But then, who would even *bother* attacking such countries in the first place? Most likely, it would be neighbours, not countries such as the US. Don't you think?
You can have the UK (I'm only half-kidding: the UK never truly integrated within the EU, and its in-your-face affiliation with the USA and consequent opposition to France and Germany in the Iraq war affair didn't help).How about an attack on only one major nation, like the UK or Germany?
Germany would be something else entirely. First because it's one of the EU founding nations. But most importantly because it's almost literally at the geographical heart of Europe: you attack Germany, the neighbouring countries are bound to suffer collateral damage. Their survival instinct would kick in.
I think it would depend where it came from, and what prompted it. There are issues that could cause a divide among the EU members - mostly issues related to loyalties to other causes, such as religion or nationality.Or, attacks aside, how about a declaration of war on Europe?
I agree, but I also think that the EU leaders are very aware of the inherent fragility of the EU itself. *Nothing* is ever a given, and a common military decision is one of the least given things of all.Look, I know we all like to poke fun at our politicians, but I believe assessing the EU at that level is an under-estimation that would have grave results for any commander that made it.
This might be true. But it might not be, too.Nations with far less petty squabbles have banded together in times of need. Since World War II, the major European nations have been like bickering kids, not blood enemies.
See, I'm living in Slovenia right now. Under Tito, Yugoslavia was a unified federation of republics all rather "happily" working together. All the different nationalities and religions were banding together against the outside world (Yugoslavia was one of the main leaders of the world's non-aligned countries), and it seemed like the feuds of the past were just that, things of the past. And then Tito died. Yugoslavia survived on its inertia for a while, but then things took the appallingly nasty turn that we all know about. What happened was literally un-believable: mixed families tearing apart, mixed communities ferociously turning on each other pretty much overnight, yesterday's friends killing and raping each other. It was like the Yugoslavian era had never happened.
Europe has learned some lessons from the wars of the 20th century. Things like: "never assume that it can't get worse", or "never assume that past issues will automatically remain in the past".
For example: do you know that even after all France and Germany have done together to build Europe, after all the buddy-buddying and friendshipping and all that stuff, we still haven't signed any peace treaty signalling the end of WWII? Technically, France and Germany are only in a state of armistice. Yes Germany has surrendered, been occupied and torn apart and whatnot. But there has been no peace treaty between Germany and any other country (that I know of anyway). We all know better than to re-visit those old wounds, because we know we might not have what it takes to look at them without re-opening them...
The EU has a lot of potential. On some matters it's already starting to enter into that potential. But on some others it's still gingerly dancing around potentially explosive issues, trying to get an ever-increasing number of people who don't necessarily like everybody else in the room to just sit down and have a nice and polite tea-party together for the time being.