You'd have to kill NATO, which presents a significant problem for Euro-American Relations (sure, at this point, it's symbolic, but still, it's very
symbolic) because under NATO rules, if one NATO member is attacked in warfare, all
of them have to attack. Unlike the League of Nations, this would probably be actually enforced.
That would be why when Russia invaded Georgia we here in the States were breathing sighs of relief that Georgia wasn't admitted to NATO yet, because otherwise World War III
might have started over (not meaning to insult, but really, it's true) a backwater nation that, in all honesty, really wasn't worth that level of trouble (and which, ironically has the same name as a US state
, though that may or may not need to be reversed as a statement to make sense historically, I'm not sure).
It would be nice to not have to pay for the defense of Europe anymore... from nothing, really. It would also be nice to have someone else to turn to and say, "Ha, China, we're not the only people with proper, large-scale military forces who you should be afraid of!"
It would also be nice for Russia and the rest of Europe to get along better. There's always fun debates here in the US over whether Russia should ever "really" get to be a part of the West... like we get to decide that, but, w/e... (really, normally when we hear the "with Europe but not of it" nonsense with the UK, we laugh and go, hey, that's more Russia, no?)... anyhow, if Russia's myriad economic issues (well, and issues in general) could be helped and the nation properly integrated with Europe, it would go along way to stabilizing the region, making a "European Army" credible, and shifting focus from "Russian imperialism" to other things, like, say, Libya and the other African dictatorships.
Lol, it's endlessly amusing how here it's talked about how the US isn't doing enough in Libya, while tons of people over here were like, "thank God, Europe is dealing with the next shitstorm, because damn are we tired of it." Not a universal opinion, naturally, but an oft-heard one. Besides, if you want American intervention, we're just going to send carrier battle groups and do what we did in Iraq, and and that certainly went perfectly well, didn't it?
It could be called the Army of the Union? It sounds very science fiction-y, doesn't it? Or the European Union Expeditionary Forces, like the naming scheme they had in World War One
(which I thought was awesome, but that's just me, maybe). Not really sure, naming it while keeping "Europe" in the title makes it sound awkward, on a grammatical basis...
edited 4th Jul '11 5:43:13 AM by USAF713