On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:01:59 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin" wrote:

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

1. The USA will protect them. They claim they don't like that, but it
speaks volumes that they have all (except for the UK) let their military
budgets and capabilities decline to ludicrous levels.

Actually, that also applies for the UK. It is accepted as a part
of UK policy that the Royal Navy will not (be able to) operate
without US support; hence the willingness to withdraw the Sea
Harrier from the fleet and do without air cover -- at least until
new 'big' carriers are declared operational, some considerable
distance in the future.

But it isn't quite true that the EU is without carriers. France
is committed to keep conventional carriers in service, and
besides the UK, Spain and Italy operate small STOVL carriers.

As for the US moaning about the inability of European nations
to defend themselves, every time the EU does try to do something
about it the USA declares that this is a threat to NATO (read to
unchallenged US supremacy) and should be stopped. No politician
ever died of hypocrisy...

2. Even if they had them, they'd never use them.

What use would they be, anyway? These days heavy bombers
appear to be used mostly for tactical air support, which
suggests that they are a comparative luxury. Almost everything
else has a higher priority: Modern fighters and strike aircraft,
reconnaissance platforms, strategic transport aircraft, tactical
transport and attack helicopters, ...

Interesting comment, since the EU does not have "modern fighters" or
strike aircraft. They also have no organic strategic transport aircraft and
no usable attack helos. Of course the UK has some Apaches, and
may get some C-17's.

Al Minyard