Why should the American people cough up a single dime for European missile defense? (enemies, Afghanistan)
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.
It is high time for "allies" that we compete with economically to pick up the dime for their own defense!
The US has always vehemently opposed any European plans for separate European Military Headquarters to NATO. A separate HQ being needed in order to coordinate European Defence and any potential operations.
In terms of paying for our defence, the accusation that Europeans are somehow freeloaders is ridiculous, as other than war torn nations or military dictatorships most countries do not spend a massive amount on defence with the exception of the US at 4.2% and Russia at 4.5%. European Union Defence spending averages out at 1.7% of GDP, the same as Australia, and more than Canada and indeed most countries across the world. The European Union actually accounts for nearly a quarter of all global military expenditure or $275 Billion USD, and given that the US accounts for half of all military expenditure, it does pose the question if NATO accounts for three quarters of all military expenditure who is this mighty enemy we are seeking to defend ourselves from because last time I looked the Chinese spent little more than most European countries at 2% GDP Defence Expenditure.
In terms of Russia it's not a mighty super power any more, it's country of 143 million with a population set to decline to 100 million by the end of the century and which actually spends $90 Billion on Defence (4.5% GDP) which is less than Britain and France combined at $120 Billion and far less than the $275 Billion spent by the 507 million people who inhabit the EU.
As for US Forces in Europe I wouldn't get carried away, there are know no US Army Tanks in Europe, there are 30,000 soldiers mainly in Germany, a handful of front line air bases and a Naval Support Facility in Italy. Hardly a massive force and the US is now about to begin a new round of cuts in Europe, consolidating some bases and possible closing others such as Morón Air Base in Spain with bases in the UK such as Lakenheath and Molesworth also rumoured to be closed in the next round of US Cuts. . The main US presence now being in Asia as opposed to Europe, so why not make those Japanese (1% GDP Defence Spending) and other Asians such as the South Koreans pick up the so-called dime.
Originally Posted by EU Institute of Strategic Studies Report
A 2009 Report by the EU Institute of Strategic Studies Report showed that the number of Main Battle Tanks held by the members of the EU showed the collectively we had 9,800 tanks,7,951 Armoured Fighting Vehicles and 22,844 Armoured Personnel Carriers and over 2 million Regular Service Personnel and even greater numbers of reserve forces.
The shield, in part, is designed to protect the United States. What else do you need? Further, the House GOP defense authorization bill of 2014 authorized the government to seek shared funding from NATO states. I understand your concern, but I think its a bit too late at this point to address the issue of funding. That train already left the station...unless you don't think it's prudent to protect the US from the likes of North Korea and iran.
If we have a missile defense shield in Poland, it can shoot down ICBM missiles on their way to the USA, or other allies too. It's that whole peace thru strength philosophy. If an aggressor nation thinks we can slap aside a missile they fire, then they won't be able to blackmail our allies with the threat of firing missiles. If the Ukraine had a military response that would crush a Russian aggression, Russia would not be boldly entering Crimea.
Thanks to the idiot in the WH and the ketchup king, they will have one soon.
So what? Why are you scared of a nuclear Iran? Pakistanis are more fanatical than Iranians on their best day, and they have one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
Desertdetroiter, are you sure you arent Neville Chamberlain risen from the dead?????????????
I might be.
But what does that have to do with anything?
Europe is an economic competitor. They can afford their own missile defense system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet
US will pay for it if a missle attack is launched on Europe . We can pay for it through aid after an attack or pay for it by stopping it before it happens
If the Europeans are in danger of a missile attack, then why shouldn't they pay for the defense of their own continent. They're as rich as we are.
Shouldn't they be more concerned with the outcome than us? It IS THEIR continent, after all.
If the Europeans are in danger of a missile attack, then why shouldn't they pay for the defense of their own continent. They're as rich as we are.
Shouldn't they be more concerned with the outcome than us? It IS THEIR continent, after all.
The fact that most of the US deployment is now Naval and consists of Aegis Destroyers in the Mediterranean seems to escaped you, as does the fact that European Countries do have Missile Defence Systems such as Aster, SAMP/T and Patriot.
There is also a good deal of radar and other support provided by European forces and you also seem to forget that the US is in a Defence Pact with Europe called NATO. The recent US led NATO foray in to Afghanistan has cost Britain alone £18 Billion ($30 Billion USD) with 626 British military deaths since the War on Terror began and thousands of British soldiers horrible injured and maimed and we also still have a hefty bill in relation to Iraq. Whilst contrary to what some Americans are led to believe a good deal of other European Nations have contributed to recent US led operations. We also have a close relationship with the US in terms of intelligence exchange, counter terrorism and other such covert operations.
It also should be noted that a good deal of US bases in Europe are as much for Americas benefit as they are for European Defence, whilst if the US is so unhappy with the current NATO arrangement then why doesn't the US Government back calls for a separate European Military Headquarters and subsequent EU Military Command beyond NATO rather than continually opposing such a move. Furthermore no one is forcing the US to be part of NATO or to commit to any missile defence or indeed US military bases in Europe as a whole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISN
The lack of emphasis now placed on Europe by the U.S. must confound many European partners, who have ranked as some of America’s staunchest allies since 9/11. After devoting so much blood and treasure to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last decade, usually at great political cost at home, many wonder what it was all for. At the end of the day, it is not just Europe that loses out from an aloof American European policy. There are many reasons why the U.S. needs to stay engaged with the Continent.
Through NATO, some of America’s closest military partnerships have been tried and tested. When critics in France and Germany were complaining that the U.S. was “going it alone” in Iraq, 23 European countries, 17 of which were also members of NATO, sent troops to Iraq. The troop contribution to Iraq of countries such as Poland, Italy and Georgia measured in the thousands. The UK contributed 46,000 troops for the initial part of the invasion. Many European countries deployed troops to Iraq at great political cost.
European troops have even a greater presence in Afghanistan. Of the 50 nations, besides the United States, that have contributed 45,000 forces to the International Security Assistance Force, approximately 80 percent of these troops (37 nations) are European. Together, these 37 nations have contributed nearly a third of the military personnel serving in Afghanistan. It is true that there have been some shortcomings, such as major European powers not doing all they can in Afghanistan or disagreeing outright with the U.S. over Iraq in 2003. But on the whole, no other region of the world has been willing to back U.S. foreign policy objectives in the same way as Europe.
All remaining options in Europe involve trade-offs.
Cutting deeply into Air Force or Navy units would reduce their ability to respond swiftly to crises in Africa and the Middle East, and to maintain resupply and air refueling capabilities for any engagements in those regions.
The Army has cut thousands of troops and closed or consolidated hundreds of installations in the past 25 years. By 2015, about seven main garrisons and some 30,000 soldiers will remain in Europe. Most of these troops serve as logistical enablers and training partners for allied forces with whom the U.S. has operated in places such as Bosnia, Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq.
So what? Why are you scared of a nuclear Iran? Pakistanis are more fanatical than Iranians on their best day, and they have one.
I might be.
But what does that have to do with anything?
Europe is an economic competitor. They can afford their own missile defense system.
If the Europeans are in danger of a missile attack, then why shouldn't they pay for the defense of their own continent. They're as rich as we are.
Shouldn't they be more concerned with the outcome than us? It IS THEIR continent, after all.
lessons of history would show that the US has a great deal to lose in Europe . We have mutual defense treaties with many of the countries would it not be easier to stop a missile attack before they landed
lessons of history would show that the US has a great deal to lose in Europe . We have mutual defense treaties with many of the countries would it not be easier to stop a missile attack before they landed
What "great deal?" An economic competitor?
And even if that's true, do we have more to lose on THEIR continent than THEY do?
And defense treaties?
Again, Europe is as wealthy as we are? When are we gonna start treating them like it instead of like our children. We saved the continent, built it up, kept it safe during the Cold War.
They've had 70 years of financial hand holding by us relative to defense. Meanwhile, they spend their money on their citizenry while we stockpile weapons to defend them.
You guys aren't nearly so magnanimous towards needy Americans. But Europe? You can't WAIT to run over there with your checkbook open.
And even if that's true, do we have more to lose on THEIR continent than THEY do?
And defense treaties?
Again, Europe is as wealthy as we are? When are we gonna start treating them like it instead of like our children. We saved the continent, built it up, kept it safe during the Cold War.
They've had 70 years of financial hand holding by us relative to defense. Meanwhile, they spend their money on their citizenry while we stockpile weapons to defend them.
You guys aren't nearly so magnanimous towards needy Americans. But Europe? You can't WAIT to run over there with your checkbook open.
What's that all about?
US Forces left in Europe are meager in size and those that are left are facing further massive cuts leaving very little in terms of US presence.
If America doesn't want to be in NATO it can simply walk away and Europe will set up a European Military Command Headquarters to replace it, if that's what Americans truly want. However given the current extent of US Military Cuts it would be hypocritical for the US to point the finger at Europe in terms of cuts to defence spending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Spectator
Washington often says it is displeased by europe’s defence draw-down. Doubtless this is so. It is also the case that Washington has persistently opposed efforts to build a common, independent, european defence capability. There are respectable reasons for this American view.
Nevertheless just as it is reasonable to complain about european “free-riders” so it is reasonable to point out that the US has generally been happier with weak european allies within NATO than stronger european allies outwith (beyond) NATO.
I suspect the only way you could make european governments – whatever the economic climate – increase defence spending would be if Washington decided it was going to give up its leadership of the western world and retire from hegemony.
Since Washington has no desire to do anything of the sort (and no-one will believe any bluff designed to persuade you Washington wants to get out of the game) europe’s defence posture may not be especially noble but it is at least rational.
Whilst since the 2010 Anglo French Defence Treaty both Britain and France have worked very closely together on Defence and Security. Whilst both have the Aster/SAMP/T Anti Ballistic Missile System and France has no US Military bases on it's soil. Whist a European Military Command would improve interoperability and specialisation in terms of the smart defence concept.
The govs of Poland and Czech were not going to approve, at least up to when the Russia-Georgia conflict broke out.
Well, they did eventually - because they were offered an absolute sweetheart deal on a lot the less-sexy military stuff they actually needed and wanted. Missile defense radars suck at keeping Russian-speaking troops with no badges on their uniforms on the right side of a border.
And even if that's true, do we have more to lose on THEIR continent than THEY do?
And defense treaties?
Again, Europe is as wealthy as we are? When are we gonna start treating them like it instead of like our children. We saved the continent, built it up, kept it safe during the Cold War.
They've had 70 years of financial hand holding by us relative to defense. Meanwhile, they spend their money on their citizenry while we stockpile weapons to defend them.
You guys aren't nearly so magnanimous towards needy Americans. But Europe? You can't WAIT to run over there with your checkbook open.
What's that all about?
If Europe fell to a new USSR would it be good for America?
And even if that's true, do we have more to lose on THEIR continent than THEY do?
And defense treaties?
Again, Europe is as wealthy as we are? When are we gonna start treating them like it instead of like our children. We saved the continent, built it up, kept it safe during the Cold War.
They've had 70 years of financial hand holding by us relative to defense.
The Cold War was a bit of a special case. While you may have felt you were paying the lion's share as regards expenses, I think it's fair enough to say that us Yurpeans were feeling the risk a bit more urgent. It is weird to coldly steel yourself to blow up your own infrastructure - your own damn bridges, railroads, roads, harbors, police stations, phone exchanges - to blunt an invasion right where you live. But that's what we did.
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.
