6: Setting Europe Ablaze.....

Message boards : Politics : 6: Setting Europe Ablaze.....
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · Next

AuthorMessage
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1452071 - Posted: 10 Dec 2013, 0:16:27 UTC - in response to Message 1452061.  

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

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.
ID: 1452071 · Report as offensive
Profile Gone with the wind Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 41577
Credit: 41,999,081
RAC: 909
Message 1452236 - Posted: 10 Dec 2013, 9:58:38 UTC

I wish it did though. Imagine the costs that could be saved if all European militaries would integrate into one army.

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 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".

If China or Russia wanted to invade Europe, they might have a fight on their hands. British Forces Germany still have a few tanks left until 2019.


ID: 1452236 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1452237 - Posted: 10 Dec 2013, 10:07:40 UTC - in response to Message 1452236.  
Last modified: 10 Dec 2013, 10:08:39 UTC

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".

If China or Russia wanted to invade Europe, they might have a fight on their hands. British Forces Germany still have a few tanks left until 2019.

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.
ID: 1452237 · Report as offensive
Profile Gone with the wind Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 41577
Credit: 41,999,081
RAC: 909
Message 1452242 - Posted: 10 Dec 2013, 10:24:49 UTC

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.



ID: 1452242 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1452264 - Posted: 10 Dec 2013, 11:51:53 UTC - in response to Message 1452242.  
Last modified: 10 Dec 2013, 11:52:36 UTC

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.
ID: 1452264 · Report as offensive
Profile Gone with the wind Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 41577
Credit: 41,999,081
RAC: 909
Message 1452290 - Posted: 10 Dec 2013, 13:31:33 UTC

Well of course don't forget SHAPE or indeed SACEUR. The current Supreme Allied Commander Europe is General Philip M. Breedlove, United States Air Force.

ID: 1452290 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1452309 - Posted: 10 Dec 2013, 14:08:04 UTC - in response to Message 1452290.  

Well of course don't forget SHAPE or indeed SACEUR. The current Supreme Allied Commander Europe is General Philip M. Breedlove, United States Air Force.


Hah, a guy named Breedlove is commander of the allies in Europe. What a fitting name he has :P
ID: 1452309 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 21002
Credit: 2,922,155
RAC: 619
Ireland
Message 1452311 - Posted: 10 Dec 2013, 14:09:35 UTC - in response to Message 1452309.  

The grandson of Dr Strangelove?
ID: 1452311 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 21002
Credit: 2,922,155
RAC: 619
Ireland
Message 1452481 - Posted: 10 Dec 2013, 22:53:25 UTC

Ah yes please, hack them as much as you can

Then release details of the missing money to Reuters :)
ID: 1452481 · Report as offensive
Profile Gone with the wind Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 41577
Credit: 41,999,081
RAC: 909
Message 1452680 - Posted: 11 Dec 2013, 10:04:21 UTC

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.

We do have the Eurofighter Typhoon.

The Eurofighter Typhoon is a twin-engine, canard-delta wing, multirole fighter, designed and manufactured by a consortium of three companies; EADS, Alenia Aermacchi and BAE Systems. he project is managed by the NATO Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency, which also acts as the prime customer. The Typhoon was introduced into operational service in 2003. Currently, the type has entered service with the Austrian Air Force, the Italian Air Force, the German Air Force, the Royal Air Force, the Spanish Air Force, and the Royal Saudi Air Force. The Royal Air Force of Oman has also been confirmed as an export customer, bringing the procurement total to 571 aircraft as of 2013.

That means that any pilot from those countries can fly any other countries same aircraft. Until the UK's first new carrier is operational in 2020, UK pilots are training with French aircraft on the French carrier in the meantime. And in time French pilots will train on F35B's on the UK carrier.

ID: 1452680 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1452708 - Posted: 11 Dec 2013, 11:13:54 UTC - in response to Message 1452680.  

We do have the Eurofighter Typhoon.

The Eurofighter Typhoon is a twin-engine, canard-delta wing, multirole fighter, designed and manufactured by a consortium of three companies; EADS, Alenia Aermacchi and BAE Systems. he project is managed by the NATO Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency, which also acts as the prime customer. The Typhoon was introduced into operational service in 2003. Currently, the type has entered service with the Austrian Air Force, the Italian Air Force, the German Air Force, the Royal Air Force, the Spanish Air Force, and the Royal Saudi Air Force. The Royal Air Force of Oman has also been confirmed as an export customer, bringing the procurement total to 571 aircraft as of 2013.

That means that any pilot from those countries can fly any other countries same aircraft. Until the UK's first new carrier is operational in 2020, UK pilots are training with French aircraft on the French carrier in the meantime. And in time French pilots will train on F35B's on the UK carrier.

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.
ID: 1452708 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 21002
Credit: 2,922,155
RAC: 619
Ireland
Message 1452718 - Posted: 11 Dec 2013, 11:51:55 UTC - in response to Message 1452708.  

+1

and highly effective as all are able to use it to meet their own requirements.
ID: 1452718 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1452726 - Posted: 11 Dec 2013, 12:09:46 UTC - in response to Message 1452718.  

+1

and highly effective as all are able to use it to meet their own requirements.

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).
ID: 1452726 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 21002
Credit: 2,922,155
RAC: 619
Ireland
Message 1452729 - Posted: 11 Dec 2013, 12:19:06 UTC - in response to Message 1452726.  

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.
ID: 1452729 · Report as offensive
Nick: ID 666
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 13048
Credit: 36,477,517
RAC: 20,574
United Kingdom
Message 1452742 - Posted: 11 Dec 2013, 12:42:34 UTC
Last modified: 11 Dec 2013, 12:42:59 UTC

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.
ID: 1452742 · Report as offensive
Profile Gone with the wind Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 41577
Credit: 41,999,081
RAC: 909
Message 1453186 - Posted: 12 Dec 2013, 11:09:51 UTC

Now we can see that Italy will be the next to implode.

Energy costs
ID: 1453186 · Report as offensive
Profile Gone with the wind Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 41577
Credit: 41,999,081
RAC: 909
Message 1454447 - Posted: 16 Dec 2013, 12:14:06 UTC

She said: "It's something I've been talking about with my opposite numbers - interior ministers in other countries within the European Union - for some time now. "There is a growing concern not just here in the UK, but elsewhere too, about the abuse of free movement, about the way in which people can move freely across Europe, sometimes for access to benefits."

The UK is tightening up rules on migrants' access to benefits, as Romanian and Bulgarian nationals gain new rights to live in the country from next month. But Mrs May said she and David Cameron wanted further changes to control the access of nationals of any future EU entrants. She told Today: "What the prime minister has said, and what I have said, is that in looking at reform of the EU we need to look at this whole question of the arrangements for new countries that come in - the so-called accession countries.

Good for her.

But a Liberal Democrat source told the BBC: "The vast majority of the evidence gathered for the Balance of Competences Free Movement report shows that EU migration has been a positive thing for the UK, which obviously sits uncomfortably with right-wing ideology that promotes the opposite.

I think that this person is wrong and I unfortunately disagree with the Lib Dem Attitude to immigration.

Immigration

ID: 1454447 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1454454 - Posted: 16 Dec 2013, 12:27:20 UTC - in response to Message 1454447.  

I think that this person is wrong and I unfortunately disagree with the Lib Dem Attitude to immigration.

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?
ID: 1454454 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 21002
Credit: 2,922,155
RAC: 619
Ireland
Message 1454481 - Posted: 16 Dec 2013, 14:05:58 UTC - in response to Message 1454447.  

She said: "It's something I've been talking about with my opposite numbers - interior ministers in other countries within the European Union - for some time now. "There is a growing concern not just here in the UK, but elsewhere too, about the abuse of free movement, about the way in which people can move freely across Europe, sometimes for access to benefits."

The UK is tightening up rules on migrants' access to benefits, as Romanian and Bulgarian nationals gain new rights to live in the country from next month. But Mrs May said she and David Cameron wanted further changes to control the access of nationals of any future EU entrants. She told Today: "What the prime minister has said, and what I have said, is that in looking at reform of the EU we need to look at this whole question of the arrangements for new countries that come in - the so-called accession countries.

Good for her.

But a Liberal Democrat source told the BBC: "The vast majority of the evidence gathered for the Balance of Competences Free Movement report shows that EU migration has been a positive thing for the UK, which obviously sits uncomfortably with right-wing ideology that promotes the opposite.

I think that this person is wrong and I unfortunately disagree with the Lib Dem Attitude to immigration.

Immigration


Oh my giddy aunt, I've cracked me ribs hitting the deck with too much laughter, where's me damned pills?

It definitely looks like the Wally Woofer is a dedicated Europhile.....

"The City of London would grind to a halt overnight."

What a load of cobblers

ID: 1454481 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1454484 - Posted: 16 Dec 2013, 14:17:45 UTC - in response to Message 1454481.  

"The City of London would grind to a halt overnight."

What a load of cobblers

Oh, you think that the European capital of global financial institutions would last very long if they could only work with British people?
ID: 1454484 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · Next

Message boards : Politics : 6: Setting Europe Ablaze.....


 
©2019 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.