Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wanted to start a thread on this, as it seems that there's a lot of misconceptions on the subject.
Comments like these are surprisingly common on these forums and surface regularly:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1
Wow. We need to be paying better attention to what's happening across the pond. Although, it sure would be nice to give back the financial burden of defending Europe to Europe.
This type of comments tells that some Americans seem to think that Europeans have abolished their militaries and handed over the responsibility of defending Europe to the hands of the US. This is nowhere the case and looks to me that it's just propaganda to increase US military funding. Let's look at the facts:
- Three European nations; Britain, France and Germany are in the top 10 military spenders globally. Italy is 12th. These four nations spent $183 billion combined last year, while Russia spent 70-80 billion and India 45 billion.
- US Army Europe consists currently of:
2nd Cavalry Regiment
173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team
12th Combat Aviation Brigade
These three units consists of a total 30,000 fighting troops, and don't have a single MBT (main battle tank) in their complement. So are these 30k troops responsible for defending the whole of Europe? I don't think so. For example tiny Finland has a wartime complement of 45-65 brigades. The US military presence in Europe is smaller than in Alaska.
The US have been nagging to their fellow NATO counterparts that they should raise their military expenditure to 2% of the total GDP. Understandable as the US is overwhelmingly the largest military spender with a huge military-industrial complex. But the viewpoint is also very different. Like as the US, the only two European nations striving for the Global Power Projection doctrine are - Britain and France. Italy and Spain strive for Mediterranean Power Projection, and the rest of Europe focus only on defending their own borders. Meaning that they have no reason to spend massive amounts of money on their military. Ask Portugal.
Yes, after the Cold War European NATO-members cut back on their military expenditure, and until the crisis in Ukraine it was believed that conventional warfare in Europe isn't even possible anymore. A bit naïve maybe, but that was the mindset. Only the US continued to spend ridiculous amounts of money on the military. Global terrorism was seen as the only 'real' threat, not tanks rolling across the landscape.
But what do you think? Should Europe spend more money on defence or even interventionism? Do you want a stronger US military presence in Europe? Are these figures surprising to you? Do you think that after the events in Ukraine Europe should rearm and be ready for a second Cold War?
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,300 posts, read 4,410,174 times
Reputation: 2394
NATO is a paper tiger. Foreign arms sales not-withstanding, Germany's military is in shambles. The French are doing well; the UK has slipped a little, Canada is well, but the rest - and I do mean THE REST of NATO needs to wake up. All the newer members of NATO have nearly no military. Sweden has a small but effective defensive military force and I can't really say that I know too much about the Finnish defenses (although, historically the Russians learned their lessons - I would hope). Having said that - Europe is too large to hold for any military. That is their biggest advantage. But that won't stop the Russians from carving away at the edges of the nations around them in the hopes of trying to regain their empire. Historically speaking, nations that are allowed to get away with this, eventually just get greedy and go for more than they can handle.
But there are some US MBT's stationed in Estonia at least.
Anyway, I'd say small countries that border Russia can't count on other EU countries to protect them. Ze German military is in a bad condition, some half of their equipment isn't combat ready as news stated a couple of months ago. In case when the drunk wants to brawl again, the French would be the first to rush to sell him some more weapons, can't count on them. The Italians wouldn't care either as long as the drunk brawler can't spit into their territory. Leaves only the UK, the only country who you could rely on in case of an emergency. Just to be some more safe, the presence of the US is necessary.
But there are some US MBT's stationed in Estonia at least.
Anyway, I'd say small countries that border Russia can't count on other EU countries to protect them. Ze German military is in a bad condition, some half of their equipment isn't combat ready as news stated a couple of months ago. In case when the drunk wants to brawl again, the French would be the first to rush to sell him some more weapons, can't count on them. The Italians wouldn't care either as long as the drunk brawler can't spit into their territory. Leaves only the UK, the only country who you could rely on in case of an emergency. Just to be some more safe, the presence of the US is necessary.
Yes, the deployment force consisted of 12 M1A2:s sent to the Baltic States. If they make you feel safe, so be it.
France never delivered the Mistral helicopter carriers to Russia, and they are been sold to Egypt.
UK, pffff. We saw that the last time that they don't care about us. Or Poland. I place my bets on Germany and France.
Yes, the deployment force consisted of 12 M1A2:s sent to the Baltic States. If they make you feel safe, so be it.
France never delivered the Mistral helicopter carriers to Russia, and they are been sold to Egypt.
UK, pffff. We saw that the last time that they don't care about us. Or Poland. I place my bets on Germany and France.
I don't think 12 MBTs will make anyone feel more safe, you just said that there isn't a single one in use, which wasn't true.
The French not selling mistrals to Russia didn't quite make them happy 'bout it. They were kinda forced to not sell. If it were their choice, Russia would long have them already.
Yea UK, can't totally count on them, but still more than on the Germs with their nonworking equipment and the French.
US population = 320M. Rest of NATO = 570M. US funds 75% of NATO budget.
Add all US and EU defense spending together for 100%, US accounts for 70%.
Go Figyah!
Why should Denmark for example spend money on a huge air force or navy, as their only mission is to defend their own borders, not fight some war with stealth bombers in Asia?
Or do you mean that because the US spends massively on military, all other NATO countries should too? For what reason?
Why should Denmark for example spend money on a huge air force or navy, as their only mission is to defend their own borders, not fight some war with stealth bombers in Asia?
Or do you mean that because the US spends massively on military, all other NATO countries should too? For what reason?
Why should Denmark for example spend money on a huge air force or navy, as their only mission is to defend their own borders, not fight some war with stealth bombers in Asia?
Or do you mean that because the US spends massively on military, all other NATO countries should too? For what reason?
1: Does Denmark have a huge air force or navy?
2: Who's asking Denmark to fight a war with stealth bombers in Asia?
3: No, just pay their fair share. Americans would like to pay less, and see Europe pay more.
By Joel Weickgenant on Sep 24, 2015 11:34 am
[LEFT]When U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) spoke with RealClearWorld this March, he made no effort to veil his irritation at the strategic drift of one of America's staunchest allies:[/LEFT]
[LEFT]"The United Kingdom has every right to join with who they want to," Sessions said, referencing London's decision to join the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, as a founding member, over Washington's objections. "But I presume they'd like to continue to benefit from the American umbrella; our military power. Of the Europe-United States defense budget, the United States spends 70 percent, Europe spends 30, and they just go to bed at night assuming they have the total support of the United States."[/LEFT]
1: Does Denmark have a huge air force or navy?
2: Who's asking Denmark to fight a war with stealth bombers in Asia?
3: No, just pay their fair share. Americans would like to pay less, and see Europe pay more.
1. Denmark's air force and navy is big enough to defend their own country.
2. Everyone that asks European countries to drastically rise their military spendings.
3. We are paying our fair share. Thing is, we are not into going to war with countries in Asia, so we don't have to spend a ridiculous amount of cash on fancy ships, planes and tanks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
