be handed over to the EU (since 1973, all WEU members have also been EU members), & nowadays it's more or less defunct. But the mutual self-defence treaty is still in force, & 10 countries (all the pre-1995 EU members except Ireland & Denmark) are still bound by it, whatever happens to either NATO or the EU.
Never really heard to much inregards to this treaty, sounds like a good research project for me, thank you for the information.
Secure Europe from what, surely Turkey should be allowed to join this new European Army correct, isn`t Turkey a member of NATO and was willing to sacrifice their military for the sake of keeping a free Europe from Soviet expansion, and hey with the U.S being part of NATO and with all these special European treaties that are floating around maybe the U.S and Russia should have a combined army also, just for the fun of it we will ask Turkey to join our little party also.My opinion is the creation of an European army made only by countries members of the European army.As far as Turkey is concerned I'm not sure if this country could participate,we're talking about a European army with a defensive strategy.Turkey is not yet a member,and it isn't sure if will ever be.About the numbers and about the idea that this army couldn't oppose countries such as U.S.A or Russia.My opinion is that this is not the point...I believe thay in the years that will follow we won't see a major conflict between big countries.It is very difficult for example to see U.S.A invading Europe
I would prefer a strong European army made by countries members of European Union not members of NATO,if Turkey becomes sometime a member of EU(after fullfilling some obligations) I don't have a problem if Turkey participates in that army....I also think that this army maybe won't ever take action(If you catch my pointSecure Europe from what, surely Turkey should be allowed to join this new European Army correct, isn`t Turkey a member of NATO and was willing to sacrifice their military for the sake of keeping a free Europe from Soviet expansion, and hey with the U.S being part of NATO and with all these special European treaties that are floating around maybe the U.S and Russia should have a combined army also, just for the fun of it we will ask Turkey to join our little party also.
),but only its existence would be enough to secure the defence of Europe.Also I don't want to express my opinion about Turkey making a sacrifice for keeping Soviet expansion because it's clear politics,other people may believe the oppposite of what you believe.With this so called strong European army, would there really be a reason for the NATO Alliance to exist anymore, again why do you think that Europe would need additional security measures to be a team of one, if there is not a threat to your security what would be the reason for preperation. Would you recommend that all of Europe use the same weapons platforms to ease the logistical issues. What weapons platforms would you like to see, surely France could benefit greatly from this in all categories, naval, ground and air weapons systems.I would prefer a strong European army made by countries members of European Union not members of NATO,if Turkey becomes sometime a member of EU(after fullfilling some obligations) I don't have a problem if Turkey participates in that army....I also think that this army maybe won't ever take action(If you catch my point
- Status