Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Should the EU eschew offensive weaponry (like amphibious assault groups) altogether? I think that's a hard case to make at this time.

If you have a weapon, it will eventually be used.

Half the world is run by more or less despotic, more or less corrupt regimes of furriners who speak funny. Do you really believe that it will be that hard to cook up an excuse to knock some oil- or metal-rich African country on its ass and take its stuff? I don't. So I think opting to not be capable of knocking African countries on their ass is the safest way to go.

And I can't see why we'd need to re-invade the Falklands or deploy a full dress amphibious task force to prevent France from losing her overseas departments. Do we really want to keep those areas badly enough to fight a serious shooting war over them? Even if the answer is "yes," would it really be cost-effective to keep an amphibious assault carrier task force on standby to guard against this massively unlikely event?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 07:35:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series