The US weapons needed are not the same as they used to be, the 5 main European power have little or no US jets. The 3 MBT's Europe has are as good if not better than the US tanks. Because in the cold war half of Europe was Russian, and we needed the US, we no longer needed the US. So they GIUK is old and wouldn't work as well, yes be get a lot of ammo from the US but, most of that could be flown over, and the Europes with a bigger budget would start building there own.
All five of the main European powers use dozens and dozens of different types of U.S. weapons. I made a post detailing it all one time and there wasn't a single country that didn't depend on the U.S. for parts/equipment from the U.S. in vital areas. Main battle tanks and fighter jets are just one very tiny little piece of the pie. Take France for example. They are probably the LEAST dependent on U.S. equipment. Yet, they still use the U.S. C-130 stratotanker, Boeing E-3 sentry, and C-130Herk. That means that without U.S. aircraft France can't refuel it's aircraft, carry out effective command and control, or airlift troops/supplies where they're needed. That would be crippling to the Air Force and the defense of France. When you take into consideration Frances use of U.S. Army and Naval technology the dependence grows even more. The U.K., Italy, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Swtizerland, and almost every other European country relies at least as heavily on the U.S. You're also forgetting that while a given aircraft, weapon, ship, or vehicle may be of native design, it quite often incorporates U.S. technology like software, sensors, radars, and materials. The U.S. is the world's largest and most advanced arms developer and seller. Most Europen countries cannot afford to develop their own independent weapons programs so they buy them from the U.S.
Plus the fact that almost all of them use standardized NATO ammunition. And if there was ever a war, where does mynoon think most of the replacement ammunition would come from? Any attacking enemy (be it Russia, Myopia, or the Grand Duchy of Fenwick) would almost certainly have as a first target the European arms industry. So once the factors making bombs and missiles are damaged or destroyed, where will they come from? One of the most amazing things about NATO is how standardized our equipment is. The guns use the same ammo, the planes shoot the same missiles, they all even use the same oil and fuel. And the US is the largest supplier of most of the actual warheads and ammunition. And even without the issue of destruction, does mynoon have any idea how fast an army in the field uses up ammunition and replacement parts? During the Iraq and Afghan wars, the US many times had to step back and use older equipment and ammo, because even they were hard pressed to keep up with the demand.
All many of this does is prove that the Europeans need to have a united defence, building their own weapons, as spend 2% of GDP they would have enough money to build most of the things the US builds now.
I think countries really just need to focus on their own affairs and mind their own businesses. An international army, especially that of a confederate-style alliance like the EU, will get nothing done. Just like the US under the Articles of Confederation, every state had good intentions but no-one wanted to participate or disagreed on how to participate. If every country just worried about their own affairs or affairs that directly affect them (not just militarily) there would be no EU debt crisis at the moment.
The Euro debt crisis is there because the Germans don't want to give up there economic power to the ECB, and the Greek and Italians are stupid and useless. I also disagree with the political union that is the EU, because they laws are rubbish and don't work in every nation, I agree with the common market, that is being destroyed by this debt crisis. But on the military side I want each member nation to pull it's weight, and not just always ask the US for help. And if NATO works then the European defence pact would work, and we could tell the US where to go.
They shouldn't have to. It is a confederation after all where the member states have the choice to do what they want since they have the power. If they gave up their economic power, who would be heading the bailouts right now? They'd probably need one instead.
