There you go, thank you for finally saying it clearly. It is so that Europe can try and rejoin it's former colonies and make new ones. BTW, the Antarctic is left the way it is by international treaty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica_Treaty And what "Overseas Territories" are you talking about? Funny you include New Zealand and Australia, but earlier excluded Canada. But either way, these are independent nations that belong to a commonwealth voluntarily. "India is our ally"? What is that? Sounds like you want to make a new Cold War, but this time Europe against the world. And the more I read down, this is not about defense, but about intimidation of the rest of the world, and getting smaller nations to go along with the EU through force. Sorry, but you can now count me as moving my position to your concept. I have gone from "interesting but unworkable" to "this is an evil idea and should never ever happen". The more I look at this buildup and fleet (4 "helicopter carriers", 4 LSD), the more and more I see not a defensive configuration, but a configuration aimed at invasion. I mean, for goodness sakes, Battleships? Argh me mateys, why not build Man O' Wars and reinstate Broadsides and Boarding Parties? You do not even seem to know what you are tlaking of most of the time. "Modern Battleships"? Are you aware that there are no Battleships anywhere anymore? And the most "modern" ones ever built were constructed during WWII, over 60 years ago?
Yep.....most of us British want out of the EU. We are our own peoples and dont like being told what to do by those funny speaking mainland Europeans! Dont ever mention the ARGIES to the Brits, we still keep an eye on them, and hopefully they will stay away when we recover the vast oil reserves around the Falklands!
Of course, they also keep an eye on you, and have ever since you invaded them 200 years ago. On 2 different occasions. And the Malvinas have long been contested, the island was occupied by Argentina until 1833 when the British started their occupation.
I can see why you don't like my idea, it would but and end to Pax Americana. I really don't want to take back the former colonies at all. Unless people what us to get rid of their government, like in Libya. I said I wanted to control Antarctic no take it, control the seas around and have 1,000 troops, on the Antacrtic in the European territories their. Meaning Argentina can go away, and we could help Australia and New Zealand. Here is some information on the European, British and French overseas territories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_member_state_territories_and_the_European_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_departments_and_territories_of_France Don't get me wrong I love Canada I have there 4 time and 3 months in total, an European military would be allied to Canada as well as doing all it could to help Canada, but the US controls Canada and defends it along with the Canadian military, so why would the Europeans need to help Canada, apart from the Arctic with Russia. I am not trying to make a new cold war it has already started in Libya. Yes I think India is the key part in the new cold, it India is on the wests side we will win, if not we will lost. Yes I want to intinidate the Chinese proxys and possible proxys, South Africa is a China Proxy, plus White people are being killed there and nothing it gettiing done about it. Brazil on the other hand is a possible proxy and must be stopped from becoming one. It's not evil it's Europe projecting power and defending itself what is wrong with that, I don't want to be retarded like the US and try taking nations over. The US has does that mean the US is going to invade 6 different nations, NO, I would have them because I may need them, not because I want to invade other nations. The modern battle ship would be stealthier, smaller faster and have modern weapons system built into it, plus 4 big bombard ment guns the could go inside the ship and the magnetic gun. Smaller but with better weapons, a bigger better crusier, to defend the hyper carriers, or sink enemy ships.
They can keep an eye on us but what can they really do? Nothing. They are British and were befor that French and Spainish, the British had a treaty with the Spainish saying the British couldn't have the island, but Argentina let British people on the island braking the treaty, meaning Britain had a right to the Falklands. They are British, plus if we give up the Falklands then we will have to give up the British Antacrtic territories and south Georgia and the sandwich islands.
The Antarctic is an international demilitarized zone dude. Putting an occupation force there would basically mean shreading the treaty and making it open season to everybody. And in case you did not know it, there is no land in the Arctic. It is a giant moving ice pack. Nothing to own there, you might as well lay claim to the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. And yes, you try to make it sound like you want peace, but all I see is somebody that wants to militarize by force and then dominate others.
Trust me, I am aware of the history of the islands. When Argentina declaired independence from Spain, Britan recognized that in 1823. And part of that independence included the islands (which the UK and Spain fought over for more then a century). However, in 1833 the UK landed troops there and expelled anybody that was not British. And the dispute continues on from then to today. ROFL about the Sandwich Islands though.
After a mutiny, and after the US kick most of the people off the island and said they were government free. Argentina later also said to Britain they would give up any claim to the Falklands if the UK paid off some of there debts.
mynoon1999 For arguments sake, regarding the theoretical EU defence pact, would you agree that nations should at least pay say 3% of their GDP towards defence. I used to be a member of the UKNDA, and we could never understand why the goverments of today dont increase defence spending, by just re-allocating lets say just 0.1% of other goverments depts monies to the MOD. The money is there, just not the will power. The UKIP party say they would increase defence spending quite a bit, and would actually order a 3rd Queen Elizabeth Carrier, and would also build up again our Destroyer and Frigate fleets to pre 2000 levels.........sadly though they are unlikely ever to get into power in the forseeable future, and they hate those pesky mainland Europeans. Anyway if you were defence secretary and you had an increased budget, what extra equipment would you order? Dont send our troops to the antartic though......there's sod all to do there, except talk to the penguins!
The British have at least 10 troops there at all times. And if they land is British Britain can do what it wants on it. I said NAVAL control. The US, Canada, Russia and Norway all lay claim to the Arctic, Russia saying they discovered it, which is total rubbish, then they threaten Norway and Canada, and the US does nothing. I want peace yes, but I also think the Europeans need a big stick.
Where is the Russian main fleet? The Arctic, why? Because Russia is trying to bully Canada and Norway into giving them the Arctic passes and the oil their.
Do you even know what the Northern Fleet is, what ships it is made up of, and where it operates? Most of the ships in it are submarines. This is because the area up North is mostly icepack, and there is a very short operating season. Other then that there are some 30 year old Sierra class attack subs, some Akula class Ballistic subs of the same era, a couple of cruisers, and around a dozen Destroyers designed as anti-submarine ships. That's it. Their entire Northern Fleet (split between operation between the Barents and Norwegian Seas is outnumbered by the Royal Norwegian Navy by itself. And no, most of the ships are not aimed at Canada and Norway, but at the US. Because the vast majority of ships are Ballistic subs and Attack Subs. These are of absolutely no use in a war against either Canada or Norway. And what "arctic passes"? It is an ice cap. North Canada is barely navigable in even the best of years, the only ships that generally pass through are small craft, simply for the boasting rights. Last year, you had a rubber boat pass through it. They year before, 9 small ships and 2 small cruise ships were able to pass through the area. Does this really sound like something that the Russians want to take over? This is about as desireable as the Northern Sea Route. And even if there is a gigantic oil field covering all of the Arctic Sea, it is pretty much impossible to get to it. Pack ice would destroy any attempt to pump it out.
Actually, Russia's only aircraft carrier has been in the shipyard for repairs and upgrades for over a year now, and is not expected to return to full service until 2017. That is a period of 8 years without an aircraft carrier. http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20100406/158454665.html And please tell me, what ships are there in the Arctic Sea for them to sink? You really need to know and understand how the Russians use their subs, and how they will be used in a conflict. Just like the war plans designed during the Cold War, the subs are mostly up there to keep them from easy sight and detection by Western forces. That way they can move around wherever they want, then when on combat missions sail down to the Barents and North Sea, and the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. And the same with the Ballistic Subs. The US does the same thing. It is not like they are going to use subs to attack Norway or Canada. And subs would be saved to attack convoys and military ships. They certainly are not going to go after lone merchant ships. And trust me, with the record of Soviet and Russian subs, most of the world is not real worried about them. After all, US subs have followed them for decades now, often getting right next to them totally undetected.
Where is Norway and Canada main fleet? The Arctic, why? Because Norway and Canada are trying to bully Russia into giving them Arctic passes and the oil their. Gosh, you are such a retard. There is no "Canada oil" or "Norway oil" in the Arctic. It isn't divided yet.
Completely untenable idea. Which countries in the EU are interested in power projection? Certainly not Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Austria. Maybe France and Italy would be willing. The UK? Seriously- trying to convince all of these Europeans- most of which have a fairly strong tradition for the last 60 years of not projecting power that they need to build a huge navy- a U.S. sized navy- to project power to the Antarctic is just ridiculous. The idea of a cohesive all European defense treaty seems to make sense to me, but your concept of the purpose of such a treaty is just silly on many levels. Hey- we have some sharp folks here- yes- his proposal of modern battleships seems ridiculous on the surface to me- but one thing I have wondered- are modern Ship to ship missiles and air to ship missiles powerful enough to really put a dent in a classically armored late model Battleship like the Iowa? Just curious- most cruisers and ships today are more lightly armored than there WW2 counterparts- are todays weapons(excluding torpedo's- those I know could take out a BB) powerful enough to take out an Iowa? Also- by the way- the Iowa is getting ready to be moved from mothball fleet in the Bay Area to Southern California to be on display.
Hahahah, you really don't rate the Russian navy. But it's not just their navy, army as well, they keep on pushing Finland for land, and Norway and Canada for the Arctic, they have taken it to the UN. I mean I don't think they would attack a NATO member but, they will try and bully Norway. Which is why in my defence plan I would have, 3 Astute class attack subs, 2 type 45's, 2 FREMM frigates and a super carrier in Norways waters. Plus having more army bases and upto 20,000 troops in northern Norway.
I am not even sure if Canada has any major ships in the Arctic, where else could Norway have it's fleet, but the North sea. Well really Greenland should have the Arctic, with the others get money from their passes. It was Russia that took it to the UN.
The main nations interested in power projection would be, UK, France, Greece, Spain, Holland and Italy. Others like Germany are more interested in economic control of Europe, but they also have large military budget. As you can see the main nations interested in power projection are all of former colonial powers, and they make up 45-50% of Europes population. I can't thnk of any southern European nation that wouldn't want a better navy, Norway wants a better navy, so does Finland and Sweden, then the Europeans have almost no naval power defending the Black see. I mean most of the sip would be used for defending, only the hypercarrier fleets would be for power projection. And defence would be the main goal, not power projection. The navy tonage wise would be 25% smaller than the US navy, have less subs, crusiers, and landing ships, but more air defence destoryers, frigates and Corvettesm plus about the same number of patrol boats. So the main thing will be defence, just some parts with be for both power projection and defence. The battleship would just be bigger crusiers, and they wouldn't have as much armour as WW2 battleships. They would have better stealth, guns and be fast. Plus many different missiles and torpedo's. I am sure modern weapons could sink WW2 battleships. That is why they went out of date.
It is Canada problem. Not ours. North sea isn't Arctic. Ever heard about Barents sea? Why? Ok. Why should not we? If Lomonosov Ridge is part of our Continental Shelf, then it should belong to us by law.
Because part of it is closer to Greenland than Russia. Yes I have but that isn't where Norways main fleet is. Because Russia and Canada has huge parts of land below the Arctic, Greenland doesn't.
And what? Territorial disputes are about international law and not about "closer". Falklands are closer to Argentina, then to GB. What about giving Falklands to Argentina? Proof? And what? Why should Canada or Russia care about how much land Greenland have? Nobody cares.
Why is every war discussion about carrier ? No country needs a carrier. A carrier is to fat ! Not for the modern war, he is expensiv .... :/
