Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Thu Mar 28 04:39:36 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / Rugian trembles of fears
Paramount
Member
Tue Nov 13 12:21:32
First Macron and now Merkel.


Germany's Merkel calls for a European Union military

STRASBOURG, France (Reuters) - German Chancellor Angela Merkel called on Tuesday for an integrated European Union military, echoing language used by French President Emmanuel Macron last week that infuriated U.S. President Donald Trump.

Merkel told the European Parliament such an army would not undermine the U.S.-led military alliance NATO but would be complementary to it, remarks that were met with loud applause in the legislature though also with boos from nationalist members.

“The times when we could rely on others are over. This means we Europeans have to take our fate fully into our own hands,” Merkel said.

http://www...-politics-merkel-idUSKCN1NI1UQ
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Nov 13 12:30:55
they shall save us from our hitler
Paramount
Member
Tue Nov 13 12:58:54
This is a sign that Europe does no longer rely on the USA.
werewolf dictator
Member
Tue Nov 13 13:02:12
Pan-European nationalism is a political term, apparently coined by Hannah Arendt in 1954 for a (hypothetical, or postulated) ideology of nationalism based on a pan-European identity. Arendt warned that a "pan-European nationalism" might arise from the cultivation of anti-American sentiment in Europe.[1]



evil peoples [like those who started both world wars] never learn
Rugian
Member
Tue Nov 13 13:10:09
Interesting. The UK is trying to leave the EU while Poland, Hungary, and Italy are resisting attempts by the EU to undermine their sovereignty...and all of a sudden, Macron and Merkel are proposing the creation of an EU army.

In the words of our Founding Fathers, standing armies are the ultimate instruments of tyranny. I'm not the one who should be scared of this development - you are.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Nov 13 13:12:01
Trump pulled out of the Iran deal without cause, and has open hostility toward all our allies

why would they rely on us?

Trump only wants to be allied w/ people who openly praise him & who he can do business with... there is no longer any concern over shared values
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Tue Nov 13 13:14:33
"there is no longer any concern over shared values"

lol.
Rugian
Member
Tue Nov 13 13:14:36
Why would they need to rely on us? If anyone sincerely thinks that Putin is gearing up for a march on the Elbe, then they're insane.
Rugian
Member
Tue Nov 13 13:18:59
Plus look at the people proposing this...a guy who frequently invites comparisons to monarchy and a woman who's spent the last two decades bullying PIIGS countries around while acting like she runs Europe. God knows what they'd do with a consolidated EU army under their command.
Paramount
Member
Tue Nov 13 13:19:12
If you think France is going to invade Poland or Italy you are insane. Okay maybe Germany might do that, but not France.
Daemon
Member
Tue Nov 13 13:47:11
Good times ahead.
Seb
Member
Tue Nov 13 15:54:20
The current push for this is to try and ensure Franco/German decision making can drive any British defence pact post brexit.

If they can get most of our European allies to agree stuff, particularly defence procurement, we'll end up falling in line.

This is about France leveraging scale to marginalise the UK.
Seb
Member
Tue Nov 13 15:56:22
It won't be a consolidated army


It will be a mini NATO run by France, with Franco German defence projects.

UK defence industry will wither due to lack of viable partners
jergul
large member
Tue Nov 13 16:05:12
I don't see the issue. The US has capability outside of Nato (There is no way in hell US defence spending allocated NATO is anywhere near 2%).
jergul
large member
Tue Nov 13 16:07:57
The point being that there is nothing wrong with Europe creating a military basis that can operate outside of the Nato framework.

Rugian
Member
Tue Nov 13 16:37:42
It's wrong to give Merkel and Macron the power to invade countries that dont bow down to EU austerity demands or rapefugee quotas.
Seb
Member
Tue Nov 13 16:50:34
Rugian:

At best it would give Junker that power.

Realistically it doesn't. The proposal doesn't create an independent force structure, just a command and planning structure.

I can't see it being any more likely that Germany or France could use this to invade Greece. After all, if they wanted to do that, they could do it now given they represent the bulk of Euro armed forces, and it's no more likely Italian or Spanish forces would happily fall in line to fight along side them just because the orders came from an EU planning and command structure. I mean, if NATO ordered an attack on Greece, do you think anyone would actually send troops?
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Tue Nov 13 17:34:06
turkey
jergul
large member
Tue Nov 13 17:47:42
Ruggy
Wake me up when the President actually needs Congressional authority to attack other countries.

Seb
Run through how an attack on Greece would meet Nato treaty criteria. I am sure language could be twisted to allow it, but I would be interested to see a notional example.
Rugian
Member
Tue Nov 13 17:53:44
Seb,

"Merkel and Macron" is a colloquialism for "the complex power structure involving various national and supranational individuals who collectively hold a disproportionate and significant level of influence over continental European policy making." Metonyms are very convenient sometimes.

I agree with you that any first iteration of an integrated EU military would probably not be capable of being used in such a capricious manner. That's what incrementalism is there for. A federal Europe is going to need a federal army after all. When 2060s Hungary revolts over some FSE law mandating that European women breed with North Africans to increase diversity or whatever, the Merkels and Macrons of the era will need the tools to quell that shit. This is how that starts.

American states used to have the ability to refuse to contribute their forces to federal control as well. Look at how that turned out.

Thank God the UK is getting out of that mess when it is. Whatever influence you guys had in opposing integration, you were always only going to slow the process, not stop it. And since you are our Special Ally, you will always have our protection from this continental monstrosity.*







*(subject to certain minor reforms to your NHS and tax code which I'm sure won't be a problem. Thanks in advance)
McKobb
Member
Tue Nov 13 18:12:04
You can't just grab Merkel by the pussy anymore ;(
Pillz
Member
Tue Nov 13 18:57:13
Seb obviously needs a refresher in Roman history (of the republic).

Sulla didn't happen over night.
Seb
Member
Tue Nov 13 19:16:39
Jergul:

Run me through how an EU army would be able to invade a member state in a way that complied with EU law.



Seb
Member
Tue Nov 13 19:18:41
Rugian:

The Macrons and Merkel's already have an army they can send into Hungary with far less constraints than one bound to EU law should they wish.
Seb
Member
Tue Nov 13 19:24:50
Lol.

No. The UK is now endorsing Macrons plans because the realpolitik goes like this:

Britain shares common security threats with the rest of Europe.

The US America first thing is a trend. We cannot rely on the US to meet our defence needs on the future.

We cannot not block (as we have done for fifteen years) European defence integration outside of NATO.

Therefore, we will need to cooperate with it, even though the organisational structure means it will be driven by France and Germany disproportionately to our relative capability.

We are already seeing this with developments in Galileo post brexit, MDBA and the Franco-German decision to lock the UK out of development of the next gen fighter.

We can't opt out of European defence framework (geography). And we can no longer steer it as we are in the institutional second tier. And that will lead to erosion of our defence industry, making us more reliant on Europe or the US.


McKobb
Member
Tue Nov 13 19:33:13
No worries. We will save you and the French from Huns in the sun again!
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Tue Nov 13 20:01:52

What kind of an army will they have with less than 1% GDP?

Seb
Member
Tue Nov 13 20:12:36
McKobb:

1. No you won't.
2. They aren't the threat anyway.
McKobb
Member
Tue Nov 13 20:27:47
No worries, we will and they are!

The Bauhaus are going down.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Tue Nov 13 20:39:43

"2. They aren't the threat anyway."


100 years and two days ago, "The war to end all wars ended."

obaminated
Member
Tue Nov 13 23:34:31
I don't think Europeans know how to win a war against Americans. Not much to worry about when an army of cucks assemble.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Tue Nov 13 23:44:43

If The United States had not entered then the entire world might be studying German as a second language.


No country other than Germany, that I know of, was developing rockets and atomic weapons. Not to mention jet fighters.



jergul
large member
Wed Nov 14 01:17:17
Seb
Easy to comply with EU law: To avert genocide.

D2P is the carte blanche of any would be aggressor.
jergul
large member
Wed Nov 14 01:20:15
Seb
Given the shambles - EU integration might actually bulk up the RN to a point where it could become a viable force.

Dutch Frigates (I would not recommend counting on Norwegian for seamanship reasons). I believe the Royal families are related, so that sorts why it is natural with cooperation.
jergul
large member
Wed Nov 14 01:21:18
(shannon lives in a fun world)
Seb
Member
Wed Nov 14 11:17:45
HotRod:

Britain had both a nuclear weapon and jet program.

Glouscter Meteor flew during the war, in greater number than the Me

The UK nuclear program was shipped wholesale to the US and was the basis for the Manhattan project.



Seb
Member
Wed Nov 14 11:31:51
Jergul:

Yup.

Been mulling about the viability of drone escorts.

Basically a cheap cargo ship hull, no crew, with three phalanx, three RAM, and two X 16 VLS for aster / sea ceptors

RAM / Phalanx are automated and self contained with their own fire control radars, sea ceptor doesn't require a guiding radar and can be cued off PAAMS or the carriers radar (though requires data link) and iirc the whole point of asters is they have data links so could be cued by be the T45s. So no need for expensive systems on board, no need for massive power requirements.

Literally all they need to do is sail in formation with the carriers, so could make them semi autonomous remote controlled when cruising.

So no need for perm crew (helicopter pad to allow crew transfer to do maintenance and reload after missile attack over) so reduced need for self protection (or could use the displacement for armour, but realistically we are going for cheap and disposable).

Essentially an arsenal ship for T45s and adding a wider, layered defence to the carrier.

Refit some old RFA tenders if necessary (though speed might be an issue).
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Wed Nov 14 11:46:36

Seb, that is what I like about this forum. We learn something new almost every day.

Not sure how helpful the jets were. I skimmed WIKI but saw nothing about how successful the jet was in combat. I probably missed it.

As for your A-Bomb research, could it have been successful if we had not entered the war?


I did not know that you guys were that advanced during the war. I have read a lot about WWII but completely missed these two operations.

Thanks for the info.


Seb
Member
Wed Nov 14 12:45:16
Hot Rod:

Very helpful.

Btw, it was the only allied jet to fly combat operations in the war.

Another fun fact: Frank Whittle actually invented the turbo jet before the war. A superior officer in the air ministry suppressed his patent as he was working on his own.

Without idiocy, Britain might have gone into WW2 with her powered bombers and fighters.

Seb
Member
Wed Nov 14 12:50:15
Re the British bomb - I think unlikely because of the resources needed for separation activity, but difficult to say.

The thing is, I suspect that the focus would have been on building more and more conventional bombers - you need to have a lot of excess capacity to invest strongly in a nuke: 1940s separation needs lots of electricity.


One could imagine that as Germany and Russia slogged it out over a drawn out period, and if Britain gave up area night bombing, Britain might have built a bomb (probably in Canada) as an alternative.



Seb
Member
Wed Nov 14 12:51:29
(key point being that it seems to me the UK would focus on ships and conventional bombers rather than devoting resources to an unproven nuclear weapon).
Seb
Member
Wed Nov 14 12:56:03
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_Alloys

This is the UK version of the Manhattan project (Tube Alloys). I might be being pessimistic - there was a strong commitment.

Perhaps if we hadn't have gone into the Manhattan project we'd have a Nuke. The question is whether or not Germany or Russia would end the war before we built a bomb really.

I think if the US hadn't entered the war, and Germany eventually breat Russia we might have sued for peace.



Hot Rod
Revved Up
Wed Nov 14 13:13:58

So many possibilities.

show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share