Britain Debates Renewing Trident (1 Viewer)

[Jay R]

Should Britain proceed in developing a replacement for the Trident nuclear weapons system?

Does an EU member nation need a nuclear strike capability? How do other Europeans feel about Britain's Trident system?

Alternatively, should the EU actually take responsibility for Europes defence and deterrent against NBC attack and finance a Trident type weapon to provide protection for all members? Could cooperation on such a project provide an opportunity for the EU to demonstrate it's ability to manage the military affairs of members, and act as a step on the path to developing a European army?

Post your opinions.

 

[Volker]

Should Britain proceed in developing a replacement for the Trident nuclear weapons system?

Does an EU member nation need a nuclear strike capability? How do other Europeans feel about Britain's Trident system?

This is not helpful. The European Union does not need nukes.
What is NBC, a news station?

 

[Joby]

France has nukes as well, don't they? And of course Russia does, and those nukes are probably rotting in half a dozen former republics.

Anyway, I'm much more comfortable with Britain renewing theirs than someplace like Germany developing them.

 

[Jay R]

France is also nuclear equipped though it is a conventional land based system of ICBM's that are launched from bases. Both nations have permanent seats on the UN security council, these could potentially be undermined by losing nuclear capability, we both already face criticism because our seats are a legacy of the WW2 resolution, it's felt by some that we are no longer important enough nations to deserve those positions and veto powers.

NBC is an abbreviation for Nuclear, Chemical, Biological, referring to payloads for missile systems, otherwise known as weapons of mass destruction. They can be delivered through various means but ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile) strike with a warhead of these types (as opposed to just explosives) is the seen as such a threat to civilian population centres that it's deemed necessary to posess an equal or greater capability to strike than others to deter them from attacking in this manner.

There was an NBC television network, I'm not sure if it still operates. Could it have become a part of MSNBC?

This is not helpful. The European Union does not need nukes.

Would you like to elaborate a little? How do you come to your decision?

 

[jujuman13]

Great Britain most certainly does need a replacement for Trident.
This replacement must be nuclear.
If it were not for the threat of MAD we have had hanging over every country that possessed nuclear weapons, we would long before now have been embroiled in at least 1 if not more world wars.
If having a nuclear deterrent is the price for relative peace then I am in favour of GB having it.
As regards it being a protective system for the EU, if this is so then the EU should provide a ppro rata payment for it's developement and purchase.
With regard to the French NBC weapons( The French would point blank refuse to use the weapon unless they and they alone were threatened).


(France is also nuclear equipped though it is a conventional land based system of ICBM's that are launched from bases.)


I am not sure where you get your imformation from but I can assure you that France has the capability of not only delivery by ICBM, but also by aircraft from at least 1 field in France, also submarine and surface ship delivery systems.

 

[Jay R]

I am not sure where you get your imformation from but I can assure you that France has the capability of not only delivery by ICBM, but also by aircraft from at least 1 field in France, also submarine and surface ship delivery systems.

Sorry, just posted that up quick in response to Volker's question. I'm only certain that France has missiles, don't know whether they can launch in other manners. I certainly have not heard of them having a submarine based system, but then it's not something I've looked into. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Volker]

France is also nuclear equipped though it is a conventional land based system of ICBM's that are launched from bases.

France will probably not invade you in the case of giving up your Trident program.

Both nations have permanent seats on the UN security council, these could potentially be undermined by losing nuclear capability, we both already face criticism because our seats are a legacy of the WW2 resolution, it's felt by some that we are no longer important enough nations to deserve those positions and veto powers.

This is a reason for having nuclear weapons?

There was an NBC television network, I'm not sure if it still operates. Could it have become a part of MSNBC?

It's still there and MSNBC is the part with the news.

Would you like to elaborate a little? How do you come to your decision?

There are a lot of countries, actually the majority, which don't want to have nuclear weapons on their own. Why is that? Because more countries having nuclear weapons does not a have positive affects on MAD. If this is valid for the single countries of the EU, I think, it's valid for the European Union as a whole, too.

 

[Red_Dave]

Should Britain proceed in developing a replacement for the Trident nuclear weapons system?

Does an EU member nation need a nuclear strike capability? How do other Europeans feel about Britain's Trident system?

Alternatively, should the EU actually take responsibility for Europes defence and deterrent against NBC attack and finance a Trident type weapon to provide protection for all members? Could cooperation on such a project provide an opportunity for the EU to demonstrate it's ability to manage the military affairs of members, and act as a step on the path to developing a European army?

Post your opinions.

Il only be in favor of it when someone convinces me it actually serves a legitimate purpose. If its for defence who are we defending ourselfs against? is any country likely to attack the uk in the future?

 

[jujuman13]

quote:
(There are a lot of countries, actually the majority, which don't want to have nuclear weapons on their own. Why is that? Because more countries having nuclear weapons does not a have positive affects on MAD. If this is valid for the single countries of the EU, I think, it's valid for the European Union as a whole, too.)



The thought of allowing the Krauts access to nuclear weapons is simply horrendous, with their mentality and history over last 100 years with regard to starting EU & WWs that is the last nation that should permitted these weapons.
UK retention of weapons such as these is essential if only to deter Krauts and other warloving nations.

 

[Volker]

The thought of allowing the Krauts access to nuclear weapons is simply horrendous, with their mentality and history over last 100 years with regard to starting EU & WWs that is the last nation that should permitted these weapons.
UK retention of weapons such as these is essential if only to deter Krauts and other warloving nations.

This is good news, that the racist doesn't like us.

 

[Volker]

Il only be in favor of it when someone convinces me it actually serves a legitimate purpose. If its for defence who are we defending ourselfs against? is any country likely to attack the uk in the future?

I'm a little bit suspicious about Micronesia. But maybe they will not attack because of lacking the space for all the British POW's

 

[Red_Dave]

I'm a little bit suspicious about Micronesia. But maybe they will not attack because of lacking the space for all the British POW's

oh yes , almost as dangerous as Grenada. Im disapointed no ones risen to my challenge, any offers?

 

[Jay R]

Im disapointed no ones risen to my challenge, any offers?

Well, as distasteful as it may be to admit it the nuclear club does carry a certain subconcious cachet, that's why people want to be in it. There's little threat of anyone using one against us so you could make an argument that we don't need them. However, the so-called 'rogue' states, the Iran's and North Korea's of the world seek these weapons to protect themselves from conventional military strike, they want them as something with which to threaten the west to stay out of their territory. I don't proscribe to the belief that Iran is immune to MAD as has been suggested by some, no-one is dumb enough to willingly surrender themselves to nuclear annihilation, and as such our weapons will reduce Iran's project to so much wasted Rials as they will not be able to threaten us with them. If you believe that such regimes are oppressive and should be challenged then you would have to have a nuclear capability to match them and prevent them using them, freeing you to strike with conventional weapons in order to prompt so-called regime change, I guess it depends upon how one feels about challenging these sorts of states, whether you are an interventionist or a isolationist.

I know I opened the thread but it was just out of interest to hear others opinions, do you know what exactly the Trident update is likely to entail? I mean is it a revised missile (that would be the Trident 3) or will it require new subs as well?

 

[DeeJayH]

Well, as distasteful as it may be to admit it the nuclear club does carry a certain subconcious cachet, that's why people want to be in it. There's little threat of anyone using one against us so you could make an argument that we don't need them. However, the so-called 'rogue' states, the Iran's and North Korea's of the world seek these weapons to protect themselves from conventional military strike, they want them as something with which to threaten the west to stay out of their territory. I don't proscribe to the belief that Iran is immune to MAD as has been suggested by some, no-one is dumb enough to willingly surrender themselves to nuclear annihilation, and as such our weapons will reduce Iran's project to so much wasted Rials as they will not be able to threaten us with them. If you believe that such regimes are oppressive and should be challenged then you would have to have a nuclear capability to match them and prevent them using them, freeing you to strike with conventional weapons in order to prompt so-called regime change, I guess it depends upon how one feels about challenging these sorts of states, whether you are an interventionist or a isolationist.

I know I opened the thread but it was just out of interest to hear others opinions, do you know what exactly the Trident update is likely to entail? I mean is it a revised missile (that would be the Trident 3) or will it require new subs as well?

except all IRan needs, after it enters the Nuclear Club is one fanatic in control of its nukes to launch them, in his/her desire to be martyred along with his/her countrymen and thus receive the virgins

 

[DeeJayH]

Il only be in favor of it when someone convinces me it actually serves a legitimate purpose. If its for defence who are we defending ourselfs against? is any country likely to attack the uk in the future?

try rereading history
the USSR was an ally in the earlier part of the 20th century
and than became the Ultimate enemy for the bulk of the remainder of the century
one can not judge the future landscape with teh rosy picture you may currently have
things change
alliances change
opinions change
and MAD, while quite mad is also quite effective
unless the enemy is intent on self annihilation in the process of destroying their enemy

 

[Volker]

If you believe that such regimes are oppressive and should be challenged then you would have to have a nuclear capability to match them and prevent them using them, freeing you to strike with conventional weapons in order to prompt so-called regime change, I guess it depends upon how one feels about challenging these sorts of states, whether you are an interventionist or a isolationist.

So actually it is for the Britons to start wars, it is not for defence.

I know I opened the thread but it was just out of interest to hear others opinions, do you know what exactly the Trident update is likely to entail? I mean is it a revised missile (that would be the Trident 3) or will it require new subs as well?

The program includes proposals for new submarines, which are harder to locate and should be built in British yards. The plans are to have it ready in 2024.

 

[Volker]

except all IRan needs, after it enters the Nuclear Club is one fanatic in control of its nukes to launch them, in his/her desire to be martyred along with his/her countrymen and thus receive the virgins

Except this with the virgins the same thing could happen in the UK, too.

 

[Volker]

try rereading history
the USSR was an ally in the earlier part of the 20th century
and than became the Ultimate enemy for the bulk of the remainder of the century
one can not judge the future landscape with teh rosy picture you may currently have
things change
alliances change
opinions change
and MAD, while quite mad is also quite effective
unless the enemy is intent on self annihilation in the process of destroying their enemy

If former allies can become enemies, shouldn't the idea of the UK having nuclear weapons not be disconcerting to you?

 

[Jay R]

So actually it is for the Britons to start wars, it is not for defence.

You could well interpret it that way , on the other hand, France and Germany are both playing a big part in trying to prevent Iran pursuing nuclear arms. Feasibly the British weapons provide nuclear defence for all of the EU, allowing the whole group to condemn and confront Iran without fear of being threatened.

Remember the reason that the west is so concerned about Iran is that they are an unknown quantity, will they seek to dominate the Middle East? Will they seek to destroy Israel? Will they lay claims to Muslim populated regions of the Balkan region? Will they support Islamic terrorists in Europe? If they are nuclear equipped then they can certainly achieve the first two points, and if we don't have a capability to match them then we will not be able to oppose their actions, they will literally have bigger guns than us. With a renewed nuclear strike capability we can neutralise their ability to threaten us and deny them a free reign in the region.

Again it depends on whether your interventionist or isolationist, you sound like an isolationist from the tone of some posts. Intervention has been given a bad reputation because of the Iraq and Afghanistan engagements and yet before then many were accusing the US of being an isolationist nation, they have changed their tune because the US has chosen to intervene militarily which is rather hypocritical really. As an unbiased and hypothetical example imagine that the situation in Darfur province Sudan was to get worse, AU troops were unable to protect refugees and the aid agencies had to pull out. The EU decide to deploy forces to the region but then Iran states that we must not interfere in Islamic nations, what do we do? Intervene or ignore the situation?

I'd want us to intervene (In fact I think we should be doing something aleady), but the more powerful a regime like Iran gets, both with conventional weapons and nuclear ones, the more able they become to stop us from operating as we choose.

Except this with the virgins the same thing could happen in the UK, too.

There's that German sense of humour again! :lol:

 

[Volker]

You could well interpret it that way

I was surprised, but it sounded this way.

on the other hand, France and Germany are both playing a big part in trying to prevent Iran pursuing nuclear arms. Feasibly the British weapons provide nuclear defence for all of the EU, allowing the whole group to condemn and confront Iran without fear of being threatened.

I wonder if there are more British soldiers in the Middle East or more Iranian soldiers in the North Atlantic. This is a difficult question

Remember the reason that the west is so concerned about Iran is that they are an unknown quantity, will they seek to dominate the Middle East? Will they seek to destroy Israel? Will they lay claims to Muslim populated regions of the Balkan region? Will they support Islamic terrorists in Europe? If they are nuclear equipped then they can certainly achieve the first two points, and if we don't have a capability to match them then we will not be able to oppose their actions, they will literally have bigger guns than us. With a renewed nuclear strike capability we can neutralise their ability to threaten us and deny them a free reign in the region.

Try to be realistic here. British soldiers have always hanged around at Iran's door. Iranian troops usually are not even close to the UK.

Again it depends on whether your interventionist or isolationist, you sound like an isolationist from the tone of some posts.

I am to much pro-European Union to be an isolationist, but I am sure not an interventionist.

Intervention has been given a bad reputation because of the Iraq and Afghanistan engagements and yet before then many were accusing the US of being an isolationist nation, they have changed their tune because the US has chosen to intervene militarily which is rather hypocritical really.

There is a lot of room between not caring at all and starting wars. The world can not be divided in isolationists and interventionists.

As an unbiased and hypothetical example imagine that the situation in Darfur province Sudan was to get worse, AU troops were unable to protect refugees and the aid agencies had to pull out. The EU decide to deploy forces to the region but then Iran states that we must not interfere in Islamic nations, what do we do? Intervene or ignore the situation?

We should ignore the situation. Western troops are not good in making situations better.

I'd want us to intervene (In fact I think we should be doing something aleady), but the more powerful a regime like Iran gets, both with conventional weapons and nuclear ones, the more able they become to stop us from operating as we choose.

Then let us be grateful to them for stopping us from doing something stupid.

There's that German sense of humour again! :lol:

Oh, sorry, it happened again. It took us so many years to work on this humorless reputation :smile:

 

[Jay R]

I wonder if there are more British soldiers in the Middle East or more Iranian soldiers in the North Atlantic. This is a difficult question

No need to wonder, there are more UK forces in the Middle East, this is because the government chose to adopt an interventionist stance towards both Iraq and Afghanistan as did the US, you can call it making war if you choose, that's more or less what it is after all, but intervention doesn't always entail combat.

Try to be realistic here. British soldiers have always hanged around at Iran's door. Iranian troops usually are not even close to the UK.

They do not need to be, as I said there is very little chance of us being attacked by any state for no reason (Though Iran does support and sponsor terrorist groups, something worth bearing in mind.) but we can be threatened for intervening, prompting the question who has the better ideology? It's a rhetorical question of course, our European culture of tolerance, acceptance, and freedom is without doubt better than anything the Revolutionary Council has to offer, and as such we should not suffer the propagation of a rival ideology that has many fundamental objections to ours and even cites our way of life as something to be eradicated. I used the example of an African nation as that is an area that is desperately trying to draw itself out of poverty and war but into what should it develop? Whose ideals should it adopt for itself? This is why we involve ourselves with other nations, to try and ensure that they develop into the societies like ours rather than an archaic religious theocracy, and so that they will be allies and partners for us and our way of life, not opponents and threats.

I take it you meant Northern Europe? I doubt there are any Iranians in the North Atlantic, it would be very cold and wet for them!

I am to much pro-European Union to be an isolationist, but I am sure not an interventionist.

You can be both, foreign relations within and beyond Europe are two different issues. I'm sort of pro-Europe, just not the direction it's developing in, but I'm also quite interventionist insofar as broader foreign policy issues are concerned. You favour European engagement but don't wish to involve yourself beyond the boundaries of the EU, that's fine. You could also adopt a different stance for different policies, you could be opposed to military interventionism, but in support of aid programmes, disaster relief, etc. Those are both other examples of interventionist policies.

The world can not be divided in isolationists and interventionists.

Not arbitrarily it can't, but you can break it down and work out what sort of intervention a person, political party, or nation favours.

We should ignore the situation. Western troops are not good in making situations better.

Are you sure about that? We were late into Serbia and Kosovo but we stopped Milosevic eventually, and that resolution was far better than Rwanda which we did ignore. As I know you're aware right now German and other EU troops are supervising an election in the Republic of Congo, does that not make the situation better? East Timor? Australian peacekeepers are on the ground there trying to maintain calm in a difficult situation.

 

[Volker]

No need to wonder, there are more UK forces in the Middle East, this is because the government chose to adopt an interventionist stance towards both Iraq and Afghanistan as did the US, you can call it making war if you choose, that's more or less what it is after all, but intervention doesn't always entail combat.

There is an history of British interventions in this region as long as they were able to build ships to go so far.

They do not need to be, as I said there is very little chance of us being attacked by any state for no reason (Though Iran does support and sponsor terrorist groups, something worth bearing in mind.) but we can be threatened for intervening, prompting the question who has the better ideology?

You will be not threatened for intervening if you stop intervening.

It's a rhetorical question of course, our European culture of tolerance, acceptance, and freedom is without doubt better than anything the Revolutionary Council has to offer, and as such we should not suffer the propagation of a rival ideology that has many fundamental objections to ours and even cites our way of life as something to be eradicated. I used the example of an African nation as that is an area that is desperately trying to draw itself out of poverty and war but into what should it develop? Whose ideals should it adopt for itself? This is why we involve ourselves with other nations, to try and ensure that they develop into the societies like ours rather than an archaic religious theocracy, and so that they will be allies and partners for us and our way of life, not opponents and threats.

Oh, yes, it's to bring civilization to other countries, I almost forgot about this argument. It wasn't used so much anymore since the time of colonization ended. Is it about the Britons don't have an Empire anymore? Get used to it.

I take it you meant Northern Europe? I doubt there are any Iranians in the North Atlantic, it would be very cold and wet for them!

Yes, very cold, I mean they could have built aircraft carriers and ship around the UK.
It doesn't sound very realistic to me.

You can be both, foreign relations within and beyond Europe are two different issues. I'm sort of pro-Europe, just not the direction it's developing in, but I'm also quite interventionist insofar as broader foreign policy issues are concerned. You favour European engagement but don't wish to involve yourself beyond the boundaries of the EU, that's fine. You could also adopt a different stance for different policies, you could be opposed to military interventionism, but in support of aid programmes, disaster relief, etc. Those are both other examples of interventionist policies.

Yes, this is correct.

Not arbitrarily it can't, but you can break it down and work out what sort of intervention a person, political party, or nation favours.

Again, I agree.

Are you sure about that? We were late into Serbia and Kosovo but we stopped Milosevic eventually, and that resolution was far better than Rwanda which we did ignore. As I know you're aware right now German and other EU troops are supervising an election in the Republic of Congo, does that not make the situation better? East Timor? Australian peacekeepers are on the ground there trying to maintain calm in a difficult situation.

Oh yes, Serbia was ready to sign a contract, but the Albanian terrorists and their accomplices in the Western governments wanted to go to war. While the NATO "peacekeepers" were there, Albanian idiots burnt down every single church in Kosovo and made big progress in ethnically cleansing the province. They can do so, NATO "peacekeepers" did not really disarm them.

The Republic of Congo and East Timor are different cases, because the government there wanted them to come. It's not the usual sick Anglo-American bomb throwing approach.

 

[Jay R]

Oh, yes, it's to bring civilization to other countries, I almost forgot about this argument. It wasn't used so much anymore since the time of colonization ended. Is it about the Britons don't have an Empire anymore? Get used to it.

Just telling it like it is, you don't have to like it. Intervention is all about building relations with other countries and their peoples, hence the regular deployment of British and American forces to aid in disaster zones around the world, even in places that don't really like us. Empire is no longer the issue, controlling other nations not the goal, we intervene to try and implement a resolution that we believe is better for the area in question and,more importantly, better for it's future relations with our country, relations that most countries would like a hell of a lot more of, particularly in trade and tourism. Throwing the old British Imperialism accusation around is a juvenile response to the complicated issue of geopolitical relations. You don't see me dragging up Germany's history of imperialist ambition and conquest do you?

Yes, very cold, I mean they could have built aircraft carriers and ship around the UK.
It doesn't sound very realistic to me.

You don't need aircraft or carriers to make threats with nuclear weapons, Iran has I believe a considerable ICBM capability, which they are apparantly sharing with North Korea, I'll have to check up on that.

Oh yes, Serbia was ready to sign a contract, but the Albanian terrorists and their accomplices in the Western governments wanted to go to war. While the NATO "peacekeepers" were there, Albanian idiots burnt down every single church in Kosovo and made big progress in ethnically cleansing the province. They can do so, NATO "peacekeepers" did not really disarm them.

The Republic of Congo and East Timor are different cases, because the government there wanted them to come. It's not the usual sick Anglo-American bomb throwing approach.

I'm not choosing sides, both the Serbians and the KLA were guilty of propagating the conflict, though it was started by Serbian desire to sieze control of the region and the Albanians are regarded to have been most persecuted in the resultant trouble. UN sanctioned action by the UK and the US stopped the conflict and seperated the two sides, preventing further atrocities, if we had not done so they could be massacring each other today, destabalising the entire region. Developing peace and increasing prosperity in the Balkan region is an important goal of the EU, which you would prefer to not be involved in? The fact of the matter is that sometimes it is necessary to intervene because standing on the sidelines simply allows worse things to occur, and that intervention often has to be soldiers on the ground or planes dropping bombs, it's not nice, but standing by and watching can be far worse.

 

[Jay R]

During the conflict, several thousand were killed, the numbers and the ethnic distribution of the casualties are uncertain and highly disputed. An estimated 10,000-12,000 ethnic Albanians and 3,000 Serbs are believed to have been killed during the conflict, including military personnel and civilians, primarily as a result of the ground war in Kosovo between the KLA and the Yugoslav military, Serbian police and Serbian paramilitary forces. Some 3000 people are still missing,of which 2,500 are Albanian, 400 Serbs and 100 Roma.

Kosovan Albanians regarded to have come out the worse during the Kosovan war.

Albanian idiots burnt down every single church in Kosovo and made big progress in ethnically cleansing the province. They can do so, NATO "peacekeepers" did not really disarm them.

I presume your refering to this?

Among the numerous UNESCO World Heritage sites destroyed by the Albanian para-military forces is King Stefan Milutin's grave, Our Lady of Ljeviš Orthodox Cathedral from the 12th century in Prizren. In total, more than 30 Orthodox Serb Churches and Monasteries were destroyed during the March unrest in Kosovo. Many of the Churches and Monasteries were dating back to the 12th, 13th and 14th century. At the end of the two-day riots, 19 people were dead, 11 Albanians and 8 Serbs.
During the period in between the deployment of KFOR international forces in June 1999 and February 2000, 78 Serbian Orthodox Churches and Monasteries were destroyed and desecrated. Examples include The Church of the Holy Building in Musutiste (built in 1315), Devic Monastery near Srbica (built in 1434), St Uros Cathefral in Urosevac and St Nicholas Church in Ljubizda, near Prizren (16th Century).

The Serbs did exactly the same things.

According to a report compiled by the Kosovo Cultural Heritage Project, Serbian forces also engaged in a "deliberate campaign of cultural destruction and rampage during the Kosovo War". Of the 500 mosques that were in use prior to the war, 200 of them were completely destroyed or desecrated. The report concludes that most mosques were deliberately set on fire with no sign of fighting around the area.Examples include: Sinan Pasha Mosque in Prizren, the Prizren League Museum, the Hadum Mosque complex in Gjakova (Serbian: Djakovica); the historic bazaars in Gjakova and Pec (Albanian: Peja); the Roman Catholic church of St. Anthony in Gjakova; and two old Ottoman bridges, Ura e Terzive (Terzijski most) and Ura e Tabakeve (Tabacki most), near Gjakova.

Remember that disarming para-military groups is no easy thing, the IRA only recently made the effort to disarm after how many decades of violence?

All information pulled from wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo

 

[Volker]

Throwing the old British Imperialism accusation around is a juvenile response to the complicated issue of geopolitical relations. You don't see me dragging up Germany's history of imperialist ambition and conquest do you?

Is this history MAD? Now this is juvenile :lol:

You don't need aircraft or carriers to make threats with nuclear weapons, Iran has I believe a considerable ICBM capability, which they are apparantly sharing with North Korea, I'll have to check up on that.

Iranian Shahab 3 is developed from North Korean Nodong 1 and can go 1200 kilometres.

I'm not choosing sides, both the Serbians and the KLA were guilty of propagating the conflict, though it was started by Serbian desire to sieze control of the region and the Albanians are regarded to have been most persecuted in the resultant trouble.

It depends on what you are talking about. The original conflict was started by Kosovo-Albanians, the war was started by the NATO.

UN sanctioned action by the UK and the US stopped the conflict and seperated the two sides, preventing further atrocities, if we had not done so they could be massacring each other today, destabalising the entire region.

The NATO threw bombs without an UN sanction and what they prevented was a solution based on Rambouillet negotiations.

Developing peace and increasing prosperity in the Balkan region is an important goal of the EU, which you would prefer to not be involved in? The fact of the matter is that sometimes it is necessary to intervene because standing on the sidelines simply allows worse things to occur, and that intervention often has to be soldiers on the ground or planes dropping bombs, it's not nice, but standing by and watching can be far worse.

They shouldn't do something stupid that costs human life just to do something about a bad situation.