The European defence pact would be like NATO, just it would be fair, because the members must spend at least 2% of their GDP on the military, something NATO hasn't done because 3 members do the work for the other members. This would be stopped by having an elected politician who would control where the money goes and make the pact democratic, unlike NATO and the EU. That elected politician would have 3 civil servants 1 for the Army, Navy and Air force, and they would have 1 official military advisor and all the European militaries to help them. Every 5 years the pact council would have a European defence plan, based around what each member of the pact would need to defend itself and how easy it would be for the other members to help that member if it attacked. So the Europeans could have what they have always wanted, an American free Europe and a strong intergraded European military. We have seen what European nations working together can do with the Euro fighter, so we know the Europeans can and will work with each other to make the best military that they can. It has also shown that language isn't a huge problem when building military assets, however we know the in battle everybody needs to speak the same language, so there would be an European wide military language, that just the military uses, not a national language. Under the pact rules if a member doesn't do the elected head of the pact council tells them to, they will be fined anywhere from 1 million euros to 10 billion euros plus once they have joined they are under European law, stopping them from jumping ship once they have enough military assets. The best way to stop a war is military power projection, if the UK had sent down enough ship, troops and airpower to the Falklands they would never have been attack. So one of the main aims of the European pact would be to project power, the easiest way of the doing that is naval power and the most powerful surface ship a navy can have is the biggest carrier in the world, with the most planes on it, plus a fleet of ship defending, not the normal 5 ships the US carriers have, but up to 35 ships. There would also be European laws that couldn't be broken, they pact couldn't attack another nation unless it is a direct threat to Europe, attacking Europe, or if a UN resolution is passed then a nation could be attacked, but only if it is a direct threat to Europe. The pact members in order of their current economic size. Germany. France. UK. Italy. Spain. Holland. Poland. Belgium. Sweden. Norway. Austria. Denmark. Greece. Finland. Portugal. Ireland. Czech Republic. Romania. Ukraine. Hungary. Slovakia. Croatia. Luxembourg. Slovenia. Bulgaria. Serbia. Lithuania. Latvia. Iceland. Albania. Malta. Kosovo. Montenegro. Monaco. Liechtenstein. Andorra. Faroe Islands. San Marino. All the above nations overseas territories and crow dependencies, by land area. British Antarctic Territory. Falklands. South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Isle of Man. Curaçao. Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha. Cayman Islands. Saint Pierre and Miquelon. Aruba. British Virgin Islands. Wallis and Futuna. Jersey. Montserrat. Anguilla. Guernsey. British Indian Ocean Territory. Saint Martin. Bermuda. Pitcairn Islands. Sint Maarten. Saint Barthélemy. Gibraltar. French Guiana. French Polynesia. Guadeloupe. Martinique. Mayotte. New Caledonia. Réunion. Banc du Geyser. Bassas da India. Clipperton Island. Crozet Islands. Europa Island. Glorioso Islands. Juan de Nova Island. Kerguelen Islands. Île Saint-Paul & Île Amsterdam. Tromelin Island. Adélie Land. European defence budget would be 340 billion dollars ppp. 3 hyper carriers. 5 super carriers. 4 medium carriers. 4 smaller carriers. 16 crusiers. 50 destoryers. 70 frigates. 150 corvettes. 50 large patrol boats. 100 small patrol boats. 30 nuclear attack subs. 30 conventional attack subs. 25 helicopter carriers and land platforms. 250 support ships. Plus research into a stealth fighter for the navy, and a naval Eurofighter. These ship include current European ship. A defence pact is the only way the Europeans will be some what independent of the USA, there for it is a great idea.
First! Okay, here's what I see wrong with it: EU's falling apart. The economic reprecussions from that will be huge, even if y'all do manage to keep it together, economically or otherwise. That will slow down the process. Then there's the political situation . . . . thirty-odd nation (give or take) are going to have a hard time on agreeing where to meet, never mind how something like an EU defense pact would be built. But assuming you can ge around all that, why have it? What would you do with it? NATO had the USSR (and later the Warsaw Pact) to focus on. The Soviet Union is defunct, Russia is no longer the mlitary powerhouse with expansionist ideals it once was, China is only a regional threat (not taking their ICBMs into account) and is decades away from being anywhere near the superpower they want to become and Germany is going to wind up being the center of your military, so is not a potential threat. Without a threat, what are you going to base your military's mission on? How do you build up such a huge force without knowing what you want to build it up for?
The pact gets past the member states because the leader is voted in by the population. It will defend against all and any threats, it's role is the defence of Europe and control of the nations around Europe, within reason. So north Africa, westerm middle east and eastern European nations. Like what the US has in north America. The European have just 6 carriers, only 5 of them are bigger than 20,000 tons, so the total Europe naval power projections is less than 1 US carrier. The Europeans need more carrier, for overseas power projection, UN back operation and counter attacking if they are attack. The Euro is failing because the ECB will not take control of the problem, this plan is the EDP taking control of the problem that is NATO and the lack of European assets.
I agree with talonlm Many people still plays toy soldiers. The real thread comes from Banks and Financial crisis. And this crisis can destroy any nation with more fatal results then tanks and planes. Civil War possibilities inside Europe is biggest thread for upcoming 10 or 20 years. So, I believe "European Economical Pact" would be in time.
Don't ever forget the very real possibility of war. The Financial crisis may seem like a big deal, but a "real" war is always much more of a threat. Look at the great depression and then WWII. The disparity in destruction and death is enormous.
It would be rather difficult to defend all the farther-flung colonies (or whatever) with the Navy you have built up. The Royal Navy pulled it off in the Falklands, but that was a very near-run fight. And power projection is more than just the warheads-on-foreheads bit; 'soft power' is a critical capability that is very often overlooked. How do you define 'hyper carrier?' I'm thinking in terms to the US-version of a super carrier (75+ modern warplane airwing with dedicated AEWC assets) but I'm not certain that's what you're talking about. Rafale-M and a navalized Typhoon would both be good front line birds, the match for most any nation out there, with the possible exception of the US, and that depending on how we handle our own current financial crisis. All in all, I have heard this "European Military Pact" idea before. I suppose, in theory, it's not such a bad idea. However, I think we woul all be better served by trying to figure out how to work together as opposed to creating another military contingent out there, fighting for funding. Now that we don't have a shared threat, we all go scattering about in a dozen different directions. Far too many lost opportunities when we view each other as potential adversaries instead of the allies we've been for the last fifty-plus years. In my mind, that's not such a good thing.
The Falklands war is why the Europeans need this pact, and why they need more bigger carriers. UK with just 26 jets Argentina with 112 jets, the UK still took their jets down at that the rate of 5-1, and if the UK had another carrier or another 12 jets the Argentine airforce would have be wipped out. Meaning the UK would not have lost as many ship and the land invasion would have been much better. If the Europeans had a hyper carrier in the south Atlantic the war would never have started. A hyper carrier would be 120,000 tons plus and able to fly up 100 aircraft, 80 of which would be jets. It would be the main form of European power projection. DO not think that 7 carriers, 9 crusiers, 20 destroyers, 35 frigates, 50 corvettes, 20 large patrol boat, 40 small patrol boat, 50 submarines and 140 support ships is enough to defend the overseas territories, in naval terms. Plus air and army bases. For me the Euro fighter and rafale are better than the conventional US jets. So if the Europeans put 1 of their hyper carriers up against a US super carrier the European would win. I agree but, a united European military would force all the nations to go in one direction, and not 12.
The Eurofighter doesn't have a carrier capable version. "You" aren't the authority on conventional aircraft capabilties. There's also a hell of a lot more than fighter vs fighter capabiltiy when it comes to naval engagements. For instance, the U.S. has significantly greater ASW and anti-air capabilties than her European counterparts. This isn't a board game. We've also told you how silly the idea of a "hyper" carrier is.
I know there isn't a naval Eurofighter, but the people who build them want to make a naval Eurofighter for export, but the governments said it would cost to much. So they could build one by 2015 if they wanted to. The Rafale is made for air to ground attacks, so is the F35 they would be used for those operations, the Eurofighter would be the main air to air fighter jet, until the Europeans build a european stealth fighter. Plus most of the US F15's and F16's are old, the F18 is a two seater. So most people would say the new jets are better. Yes the Europeans need more ASW capabilties, that's my point. How is having the biggest carrier is the world a silly idea, if so the new US carriers are a silly idea.
In a war against the U.S. Europe would quickly find itself out of replacement aircraft, technical support, and spare parts for the F-35. The age of an aircraft doesn't neccessarily relate to its effectiveness. U.S. F-15/16s are constantly upgraded. It's my general understanding that in a real world type scenario (large groups of aicraft against each other) the Europefighter/Rafale are about equivalent to the F-16/15. U.S. AWACs and superior software/missiles make up for their older airframe. This is what I've gathered, though I am by no means an expert. The F-22 on the otherhand, is light years ahead of the Rafale and Eurofighter and would make short work of them. If Euro combined forces this instant (which would never happen) it would still take them more than a decade to design and build a stealth fighter.
So if a possible hyper carrier from Europe went up against a super carrier from the US, the US carrier would? I doubt it. If they US jets were so good then why isn't India going to buy them, instead of the Eurofighter or Rafale? But that is for the India air force, not that navy. Could the US F15,F16 or F18 land on a carrier as small as the one France has? In the operation in Libya the US lost a jet because it was to old, the UK and France with new jets didn't loose 1. Plus those US jets will have done 6 times the operational hour a British or French plan would do, meaning a higher chance of a system failure, also what go it having better weapons if you can't get in the place to fire them in a dog fight, the Eurofighter is the most agile fighter jet there is. The Europeans will have help the US build the F35 so they would proberly have the jet in 10 years yes.
Without knowing how your theoretical 'hyper-carrier' is equipped or employed or how much the US Navy will be permitted to lose capabilities over the next twenty years, there is no really way to say who would win such a conflict. And, as an aside, the F-18E is a single seat bird, the F-15E that crashed in Libya was a hanger queen drug out to fly because of other commitments and you are making an enormous amount of assumptions regarding both the military capabilities of the US and those of your European pact nations, chief amongst them is the notion the US will be sitting on our hands while the rest of the world arms up aiming to take the US out. Safe to say I don't find your defense pact to be a viable idea nor do I beleive Europe will be able to come up with a naval aviation arm to pose a serious challenge to the US Navy within the next twenty years or so. The political aspects of your proposal are interesting, but much beyond does not.
We have been over this many times already. And still we see references to things that are impossible, or do not exist. And still every time it seems to go back to the protection of UK interests. What is there to understand, in that this military alliance will never happen? Most of the wars in the last 2,000 years have started with one European nation attacking another. And even today, they are all xenophobic cultures forced to live together, and each looking for a way to get a leg up over their neighbors. So yea, this alliance happens. Then what happens when France and Germany go to war again? Or the Balkans War flares up yet again? How is this grand alliance going to behave when one member attacks another? And who would control the forces? You talk of this like it is a single unified force, which also will never happen. No way Spain is turning over all land, sea and air forces to be controlled by somebody else. Nor as has been mentioned before would the landlocked nations have any interest in supporting this massive navy. Nor the nations with no overseas territories. I still find this to be so much mental games, with no real purpose. Can't happen, won't happen, would never happen. I mean we are already looking at the real possibility of nations leaving the EU, and that is only the lightest of political organizations. What would happen if one of the nations in this Frankenstein decided to leave the EU Military, and take all it's forces, equipment, and bases with it?
I don't understand why you started a second thread for the exact same topic? Look- I don't care whether Europe decides to follow your 'plan' or not. I think it is an unnecessary expenditure, but I don't live in Europe, and if Europe decided to do it- more power to them. I like watching military jets and naval ships as much as the next guy. But I see absolutely no interest in Europe for a plan such as yours. Germany has shown a tremendous reluctance to project any military power- and without Germany's active participation this plan would be dead. France and the UK might be somewhat interested, but most of the rest of Europe is either historically against military projection(Scandinavia, Netherlands), can't afford it(Ireland, Spain, Italy) or have no reason to care- Austria, all of Eastern Europe.
What en paranoia. Now the time with lowest possibility of war in Europe ever! Europe is united by the common goal to create common market which one should be bigger the market of USA. USA and China are biggest trade partners so what kind of war you are looking for? You can always play toy soldiers or computer games no need to seek real wars 
Ask Britain, Russia, France, Poland, Belgium, Finland and a dozen other European countries what they thought the chance of war was in 1930. History has a way of coming back to bite you in the rear end if you ignore it. Never underestimate the ability of humans to fight one another.
Check out who the two biggest trading partners were in 1939--and in 1941 (at least up until June of that year). Trade has little to do with lust for conquest. My concern is not so much for a European block looking to invade so much as civil wars driven by economic and political collapse--and not just in Europe.
And in Europe, this has been causing wars for over a thousand years. It was not that long ago that we had tanks rolling down the streets of European cities because the people wanted to change their form of government. And less then a decade before European nation was comitting atrocities upon the people of another European nation. Wars have nothing to do whatsoever with trade. In fact, it is likely that a war would start because a neighbor covets a resource his neighbor has and he does not. A big reason the Axis powers went to war in the first place was to obtain raw materials for themselves, and not have to trade for them. The same goes even more so for the Iraq-Kuwait war. Kuwait held the majority of Iraqi debt after the Iran-Iraq war. They were also the largest importer and exporter of hard trade goods. Yet they were still invaded and almost destroyed as a nation. So why people still continue to believe in the myth that trade prevents wars, I have no idea. It has about as much truth as the one that Santa Clause wears a fairy suit and steals the teeth of children at night, leaving eggs under their pillows.
N.A.T.O exists. And my plan is a European N.A.T.O without the US, Canada, Turkey, as they are not part of Europe. I will say it will be almost impossible for Serbia and Kosovo to be in the alliance, but that could be worked through over time, and N.A.T.O is not doing a very good job their at the moment, and Serbia will proberly be in the EU within 10 years. I do think UK interest are best served relying nations that are 30 miles away, rather than nations that are 3,000 miles away, and yes the plan would mean there would be more ships and jets to defend the British, French, Dutch, Spanish and Norweigan overseas territories. This alliance has started to take shape with the sharing for naval assets by the UK and France, plus the building of ship, planes and other weapons by France, Spain, Italy, Germany, UK and others. No most war over the last 2,000 have be religious, Christian vs Muslim, and Christian vs Christian. The problem with what you are saying about cultures is, that ideals that Europe has takes over from culture, and many the racist things done are against people from non European culture, religions or races. I agree the Germans and France are still trying to control Europe, but it isn't work as they planned, now the ECB will be forced to take control they would it should have in the first place to save the Euro. That leave the UK outside the Euro with 10 other EU members, of which the UK is by far the most powerful and may come to speak from them in the coming years, meaning the UK will go from strength to strength in European political power terms. Well the attack will be take over and it's government changed, unless it stops war, but if all the nations are in the alliance then, if a nation attack another the Pact could cut all it's military funding for that year. The problem comes when a pact member attacks a none pact member, as no doubt the member will be using asset given to it by the pact, it will be very, very bad from public relation, plus then the pact would be force to kick that member out forever and change it's government. Meaning the UK couldn't have gone into Iraq. The pact council would contol the forces if a pact member was attacked, but in peace time each nation would contol it's own assets given to it every 2 year in the defence plan, however the UK and France would keep full control the their nuclear assets. Well no British person wanted troops in Germany but they were still their, I am also sure no British person would want to pay for Poland having more tanks and jets, but the British do want a bigger better navy and the Polish a bigger better army, so the British may not want pay for Polands better army, but they will because Poland is paying for their better navy. Any nation can leave, and comeback, when ever it wants, but only if it has a very good reason, like it is nearly bankrupt and can't afford the payments. It is mental to have N.A.T.O.
The US will have atleast 10 100,000 tons plus carriers for the next 50 years, so in a full naval war the US would win, but 1 European hyper carrier fleet vs 1 US carrier fleet, the European carrier would win, more planes, more sailors and more defence ships, defending the carrier. I am saying the two seater F18 is something the Europeans don't have, and is a advantage from the US carriers. But the Rafale could have two seats and fly off carriers. I am just saying the European conventional jets are now better than the US jets, but the US has many more jets, than the Europeans. 11 100,000 tons plus carriers vs 3 that is a US win every time. So the Pact is no threat to the USA. Europe can build weapons as good if not better than the US if it puts enough money into it, like the Eurofight, type 45 destoryer, Astute class submarine, or the 3 main battle tanks the Europeans make.
