|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:You don't know what the poo poo you are even saying here. Read between the lines ya dumb gently caress
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:25 |
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:Read between the lines ya dumb gently caress It's gibberish even between the lines. You have no loving clue what you're saying and it shows. The EU bureaucracy is nothing like the U.S. federal government in any way that matters in the real world for the purposes of defense policy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:It's gibberish even between the lines. You have no loving clue what you're saying and it shows. The EU bureaucracy is nothing like the U.S. federal government. Cool!
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:Cool! Thank you for conceding the point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
Sarcasm is lost on the american, what a scoop.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:Sarcasm is lost on the american, what a scoop. Behind the sarcasm was the acknowledgement that you didn't know what the gently caress you were talking about. If you had, you wouldn't have tried such and idiotic and fatuous argument as HURR EU = US HURR. Your opinions are on the level of the average Daily Mail/National Tabloid For Idiots online commentator.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
The reason why the EU doesn't have a unitary military is because the EU has no considerable military threats. We don't need it because we're not psychotically fearful of Russia. They ain't gonna attack the EU. Whether or not the EU can be categorized as a "state" is irrelevant to the question of European military might. Get it now? I WAS MOCKING YOU. Jesus loving christ, take your ritalin man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
PS: The ritalin was a dig at your glaring autismal paroxysms about correct use of language
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
The total size of the EU military budget is a non-starter if every single member nation's military is non-functional owing to lack of funding. I thought that would be obvious to such a superior non-autistic intellect such as yourself.
Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Mar 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
Yeah EU doesn't equal US no way no how militarily.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
more reasons to federalise, establish fiscal transfers, build a gently caress off huge wall on the external borders and enforce strict immigration laws for non eu folk and have a unified army.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
awesome-express posted:more reasons to federalise, establish fiscal transfers, build a gently caress off huge wall on the external borders and enforce strict immigration laws for non eu folk and have a unified army. Also having Greeks and/or Italians in your army post-Christ is not a recipe for success.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
awesome-express posted:more reasons to federalise, establish fiscal transfers, build a gently caress off huge wall on the external borders and enforce strict immigration laws for non eu folk and have a unified army. But there isn't. Despite Russia's dick-waving and general asshattery in Ukraine and the rest, the military threat that Russia poses to EU is negligible. They aren't going to attack and everybody knows this, so there is little pressure to turn our national armies into a federate one. Nevermind the question of how on Earth you that would even be practically possible, or politically feasible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 08:27
|
|
|
The EU is made of up a large number of different cultures, languages and countries that want to remain independent. It's not like it's a collection of US-like states that for some silly reason just lack a federal government. It's more like, I dunno, if you decided to mash up the US, Canada, Mexico, maybe throw in Brazil and some smaller states, all into one big country. Coercing countries together isn't really something you could expect to go well. Besides its total lack of feasibility (for now - who knows what might happen in the far future), I really don't see a big problem with keeping it as a union of independent countries. Basically I think they're close enough for peaceful coexistence and cooperation but not nearly close enough for federalization.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 09:30
|
|
|
Federalizing the European military poses a lot of problems. The first: language. In the United States, English is basically everyone's native language; in Europe every country has its own language. You could still go with English since it's a common second language, but it'd be a second language. It's less of a problem at the officer level since they're supposed to have good education, including at least a couple of foreign languages. The second: fragmented military industrial complex. Countries would never agree on their requirements, and when they do agree it's even worse because they'd fight to get stuff built by their own industries. For examples of the outcome, see NH90 Tiger and Eurofighter Typhoon. The third: NATO. Most EU countries are also in NATO, and some of them would see a European unification of military forces as being either redundant with NATO, or detrimental to it. There are certainly efforts that can be done (and are already done to some extent, see stuff like OCCAR or EATC) to rationalize European defense, but a federal army isn't going to be it, at least not anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:But there isn't. Despite Russia's dick-waving and general asshattery in Ukraine and the rest, the military threat that Russia poses to EU is negligible. They aren't going to attack and everybody knows this, so there is little pressure to turn our national armies into a federate one. Nevermind the question of how on Earth you that would even be practically possible, or politically feasible. This is purely because of NATO (read: US protection) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU's military might or Putin's reluctance to start poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 10:42
|
|
|
Not to mention the inability to actually conquer Europe doesn't really need to stop him from trying. He's got away with everything so far, the message seems pretty clear. e: I'm saying that as a Czech - fairly sure I'm not the only one who feels their country would easily be sacrificed in the name of peace. Again. So no, the fact the EU in total could defeat Russia isn't reassuring in the slightest. anilEhilated fucked around with this message at 11:15 on Mar 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 10:59
|
|
|
While the organizational structures that NATO has really aren't there for the EU, the common defense pact is as fundamental to the EU charter as it is for NATO. American arrogance over their overbloated World Police Imperial Guard is to be expected but it's ridiculous to treat the EU as a sick man when it comes to military might. NATO or no, it's the EU that ensured the independence of certain baltic countries after Jeltsin era. Russia by that point could've just marched in and there would've been jack poo poo America could've done about it on its own.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 11:08
|
|
|
redscare posted:This is purely because of NATO (read: US protection) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU's military might or Putin's reluctance to start poo poo. Just as a little reminder, two of the EU countries have their own nuclear deterrent, thank you very much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 11:11
|
|
|
anilEhilated posted:So no, the fact the EU in total could defeat Russia isn't reassuring in the slightest. I seriously doubt that, all European countries have militaries that have been optimized for peacekeeping operations in the years since 1989 and have done away with most of the stuff needed against a modern army. Like only Germany and Italy having any anti radar missiles or the UAE having more French made modern tanks then the French or British army.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 11:31
|
|
|
CeeJee posted:I seriously doubt that, all European countries have militaries that have been optimized for peacekeeping operations in the years since 1989 and have done away with most of the stuff needed against a modern army. Like only Germany and Italy having any anti radar missiles or the UAE having more French made modern tanks then the French or British army. Tanks and anti-tank missiles can be bought when necessary before the existing reserves would run out in the event of an all out war, and as we've seen with the Arab adventures in conquering Israel, initial materiel supremacy doesn't count for much if your people are primarily poorly trained conscripts. The US is in no way irrelevant to EU military affairs, but it's still the EU that's the primary counterweight to Putin's ambitions, not America. While the state of EU national militaries is mostly deplorable, I don't really see how that makes the US anything but an ally when it comes to security matters against Russia. Push comes to shove, US opinion doesn't decide if the EU goes to war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 11:39
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Just as a little reminder, two of the EU countries have their own nuclear deterrent, thank you very much. A nuclear deterrent is pretty useless when you're going up against a country that has their own very large nuclear deterrent. Russia would wipe the floor with Europe in a conventional war, no one is going to nuke anyone. The most important aspect to Europe's security is NATO and American hegemony.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 11:42
|
|
|
A Typical Goon posted:A nuclear deterrent is pretty useless when you're going up against a country that has their own very large nuclear deterrent. Russia would wipe the floor with Europe in a conventional war, no one is going to nuke anyone. The most important aspect to Europe's security is NATO and American hegemony. Easy, don't nuke Russia directly, just nuke Russian troops as they go through Ukraine. And in a purely conventional war, I doubt the Russian troops would be as good as you claim they'd be. We've seen them fight in Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria; they are terrible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 12:16
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Easy, don't nuke Russia directly, just nuke Russian troops as they go through Ukraine. Nuking Russian troops would lead to a full nuclear response from Russia, hence it wouldn't happen. Nobody is gonna drop nukes on another nation that can retaliate in kind. Just because Russia is terrible militarily does not mean they still couldn't wipe the floor with European militaries. These are not mutually exclusive things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 12:33
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:Tanks and anti-tank missiles can be bought when necessary before the existing reserves would run out in the event of an all out war, and as we've seen with the Arab adventures in conquering Israel, initial materiel supremacy doesn't count for much if your people are primarily poorly trained conscripts. The US is in no way irrelevant to EU military affairs, but it's still the EU that's the primary counterweight to Putin's ambitions, not America. While the state of EU national militaries is mostly deplorable, I don't really see how that makes the US anything but an ally when it comes to security matters against Russia. Push comes to shove, US opinion doesn't decide if the EU goes to war. The Russian tank horde could literally drive across Europe while taking occasional potshots at Leopard 2s dead in a ditch because nobody spent money on maintaining their engines. Building a sufficiently large European tank horde would take years so the only quick response would be to buy surplus Abrams from America.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 12:52
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
I think it's time to drive this topic into a ditch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 12:53
|
|
|
Personally I think you are grossly overestimating the size of the actually combat capable Russian military vs. the dead weight being kept on paper.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
A Typical Goon posted:Nuking Russian troops would lead to a full nuclear response from Russia, hence it wouldn't happen. And then Russia can say bye-bye to Moscow, St. Petersburg, and every other large enough city. They got the choice between accepting their losses abroad or destroying their country, they don't go for MAD. A Typical Goon posted:Nobody is gonna drop nukes on another nation that can retaliate in kind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
Russian tank horde would be swiftly defeated by the Hussars. Obviously.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:And then Russia can say bye-bye to Moscow, St. Petersburg, and every other large enough city. They got the choice between accepting their losses abroad or destroying their country, they don't go for MAD. The same principle applies to European nukes though. If France/the UK nuked Russian armies in Western Europe there goes London/Paris. That's the whole point of a nuclear deterrent. This whole thread is getting to Clancey for me anyway. Nobody is getting into a hot war with each other, but if it did happen somehow no one would ever use nukes against a nuclear capable foe. It's just too risky and no one wants to be vaporized over loving Ukraine or whatever Clancey scenario that you're imagining.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:The reason why the EU doesn't have a unitary military is because the EU has no considerable military threats. We don't need it because we're not psychotically fearful of Russia. They ain't gonna attack the EU. just because it would be a rude thing to do?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 13:35
|
|
|
pigdog posted:Why not? It would be incredibly rude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
Russia would sure roll over Europe if only it wasn't so occupied with trying not to implode.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:There are certainly efforts that can be done (and are already done to some extent, see stuff like OCCAR or EATC) to rationalize European defense, but a federal army isn't going to be it, at least not anytime soon. Also one of the largest militaries in the EU is the UK's and we're currently having a referendum on whether we even want to be in the EU at all. I can only imagine how the tabloids would react if there was some proposal to put the UK's armed forces under the authority of the European Commission, it would be hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
pigdog posted:Why not?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
A Typical Goon posted:The same principle applies to European nukes though. If France/the UK nuked Russian armies in Western Europe there goes London/Paris. That's the whole point of a nuclear deterrent. It is considered rude to bomb civilian targets in response to attacks on military assets. Generally speaking we don't blow up a random house every time a tank gets blowed up - it is not obvious why we would blow up lots of houses if lots of tanks got exploded. Don't use your military if you don't want it to get bombed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
A Typical Goon posted:A nuclear deterrent is pretty useless when you're going up against a country that has their own very large nuclear deterrent. Russia would wipe the floor with Europe in a conventional war, no one is going to nuke anyone. The most important aspect to Europe's security is NATO and American hegemony. A Typical Goon posted:Nuking Russian troops would lead to a full nuclear response from Russia, hence it wouldn't happen. Nobody is gonna drop nukes on another nation that can retaliate in kind. e: There's a nice quote on Wikipedia quote:In his book La paix nucléaire (1975), French Navy Admiral Marc de Joybert explained deterrence as: Elukka fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Mar 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
Russian offensive capabilities are extremely limited and they have absolutely no intentions of getting into a shooting war with any European nation. Their military is very badly equipped and trained and ten years ago they couldn't even feed and cloth it properly, due to massive corruption. Just look at how overstretched they were in Georgia and how overstretched they are in eastern Ukraine. It's all just ridiculous Clancy chat, like Mexico invading the US.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
Sorry america, looks like you don't get save europe from the nazis again. Keep up the spirit tho!
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:25 |
|
|
Spirit or not, please keep Clancy chat (i.e. any in-depth discussions of nuclear war between whomever) out of the thread.HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:Please continue to observe the No Clancy Chat policy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 15:29
|
|