European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

France doesn't need a military

by Colman
Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 09:27:36 AM EST

Or so says Sarko, according to the BBC

The main threat facing France is that of terrorism and the country's defence system needs to reflect that, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has said.

Well, since that's essentially a policing role, you don't need a military then, do you?

Mr Sarkozy wants to create a smaller, more mobile army that will be better equipped to respond to terrorist threats.

What is Donald Rumsfeld doing today? Consulting in France?

A summary of the changes? Cut combat troop numbers in half and close lots of bases, increase spending on expensive toys that I expect will make him very popular with the military suppliers when he retires and make him no end of new friends and rejoin NATO. God forbid France shouldn't be best friends with the biggest bully on the block.

Not that I'm against military cuts, but cutting troops and increasing the budget is interesting.

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. Search
. Search (Google)
. Archives (Wiki)
Art, Economics, Energy, Environment, EU Politics, Mech & Tech, By Country

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

France doesn't need a military | 50 comments (50 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: France doesn't need a military (none / 1)

Anyone want to explain what NATO is for to me?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 09:28:02 AM EST

Re: France doesn't need a military (4.00 / 7)

Keeping the US in, the Russians out and the EU down?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 09:30:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: France doesn't need a military (4.00 / 8)

It's a nice name for a dog.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 09:43:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: France doesn't need a military (4.00 / 2)

one that costs an arm and a leg to feed and makes a mess of the neighbours furniture?

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 10:06:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sit, Nato! Sit! Bad dog! (n/t) (4.00 / 2)

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 10:17:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: France doesn't need a military (4.00 / 3)

We need to get the vet round. Small operation. Meanwhile don't let the kids near it.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 10:47:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I should have thought that was obvious ... (4.00 / 7)

... NATO is for fighting the wars that are sparked by reckless US military adventurism.

Or was the question about the legitimate rationale for NATO as opposed to the empirical regularity?

AHA ... if it was about the rationale, that would be to anchor a cordon sanitaire around the Soviet Union. That rationale was more than a little thread-bare by the 70's, of course, and with the collapse of the Soviet Union, no longer exists. However, if NATO is rolled up, then the ratio of comfortable to sucky postings in the US global base network will tilt even further toward sucky, and further there will be a serious risk that a majority of US foreign policy will slip from the hands of the Pentagon back to the State Department. So NATO is also there to prevent those things happening.

Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 11:29:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What is NATO for (none / 1)

The purpose of NATO is to provide western dictators with a rogue armed force that is not directly responsible to any democratically elected body, and thus can be used to circumvent legal restrictions on the use of military power imposed by legitimately elected governments. Unlike the forces of the US, the UK or other governments, or even those of the UN, it is not directly subject to any oversight by civilians, and, perhaps more significantly, it is not subject to any judicial authority. So NATO troops can commit any crime, any violation of the Geneva accords, anything at all, and there is no way to prosecute them or to institute due process. It's a dictator's wet dream, an army they can use without having to account for their actions to any government or citizens.

by mikep on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 01:36:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is NATO for (none / 0)

There are no "NATO Troops", they all operate under their own flags.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 18th, 2008 at 02:13:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If terrorism is the main threat (4.00 / 4)

then we don't need nuclear weapons anymore, presumably?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 10:19:03 AM EST

Re: If terrorism is the main threat (none / 1)

One would assume not.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 10:22:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If terrorism is the main threat (4.00 / 4)

If terrorism is the main threat, you don't need aircraft either. Or submarines. Or any surface ship much bigger than a small light cruiser. Or tanks. Or artillery.

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 10:26:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If terrorism is the main threat (none / 1)

Cruiser? More like a corvette.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 03:26:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If terrorism is the main threat (none / 0)

I may be a bit out of date on ship ranges, but I was under the impression that a corvette is unable to sustain operations several thousand km. from its home base?

If so, and assuming that we don't want to be dependent on being able to station our naval units on foreign soil indefinitely, we'd need something a bit bigger.

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 06:42:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If terrorism is the main threat (none / 0)

Then I'd go with a support ship or an amphibious assault ship. And there are plenty bases around. There were some ideas that we should send some corvettes to hunt Somali pirates, and I 'd guess we'd operate out of the French base in Djibouti.

Cruisers are big ships (the size over destroyers) specialised on either air defence, submarine hunting or surface combat, or all of them.

Pretty much no one still builds cruisers, except the Americans and Koreans.

On the other hand, ship classes are a bit overlapping nowadays. And it doesn't get easier when they are called different things for political reasons. For example, the new German destroyers are called frigates. I guess the politicians feel Zerstörer sound scary.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Wed Jun 18th, 2008 at 08:00:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Of course nuclear weapons are ... (4.00 / 4)

... necessary ... for example, after a nation has been labeled as a supporter of terrorism, then the leadership might start building bunkers against the threat of air strikes, and clearly melting all the entrances to all the bunkers to glass is one effective technique for countering that.

A bit harsh on the collateral damage, of course, but you can't be squeamish when countering terrorism.

Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 11:32:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If terrorism is the main threat (none / 0)

The thing which was mentioned in the Swedish media was the aqusition of six new nuclear propelled nuclear missile subs.

I mean two or three, sure. Even four. But six?

It seems like Sarko is having an early legacy moment, guaranteeing France will be a great power for at least another 30-40 years.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 03:26:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If terrorism is the main threat (4.00 / 3)

Off the six submarines, you cannot usually have more than 3 at sea at one single moment.

You have to take into account that navy ships are quite complex and need intensive maintenance. A 60% availability at sea (which means a maximum of around 200 days at sea per year) is achieved only in the best navies, and that requires a huge investment in terms of maintenance support ashore.

Usually, a submarine or a navy ship will have a few weeks long missions followed by a one to three weeks stop use for maintenance, with a longer one every few cycles and a full stop for 10-18 months every 5 to 8 years.

So you really have around half your fleet available really.

Moreover, some of these submarines are used to protect the dissuasion sub forces. (special submarines that carry ballistic nuclear missiles so as to deter aggressors -USSR like really- from France's home territory).

In Europe, only britain and France have such a dissuasion force and would need to protect it.

A russian dissuasion sub firing a test missile

A french nuclear dissuasion task force submarine:

by Xavier in Paris on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 07:17:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If terrorism is the main threat (none / 1)

I thought the availability was more like one sub on station, one in transit and one in harbour.

Well, it all gets into a completely different light if not all six are missile subs, but some are attack subs.

Damn the Swedish media and their fleeting relation to truth.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Wed Jun 18th, 2008 at 07:59:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If terrorism is the main threat (none / 1)

The french navy used to have six ballistic missile launching submarines. They have been replaced between 1993 and 2007 by four new ones.

France has six attack submarines, which it is planned to replace in the coming years (I don't really know when, because the government lacks money, as may have been said in the news)

by Xavier in Paris on Wed Jun 18th, 2008 at 08:51:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: France doesn't need a military (4.00 / 7)

European Tribune - France doesn't need a military

Not that I'm against military cuts, but cutting troops and increasing the budget is interesting.

You know labour is a cost to be cut, in every industry...

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 10:28:58 AM EST

Re: France doesn't need a military (4.00 / 2)

And anyway, you can just bring in private contractors for the manpower.

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 10:32:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Last I hard, Obama had the opposite policy ... (4.00 / 5)

... on troops ... building up the troops.

Some of the kool aid venders on Agent Orange were eager to point out how that could be part of a tacit strategy to cut the size of the defense budget overall (though I never saw any direct policy statements that made that explicit) ...

... but "fighting terrorism", given that it is in fact a police function, is intrinsically more labor intensive than being the well entrenched resistence to an empire purportedly trying to send a conquering force against well entrenched resistance from east to west across Europe.

So at least the policy dreamed up by the kool aid merchants on Agent Orange has some internal rationality.

But expensive toys and cut the number of troops to better prepare to fight terrorism? It seems straightforward that when someone proposes a means that is heading in the exact opposite direction to the stated goal, that the stated goal is a cover story.

Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 11:20:40 AM EST

Re: Last I hard, Obama had the opposite policy ... (none / 1)

I recommend 100% ignoring anything regarding military and foreign policy you hear in the campaign for US President. The way it works in US is you have to talk the party line regarding foreign policy (and by extension the military) during the campaign to come off as "Presidential." What really determines the winner is domestic policy.

Once in office feel free to do whatever you want because 90% of USA is not aware of world outside its doorstep anyhow. Hence the last 50 years of US foreign policy. The Marshall Plan was about the last good idea we had in that arena...

by paving on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 08:45:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ooh, that's harsh. What about the ... (none / 1)

... uh, hmm, USAID projects are mostly a way to hand pork to businesses in the US while pounding our chest about handing over a massive 0.2% of our GDP, or whatever it is, in foreign aid ...

... lessee ... uh, the Peace Corps? And the Grenadians sure were happy for the Americans to invade / intervene / rescue them (even if you would be hard pressed to find a majority to agree on which one of the three it was).

Well, OK, the Marshall Plan was the last big ticket item.

Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Jun 18th, 2008 at 07:52:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A few extracts from "mer et marine" (4.00 / 3)

on the uses that may arise for a navy.

L'an dernier, une trentaine d'attaques ont été recensées devant les côtes somaliennes, soit sensiblement le même nombre que l'année précédente.

Last year (2007), around 30 somali coast based attacks have been registered, approximately the same number as the year before.

One of the attacked ships, north corean cargo Dia Honga Dan

(en juin 2007) le Danica White est pris d'assaut par des hommes armés à 240 milles des côtes, soit plus de 400 kilomètres ! A une telle distance, le seul recours à de petites embarcations rapides partant d'une plage somalienne laisse sceptiques les militaires occidentaux. La présence de bateaux-bases, opérant en parallèle du trafic commercial, est aujourd'hui soupçonnée.

[In june 2007] The Danica White is assailed by armed men at 240 nautic miles from somali coasts, more than 400kms! At such a distance, the sole use of small rapid vessels is regarded doubtfully by western military. The existence of ship-carried bases, operating along the commercial traffic, is currently a good guess.

The Danica White, attacked in june 2007

Ainsi, les unités de la Task Force 150, volet maritime de l'opération de lutte anti-terrorisme Enduring Freedom, inspectent régulièrement des navires, notamment les boutres, et se portent au secours des bateaux en danger, comme c'est le cas aujourd'hui avec le Ponant.

Actually, units from task force 150, navy side of anti-terror "Enduring freedom" operation, are routinely inspecting ships, especially traditionnal small vessels, and provide help to vessels at risk, as is the case today with the "Ponant"

Attack on a pirate vessel by US navy in 2006

Escorting Worl Food Program ships to Somali

[for french vessels:] depuis 2001, une circulaire ministérielle a instauré le Contrôle Naval Volontaire.[...]Le CNV [...] couvre l'océan Indien et, depuis 2007, le détroit de Malacca, la zone la plus infestée du monde par les pirates.[...]. "Les armateurs s'engagent, quand ils fréquentent une zone à risque, à donner la position de leurs bateaux toutes les 12 heures."

[For french vessels:] since 2001, a ministry of defense instruction allows for a voluntary naval control.[...]. The VNC covers the Indian Ocean and, since 2007, the malacca straits, the most pirate infested world area.[...]"The freighters compromise to communicate their ship positions every 12 hours while they are navigating one of the risk zone."

frommer et marine

I'm afraid I'm not so good at translating, so please tell me if I made important mistakes.

by Xavier in Paris on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 12:49:08 PM EST

Re: A few extracts from "mer et marine" (none / 1)

Precisely ... the primary ongoing job of a navy of a free republic is protection of shipping on the high seas. Certainly post-Peak Oil conditions will not push to reducing the prevalence of piracy.

I reckon you can look at the ships and work out whether the mission matches the rhetoric. For defending sea lanes from piracy, for example, a big deck aircraft carrier or a battleship with jump jet capabilities would be difficult to justify ... OTOH, a pocket carrier with the ability to support, say, 6 to 12 jump jets might be something that could be justified.

Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 02:43:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A few extracts from "mer et marine" (none / 0)

I'd love to see a battleship with jump jet capabilities. ;)

First no one has battleships anymore, second it sounds like you are talking about an escort carrier. Which is the thing you favour on the line below. ;)

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 03:23:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A few extracts from "mer et marine" (4.00 / 2)

That was the proposed stage II of bringing back the Iowa class battleships ... from the little I just read online, it was used to help sell the program, which got off the ground in '79, then stage II was mothballed in '84.

The idea there was a ship that can come within range of on-shore weapons (eg, shore batteries / cruise missiles / shore based submarines) to project force without committing suicide, which the unarmored big deck aircraft carriers cannot do ...

... which is a mission that is not precisely the first priority for a free republic that is attempting to avoid excessive foreign entanglements.

BB-61 Iowa class Aviation Conversion

Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 06:43:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A few extracts from "mer et marine" (none / 0)

Fascinating! I had no idea anyone had been thinking about "battlecarriers" since WW2!

Maybe they'll start talking about it again if the Iranians manage to sink a Nimitz.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Wed Jun 18th, 2008 at 08:03:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A few extracts from "mer et marine" (none / 1)

Its no coincidence that it was the late 70's that the idea was last used to sell a project in Congress, and the idea is being raised again now ... using carrier battlegroups to provide a seamless air cover bridge between the US and Europe during a Soviet invasion is one thing ... taking a carrier into the Straits of Hormuz under fire is another.

However, they are blatantly about heading toward a hostile coast under fire, able, in the classic Battleship combat mission, to take fire and keep on going.

The biggest platform where I can see a plausible argument in terms of keeping sea lanes open against piracy and other forms of unruly behavior on the high seas is the Cruiser sized light aircraft carrier, like the Invincible and Illustrious.

Of course, Sarkozy's proposed European naval unit would form a battle group around one of the British light carriers, reportedly because the Charles De Gaulle is in dry dock for repairs. So saying that is the largest platform were a plausible role could be advanced is not the same as saying that no mischief could be done with the platform.

Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Jun 18th, 2008 at 07:45:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A few extracts from "mer et marine" (4.00 / 2)

The french CVN between some US ones... quite small isn't it?

As for its use, you could say that a ship that allow planes to take off and patrol at sea may be useful to detect piracy and act quickly against it.

by Xavier in Paris on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 06:42:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A pocket carrier is smaller ... (4.00 / 3)

Bigger'n'the Illustrious, in't?

... or the Hyuga:

... which is carefully described as a helicopter platform, but then, so was the Illustrious when it was being built ... for political reasons then and now, as I understand.

Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 06:56:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: France doesn't need a military (none / 1)

Sarkozy is a neocon. One of their principle goals is to reduce the national independence of their native states. In this context Sarkozy's "military plan" makes more sense as does the last 7 years of Bush in the USA.

Create the chaos of a declining nation
Offer ready-made solution to that chaos ("Globalisation"
Profit $$$$$

by paving on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 08:47:26 PM EST

Re: France doesn't need a military (none / 1)

Hmmm, so France is getting ready to join the US in the business of pushing countries over the "failed state" edge so they stop competing for oil?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 18th, 2008 at 02:14:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: France doesn't need a military (none / 1)

Does this explain why Sarkozy has been talking to Brown about Britain contributing an aircraft carrier to a European Navy?

If France's security needs can be met at the expense of other EU nations, then there will be more money to invest in white elephant high tech equipment projects.

An idea about anti-piracy patrols. Given the increasing price of oil why not invest in fleets of wooden sailing ships (although I suppose we should allow them auxiliary steam engines and modern weapons). If the old technology could hunt down Blackbeard and so on, why could they not take on a few Somalis in a motor boat?

by Gary J on Thu Jun 19th, 2008 at 08:29:09 AM EST

Re: France doesn't need a military (4.00 / 3)

It's not about meeting France's security needs "at the expense of other nations", it is about whether the EU as a whole should maintain 27 different armies and navies working at the same time to do the same things (essentially protecting or, as some would say, dominating sea and air-lanes) and multiplying costs (eg: maintenance and training).

The former Constitutional treaty had a big focus on this collaboration: it is badly needed. And alliances NATO like are not sufficient. What is needed is inter-operating materials and troops, and cost repartition between countries.

The problems met are that no country is willing to have half a navy or half an army and depend on its neighbours for the rest. For a lot of countries in Europe, it is already the case and they depend on US goodwill. But curiously, they oppose to depending on nearer countries like France or Britain.

The situation in Europe is that Britain and France are the only countries with a nuclear ballistic dissuasion force. Britain, Italy, Spain, France have at least one carrier each, which allow them to participate to distant operations. All other countries are totally depending on US or UN goodwill for foreign interventions, the result being situations like Yugoslavia, where EU was totally and completely defenceless against that great and powerful country: Serbia.

I personally believe that the focus given on foreign affairs and common military policy in the Constitutional treaty is grounded on the Yugoslavia experience. Countries around Europe realised then that they were completely unable to solve even a small scale crisis near at home with their own armed forces, without resorting to US leadership and materials.

Today, the european security is ensured by the presence of US conventional forces all around EU -excepting France, Sweden, Ireland, Finland, Austria and Switzerland-. Tomorrow, US may require to reduce this presence and reallocate troops to Iraq, Afghanistan or other countries. How would Europe as a whole deal then with its own security? Think russian or african oil and gas supply.

I know that the Europe way of solving these supply issues is much more peaceful than the Iraq invasion, but I'm wondering anyway if the changing world around Europe really allows for a all-diplomacy no-army security policy.

by Xavier in Paris on Thu Jun 19th, 2008 at 10:14:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: France doesn't need a military (none / 1)

Please make this a diary.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 19th, 2008 at 10:20:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: France doesn't need a military (4.00 / 2)

I was being too flippant and glib in my earlier post. Clearly there is a major series of decisions to be made on the defence arrangements for Europe.

Do we continue with each nation producing what forces it feels it needs and can pay for, linked through Nato or a European body (or both). Alternatively do we say the time has come for Europe to create armed forces on a common basis, to replace national ones.

A subsidiary question is what impact do the decisions that might be reached have on the neutrality of some member states. Can that be preserved if Europe is to develop its own common armed forces.

I can see that giving up any vestige of an independent military and naval capability would be very difficult. Countries like France and Britain have proud military and naval traditions, which I am sure it would be painful to give up - even to pool the resources into forces which could stand entirely independently of those of the United States. As with so much in the European Union is preserving the illusion of power for the nation state more or less desirable than producing real power at the European level.

by Gary J on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 06:02:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: France doesn't need a military (none / 1)

Well, Xavier points out that Britain, Italy, Spain and France have aircraft carriers. Do they have more carriers together than the EU needs as a whole?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 06:16:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: France doesn't need a military (none / 1)

They have at least four more than we need for pure territorial defence.

Aircraft based from inland bases will almost always be less vulnerable than ones based on a carrier - and have better support facilities and easier logistics as well. Carriers are used to provide air cover for operations outside your own territory. And I can't think of any legitimate reason that Europe would want to employ combat aircraft outside our own territory (or at least within range of friendly air bases).

The only thing I can think of that could seriously warrant deployment of aircraft carriers would be large-scale commerce raiding in the Atlantic. The only power with the capability to engage in that at the moment is the US Navy. And do we really want to build up the kind of navy that can beat the USN in a blue-water battle? If we do, then we need to fire up our shipyards, because there is a long way to go...

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 07:08:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: France doesn't need a military (none / 1)

How big of a naval battle do we want to be able to fight, from a defensive point of view?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 07:19:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: France doesn't need a military (none / 1)

When do you fight a defensive naval battle with an aircraft carrier? If the Russian navy tries to blockade the Atlantic?

Beyond that pretty old fashioned threat, aircraft carriers are used for power projection.

If you are interested in being a great power you will need the ability to project power, which usually means carriers.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sat Jun 21st, 2008 at 01:36:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: France doesn't need a military (none / 1)

[Starvid's Rysskräck Technology™]

No, if the US Navy tries to blockade the Atlantic. I think you have the wrong idea about who the EU is likely to be competing with for supplies.

Why does the EU need to "project power"?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jun 21st, 2008 at 01:41:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: France doesn't need a military (none / 1)

Because it is the basic ingredient in diplomacy and foreign policy.

You don't have to invade or bomb other countries, but no one will care about what you say if you do not have any ability to act, to back your talk. Talk is after all cheap. Carriers are not.

Witness carriers lazily loitering offshore problematic countries when negotioations are going on... Just showing the flag.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sat Jun 21st, 2008 at 04:09:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: France doesn't need a military (none / 1)

Isn't this precisely the kind of old-fashioned gunboat diplomacy we'd be wanting to avoid?

Europe has a number of imaginative and very painful ways to make our displeasure known that fall short of armed force. Of course, none of them are quite as profitable for the fatcats as war would be.

A weapon is an intimidating tool, but it is not a tool of intimidation. I don't think it's wise to make threats of armed force if one is not, ultimately, able and willing to enforce them. And we all know how well that worked out for the Americans...

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 03:38:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: France doesn't need a military (none / 1)

And if the US wanted to block the Atlantic I'm not completely sure they would use carriers. Surface combatants are mostly used in a positive way, to keep the sea lines of communication open for yourself.

If you want negative control, stopping the enemy from using the SLOC's, you use attack submarines and naval strike aircraft.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sat Jun 21st, 2008 at 04:11:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: France doesn't need a military (none / 1)

If we need to go up against the USN, I think submarines would be a smarter choice. Europe is quite good at submarines, and it only takes one well-placed torpedo to send one of their aircraft carriers to Davey Jones' Locker.

We'd lose a lot of subs getting close to their carriers, sure, but a sub is what? one percent of a carrier in terms of manpower and industrial production? We can afford to lose fifty subs for every flat-top we sink and still come out ahead in terms of attrition. And we have a bigger population and industrial base to begin with.

As an aside, if the USN blockades the Atlantic, it might be more prudent to simply write off the Atlantic trade and go through the Med to SE Asia. There we can sail in our territorial waters and/or neutral waters all the way to our destination. It would hurt, sure, but I think it would hurt a lot less than arguing with a power that has 27 thousand megaton and is known to react negatively to people shooting at its soldiers...

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 03:46:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: France doesn't need a military (none / 0)

We'd probably have to smoke the US' sixth fleet out of the Mediterranean first... And if that were accomplished and you tried to trade with Asia through Suez, the Indian Ocean would become a very fun place.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 05:31:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: France doesn't need a military (4.00 / 2)

Gary J:

A subsidiary question is what impact do the decisions that might be reached have on the neutrality of some member states. Can that be preserved if Europe is to develop its own common armed forces.

I think the way the Lisbon Treaty is worded, all actions in the common security and defence policy must be taken unanimously, but not every country need take part in implementing them.

Regardig (say) Irish Neutrality... is voting to authorise a joint action by the EU to which Ireland will not contribute in any way a breach of "neutrality"?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 06:21:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

France doesn't need a military | 50 comments (50 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]