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.
Am I the only person who remembers that it was a mere five years ago that Russia invaded Georgia?
Whoever thinks that "the days of invading armies" or however it was phrased are over deserves to be sold the Brooklyn Bridge. Twice.
I agree. And that's why all European (and others) states should pay for their own defense. I'm OK with the US having bases there but they should be profit centers.
The US spends between 1.0 and 1.4 trillion dollars per year for defense and military. That's close to HALF of our tax revenue. Meanwhile, Europe spends a small fraction of this amount since they can rely on our huge military bases overseas.
This is a good example of why life is too short to read anything from Cato.
Americas military budget is roughly 4 % of GDP. Most of Europe runs 1 -2,5 % of GDP depending.
There seems to be a lot of worry about Russia here. The combined budgets of just the UK, France, and Germany outstrip the total of China and Russia (2009 numbers). Russia itself is dwarfed by the combined military budgets of Europe. SIPRI estimated EU military expenditures are more than 400 % of the Russian budget. Europe obviously spends far more than neccessary to fend off any threat. If more military power was neccessary, Europe also has far more to gain by coordinating and integrating its militaries than in spending more money.
If America evaporated tomorrow, the remaining EU/NATO countries would have roughly 30 % of the remaining military budget of the world. Thats how over the top European military spending is.
Now what does this have to do with CATO? Well, CATO obviously knows this. It doesn't take more than 30 seconds on google to look it up. Unless they wrote an entire article on utter hearsay and never checked a single figure, this is basic. So why do they write this? To sell more military hardware.
It is basically a begging letter to Europe to subsidize a military industry that is grossly oversized for the threat environment. And they know there will be someone with no knowledge base and no urge to check anything that agrees with their own hearsay, who will deliver the letter.
The US spends between 1.0 and 1.4 trillion dollars per year for defense and military. That's close to HALF of our tax revenue. Meanwhile, Europe spends a small fraction of this amount since they can rely on our huge military bases overseas.
Isn't it time the rich European states pay their fair share? Isn't it time to convert our overseas bases into profit centers? or just close them?
This is a good article but understates the spending since it only includes the Dept of Defense budget.
The reality is the US doesn't need to spend $1 trillion (which was the total cost in 2010) per year on the military. We're the ones who keep wasting money and no one but us is to blame. We could easily cost the military budget in half and still be perfectly safe.
Hell, there are literally hundreds of billions of dollars in yearly costs for new weapon systems which the Pentagon says it doesn't want but which Congress forces them to take. That's just waste on a grand scale and many, many times the total yearly cost of all welfare combined. THAT is where the truly giant waste is in the budget.
There seems to be a lot of worry about Russia here. The combined budgets of just the UK, France, and Germany outstrip the total of China and Russia (2009 numbers). Russia itself is dwarfed by the combined military budgets of Europe. SIPRI estimated EU military expenditures are more than 400 % of the Russian budget. Europe obviously spends far more than neccessary to fend off any threat. If more military power was neccessary, Europe also has far more to gain by coordinating and integrating its militaries than in spending more money.
Yep. One European country (Germany) was able to keep the Russian military at bay for years while simultaneously fighting UK and USA. Of course the Germans aren't mobilized like they once were, but why should they be? Russia is too rational to go to war against a country they couldn't steamroll. European militaries are more than sufficient for any realistic military threat they might have to defend against.
Unless something bizarre happens the only countries interested in starting a war against another country defended by anything better armed and trained than the equivalent of an American police SWAT team are weak, economically isolated countries and terrorist groups - there is too much money to be made by other non-militaristic means to foul it up by embarking on a protacted war. (this may not apply to the U.S., which has never met a potential war it didn't like).
Also, it's kind of weird how people will point to North Korea, which has a malnurished population, third rate military technology, weak industrial capacity, very limited access to any means by which to significantly upgrade their capabilities other than the possibility of being able to launch a nuclear weapon (or two), as a serious military force (in contrast to just an unhinged risk) while at the same time claiming that technologically sophisticated European countries, already in possession of nuclear weapons, ability to devote vastly more resources to increase and improve their already modern equipment, and sufficiently sized armies to defend against their relatively peaceful and weak neighbors are somehow at a grave disadvantage. I guess that may be rational thinking for the paranoid who see bogeymen everywhere.
Yep. One European country (Germany) was able to keep the Russian military at bay for years while simultaneously fighting UK and USA. Of course the Germans aren't mobilized like they once were, but why should they be? Russia is too rational to go to war against a country they couldn't steamroll. European militaries are more than sufficient for any realistic military threat they might have to defend against.
Unless something bizarre happens the only countries interested in starting a war against another country defended by anything better armed and trained than the equivalent of an American police SWAT team are weak, economically isolated countries and terrorist groups - there is too much money to be made by other non-militaristic means to foul it up by embarking on a protacted war. (this may not apply to the U.S., which has never met a potential war it didn't like).
Also, it's kind of weird how people will point to North Korea, which has a malnurished population, third rate military technology, weak industrial capacity, very limited access to any means by which to significantly upgrade their capabilities other than the possibility of being able to launch a nuclear weapon (or two), as a serious military force (in contrast to just an unhinged risk) while at the same time claiming that technologically sophisticated European countries, already in possession of nuclear weapons, ability to devote vastly more resources to increase and improve their already modern equipment, and sufficiently sized armies to defend against their relatively peaceful and weak neighbors are somehow at a grave disadvantage. I guess that may be rational thinking for the paranoid who see bogeymen everywhere.
This is a good example of why life is too short to read anything from Cato.
Now what does this have to do with CATO? Well, CATO obviously knows this. It doesn't take more than 30 seconds on google to look it up. Unless they wrote an entire article on utter hearsay and never checked a single figure, this is basic. So why do they write this? To sell more military hardware.
It is basically a begging letter to Europe to subsidize a military industry that is grossly oversized for the threat environment. And they know there will be someone with no knowledge base and no urge to check anything that agrees with their own hearsay, who will deliver the letter.
Yep. One European country (Germany) was able to keep the Russian military at bay for years while simultaneously fighting UK and USA. Of course the Germans aren't mobilized like they once were, but why should they be? Russia is too rational to go to war against a country they couldn't steamroll. European militaries are more than sufficient for any realistic military threat they might have to defend against.
Unless something bizarre happens the only countries interested in starting a war against another country defended by anything better armed and trained than the equivalent of an American police SWAT team are weak, economically isolated countries and terrorist groups - there is too much money to be made by other non-militaristic means to foul it up by embarking on a protacted war. (this may not apply to the U.S., which has never met a potential war it didn't like).
Also, it's kind of weird how people will point to North Korea, which has a malnurished population, third rate military technology, weak industrial capacity, very limited access to any means by which to significantly upgrade their capabilities other than the possibility of being able to launch a nuclear weapon (or two), as a serious military force (in contrast to just an unhinged risk) while at the same time claiming that technologically sophisticated European countries, already in possession of nuclear weapons, ability to devote vastly more resources to increase and improve their already modern equipment, and sufficiently sized armies to defend against their relatively peaceful and weak neighbors are somehow at a grave disadvantage. I guess that may be rational thinking for the paranoid who see bogeymen everywhere.
The US maintains these bases because it suits our interests. I don't think most Europeans would care if we closed them.
Very true, Germany having US bases is only for deployment to other areas such as the Middle East, Africa, and Russia if needed. However I do agree with the overall assessment that the US needs to reduce its footprint world-wide and I may ever call for the reduction of NATO members; the US, Germany, France, Norway, the UK, Turkey, and Cananda should be the only NATO members.
The US spends between 1.0 and 1.4 trillion dollars per year for defense and military. That's close to HALF of our tax revenue. Meanwhile, Europe spends a small fraction of this amount since they can rely on our huge military bases overseas.
Isn't it time the rich European states pay their fair share? Isn't it time to convert our overseas bases into profit centers? or just close them?
This is a good article but understates the spending since it only includes the Dept of Defense budget.
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.
