5 ms·

European army might be happening in the future, but entity protesting the European army the most will be USA diplomacy. On one hand US armed forces would like f

European army might be happening in the future, but entity protesting the European army the most will be USA diplomacy. On one hand US armed forces would like for Europe to be self sufficient so they can concentrate on China. On the other hand US diplomacy would lost leverage on Europe + getting another geopolitical competitor (despite being ideologically aligned with USA) isn't something what USA is looking for.

AbrahamParangi 3y ago
I honestly (and I do not think I am alone in this) think the costs of EU dependency FAR exceed the benefits and we only got started doing it to prevent Western Europe from getting steamrolled by Russia post-WW2.
bpodgursky 3y ago
The US would like nothing more than Europe to be able to deal with Russia without help. A joint European army does nothing to reduce US leverage; the US is still the only meaningful nuclear deterrent to Russia, and everyone in Europe knows it. But if the EU is able to credibly counter conventional threats, that's a huge bonus for the US.
- FreshStart 3y ago
  GB and France are?
  - andsoitis 3y ago
    > GB and France are? While the UK and France have nuclear warheads, their numbers (225 and 290, respectively), pale in comparison with that of Russia (5889) and the US (5244). Also, the UK's force is sea based and France's is land and air based, both Russia and the US have a nuclear triad: three-pronged military force structure that consists of land-launched nuclear missiles, nuclear-missile-armed submarines, and strategic aircraft with nuclear bombs and missiles.[1] Specifically, these components are land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and strategic bombers. The purpose of having this three-branched nuclear capability is to significantly reduce the possibility that an enemy could destroy all of a nation's nuclear forces in a first-strike attack. This, in turn, ensures a credible threat of a second strike, and thus increases a nation's nuclear deterrence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_we... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_triad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_triad
    - tzs 3y ago
      > While the UK and France have nuclear warheads, their numbers (225 and 290, respectively), pale in comparison with that of Russia (5889) and the US (5244). Around 90% of the non-rural Russian population is in their most populous 100 cities. Taking those out would pretty effectively destroy Russia as a country.
      - bpodgursky 3y ago
        Yes, but consider the delivery systems. The UK has 4 SSBMs, and at best 3 of them are seaworthy at a time. Even if the UK managed to launch successfully without those systems being taken down (and there will be a missile failure rate), Russia has sophisticated air defenses, and there will be a substantial loss rate. Only a small fraction of those warheads will hit. And those are not megaton warheads. These are small nuclear weapons meant for battlefield use. What's more, the UK is simply not going to go for a genocide; they're going to hit military assets, which are far more spread out. So while the UK can deter from conventional attacks on itself, it's by no means a MAD scenario. They do not really have a shield to extend across eastern europe the way the US does.
beebeepka 3y ago
Mostly agree, except I don't think the US would like us to be self sufficient. Quite the opposite, really. They have nothing to gain from a strong EU. Not at this point anyway. I am all for a professional EU army but forcing - let's face it - young men to join, even for an year, doesn't sit well with me.
jillesvangurp 3y ago
There are already some extensive collaborations. For example, Dutch divisions now report to German command. And the French and German armies coordinate on a lot of things and we're all NATO members of course. There are some calls for bringing back military service in some countries. I'm not sure that's needed or a good idea. The reason most European armies are not in great shape is not a lack of people but years of budget cuts and mismanagement. That would be because they don't actually do a whole lot of fighting normally. They defend without ever being attacked and there is the odd mission abroad where some countries send maybe thousands of troops at best. I don't see that change any time soon. And that's a good thing. I count myself lucky to not have been exposed to major wars close to where I live. And I live in the middle of Berlin. Buildings here still have scars from WW II. At least the few that survived that. The most credible threat on our eastern border was the Russian army. And courtesy of their own ineptness, they seem to be hard at work reducing that threat by expending most of their officers and usable equipment in the Ukraine. It doesn't look like they are recovering soon. Also, there is the point of this being a remarkably old school conflict. The Russians tactics have barely evolved since the 1940s. They seem unable to use their airforce effectively, their navy is not a factor either. Mostly they are just launching wave after wave of cannon fodder at their enemies. Brutal and it's not working great for them judging from the recent news. Most modern conflicts are very different. Relatively poorly trained conscripts don't add a lot of value in such conflicts. Europe needs lots of rockets, drones, etc. Keep the fight far away from its borders. A bigger risk would be an armed uprise within our borders. For that reason getting a lot of small countries excited about building out their armies is not a great idea. I'm old enough to remember the Bosnian war and I've visited Mostar a few years ago. Political populism and armies are not a great mix. A lot of blood got spilled in Europe that proves that.

AbrahamParangi 3y ago

I honestly (and I do not think I am alone in this) think the costs of EU dependency FAR exceed the benefits and we only got started doing it to prevent Western Europe from getting steamrolled by Russia post-WW2.

bpodgursky 3y ago

The US would like nothing more than Europe to be able to deal with Russia without help. A joint European army does nothing to reduce US leverage; the US is still the only meaningful nuclear deterrent to Russia, and everyone in Europe knows it. But if the EU is able to credibly counter conventional threats, that's a huge bonus for the US.

FreshStart 3y ago
GB and France are?
- andsoitis 3y ago
  > GB and France are? While the UK and France have nuclear warheads, their numbers (225 and 290, respectively), pale in comparison with that of Russia (5889) and the US (5244). Also, the UK's force is sea based and France's is land and air based, both Russia and the US have a nuclear triad: three-pronged military force structure that consists of land-launched nuclear missiles, nuclear-missile-armed submarines, and strategic aircraft with nuclear bombs and missiles.[1] Specifically, these components are land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and strategic bombers. The purpose of having this three-branched nuclear capability is to significantly reduce the possibility that an enemy could destroy all of a nation's nuclear forces in a first-strike attack. This, in turn, ensures a credible threat of a second strike, and thus increases a nation's nuclear deterrence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_we... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_triad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_triad
  - tzs 3y ago
    > While the UK and France have nuclear warheads, their numbers (225 and 290, respectively), pale in comparison with that of Russia (5889) and the US (5244). Around 90% of the non-rural Russian population is in their most populous 100 cities. Taking those out would pretty effectively destroy Russia as a country.
    - bpodgursky 3y ago
      Yes, but consider the delivery systems. The UK has 4 SSBMs, and at best 3 of them are seaworthy at a time. Even if the UK managed to launch successfully without those systems being taken down (and there will be a missile failure rate), Russia has sophisticated air defenses, and there will be a substantial loss rate. Only a small fraction of those warheads will hit. And those are not megaton warheads. These are small nuclear weapons meant for battlefield use. What's more, the UK is simply not going to go for a genocide; they're going to hit military assets, which are far more spread out. So while the UK can deter from conventional attacks on itself, it's by no means a MAD scenario. They do not really have a shield to extend across eastern europe the way the US does.

beebeepka 3y ago

Mostly agree, except I don't think the US would like us to be self sufficient. Quite the opposite, really. They have nothing to gain from a strong EU. Not at this point anyway. I am all for a professional EU army but forcing - let's face it - young men to join, even for an year, doesn't sit well with me.

jillesvangurp 3y ago

There are already some extensive collaborations. For example, Dutch divisions now report to German command. And the French and German armies coordinate on a lot of things and we're all NATO members of course. There are some calls for bringing back military service in some countries. I'm not sure that's needed or a good idea. The reason most European armies are not in great shape is not a lack of people but years of budget cuts and mismanagement. That would be because they don't actually do a whole lot of fighting normally. They defend without ever being attacked and there is the odd mission abroad where some countries send maybe thousands of troops at best. I don't see that change any time soon. And that's a good thing. I count myself lucky to not have been exposed to major wars close to where I live. And I live in the middle of Berlin. Buildings here still have scars from WW II. At least the few that survived that. The most credible threat on our eastern border was the Russian army. And courtesy of their own ineptness, they seem to be hard at work reducing that threat by expending most of their officers and usable equipment in the Ukraine. It doesn't look like they are recovering soon. Also, there is the point of this being a remarkably old school conflict. The Russians tactics have barely evolved since the 1940s. They seem unable to use their airforce effectively, their navy is not a factor either. Mostly they are just launching wave after wave of cannon fodder at their enemies. Brutal and it's not working great for them judging from the recent news. Most modern conflicts are very different. Relatively poorly trained conscripts don't add a lot of value in such conflicts. Europe needs lots of rockets, drones, etc. Keep the fight far away from its borders. A bigger risk would be an armed uprise within our borders. For that reason getting a lot of small countries excited about building out their armies is not a great idea. I'm old enough to remember the Bosnian war and I've visited Mostar a few years ago. Political populism and armies are not a great mix. A lot of blood got spilled in Europe that proves that.