True, but its a small difference really

Not really, two major players in NATO, the US and Canada certainly are not EU nor is Turkey to name another. I'm sure if I think about I'll probably come up with others or LOL I could look it up.

Sure, but that doesn't mean the EU can't use NATO for missions like this. And there is the Berlin plus agreement that allows the EU to 'borrow' NATO assets for its own missions.

So you agree The EU, minus The USA, does not have the ability.

Also. How do a few Heavy Lift Transports, based in Hungary, have the ability to Continually supply anything inside Iran? Do you understand the logistics?

The only logistics he'll ever come across is what he reads in books or on the Net.

All we need now is for South America & Asia to kick off with localised conflicts & the world will be ripe for WWIII...

Arming Kurds on EU Agenda

UK would consider doing so

Potential for mission creep

Dangers on the home front

---

So you agree The EU, minus The USA, does not have the ability.

They do, they just might need to borrow some of the NATO equipment.

So you agree The EU, minus The USA, does not have the ability.

They do, they just might need to borrow some of the NATO equipment.

Which without the help of the US would soon run out of that most important element in any military operation...

Ammunition

---

So you agree The EU, minus The USA, does not have the ability.

They do, they just might need to borrow some of the NATO equipment.

Which without the help of the US would soon run out of that most important element in any military operation...

Ammunition

Why? Just buy it from NATO's source
http://www.imi-israel.com/home/doc.aspx?mcatid=68498

---

Will The EU, China, and other's, spend the resources needed to maintain the present Order?

My answer is, no.

So is mine.

So be prepared for more of this...

Danger from within

My answer, yes they will and they already have. Its within the national interests of China and the EU to maintain access to certain areas, markets, resources and a certain degree of stability within those regions.

With what military?

Where are their Carrier Battle Groups? There are none.

Where are their Heavy Lift Bombers, IE: B1, B2, B52's? There are none.

Relics from conflicts that no longer happen. B52's are nice and all, but who needs to level entire cities these days? Precision bombers, cruise missiles and Predator and Reaper drones are far more effective. Carrier Battlegroups? Only useful for a power that wants to rule the entire world, rather than its own direct regional interests.

But, if it turns out that we really need those things and the US has gotten rid of their military or is unable or unwilling to participate, we can always build them ourselves. Both China and the EU have their own military industrial complexes capable of rivaling those of the US.

Where are their World Wide International Naval, Air Force, and Army Military Bases, which do not rely upon the logistics supplied by The USA? There are none.

I think a more interesting question is whether you need to have bases all around the world.

The EU could not 'take on' a 10th rate Military Power, in their neighborhood (Libya), without The USA assistance (they ran out of 'ammo' for God's sake).

How will they be able to secure their National Interests in The Red Sea, Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean, Straights of Singapore, Pacific Ocean, at the same time? They can't.

No doubt that the EU and China will both have to invest more money in their military. No doubt that they will once the US is gone.

Please explain how The EU and China, maintain "stability" without Overwhelming Military Force? They can't.

There is a thing called soft power, and for the most part is a far more stabilizing power than raw military power. So far, your overwhelming military strength has a pretty bad record when it comes to bringing stability anywhere. In Korea you succeeded, in Vietnam you failed, in the Balkans it was a tie between military force and a long term peace keeping mission afterwards and EU soft power diplomacy, and in Iraq and Afghanistan it has resulted in instability. I think the world will be fine when US military power decreases.

I think the world will be fine when US military power decreases.

Another who believes in Utopia!

With what military?

Where are their Carrier Battle Groups? There are none.

Where are their Heavy Lift Bombers, IE: B1, B2, B52's? There are none.

Relics from conflicts that no longer happen.

You forgot to add: And will not be needed in the future.

Guess you believe History and Human Nature has changed.

Forgive me. But it appears that having lived in The American House since 1945:

Much of European, and The World's thinking, is akin to an Adolescent, not understanding what it really takes to maintain the house, and keep supplying food to the dinner table.

Growing up can be very difficult.

& when they've grown up, don't like it. They want someone else to maintain the house & supply the food while they continue to feast at no expense to themselves!

You forgot to add: And will not be needed in the future.

Guess you believe History and Human Nature has changed.

No but I do believe the way conflicts are fought have changed. And B52's don't have a place in that type of conflict anymore. They have become outdated, much like how swords and horses have become outdated.

But should it turn out that Im wrong, I'm sure we can build our own heavy bomber.

But should it turn out that Im wrong, I'm sure we can build our own heavy bomber.

What with? The EU is in an economic crisis which the Nick & Sirius Show stated would not fully recover from until at least 2020. Weeks later after both Nick & Sirius ridiculed, out pops many with "letters" saying exactly the same thing.

So, not only are you a bureaucrat, politician, logistics expert, you're now a military procurement guru?

Again, think you need to stop staring at books & pull your head out of the sand.

Hmmm, the EuroBomber...

...it would have a nice ring to it except for it's biggest flaw...

The Eurofighter

...ah well, it wasn't our own money, we can continue to screw the taxpayers!

You realize thats what defense budgets are for? And the EU has the second largest defense spending in the world. The problem is that its ineffective because there is so little cooperation on defense. The EU could be a massive military super power if countries didn't pretend that defense was something they have to do on their own.

Finally!

A well deserved +1.

When you find out your wrong. It will be too late.

It takes approximately, under full war production, 7-10 years to build an effective International Air Force. 10-15 years to build an effective International Navy. Approximately the same time to buildup your logistics to support your International Military. These are the real numbers.

When, or IF, you spend YOUR WEALTH building an International Military power to protect the Energy, Food, Trade, etc., you need to maintain your population:

THEN, I will take The EU seriously.

As of now. It is just typical European verbiage, signifying nothing.

Its not like we have to build a military from scratch. Each member state already has a military. Some of those member states have even really big militaries. Don't forget there are two nuclear powers within the EU.

Its just that those militaries are not integrated into one big army. That has resulted in a lot of money going to waste, because a really integrated military would have one command structure and supporting bureaucracy, instead of 28 separate command structures and bureaucracies, and a lot of money is wasted on acquisition and R&D.

But if they wanted, because they were forced to after coming under attack, the EU could decide to integrate the European militaries which would result in a pretty decent sized professional army with modern equipment and well trained troops. And emergencies have a way of motivating people and ensuring that the necessary equipment and material reaches those who need it.

And even so, who can reasonably be expected to attack us and pose a conventional military threat? ISIS? Russia? They wish. They might have success fighting against under equipped and badly motivated armies or sneakingly taking over a small peninsula without much military resistance, but it remains to be seen how well they would do against a motivated modern army. Not nearly as well.

Its not like we have to build a military from scratch. Each member state already has a military. Some of those member states have even really big militaries. Don't forget there are two nuclear powers within the EU.

Its just that those militaries are not integrated into one big army. That has resulted in a lot of money going to waste, because a really integrated military would have one command structure and supporting bureaucracy, instead of 28 separate command structures and bureaucracies, and a lot of money is wasted on acquisition and R&D.

But if they wanted, because they were forced to after coming under attack, the EU could decide to integrate the European militaries which would result in a pretty decent sized professional army with modern equipment and well trained troops. And emergencies have a way of motivating people and ensuring that the necessary equipment and material reaches those who need it.

And even so, who can reasonably be expected to attack us and pose a conventional military threat? ISIS? Russia? They wish. They might have success fighting against under equipped and badly motivated armies or sneakingly taking over a small peninsula without much military resistance, but it remains to be seen how well they would do against a motivated modern army. Not nearly as well.

28th August 2013 11:39
Just what intervention by the West becomes a "Bridge too far" in uniting all Islamic countries? Will the West be able to "project" their might then?

With an average of 2.5 to 3 million Muslims in every major western country, if just half of 1% become terrorists, that's 15,000 in every country. How will the West handle that?

ISIS takes over the Oil you need. A Jihadist State flies planes into you buildings. The Straights of Hormuz are blocked by Jihadist Iran, to destroy the Infidel. Etc., etc., etc.

And again, you are pretending like the EU has no army and navy whatsoever, which is a blatant falsehood. European forces are already patrolling the street of Hormuz to keep Iran from blocking it. And ISIS taking our oil? Well good luck for that, but so far they have only been successful in Iraq and Syria. There are a lot more countries that produce oil. And really, how is a massive military build up going to prevent fanatics from hijacking a plane and flying it into a building? It really doesn't work that way.

What has happened in the past, will happen in the future. Or has Europe changed that too?

What an idiotic argument and just shows your ignorance on the subject of history. History doesn't run in circles, and no, what has happened in the past does not happen in the future again. If you think that is the case I can assure you that is simply you projecting what you want to see on history rather than what actually happens.

But to make it more clear to you, you are discussing weapon delivery systems and weapon platforms. A B52 is a weapons delivery system. Weapons delivery systems get outdated and are replaced, just like horses got replaced by armored cars and tanks. We don't need B52s anymore just like we dont need swords anymore, they no longer fit the battlefield anymore. Europe can be a military superpower without having any heavy bombers in its air force.

Now, as for carrier groups, those are more interesting. They serve after all a political function much more than they serve a military one. But Europe has carriers, so basically all we lack is the political aspect of a carrier group. Then again, one can wonder how much of a miss that is. We got other diplomatic and political tools we can use and for the most part the people we are trying to threaten are absolutely not intimidated whatsoever by a carrier group parked next to them. You think ISIS gives a damn about whether there are carrier groups in the area? For people like that, a simple carrier is enough.

Talk, Talk, Talk, that's all this is!

Whatever happened to these?

Hague Conventions

Geneva Conventions

The West has been pretty hot in the past on acting on breaches...

...except for the past 40 years where the Middle East is concerned.

Why is that?

The West has treated Africa & the Middle East as their "local mini-mart" for oil & resources while looking down their nose at the natives.

Now that chicken has come home to roost, the West with all their "carrier groups & military might" can't cope with what they have created.

Wasn't it the Russians who proved the difficulty of CQB in built up areas in Stalingrad. That was two large armies, the difference here though is that each individual combatant does not care for life. They only want to take as many infidels as they can with them so they can enjoy "those heavenly pleasures" promised to them.

Elsewhere

Home Front

I've mentioned it several times already about the danger within...

"It comes as Church leaders expressed concern that the UK had no "coherent" approach to tackling Islamic extremism."

Has the West for that matter?

+1

& here's why...

Aircraft Carriers

...it's only to 2013, so the UK has none at this time...

...as for Europe...

ROFLMAO!