Europe needs to increase its defence spending

Hi

What i'd like to hear from members here, is what do they think about the low percentage of GDP European countries (paricularly UK, France and Germany) allocate to their defence budgets, i think in general it is somewhere around the 2% region.

I read today in a Warship magazine, how the Americans are becomming more frustrated with its European partners in regards to their dwindling defence budgets and how America now contributes to 75% of NATO.

Being a UK citizen, i find it very sad how we have run down our forces in the last couple of decades in particular.

Money is obviously one issue, but even during the boom years of a decade ago the defence budget remained stagnant, while other depts received huge percentage increases in their budgets.

Really the problem is the political will, and this applies to other European nations as well.

Does America think that Europe is letting the Amercan public pay for its peace?

 

Now that the UK has sold its aircraft carriers on e-bay Argentina can invade the Falklands.

 

Yes, many of us feel that is exactly what is happening.

To show how lopsided this is, look at Operation Ocean Shield, the NATO attempt to end piracy off the coast of Somalia.

Counting only major surface combatants, the US has sent 13 ships, including 2 Aircraft Carriers, 2 guided missile cruisers, 6 guided missile destroyers, and 3 guided missile frigates.

The Royal Navy has sent 3 ships, all frigates. The Royal Danish Navy has sent 2 support ships. The Royal Netherlands Navy has sent a frigate and a sub. The Italian Navy has sent 2 frigates. The Royal Canadian Navy has sent 1 frigate. The Portugese Navy has sent 1 frigate. The Turkish Navy has sent 1 frigate.

Then you have non-NATO participation. The South Korean Navy has sent 2 destroyers. The Pakistan Navy has sent 1 frigate. And the Peoples Liberation Army Navy (China) has sent 1 guided missile frigate.

There you go. The US has involved 13 major surface ships. The rest of NATO combined sent 12 major surface ships. And non-NATO nations have sent 4 major surface ships.

And this has been the same for every NATO intervention over the last 20 years. Kosovo, Bosnia, Libya, all of them. The US makes up by far the majority of all forces involved.

In Libya today, you see bits and pieces from the countries involved. Belgium has 6 F-16's. Bulgaria has 1 frigate. Denmark has 6 F-16s (4 in action, 2 in reserve) and 1 C-130 transport. Canada has sent 7 F-18 fighters (6 active, 1 reserve), 2 refuelers, and 2 transort aircraft.

Jordan has sent 6 F-16s. Qatar has sent 6 Mirafe 2000 and 2 cargo aircraft. Romania has sent a frigate. UAE has sent 6 F-16s and 6 Mirage 2000 fighters.

Now France and the UK have sent a lot of ships and aircraft there (France alone has flown 35% of the air missions). But the US, which is supposed to be taking a minimal involvement in this conflict, has an 11 ship force, including the USS Kearsarge (1,800+ Marines), 2 Guided Missile Destroyers, and aircraft ranging from the U-2 ot the B-2, AB-8B, F-15, F-16, and AC-130s.

Considering essentially this is a mission to help secure fuel supplies for Europe, I am dissapointed that the countries that have the biggest interest in this conflict are not taking a more prominant role.

 

Then why is it the Indian navy which has captured the most pirates? India holds about 120 Somali's in its jails for piracy. Pirates have even refused to release Indian hostages till they are released.

 

Interesting. Do you have a reference for that, including the number of pirates captured by nation?

The biggest reason I ask is that according to an article I found from March, India only had 61 pirates.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-03-14/india-captures-61-somali-pirates/2658050

So if this is true, that means that India has captured 59 pirates in 4 months, a truely impressive feat for anybody.

 

India has indeed captured more pirates. The Somali pirates have moved closer to the coast of India to get away from the other forces. This has resulted in more attacks closer to India and a quick response to attacks near the Indian coast by both long and short range Indian patrol vessels which then hunt down and capture the Somali pirate mother ships.

Unlike NATO and other forces India is unambiguous in its piracy policy and does not hesitate to shoot and kill suspected pirates and hold survivors for trial. India is building up its navy and intends to take on a big role as the guardian of peace and security of the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea.

The only nation with a more belligerent policy to pirates is Russia. Russia does not bother to take pirates prisoner.

 

How about a reference?

And if it is true that it is because pirates are now operating in essentially Indian waters, that is basically a no-brainer. If they were operating off the US coast we would capture more of them also.

 

whhatt?

why should the EU spend money on defense when american tax payers do it for them?

 

If all members of NATO had their def spending @ 2% GDP that would be really awesome. We cannot keep having nations with she string def budgets who expect the US to defend them for them. On the same note the US needs to reduce it's def budget to 2% GDP; it's unnecessary unnecessary unnecessary unnecessary unnecessary funds from domestic spending and diplomatic efforts that prevent the need for military resources.

 

I seem to recall U.S. snipers taking out several pirates a few years ago.

 

Yes, and we resent it. Our political class, however, views NATO as a convenient way to maintain a large degree of influence over Europe. As such, they continue pissing away our money on your defense, as heinous as it may be.

 

It has been over a week, and the poster has yet to give any references.

Although I admit, I am still waiting for them.

 

Why would a nation like Germany want to spend a lot on the military. They don't face any likely threat of invasion or attack from a nearby country (including Russia).

 

I think it's their business. I also think we should make a convincing promise that we won't go there again. My uncle died for France. What a waste.

No, let Europe do what Europe wants but make sure they understand what we will, and will not, do for them.

 

Is Europe even worth defending? The reason they don't spend money on defence is because they've become totally "dependent" on America for defence. This is why Euro's really hate America. Besides, I'm sure Saudi Arabia will defend Europe soon as the Muslim population continues to explode, no pun inteaded.

 

The current US Administration is planning to cut Defense by $800 billion over the next decade, so Europe isn't the only one making cuts.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/26/usa-defense-dempsey-idUSN1E76P0QW20110726

 

Why should we spend more money on our army ?
Germany has 185.000 soldiers and i think that is enough. The equipment is more important than the man power.

We don't need much soldiers in Afghanistan, ... it is more important that the soldiers make a good job and have a well equipment.

My uncle is a soldier and he goes to Afghanistan and to training-camps in America and he tells me so often, that the American equipment, for a normal soldier, is awful and there are so much "kiddis" who have fun when they kill people ... :/

But Germany sells most weapons after Russia and USA ... .

And think, Hitler had only 100.000 Soldiers at 1933 after some years he had the best army the world had ever seen

gr

 

I think the question is 'Nissi', do the German people think their defence forces are sufficient for the protection of their country?

Do you also think that us British are somewhat a warmongering nation, as we always seem to send miltary forces to most of the worlds conflicts?

 

I heard, from a U.S. officer, that the German forces in Afghanistan were heavily handicapped and not allowed to go out after the Taliban. Apparently their government is too scared of losing soldiers to let them do their job. They spend most of their time sitting in their bases. Several other European countries have had similar accusations leveled against them. The Italians were actually paying the local militants NOT to attack them.....which may have contributed to the deaths of 10 French soldiers when France relieved the Italians in that sector.

 

A German soldier is only allowed to shoot when he become attacked

But of course we leave our bases but we don't kill civil people or kids what the US soldiers do

 

I think the US should stop telling other countries what they should do and... we should cut our own defense spending.

 

Looks like your wrong.

http://reliefweb.int/node/331464

 

Apparently the US could be cutting its defence spending by $800 bil over the next ten years......if rumours are true.

It would be interesting to see if there was a scenario where the US was forced say by economic reasons for instance to cut its military significantly, whether other NATO countries would step upto the mark, and increase there defence spending.

 

Peace? Peace??

UK has been involved in war for years. With the US.

The UK should change policy, stop warring, retain the "defence" budget and close the "attack" budget.

As to the US, it is known for asking "what's in it for us" before stepping into any situation and so is likely to reaps some benefit from interventionist policy.

 

http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/german-soldiers-too-fat-and-drunk-fight

And of course, those that really know can tell you why that is. The German's do not do the fighting themselves, they just call in air strikes on others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_airstrike

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/feb2011/kund-f08.shtml