Message boards :
Politics :
6: Setting Europe Ablaze.....
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
The Simonator Send message Joined: 18 Nov 04 Posts: 5700 Credit: 3,855,702 RAC: 50 |
I wish it did though. Imagine the costs that could be saved if all European militaries would integrate into one army. Imagine the cost saving if we didn't have wars. Call me an idealist but it's possible. Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge. |
The Simonator Send message Joined: 18 Nov 04 Posts: 5700 Credit: 3,855,702 RAC: 50 |
Good post but only a +½ as if you took note of my sig, you'll find I'm not a brit - thank gawd :) Well you could be either: Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge. |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24882 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
But by stating I'm not a Brit leaves the obvious does it not? It's a good job that Brussels does not demand (at least for now) that the EU flag be the only one flown. If they did I can just imagine the furore on these boards :) |
The Simonator Send message Joined: 18 Nov 04 Posts: 5700 Credit: 3,855,702 RAC: 50 |
But by stating I'm not a Brit leaves the obvious does it not? It does, however you stated that after Мишель's post. Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge. |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24882 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
But by stating I'm not a Brit leaves the obvious does it not? Which came before yours :) |
The Simonator Send message Joined: 18 Nov 04 Posts: 5700 Credit: 3,855,702 RAC: 50 |
But by stating I'm not a Brit leaves the obvious does it not? Which was pointing out why Мишель may have thought you were British. Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge. |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24882 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
Brussels was naïve Part 1 Part 2 Interesting observation.... "The other problem that seemed unsolvable at the end was the money. The €610 million ($836 million) in aid that the EU was offering was a ridiculous sum. Ukraine is in a deep financial crisis." So the citizens of the EU struggling with austerity themselves have to accept that it's going to get harsher as more of their money will end up going elsewhere rather than help them. Nice move EU Tough on Russia, easy on America Hmmn, the last time Germany got tough on Russia proved to be a fatal mistake - Not learning still are they? Is the next crash brewing? "Some economists are even convinced that the question is no longer whether the next crash is coming, but when." If it hits before we're out of the current fiasco, it will no longer be recession but a depression - bet the bankers will have their asses covered though as well as the Muppets in Brussels and the other 27 capitals! |
Мишель Send message Joined: 26 Nov 13 Posts: 3073 Credit: 87,868 RAC: 0 |
I wish it did though. Imagine the costs that could be saved if all European militaries would integrate into one army. Well sure, that would be even better. But I don't expect that's going to happen anytime soon. And you'd still need an army though, they are quite useful in cases social order breaks down or when you need to help rebuild the basics after a big disaster hit a particular area. |
Мишель Send message Joined: 26 Nov 13 Posts: 3073 Credit: 87,868 RAC: 0 |
Brussels was naïve Part 1 Just to comment on the money aspect, but 610 million Euros is nothing. Which is probably why they rejected it, they needed more. Though the EU already has a special program focused on its Eastern Neighbors, so any financial support would probably be drawn from that program. Which is included in the EU budget. I doubt it would have been like what they did to save Greece or Spain. That would be impossible to explain to European citizens, given that this is merely an association agreement, it doesn't make them a member yet. And we will see how the situation develops there. It seems that the Ukrainians didn't like their president not signing the deal. |
Мишель Send message Joined: 26 Nov 13 Posts: 3073 Credit: 87,868 RAC: 0 |
We do have a European army of sorts in NATO, and of course there is SAFE. There are also the UN "blue hats" for peacekeeping duties, and don't forget the treaty between the UK and France Lancaster House 2010 The main contributor of military equipment and personnel is the US. Aside from that, its not really an integrated single army. Its closer to just really close cooperation between the US and the Europeans. Furthermore, not everyone in the EU is a member of NATO. The United Kingdom and France represent the EU's two most dominant global military powers and are the only nuclear powers in the EU. Together, the United Kingdom and France account for 40% of Europe's defence budget, 50% of its military capacity and 70% of all spending in military research and development. The 2010 Anglo French defence treaty will "pool resources" of these two nations' armed forces to maintain their status as major "global defence powers". Indeed. Though I believe the Germans are slowlely taking on a bigger role when it comes to defense matters. But they have to be careful about it due to their history. And still, while there is indeed close cooperation on military matters between European countries, one can't really speak of any real integration in that area. And its understandable, but I'm just saying, a fully integrated European army would be much cheaper. |
Мишель Send message Joined: 26 Nov 13 Posts: 3073 Credit: 87,868 RAC: 0 |
I think the whole point is that we don't need a fully integrated European army, where is the threat to Europe as a whole?. What we need is what has happened in the past with Iraq and Libya, a coalition of countries as and when necessary to combat a common threat or enemy as and when it happens. That is the cheapest option. If everyone has their own army you essentially have a lot of things double. Each army needs its own bureaucratic support structure, its own command structure, etc. If you were to have one integrated European army, you could get rid of all the separate structure and just create one, with one command structure and one support structure. Look at it this way. Say that each country spends about 2% of its GDP on its armed forces, with separate armies that 2% needs to buy an entire army. In the Netherlands that means that 2% needs to buy a Navy, an Airforce and Army, each having their own support structures. Now say you were to have a European army where each country chips in 2% of its GDP to finance it. On the whole it means that a smaller part of that 2% is spend on things that are not soldiers wages or the maintenance of material. It would also be cheaper to develop new weapons as the entire continent would conform to the same doctrine. Right now co development of tanks and airplanes is insanely expensive for what it produces, because each country has a different doctrine and as a result wants to see different things in the weapons and material they develop. One army also results in even greater standardization of equipment, further reducing maintenance costs. And such an army would be much better suited for tasks such as Libya, Mali or Afghanistan. |
Мишель Send message Joined: 26 Nov 13 Posts: 3073 Credit: 87,868 RAC: 0 |
|
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24882 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
The grandson of Dr Strangelove? |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24882 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
|
Мишель Send message Joined: 26 Nov 13 Posts: 3073 Credit: 87,868 RAC: 0 |
We do have the Eurofighter Typhoon. And the development costs for the Eurofighter went up from an estimated 7 billion in 1988 to about 37 billion for the UK alone. And the project was several years behind schedule, being operational in 2003, 54 months to late. Really, as far as military co development projects go, the Eurofighter is not an example that favors it. And this is hardly the only time this has happened. The Netherlands has only recently finally given the greenlight for buying the F-35, after years of delaying that decision, and is again an example of a military project that is far exceeding its original estimated costs. Back during the cold war the Germans and Americans tried to co develop a tank together, which turned out into an absolute disaster and eventually had to be scrapped. Again the problem with designing complete weapon systems together with different countries that follow different doctrines is that those weapon systems play a different role in each army. And as a result each army has different requirements for what the weapon system must be capable of doing. Now if you start co developing a weapon system that needs to keep up to the standards set out by each country you end up with an extremely expensive weapon, that is often years behind its development and production schedule, which is often overly complex in design and therefor maintenance, and which has a good chance of being good at nothing because it tried to be good at everything. For now the best military co development can do is working together on developing parts for a weapon system. So rather than design an entire tank together, you are better off just designing the main gun together, or the engine, or the targeting system. That is cheaper, more successful and tends to be completed on time. |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24882 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
+1 and highly effective as all are able to use it to meet their own requirements. |
Мишель Send message Joined: 26 Nov 13 Posts: 3073 Credit: 87,868 RAC: 0 |
+1 Not really. For example, the common rule in tank design is this triangle of speed, armor and firepower, and the commonly accepted rule is that you can only have two of them. If your doctrine relies on speed and firepower and the other guy relies on armor and firepower, the tank that caters to both will lack speed and armor. The same goes with airplanes. If you want airplanes to be good at dog fights you will end up with a different design than if you want your planes to be good at attacking ground targets. Obviously its not that hard to make a plane capable of doing both (all you have to do is change the type of payload the plane is carrying before it takes off) but the plane won't excel at it. I mean, the F-22 for example was designed for air domination, but if you want you can outfit it with JDAM's (designed to hit ground targets) and it will be perfectly capable of hitting a ground target. But if I want close air support I would prefer to have a A-10 or AC-130 flying over, since those planes are specifically designed to shoot at ground targets and they are generally much much better at it (its a shame the US has pulled their A-10's out of service). |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24882 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
Agree, I should have been clearer. Using your earlier example, with the one Euro Force, you will still have the various aircraft/vehicles/ships for the roles they have to play but by standardising, you save as you suggest and the training will become integrated as all using the same equipment. That has to be more effective in the long run. |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19136 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
The UK and the US have close cooperation in Artillery. The M777, for instance, is a VSEL (now part of BAE) design, originally called the Ultra-lightweight Field Howitzer (UFH). Also used by Australia and Canada, plus sold to others. |
Мишель Send message Joined: 26 Nov 13 Posts: 3073 Credit: 87,868 RAC: 0 |
I think that this person is wrong and I unfortunately disagree with the Lib Dem Attitude to immigration. He's not wrong. Polish immigrants have contributed to a significant increase in the UK's GDP. They generally took up jobs in sectors that were pressed for more labor as British people did not take those jobs as much. Economic theory also predicts that free movement of labor actually benefits the economy. Aside from that, the EU is an internal market, and free movement of labor is vital in order for it to function. Restricting labor in an internal market causes the market to malfunction. It be like preventing people from Manchester to move to London to work there. The British economy would be hurt significantly if people had to work in the area where they are born. Look, if the UK doesn't want the internal market, thats fine, then leave. But you should not start cherry picking what elements of an internal market you want and what parts you don't want. Besides, why are you so afraid of immigrants? |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.