Europe needs to increase its defence spending

The german general who told the US airforce they should attack the truck lost his job afterwards

U can watch so much videos about US soldiers who attack innocent people.

Or Guantanamo is a another example for the American correctness !1^

gr

 

The UK alone spends more than Russia on Defence and that the Warsaw Pact is no longer in existence with most of it's members now part of the EU and NATO. Russia has also embraced capitalism and there are no communist countries left in Europe.

In terms of NATO, it was initially designed to defende western Europe from attack by communist eastern block and Russian forces and not as some sort of world policeman, with the current involvement in Libya seen as beyond the remit of NATO by many in Europe. If we were going to get involved in Civil Wars surely we should have started with the mass genocide in Rwanda rather than Libya, although I don't believe Rwanda has any oil.

As for US Forces in Europe they now number 37,000 soldiers and 26,000 USAF Personnel, coupled with a Naval Support for US Naval Ops in the Middle East, harly a vast force. Indeed a large proportion of these US forces in Europe support US Operations on a global scale and are not simply committed to defending Europe.

Finally

 

Gee, we have heard that kind of argument from Germany before.

And remember what happened at Nuremberg to those German Officers who gave the orders.

 

Could you expand the runaway train of your thought here? I think I follow the tortuous process, but it seems to jump the tracks halfway.

 

What for should we rise it?

The budget is going down since decades because our armies were there to hold back the Red Army until US reinforcements arrive. The West-German Army held an constant force of 1 million men in the 60ies, enough material and reservists to mobilize 3 million at once. Within several weeks there would have been 7 million men under weapons.

What for today? The support of such an army is extremely expansive.

 

What's pissing away your money are the countless military engagement. If you think it's cheaper for you to close your military bases in Germany and flying wounded soldiers from Iraq not to Ramstein, but directly to the US, then shut it down. I seriously doubt that these military bases are obsolete for you as for Germany they are militarily meaningless. For us, they are more an economic factor in the region. From which threat are you protecting us? You cannot spare us the terrorist threat, no matter what you ship over to here, even if you wanted to.

You simply need your military bases because the majority of Americans want to be able to intervene all over the world. Therefore you need your system.

 

I believe that Germany pays for the US military bases in Germany. Japan and Korea pay for the US bases in their countries.

 

Could I see some sources for that please.

 

http://www.stripes.com/news/japan-seeks-decrease-in-payments-to-support-u-s-bases-1.112317

The bases in Germany are done at no cost to either government. Neither Germany nor the US pays for their use. However, Germany does pay for all utilities and structures on them.

 

The issue here is not the cost, but the welfare of the soldier and others evacuated to Ramstein.

The way the medivac system works, is that those injured are kept in theatre until they are stable enough to be sent to Europe. They then stay at Ramstein for as long as it takes until they are stable enough to move on to the US for long term treatment.

Closing those bases will mean that either they will have to stay in theatre even longer (where less medical care is available), or move them on to the US when they are less stable, and to endure an even longer flight to get there.

Either one would result in more deaths.

 

Most countries in the world spend a similar amount to Europeans on Defence, indeed Canada spends 1.5% GDP, America which spends 4% of GDP is the exception not the rule.

America accounts for half all global military spending, whilst the EU accounts for a quarter of all military spending, meaning the US and EU between them account for 75% of all global military spending.

As for enemies, who exactly are they, the Russians who now spend less on Defence than the UK alone, and who now have a capitalist system and are steadily embracing democracy.

The Chinese who rely on trade with us and who only spend about 2.5% of GDP on Defence.

Terrorists??? - should we be spending vast amounts on Defence in case some more terrorists get on a plane at Boston Logan Airport with box cutters. Then again I seem to remember the poor security at US Domestic Airports being highlighted on the British Cook Report (Investigative TV Series) back in the 1990's, which featured Boston Logan.

Then there is the future role of NATO, which was designed initially to be a Defence Pact based very much on defending Europe and North America from the threat of Soviet and Warsaw Pact aggression rather than the world policeman it has become. Most Europeans are puzzled about why we went in to Iraq when there were no WMD's and 9/11 was committed by Saudi's not Iraq's. European are also preplexed as to what is the long term strategy in relation to Afghanistan and as to what we will have acheived, and many are equally mystified as to why we are currently becoming embroiled in civil wars in North Africa which have nothing to do with us.

In terms of America, it's also having to make massive Defence cuts which will hopefully help curb some of it's military ambitions and may even make the world a safer place.

 

As for current UK Defence Options, Britain has decided on a strategy of withdrawl from the European Central Front in Germany and subsequent cuts in cold war heavy armour and artillery.

The switch in strategy has been advocated for some time by many members with in the Royal United Service Institute (RUSI) and RUSI Professor Malcolm Chalmers has set out a very persuasive argument and agenda for change in order that we persue a more balanced maritime and air capability rather than a land centric force.

At the same time a review of our reserve forces has identified scope for renewed investment and a greater role within operations and national security. In response the UK Government is to invest a further £1.5 Billion in the reserve forces.

'A Question of Balance' - Professor Malcolm Chalmers (RUSI) - http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/FDR7.pdf

'Unbalancing the Force? Prospects for UK Defence after the SDSR' -Professor Malcolm Chalmers (RUSI) - http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/FDR9.pdf

Future Reserves 2020 - The Independent Commission to review the United Kingdom's Reserve Forces - http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/88_FutureReserves_2020_(1).pdf

RUSI - http://www.rusi.org/

RUSI Videos - http://www.youtube.com/user/RUSIONLINE?ob=5

 

The official defense expenditure numbers reported by China are widely believed to be underreported. It's my understanding that the CIA and various other intelligence agencies keep their own "tally" of Chinese defense spending which is anywhere from 40-70% greater than the PRC figures.

 

This may be so, but even at the top end of that scale it is still relatively little compared to the amounts spent on Defence by the US and indeed when compared to the EU as a whole.

I also find it amusing that Americans constantly have to find new reasons to sustain unbelievable high levels of defence spending.

As for fears of Chinese expansion in to Taiwan, they are more than aware that to do so would mean an international boycott of Chinese goods and sanctions against the country, resulting in economic catastrophe, and that in an age of ever more sophisticated weaponry and nuclear technology that mere numbers count for little.

To expect Europe to vastly increase defence spending due to some Chinese threat is hardly credible. Indeed most European nations were trading with the Chinese long before America was even a nation state.

Also have Americans ever stopped and wondered what other nations think of their Defence Spending and massive forces. It is not unreasonable for the Chinese to think that American forces in the Pacific region are a threat to their national security.

 

I don't believe I ever said otherwise; in fact, I quite agree. Both the wars and NATO are fruitless, bloodsucking enterprises.

 

There isn't a massive US force in Europe any more.

The US Army will soon have a mere 37,000 troops left in Europe, of which over 30,000 remain in Germany. The USAF has 26,000 personnel left in Europe including two bases in the UK, which allow the airforce increased time to scramble their aircraft before an attack than that afforded in Germany and mainland Europe.

There is also a massive NSA/NRA spy base in the UK at Menwith Hill, a Ballistic Missile Warning base at Fylingdales in North Yorkshire, which has given America warning of any possible nuclear attack since the 1950's. A very important intelligence base at Molesworth in Cambridgeshire and a major communication hub at Croughton in Northamptonshire. Indeed a large percentage of the meager US Forces left in Europe are intelligence, communication and logistics centres which allow America to project power and influence across the globe and are not primarily to defend Europe from a Russian threat that largely no longer exists.

In terms of Europe, I agree that we must work more closely in terms of Defence, although I disagree with some of the rhetoric coming from the US.

Europe does spend a great deal on Defence, in fact this amounts to over $300 Billion per annum or over 25% of Global Military Spending (the US accounts for 50%). The EU has over 1.5 million active service personel, as well as substantial reserve forces and there are over 80,000 European Service Personel serving overseas, a figure massively up on a decade ago.

In terms of working together more closely, the UK and France are leading the way but there are a number of ways we can work together in areas such as defence procurement, logistics, heavy lift aircraft and joint units. Some of these areas are discussed in this paper once again by the Defence think tank RUSI.

'European Defence Capabilities' - RUSI - http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/European_Defence_Capabilities.pdf

 

Thx for the information. What I wanted to say is, militarily the US needs these bases, not Germany. It's an economic bonus for some regions, so they are welcome, but these bases are relatively meaningless for the protection of Germany.

This is linked. Without the wars I would say these bases would be useless for the US. If you want to led wars in the Mid East e.g., these bases in Europe are quite useful.

With regard to the tone I oftentimes here from Americans in this forum, they are outraged that the French/German/... are not taking reponsibility of their own safety, so the US needs to keep these bases, the NATO and so on for the protection of Europe.

I think you need these bases for your ability to military engage all over the world with a short preparation period. You don't want the wars, but afaik the result of polls say that the majority of the US people want these wars when the chips are down.

 

Haha....a boycott of Chinese goods. I'm sorry but economic sanctions haven't ever proved to be that effective. People somehow think that raw force, or the threat of it, can be replaced by sanctions. It's not true at all. Look at Cuba, Iran, Lybia, Iraq, North Korea and various other countries that have survived or are surviving through economic sanctions.

China isn't invading Taiwan because they can't. With the Taiwanese military (heavily trained and supplied by the U.S.) and the U.S. Navy (part of that high U.S. defense spending) they simply don't have the ability to transport and protect a large enough invasion force to Taiwan.

What other countries think of our defense spending doesn't matter. The U.S. has mainted a very powerful presence in the South China Sea for decades....back when China was a backward third world country. The issue now is that China has claimed territory belonging to Vietnam and other countries in the region. I think China's recent increase in Naval funding can be attributed to them wanting to establish their new "claims" versus weaker naval powers. They know very well that they stand little to no chance against the USN. If they can establish a half way decent blue water Navy though they can bully other nations into accepting their claims.......perhapes hoping the U.S. wouldn't risk a potential war.

Much of the U.S. military budget is tied up in force projection (Naval/Airpower/Marines). European countries belonging to NATO/UN know that for the most part their interests coincide with those of the U.S. Norway doesn't need to do anything if something happens in the South China sea because they know that traditional NATO powers will take care of it. NATO and Europe and the UN get almost all of their power projection capabilties throughthe U.S. Look at virtually every large operation carried out by these organizations and you'll find that the U.S. has provided the lionshare of support. If the U.S. military disappeared overnight Europe and other Western countries would have very little influence in regions of the world far away from them. Some people don't want to be able to influence the rest of the world. Anyone with an understanding of global politics realizes the importance of power projection though.

 

If China is reporting their defense spending as 2.5% GDP, and it is being under-reported by 70%, that is not a small thing. That actually brings it up to 4.25% GDP.

And if it is the lower figure, that comes out to 3.5% GDP.

And if it is right in the middle, that is 55%, which comes out to 3.875% GDP.

 

Your posts are very interesting. Pax America is unraveling before our eyes. America is in the throes of change that seem like a raging river. Basic cost/benefit analysis leaves America no choice but to retreat. The dynamics of the American economy have changed.

 

"Only the dead have seen the end of war."

 

I don't recall saying it was the end of war, so taking quotes out of context and adding quotes from Plato amounts to little in the way of response.

 

The Americans spend vast amounts on Defence and have forces stationed throughout the world. Even if the Chinese spent 4.25% of GDP they are still a long way from American and EU overall budgets.

The Chinese are largely concerned with what goes on within their country, and recent increases in Chinese Defence spending have encompassed better welfare and housing for soldiers as well as a modernisation programme.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/04/chinese-defence-spending-rise

In terms of the Chinese, the Americans are already doing what they do best making enemies and the chinese recently criticised large American military exercises in their region and also the massive US levels of Defence spending.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/178...ullen-chen-south-china-sea-budget-defense.htm

If any nation spends too much on Defence it's America and not the Chinese.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...w-Alexander-poses-extraordinary-question.html

 

I can't help but agree with some of Alexanders sentiments with regard to Post War US Foreign Policy.

 

I don't think the Chinese were ever a backward third world nation, they have traditionaly been one of the most advanced and important civilisations.

The Chinese (Peoples Republic of China) produce vast quantities of goods for export and are embracing capitalist philosophy, and any trade sanctions would far outweigh any potential gains in relation to the occupation of Taiwan (Republic of China).

The Chinese are embracing a far more open philosophy based on trade and this is something that should be encouraged and embraced, lest we want another cold war with the world once again on the brink of nuclear destruction.

As for your philosophy of Chinese communist military creep, I think it belongs back in the 1950's and 60's, when America became embroilled in Vietnam in order to stop the spread of communism in South East Asia and when the US doctrine was backed up with the bombing (and napalming) of Cambodia and Vietnam. What resulted was as Andrew Alexander points out, a the spectacle of people being killed so they can be ‘saved’ which would have been laughable if it were not so tragic.

In terms of China they are a very different proposition in terms of war than the Vietnamese, they are a nuclear power and have over 1.4 Billion population and have built a close military ties with India and Russia
(Shanghai Cooperation Organisation). I honestly don't even think America is stupid enough to provoke the Chinese based on some half baked redneck philosophy relating to the spread of global communism in Asia.

SCO - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation