+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 64
  1. #1
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    05-11-04
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    824

    european military strength

    after a recent trip to the US i'm starting to question the transatlantic alliance - based on the americans leaving it rather than the europeans leaving it - and i'm intersted in the force projection capabilities of european powers and what it would take to transform european military forces into a expeditionary force rather than a garrison force.

    projection capabilities would be all of africa, middle east and various european territories around the world.

    the roles would be anti-terrorism, trade protection, peacekeeping/enforcement, stabilisation enforcment (think lebanon) and heavy ground and air forces to prevent china taking eastern and central russia in light of a possible russian collapse. (thats my pet theory, i know others don't think so, but i'm convinced)

    big, flash heavy forces would be required, but most operations would be into environments without a traditional heavy military opposition.

  2. #2
    Military Professional
    Staff Emeritus
    Scotch taster

    Join Date
    06-08-03
    Posts
    22,760

    Quote Originally Posted by dave angel
    after a recent trip to the US i'm starting to question the transatlantic alliance - based on the americans leaving it rather than the europeans leaving it - and i'm intersted in the force projection capabilities of european powers and what it would take to transform european military forces into a expeditionary force rather than a garrison force.

    projection capabilities would be all of africa, middle east and various european territories around the world.

    the roles would be anti-terrorism, trade protection, peacekeeping/enforcement, stabilisation enforcment (think lebanon) and heavy ground and air forces to prevent china taking eastern and central russia in light of a possible russian collapse. (thats my pet theory, i know others don't think so, but i'm convinced)

    big, flash heavy forces would be required, but most operations would be into environments without a traditional heavy military opposition.
    Isn't that what ERRF (European Rapid Reaction Force) and NRF (NATO Response Force) are?
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 8th November 2004 at 03:05.
    Chimo

  3. #3
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    30-09-04
    Posts
    789
    "heavy ground and air forces to prevent china taking eastern and central russia in light of a possible russian collapse"
    LOL. so ironic if it happened.
    EU nations are the ones arming the PRC.

  4. #4
    Ubi dubium ibi libertas Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    04-09-03
    Location
    Boston, MA, USPRA
    Posts
    5,123
    Quote Originally Posted by dave angel
    based on the americans leaving it rather than the europeans leaving it
    Which is a false basis, but it really isn't germane to the discussion anyway.

    what it would take to transform european military forces into a expeditionary force rather than a garrison force.
    I can't speak to the military side, but on the political side, it needs public will. At the moment there is no such will. A significant proportion of Europeans believe that military force is usually unnecessary. Thus, they are, and will continue to be, unwilling to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on creating and maintaining a standing military.
    "Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
    "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

    NEVER FORGET

  5. #5
    Military Professional
    Staff Emeritus
    Scotch taster

    Join Date
    06-08-03
    Posts
    22,760

    Quote Originally Posted by Franco Lolan
    EU nations are the ones arming the PRC.
    No, they're not. No one has yet to break the Arms Embargo, not even underhandedly.
    Chimo

  6. #6
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    30-09-04
    Posts
    789
    LOL Officer of Engineers,
    the EU Arms Embargo means ****. it pertains to the stance taken by security body of EU as a collective whole. it does nothing to preclude individual nations. France has had large transfers with PRC. read the Current History from 2 months ago.

  7. #7
    Death, the Destroyer of Worlds... Senior Contributor -{SpoonmaN}-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    08-09-04
    Location
    Amidst the rolling hills of merry England.
    Posts
    1,532

    I don't think that Europeans are really that much less willing to intervene militarily, it's just that they didn't buy the weapons of mass destruction line, and they were already prejudiced against President Bush, so they didn't support the action in Iraq.
    A case in point of European forces operating abroad is the current French peacekeeping mission in the Ivory Coast, which has been coming up in the news lately. Perhaps the difference between Europeans and Americans is that Europeans are much more sympathetic to fighting on humanitarian grounds (Like the somewhat belated intervention in Kosovo) rather than the more nationalistic grounds upon which Americans fight.

  8. #8
    Military Professional
    Staff Emeritus
    Scotch taster

    Join Date
    06-08-03
    Posts
    22,760

    Quote Originally Posted by Franco Lolan
    LOL Officer of Engineers,
    the EU Arms Embargo means ****. it pertains to the stance taken by security body of EU as a collective whole. it does nothing to preclude individual nations. France has had large transfers with PRC. read the Current History from 2 months ago.
    Name one weapon system that has been sold to the PRC.
    Chimo

  9. #9
    Ubi dubium ibi libertas Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    04-09-03
    Location
    Boston, MA, USPRA
    Posts
    5,123
    Quote Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-
    I don't think that Europeans are really that much less willing to intervene militarily, it's just that they didn't buy the weapons of mass destruction line, and they were already prejudiced against President Bush, so they didn't support the action in Iraq.
    A case in point of European forces operating abroad is the current French peacekeeping mission in the Ivory Coast, which has been coming up in the news lately. Perhaps the difference between Europeans and Americans is that Europeans are much more sympathetic to fighting on humanitarian grounds (Like the somewhat belated intervention in Kosovo) rather than the more nationalistic grounds upon which Americans fight.
    A humanitarian case was made for Iraq. The Europeans ignored it. Many in Europe are ideological pacifists. This number will grow as Europe continues to move to the left.
    "Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
    "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

    NEVER FORGET

  10. #10
    Death, the Destroyer of Worlds... Senior Contributor -{SpoonmaN}-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    08-09-04
    Location
    Amidst the rolling hills of merry England.
    Posts
    1,532

    I think you'll find that humanitarian grounds was not enough for the American public to go to war in Iraq. That's where the WMD and terrorist links thing comes in. I'm all for taking out brutal dictatorships myself, with military force if neccesary.
    But if that was really the reason for going to war in Iraq, why don't we see Delta Force storming the Saudi Royal Palaces, or B-1s dropping JDAMs on the suspected hideout of Robert Mugabe?
    The fact is if we were going to have some kind of war on tyranny, then there'd be an aweful lot of countries getting invaded right now.

  11. #11
    Ubi dubium ibi libertas Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    04-09-03
    Location
    Boston, MA, USPRA
    Posts
    5,123
    Quote Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-
    I think you'll find that humanitarian grounds was not enough for the American public to go to war in Iraq.
    Which couldn't be more completely irrelevant since we are talking about Europe.

    But if that was really the reason for going to war in Iraq, why don't we see Delta Force storming the Saudi Royal Palaces, or B-1s dropping JDAMs on the suspected hideout of Robert Mugabe?
    First, if the Iraq war was objectively right on humanitarian basis then it is irrelevant if that same standard would apply to other countries. As to the specific things you mention, destroying the Saudi government would be counter productive considering that there is no one but OBL types to replace them. As to Mugabe, I have little know of the situation in Zimbabwe other then that Mugabe is a thug and a racist.

    The fact is if we were going to have some kind of war on tyranny, then there'd be an aweful lot of countries getting invaded right now.
    As I proved above this is not a valid reason not to invade Iraq on humanitarian grounds.
    "Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
    "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

    NEVER FORGET

  12. #12
    Regular slippery_chimp's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-04
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Leader
    A significant proportion of Europeans believe that military force is usually unnecessary. Thus, they are, and will continue to be, unwilling to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on creating and maintaining a standing military.
    Yeah - maybe if we weren’t so crazy about our equal rights for everyone we'd have less money to spend on health care and more money on bombing the **** out of people.


    Quote Originally Posted by Leader
    A humanitarian case was made for Iraq. The Europeans ignored it. Many in Europe are ideological pacifists. This number will grow as Europe continues to move to the left.
    I disagree strongly with this statement, Europe did not ignore it, it's simply the case that if you argue 'a humanitarian case' it means you want to over throw the current form of government which is illegal under international law, (not that the US bothers about such things). I also think that Europe is not pacifist, it's non-violent, it's a fine line but the difference is significant.

  13. #13
    Staff Emeritus Confed999's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-09-03
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    10,813

    Quote Originally Posted by slippery_chimp
    which is illegal under international law
    If it's illegal to remove tyrants, and I haven't seen anything that says it was illegal, then the criminals are the good guys...
    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
    I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

  14. #14
    Staff Emeritus
    She-Devil
    Julie's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-08-03
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    8,548

    Quote Originally Posted by Confed999
    If it's illegal to remove tyrants, and I haven't seen anything that says it was illegal, then the criminals are the good guys...
    It's all a matter of priority. Some have their priorities in order, and some....well....obviously does not.

  15. #15
    Regular slippery_chimp's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-04
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Confed999
    If it's illegal to remove tyrants, and I haven't seen anything that says it was illegal, then the criminals are the good guys...
    No, just that you cant go around "removing" leaders, whether they are tyrants or not, if you have not seen anything that says invading other countries to install a new leader is illegal then that to me just highlights one of the failings of the US media. Have you not heard that many groups are preparing to launch cases against Blair and Bush for their illegal activities? I hope that in the future we see them both sitting in an international war crimes tribunal, maybe 30 years from now, but it is looking ever increasing likely.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Interview with PLAAF LGen Liu Yazhou
    By Officer of Engineers in forum The Field Mess
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 11th August 2010, 22:24
  2. Military Uses for Space
    By Ironduke in forum The Staff College
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 3rd October 2007, 05:14
  3. Articles and links for the Military Professional
    By Officer of Engineers in forum The Staff College
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 20th November 2006, 15:28
  4. China's Changing Military Ideology
    By Frank Zhou in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 3rd May 2006, 23:58
  5. Guerilla Warfare
    By troung in forum The Staff College
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 5th April 2006, 07:25

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts