That's right. They are in the making since 1987. I am talking about the Euro Corps. And they've already seen action.Pyrri wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_U … tle_groups
Already in the making.
Officers as well as soldiers trained in NATO standard of military orders.
Poll
Should there come a European (Union) Army?
| Yes. | 55% | 55% - 61 | ||||
| No. | 44% | 44% - 49 | ||||
| Total: 110 | ||||||
I heard NASA doesn't use the metric system, true?
French Foreign Legion is NOT the army you want to face. It's like facing an army - only their commanders are fundementalist Islamic and don't give two shits about how many die.
BECUASE THEY DON'T GIVE TWO SHITS ABOUT HOW MANY DIE.
I said 'yes' to a NATO-type thing.
BECUASE THEY DON'T GIVE TWO SHITS ABOUT HOW MANY DIE.
I said 'yes' to a NATO-type thing.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I am pro Europian Army. As a lot of European countries are spending a lot of funds protecting their homeland, other countries like The Netherlands have specialised units for UN missions. If domestic defense can be handled by the European Union, there is more budget (money) for international peace keeping missions. Secondly we finally have an army that can be as equal as Mr. Bush's army.
The blue caps of the UN ftw ,i had to chuckle at some of the smacktard comments here .
good idea. just quite impossible.
as many posters above me have said the main issue would be languages.
as many posters above me have said the main issue would be languages.
So correct me if iam wrong ,during the lastest Gulf conflict Spanish/English/USA/Itailian and a couple others didnt fight side by side .I guess my cousin and the thousands of other troops over there must have been dreaming it then .
And if you look through history it has happened lots of times .
One of the biggest battles in history was fought by England/Germany/Spain on the same side v France yes you guessed it the battle of "Waterloo"
So please dont insult mine and others intelligence by saying it wouldnt and couldnt work .It has done before and will do again.
And if you look through history it has happened lots of times .
One of the biggest battles in history was fought by England/Germany/Spain on the same side v France yes you guessed it the battle of "Waterloo"
So please dont insult mine and others intelligence by saying it wouldnt and couldnt work .It has done before and will do again.
Due to the internationalizing world, languages are a smaller problem than you think in Europe. People are supposed to speak multiple languages, especially here in the Netherlands.
As someone mentioned before, the real problems would be other ones, such like structural problems in the army. Who will take the leadership role in the army? Which country's will supply the army with soldiers, and equipment?
That will be a great problem.
As someone mentioned before, the real problems would be other ones, such like structural problems in the army. Who will take the leadership role in the army? Which country's will supply the army with soldiers, and equipment?
That will be a great problem.
I believe a joint European army will be unavoidable over time. The EU has become an ever-closer and ever-larger union of states, growing from a simple economic community to a quasi-national body, with EU laws even having higher liability than the national laws. The Euro Corps and now the new quick reaction force they want to create in the near future are clearly the next steps in EU's evolution.
We can clearly see what the EU "government" is trying to do. The goal is to profile the EU in international affairs by doing peace missions, like in Kongo, for instance. For that, you need an army, too. In fact, if you look at the facts, if you'd combine the EU into one state, it would be a superpower surpassing the USA economically. It would be naive to think such a "state" didn't need an army to protect itself.
But some comments here do have their arguments. There is much resistance in some contries, especially Germany, against sending troops, EU and the country's own army alike, into another country. The problem became really obvious during the war in Yugoslavia (yes, the EU was involved in that partially).
Though my personal view is that large armies for regular and symmetric warfare are an antiquated concept, it seems to be clear the EU is going that way.
We can clearly see what the EU "government" is trying to do. The goal is to profile the EU in international affairs by doing peace missions, like in Kongo, for instance. For that, you need an army, too. In fact, if you look at the facts, if you'd combine the EU into one state, it would be a superpower surpassing the USA economically. It would be naive to think such a "state" didn't need an army to protect itself.
But some comments here do have their arguments. There is much resistance in some contries, especially Germany, against sending troops, EU and the country's own army alike, into another country. The problem became really obvious during the war in Yugoslavia (yes, the EU was involved in that partially).
Though my personal view is that large armies for regular and symmetric warfare are an antiquated concept, it seems to be clear the EU is going that way.
Icelandic, English and Danish is mandatoryReaxzion wrote:
Here in the Netherlands we got to learn French, English, German and on some schools even Spanish, we learn all those languages and no-one learns Dutch..PBAsydney wrote:
Some of us are kind of forced to know different languages, those who speak only one, well, they live in a country with millions of people....300,000 folks speak Icelandic...
It's probably the same situation as in Iceland?
And then you can choose between German, French or Spanish.
could be me but dont all europeaam soldiers speak english ffs, dont they go on joint missions to afganistan?
Yup, a big exageration - margins for error on space missions are nothing like that small. I studied space systems at uni and a lot of these things tend to have enormous margins on them, most space based binary systems use gray code because bit errors are so likely to occur they need to minimise the errors.PBAsydney wrote:
Now, that's an exaggerationSpearhead wrote:
Mathematical problems for space-borne missions can completely fail even if they're off by .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000stryyker wrote:
considering a joint space mission failed due to a metric-imperial miscalculation, the margin for error during war, especially with orders, is too great to overlook.
000000000000000000000000000000000000001.
With something as simple as translating, especially in Europe, they'd have to be pretty damn stupid to screw it up.
As for metric/imperial conversions, no self respecting scientist would do calculations in anything but SI units so that wouldn't be an issue.
Also there have already been a lot of joint european missions carried out, mainly by the UN, but some by NATO as well - they didn't have any huge problems due to misinterpretation.
I'm pretty sure they'd use metric, otherwise they'd have trouble with things like scientific notation (n x 10^a)HeimdalX wrote:
I heard NASA doesn't use the metric system, true?
Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-08-11 07:07:56)
Every good engineer or scientist uses metrics.Bubbalo wrote:
I'm pretty sure they'd use metric, otherwise they'd have trouble with things like scientific notation (n x 10^a)HeimdalX wrote:
I heard NASA doesn't use the metric system, true?
Well, SI (Systeme Internationale) - not quite metrics. Just a well defined international standard, that happens to use metres as the unit of length because they make more sense.jonsimon wrote:
Every good engineer or scientist uses metrics.Bubbalo wrote:
I'm pretty sure they'd use metric, otherwise they'd have trouble with things like scientific notation (n x 10^a)HeimdalX wrote:
I heard NASA doesn't use the metric system, true?
Was just making a point... it was meant to be an exaggerationPBAsydney wrote:
Now, that's an exaggerationSpearhead wrote:
Mathematical problems for space-borne missions can completely fail even if they're off by .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000stryyker wrote:
considering a joint space mission failed due to a metric-imperial miscalculation, the margin for error during war, especially with orders, is too great to overlook.
000000000000000000000000000000000000001.
With something as simple as translating, especially in Europe, they'd have to be pretty damn stupid to screw it up.
Eu was made to allow member countries to easily buy and sell good to each other, it was never meant to be a miliatary force. I tbh hate the EU, e.g UK puts in probably the most and gets the least out of it, phht, and it's just a bitch fight on a larger scale. Called the triangle of power, lets not kid our self's, the Brits, Germans and French are the main players, france and germany go at the UK, while the Uk ends up suckin up to bush (by that I mean blair).
Europe is different from America, to create an army could only ever occur if europe became the one nations, something like the USE, but I dunno how that would work, I dont want some frenchy runing my country. Nor would they want some random cockney git runing there's, as I said, it was only intended to be a markey, never a country, therefor never have it's own miliatary.
Europe is different from America, to create an army could only ever occur if europe became the one nations, something like the USE, but I dunno how that would work, I dont want some frenchy runing my country. Nor would they want some random cockney git runing there's, as I said, it was only intended to be a markey, never a country, therefor never have it's own miliatary.
The US Coalition in Iraq had like, what, over 50 different countries in with soldiers in it? I dunno if you wanna debate how WELL (to the functioning properly part) the army's handling the terrorism in iraq, but still.stryyker wrote:
no. an army of different languages composed of different countries would not function properly.
I don't trust this plan. They (Western Europeans) seem to be conspiring to swap themselves from being on the same continent to a single country, FROM WHICH THEY CAN RULE THE WORLD! MWAHAHAHAHA...ha.
But seriously, there's enough alliance-age there to not need a conjoined military for the whole deal, even if it would make the Euro Forces prophecy come true.
But seriously, there's enough alliance-age there to not need a conjoined military for the whole deal, even if it would make the Euro Forces prophecy come true.
It couldn't occur because there is still a slight festering animosity between some EU members and potential EU members: Northern Cyprus/Turkey v Southern Cyprus/Greece, Ireland v UK, Yugoslavia, etc. Anyway I wouldn't give up Ireland's neutrality for some super-army answerable to a few bureaucrats in Luxembourg - the uses to which such an army might be put would have far too many detractors within Europe, given culture and attitude differences across the continent, - it would tear the EU apart. Compare the UK view with that of most of the rest of Europe for example.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-11 19:09:09)
well to be technical the question isn't "Is it possible" the question is "Should there be"
Will the EU national anthem be Eurobeat?
no simply because, as it has been stated, there are too many barriers now I think. Everyone needs to be able to speak the same language, first of all. thats prolly the biggest hurdle right there. secondly, everyone needs to have the same agenda as well. until then, just have to sign up for the UN or french foreign legion if you want to fight with a bunch of people from different countries.
Ma-ia Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
What if your general can speak 15 languages, but can't command for crap? It's more important for him to have an able staff...but still, delays in translation can cost lives. How many times technology has advanced isn't the issue. A computer isn't going to keep someone from screwing up.Spearhead wrote:
yeah, I got your point, but technology has advanced hundreds of times since WW1.Reaxzion wrote:
It was just an example, to show how language-shit can get out of control.Spearhead wrote:
Uh ya, they were still using Zeppelins, Bi-planes, bolt action rifles, tanks that moved a 2 MPH, and horses to carry messages in WW1.
I think times are a little different now.
As a European, you've got to admit that you'd have to be pretty stupid to mistranslate military orders. Or to have a General that speaks one language
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-08-13 13:57:16)