Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
x7
Britain does have four Vanguard subs with a big pile of nuclear missiles on them, but the rest of the Navy and the other services have all been gutted by austerity. Nobody seems inclined to spend much more on them because the Tories are obsessed with balanced budgets and Labour Doesn't Like Guns. Sure, we can turn them into glowing rubble if we have to, but we probably couldn't actually fight a straight-up war.
To be honest splashing out on a few more frigates and properly rearming would be better than repeated cuts for the economy, so I'm almost sad the Tories aren't more keen on The Troops this time around.
![]()
![]()
Yes. That is not the NATO budget. That is the defence spending of the states. That is not necessarily NATO related but how much they spend overall. As you can see, the US spends 3.58% in 2017, but that is NOT all NATO related. NATO has nothing to do with whatever the US still spends on the military personal which was active in Vietnam, or the Korean war or the gulf wars. It also has nothing to do with whatever the US is still spending in the Iraq or Syria or Libya or wherever else it decided to intervene for its own interest (and don't try to tell me attacking Iraq was for our protection, it decidedly wasn't). I guess you can count Afghanistan as NATO spending (kind of), but, well, that was on behalf of the US. Anyway, there is no way that the US spends 2% of its budget directly on behalf of the other NATO states. The majority of this is in the interest of the US and the US alone.
Btw, 2% of the GDP is a guideline. If for example Germany would actually spend 2% of its GDP, it would outspend Russia all on its own...nobody seriously wants that.
Edited by Swanpride on Jul 10th 2018 at 1:47:14 AM
Spending is not a measure of military readiness.
Germany has zero heavy lift aircraft that are currently airworthy for example.
That means unless the US ferries people around they can't move any materiel through the air.
Most of it's Tornado fleet is inoperable and a majority of it's Leopards are also without maintenance.
And that's not even getting into the fuck awful performance of the G36, their standard rifle.
Oh really when?
Which for context melts after 200 shots.
And then none of this even touches Naval capacity, where other then a few subs France is the only country with any....
And they have a total of THREE sea lift ships between all of them, which is just target practice for anti-ship missiles at that point.
Edited by Imca on Jul 10th 2018 at 1:54:54 AM
![]()
Don't forget that Germany currently has no operating submarines, and they just announced yesterday that both of their Rhon-class replenishment-at-sea vessels are out of commission, which not only affects them but NATO as a whole as those vessels have been supporting NATO sea operations around Africa.
Nope, Europe doesn’t have to spend that much because because it’s got the Arctic one way, the Atlantic another and the Mediterranean the third.
Europe doesn’t need anything else, we’re not the US with a mass of global commitments, as a collective our only concern is defence and some nation building in the Balkans.
What a load of crap. The United Kingdom (of which England is a part, you’re not helping your appearance of American nationalist ignorance by getting country names wrong) has the 5th largest navy in the world by tonnage, with the French having the 7th and the Italians the 9th.
Yes no single EU nation has the military strength of the US or Russia, but that’s not due to the US’s presence, it’s a choice based on a lack of need for such a large military. We don’t have strategic goals that require a large convention presence.
What bollocks, the UK and France are either side of China in nuclear weapons stockpile, does China suddenly NATO have a credible nuclear deterrent? Dear god, Pakistan and Israel had credible nuclear deterants and their arsenals are half that of the UK (which has a smaller arsenal than France).
You don’t need a US sized arsenal for a nuclear deterrent.
A nuclear umbrella covers whatever its owners want it to cover, a nuclear umbrella doesn’t need weapons to be pysicaly located in an area to cover it, alll it requires is a defence commitment to that area.
France’s nuclear umbrella covers the entirety of NATO and the EU.
That’s not an accident or a fault, that’s a deliberate strategic choice. Nothing other than MAD is needed.
Thouse calls have nothing to do with strategic defence and everything to do with the internal politics of having lead to governments that want to piss Russia off for fun and no strategic reason.
Yeah it’s almost like when moving internally within Europe there’s no serious need for airlift capability. That’s an expeditionary need, not a defensive need.
Germany is by design a largly land passed power militarily, Europe’s naval needs are handled by the UK (who despite having cut back massively is still one of the world’s strongest naval powers), France, Italy, Spain, Greece and the Netherlands. It’s a combined effort thing.
Edited by Silasw on Jul 10th 2018 at 9:01:11 AM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranYou do realize that those global commitments and strategic goals include Europe, right?
Two of NATO's most important missions are sea control and counter-piracy. It's not exaggerating to say that keeping ocean-going trade moving is of vital importance to the global economy, and the EU certainly couldn't do that on their own.
They should have sent a poet.I’ll take a source on that, none of our aircraft carriers have fixed wing aircraft to fly off them, but that’s an expeditionary need, not a defensive one. The main defensive tool of the Royal Navy is our submarines, and they’re some of the best in the world. The Royal Navy isn’t like the Argentinian Navy, it’s still functionable and still one of the best in the world.
You’re vastly overestimating what is required for a credible national defensive force, because you’re comparing to a global security force (US) a regional expeditionary force (China) and regional security force with small scale expeditionary capability (Russia) and an imperial security force (what the UK and France used to have).
Due to the decreasing size of conflicts the required military power to effectively deter against an invasion is much smaller than it used to be, occupations are long bloody and unpopular.
The Russian military has been deterred from annexing the entirety of Ukraine by the ramshackle mess that in the Ukrainian military, the idea that the combined military might of the EU is somehow less than that is absurd.
Sure but that’s a joint commitment to global stability in non-western areas that both Europe the US contribute towards, its not this absurd strawman of Europe cowering behind EUCOM that you guys have conjured up.
Edited by Silasw on Jul 10th 2018 at 9:13:17 AM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranAlso, I was going to edit it in but things moved, using "placment numbers" is a way to skew statistics here, so you have engaged in skew tactic added to skew tactic (placment number, and relying on tonage alone)
An accurate summation by sheer tonage, would be that all of NATO without the US has less tonnage then either China or Russia still, and if you subtract ships that are not in usable shape, they have less then HALF the tonage.
Because most of the worlds Naval tonnage is incredibly concentrated into the top 3, with a steep cliff following after that more then HALFS the tonnage compare between 3 and 4, with yet another 1/3rd reduction happening between 4 and 5
Its not a strawman, it is simple facts.
Unlike WWII, Europe is 100% unable to defend itself from Russia without American Aide, unless you just go the "nuke it until it glows" route.
We have the same problem with China TBH, and no nukes to at leas buff that up.
No, they have been detered by the political consequences, when the Polite Green Men show up they fucking dominate the Ukrainian army into the ground.... But politics prevents the russians from deploying in force, instead relying on a civil war backed up by commandos.
The Ukranians cant even scratch the actual russians.
Edited by Imca on Jul 10th 2018 at 2:20:23 AM
Did you follow the Ukrainian conflict in the early days? The Russians completely destroyed their military almost immediately.
In the span of a few months Ukraine lost all of it's aircraft, all of it's artillery, almost all of it's armored vehicles both light and heavy and all of it's strategic and breakthrough equipment. It was a complete slaughter.
The only reason Russia didn't take Kiev and all of Ukraine is because they didn't want to. That they so easily erased the Ukrainian military presence so quickly proves that.
Edited by LeGarcon on Jul 10th 2018 at 5:19:45 AM
Oh really when?![]()
![]()
A joint commitment to global stability...like a military alliance? Like NATO?
The EU certainly isn't cowering, but the idea that the US contributes nothing and they could handle everything on their own is incorrect. The militaries of Europe are unarguably in bad shape right now.
Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 10th 2018 at 2:18:00 AM
They should have sent a poet.You really don’t understand how war works do you?
Yes in a total war scenario involving current force the EU would loose to Russia if it deliberately avoided using its most powerful weapons.
But being unable to win a total war scenario with current numbers does not equal being unable to defend oneself. There’s more to war than throwing numbers and troops at each other, there’s a ton of politics involved that ties to who started such a war and which side is defending against the other.
That’s before one considers that a total war scenario woeful involve massive buildup and rearmament by both sides.
And there would be no political consequences to invading the entirety of Europe? Come of it. Part of how one defends oneself in international relations is by ensuring that anyone who attacks you will suffer political consequences beyond what they’re willing/able to suffer.
Political consequences aren’t some outside context factor, they’re part of how smart defensive national security strategy is made.
Except they didn’t want to because they were deterred and that deterant made them unable to. In raw tactical thinking sure they could take Kiev, but in strategic thinking they couldn’t, because they could never hold it and successfully occupy a country the size of Ukraine as a hostile invading force.
NATO is technicly only a commitment to North Atlantic stability, but I get your point, I don’t disagree that NATO has worth to Europe and that the US contribution is beneficial, what ima ruing against is the idea that the only thing stopping Putin rolling tanks into Paris and Berlin tomorrow morning is the US forces stationed in Europe.
Bad shape in what way? Sure they’re worse than they used to be, but they’re still a perfectly competent defensive force for Europe against Russia. They’re not a global peacekeeping force (which both the UK and France have been alone in the past) and alone no single Europe nation is a deterant against Russian military aggression in Europe, but that’s why they are tied together.
There’s an argument to be made that Europe can defend itself from Russian aggression purely with economic power, a full ecenomic blockade on Russia from the EU might well destroy the Russian economy and halt any military action before it can start.
Edited by Silasw on Jul 10th 2018 at 9:34:10 AM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranGermany's military is not operational. They have no ability to deploy any remotely significant amount of men or materiel even within it's own borders.
England has no operational Navy and it's ground forces are also in terrible shape.
Fucking France literally does not have the industrial capacity to arm it's own troops. It has to import it's rifles, the most basic piece of equipment, because the factories required for France to do it themselves do not exist.
Edited by LeGarcon on Jul 10th 2018 at 5:57:31 AM
Oh really when?![]()
![]()
![]()
Obviously the political consequences are stopping that more than any military could, but I see what you're getting at. The point I think people are making here is that the EU's conventional forces are no match for Russian conventional forces, and Russia's willingness to use its conventional forces seems to be increasing.
As far as the military issues Europe is experiencing, they are many and serious. Germany is barely able to surge units to participate in NATO missions, navies across Europe are in decline and overall readiness is at a historic low. The naval issues are particularly concerning, because the US Navy has actually had to increase its operational tempo to cover gaps formerly filled by European forces, and that increased operational tempo has been running US forces ragged. Like it or not, those countries are part of a global force, and they need to maintain at the very least a certain level of readiness.
The idea that NATO members need to fix up their militaries is far from controversial, it's pretty much a stopped clock moment for Trump. This has been an issue for quite a while now.
Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 10th 2018 at 2:56:50 AM
They should have sent a poet.Germany's army is currently deployed in Afghanistan, Mali and Syria….though it is only flying reconnaissance in Syria, not participating in the actual fight. So no, that Germany can't deploy its army is NOT correct. It is currently stretched thin because it wasn't designed to do more than, well, defend the country (you know, the thing NATO is supposed to ensure), and there are some equipment issues. But one should never confuse this with Germany being defenceless. It is NOT. There is food storage in case of war. Every single Autobahn can be turned into a runway in seconds to allow planes to take off and land. And while the draft was stopped a few years ago, there are still a high number of Germans trained to use military equipment.
Sure, Germany is not equipped to attack some country on the other side of the world, but defend itself (or its direct neighbours) in the case of an invasion? Yeah, it can do that. It might not win, but it can make the price of attack high enough that nobody in their right mind would try. If for no other reason than that all the EU countries have powerful allies, even if you discount the US. Can you imagine how many countries around the world would move to protect the single market which is responsible for a huge chunk of their respective economy? NEVER underestimate the influence of soft power.
And regarding France's ability to arm itself: One of biggest weapon exporter for firearms is Belgium which is located directly beside France. There is no need for France to produce their own weapons. Though Heckler and Koch not only has a seat in it's homeland Germany and the US, but also in France and the UK.
Edited by Swanpride on Jul 10th 2018 at 3:17:38 AM

Russia's economy is built on it's oil and weapon exports because those are state owned industries and keep it afloat because it's GDP is so low.
But spending *is not* an accurate measure of military might and readiness and quite bluntly at this point in time Europe and NATO does not have the capability to fight the Russians in a symmetrical conflict without the US.
Not without resorting to MAD.
Edited by LeGarcon on Jul 10th 2018 at 4:27:55 AM
Oh really when?