WAR! - In NATO and the EU

[Paragon Fury]

So I had a funny thought a little while ago;

What would happen if a member of NATO or the EU were to go to war with or attack another member of their alliance? I mean, other than Russia having an explosive bukkake-level orgasm. Do we actually have rules and regs in place for this, or are NATO/the EU so sure in their solidarity they never really came up with a formal plan?

And I don't mean a little pissant squabble on a border or something. I mean an actual "Holy shit they're bombing our military bases and infrastructure and GOD DAMN THEY ACTUALLY MIGHT BE INVADING" level war. Especially, what would they do if it was a country that they couldn't just push over like France, Britain or a coalition of countries?

(I was personally imagining it like someone finally being tired of being pushed around by Germany and instead of leaving the EU they decide to oust or destroy the German government so they no longer have influence causing someone else takes Germany's place, or something like France suffering a a 9/11 level attack and they finally stop pretending to give a shit about being nice and own or wreck Europe again etc.)

 

[mad825]

If another EU member went against another EU member. Whoever the EU supports, will simply trash the economy of the aggressor. The war would be over in a matter of months at most.

NATO on the other hand may remain apathetic to the situation or simply denounce the membership of the country that they oppose and the rest of NATO will go to war against them.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

If another EU member went against another EU member. Whoever the EU supports, will simply trash the economy of the aggressor. The war would be over in a matter of months at most.

I vaguely recall that same sentiment being voiced about some great big European war but I just can't remember it's name. Something about being home by Christmas...oh, what Great War was it?!

 

[Paragon Fury]

If another EU member went against another EU member. Whoever the EU supports, will simply trash the economy of the aggressor. The war would be over in a matter of months at most.

That is why I tended to focus on the larger powers; like, for example, France or Britain.

Sure, you guys could crush a smaller power easily. But who is going to have the balls try and say, censure or condemn France on a warpath, considering France is basically little USA with how much they like their military and to show other countries their military...from 10,000 feet in the air. With bombs.

The same with Britain too (though the British prefer boats and stern men with sterner mustaches).

 

[mad825]

If another EU member went against another EU member. Whoever the EU supports, will simply trash the economy of the aggressor. The war would be over in a matter of months at most.

I vaguely recall that same sentiment being voiced about some great big European war but I just can't remember it's name. Something about being home by Christmas...oh, what Great War was it?!

Erm what? WW1 was two superpowers going against each other. The EU (at the very least) is an economic powerhouse and opposition results in economic bullying like we're seeing from the Brexit reaction and the Greece financial crisis from EU power figures.

 

[Catnip1024]

I think a more interesting question at the minute is if the EU military thing get's going, what happens if there is a disagreement between a NATO member and an EU member? Given that a number of members are in both (at least atm), you'd have some interesting discussions.

And no, NATO is not sure in its solidarity - it has both Turkey and Greece as members, for Christs sake - the two have been snapping at each other for about 3000 years now, and look at Cyprus. Likewise, imagine what might happen if a couple of far right parties gain power in say, Austria and Poland - you could easily see EU economic sanctions spiralling into direct action...

Now that I write it down, we seem to be getting a set of networks of alliances in place around Europe. That reminds me of something from history, what was it now? Triple Entente?

 

[Namehere]

The aggressor state - be it an EU, NATO member or both - would be galvanised against by the whole of both the EU and NATO. It wouldn't matter who the state was baring the US, due to it's global reach. Such a... Well a common idea would be that this would constitute a 'betrayal' but realistically such a 'nuisance' would be deeply frowned upon. And the loosing state - let's be frank, even the US would be hard pressed to 'win' a war against all of NATO even if it did win it's share of battles - would be severely penalised by the victors.

Fear of a divided NATO/EU - but particularly NATO - and how that looked to the larger non aligned powers, would keep NATO intact through out the conflict, as well as the EU. The EU's shape would necessarily change becoming more imperialistic to martial nationalist sentiments most likely, particularly if the conflict lasted more then two years. The post war impact is unimaginable and would depend on the conduct of the war and the efficacy of allied assaults and defensive operations.

 

[dohnut king]

Presuming the U.S. is not the aggressor country, the U.S. will tell the aggressor country to stop. That country then has to choose between standing down or ceasing to have an effective military. The U.S could, by itself, crush the military (and economic infrastructure if it chose to] of any other NATO member.

I suppose France or the U.K. could try a preemptive strike on the U.S. before attacking another NATO member, but that's about as likely as Smaug showing up to help in the war. Not to mention that preemptive attacks on the U.S. has not proven to be a sound strategy.

 

[pookie101]

i could never see it happening but even logistically the war would be over in a matter of days. nato forces couldnt keep up the bombing in libya for long without them basically buying more bombs from the US after running out in a matter of days.

I still remember a comment from a retired general during the 80's that even at the height of the cold war both nato and the warsaw pact had enough logistics to fight a conventional war for 30 days, so yeah 2016? a matter of days

 

[Catnip1024]

Turkey and Greece haven't been snapping at one another for 3000 years. Greece has only been a country since 1821(when it was basically founded by the people involved declaring their war of independence and its status as a country was recognized in 1830) while Turkey as we know it didn't come to be before 1920(before that it was the ottoman empire which itself only dates back to 1299).

On the one hand, valid point (it was a little on the hyperbolic side). On the other hand, I was referring to the cultural regions. Whilst Greece only dates back to 1821, the Greek region has been home to its own distinct culture since far earlier - from ancient Greece, through the Byzantine Empire to present (and yes, I know the culture has been influenced somewhat during that time by the various occupiers). Likewise, the Turkish / Persian region has also had a distinct culture throughout that time, sure it wasn't called Turkey but the Ottoman Empire was essentially the same institution - hence why they are so touchy about the subject of genocide.

Either way, it doesn't change the fact that they really don't trust each other, hence why the Arma 3 developers (I think, I may have gotten the wrong game...) were briefly arrested after taking pictures of a disputed island, on the grounds that a reconstruction of the island could help the other side if there were a conflict.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Considering what happened with Cyprus, not a whole lot.

Likely a lot of negotiating, promotion of peace, but in reality someone will end up winning and taking land.

The thing that keeps NATO and Russia in check are the nukes.