Europe's armies 'still in cold war' warns EU arms chief

[Dreamer128]

29.09.2004 - 09:45 CET | By Richard Carter

European armies have not adapted to modern warfare and need better technology, the head of the EU's arms agency has warned.

In an interview with French daily Le Figaro, Nick Witney, head of the European Defence Agency agency created in June this year to strengthen the EU's military capabilities, said, "European armies are not adapted to the modern world, to its conflicts, to its new threats. On the whole, they are still in the cold war period".

Rather than focusing on tanks, European armies need more high-tech equipment, such as effective communication tools and analytical equipment, urged Mr Witney.

Closing the gap with the US in terms of arms technology is not about spending more, but spending more efficiently, he said.

Mr Witney also called for greater liberalisation of the European armaments market if EU firms are to compete with their US rivals.

Describing himself as "very much in favour" of market liberalisation, Mr Witney said, "defence markets are essentially national at the moment, with significant state aid in many countries. But no member state has the means to keep its industries alive like this".

"European companies are up against big American groups with colossal budgets. Compared to the Americans, the Europeans are underweight. They need a market on a Continental scale to be profitable", he concludes.

The European Commission is also in favour of opening up Europe's defence markets.

It suggested recently in a paper on 'Defence Procurement' that products which are not intended for specifically military purposes can no longer be left out of normal procurement rules when purchased by the military.

(EUObserver)

[Oblivion437]

Don't expect the US to pay the bills again...

[Moiraine]

"Le Figaro" was bought by Serge Dassault last March. Serge Dassault is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, French weapons seller. Shows this article from a new angle, doesn't it ?

[Timber Loftis]

Yes, if what you say is true, it of course does, Moiraine. What do you mean by "bought?"

[johnny]

Why is it so important to be up to date with modern technology in warfare ? I'd much rather see they improve healthcare and education and social security. Shouldn't that be everyone's top priority instead of inventing newer and deadlier weapons at every turn ?

Just be glad that Europe fell behind in that category, you have all seen to what it leads if a European nation feels it has superior firepower over the rest. The world wouldn't be safe if certain European nations had the same power as the US, i'm pretty sure of that.

[Timber Loftis]

Yes, well, a little unification goes a long way to making Europe's military might increase dramatically.

[johnny]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Yes, well, a little unification goes a long way to making Europe's military might increase dramatically.

There is no war, why should we increase military might ? We need more hospitals, schools, penitentiary facilities, stuff like that. We don't need a bigger, more modern airforce, a bigger more modern fleet, or a larger more modern army. At least not at the moment.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by johnny: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Yes, well, a little unification goes a long way to making Europe's military might increase dramatically.

There is no war, why should we increase military might ? We need more hospitals, schools, penitentiary facilities, stuff like that. We don't need a bigger, more modern airforce, a bigger more modern fleet, or a larger more modern army. At least not at the moment. [/QUOTE]My point was simply that unification probably increases military might -- whether or not it's needed.

But, your post sorta reflects what the article is saying -- that you are thinking with a cold war or conventional war mentality. There is a War on Terror on, and you guys are a part of it. Like it or not -- it's coming to you. Now, that doesn't mean you necessarily need *more* of this tank, that gun, or those soldiers -- but it does necessitate some re-tooling of the military equipment and tactics of yesteryear.

[pritchke]

Johnny is correct, more money should be spent on healthcare and education and social security.

The military of the future should be toned down to fight urban warfare and terrorist, not land wars. New less expensive, technology is the ticket. Replace all those tanks with a few types of all-terrain surveillance vehicles, robots that disarm bombs, and troops that act more like SWAT teams than soldiers. Less equipment of better quality and a more defined purpose should be able to reduce military budgets so more funds can be redirected to things that are important. It isn't only Europe that is in a cold war, all those US Carriers, and battleships are not much good against terrorist cells in some North American city.

Then there are countries like Canada who are the other extreme they are still using the same vehicles they used at the start of the cold war. It takes so much time and money to maintain equipment that is just cheaper to replace or destroy it. I am still waiting for a sea king to fall on my head. Better they be replaced by some type of search and rescue type helicopter. A few years ago they purchased some old nuclear British submarines that had leaks. What a waste of tax payers money. What do we need cold war submarines for. A better purchase would be some type of transport vessel so we don't need to have troops hitch a free ride from the US everytime troops are deployed.

[ 10-05-2004, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Yes, if what you say is true, it of course does, Moiraine. What do you mean by "bought?"

What do you mean "what do I mean" ? Serge Dassault has got 80 % of the shares of the press society owning "Le Figaro" since last March. So he technically can (and did) dictate what the paper will or will not say.