-
Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
The new US governments demands that the other members of the NATO raise their military expenses to 2 per cent of their GDP. And those already agreed. This means, that the richer countries will increase their armed forces drastically. For example, Germany currently pays about 1.2 per cent of the GDP. So Germany would have to increase the budget by 66 per cent.
Is this really a desirable goal?
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Speaking as a European, whenever Germany raises military budget, things get ugly.
Put me down for a no.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarmatian
Speaking as a European, whenever Germany raises military budget, things get ugly.
Put me down for a no.
An endless source of mirth.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Combined military spending of NATO members is in the neighbourhood of 892 Bn $. Global military spending is about 1.2 trillion $. So NATO combined is spending more then twice the rest of the non NATO world is spending together. Just for the reference.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kagemusha
Combined military spending of NATO members is in the neighbourhood of 892 Bn $. Global military spending is about 1.2 trillion $. So NATO combined is spending more then twice the rest of the non NATO world is spending together. Just for the reference.
These are interesting numbers. Although you can hardly compare the cost of 500,000 soldiers in Europe with those in China.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...y_expenditures
Of course personnel are cheaper in China similarly to for example manufactoring personnel in China compared to West. Also conscription is source for cheap military personnel, but military hardware for example have comparable prizes, because of global market. Quality is another factor. Nevertheles
whether if Western military spending is efficient is a question that should be thoroughly examined.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Franconicus
The new US governments demands that the other members of the NATO raise their military expenses to 2 per cent of their GDP. And those already agreed. This means, that the richer countries will increase their armed forces drastically. For example, Germany currently pays about 1.2 per cent of the GDP. So Germany would have to increase the budget by 66 per cent.
Is this really a desirable goal?
I would be happy to see them do so, and for at least one other NATO partner to take up more of the strategic logistics load.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Seamus Fermanagh
I would be happy to see them do so, and for at least one other NATO partner to take up more of the strategic logistics load.
Could you define "strategic logistic load"?
Although I see that the NATO has to react to the Russian policy I wonder what shall be done with all that money. NATO is (or should be) still a defensive pact, so what enemy is there that we cannot handle with.
Raising the expenses for guns would lead to new arm races, but what would be the benefit of having more soldiers. I even do not understand why the US increases their expenses.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Seamus Fermanagh
I would be happy to see them do so, and for at least one other NATO partner to take up more of the strategic logistics load.
I would take you to mean the capacity for significant and sustained force projection.
The U.S.A. is perhaps not the only NATO power with this interest, but with European defence in mind, it has the longest and likely most complex chain to manage.
I would assume the rest simply think they will cobble together whatever is needed (if it is ever needed).
If we view NATO's mission as world police, not European defence, then this becomes more important; who, besides the US takes this view?
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Montmorency
An endless source of mirth.
I feel like we should be the drunken angry uncle in this scenario, not the oldest kid storming out of the house.
In answer to your question -
Yes, increase your military spending by 66%, it will cause us to increase our military spending by 33%.
Nothing makes the Royal Navy grow like the growth of the German army.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
I feel like we should be the drunken angry uncle in this scenario
My interpretation is 'German + French = English'.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Montmorency
My interpretation is 'German + French = English'.
But that's not England, it's the UK.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Yes, increase your military spending by 66%, it will cause us to increase our military spending by 33%.
Nothing makes the Royal Navy grow like the growth of the German army.
Now if France would just ally Russia and Austria would send a high profile politician for assassination, we're halfway there.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Being part of the first generation of French NOT having to pack to fight the invading Germans (or assimilate) for 150 years (around) I quite happy the Germany NOT to invest in weapons and military thank you...:sweatdrop:
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Germany is like, "please, can't you see that I'm trying to quit?"
And the US is like, "c'mon, I don't want to finish the rest of this bottle myself!"
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
If Germany spent 2% of its GDP, it would have the biggest military budget in Europe, including Russia.
Not only do I want us to spend that much, I also want us to spend it efficiently and make good use of it by finally uniting the European Reich, including islands. Make the Reich Great Again! #MRGA
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
If Germany spent 2% of its GDP, it would have the biggest military budget in Europe, including Russia.
Not only do I want us to spend that much, I also want us to spend it efficiently and make good use of it by finally uniting the European Reich, including islands. Make the Reich Great Again! #MRGA
What is dead cannot die.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
So I'm the only person who actually thinks the Germans are good people who can be trusted to have a sensible military budget?
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
yes.
collective defence means that all parties commit to coming to the aid of a threatened party.
that requires:
1. a level of physical commitment (military hardware/manpower capability)
2. a level of moral commitment (an electorate that understands it may be required to accept elective warfare)
the military hardware/manpower capability is best summed up by the 2.0% of GDP total spend, and the 25% of total spend on investment.
uniformed pension services are not helpful, nor too is an electorate that is shy.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
We shouldn't lose sight of one of the greatest physical commitments European NATO members can offer, namely their territory itself. And Germany is a lot of territory.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
I'm personally against raising military budgets, full stop, the end.
Germany still have the problems it had before - on one side there's Russia, on the other England and France. Power projection possibilities are severely limited. Add to that that they don't have overseas interest you come to a conclusion that a large military is only a financial burden for Germany that's gonna get used to protect American and British (perhaps even French) interests somewhere very far away.
It would be foolish to assume that US administration doesn't know this, and this is probably an attempt by Trump to force some concessions or simply bank favours for later use.
It might backfire though. US bears the brunt of NATO cost but US also calls all the shots and generally uses NATO as an instrument of its foreign policy. If members states are forced to pay their fair share, they might also demand their fair share of influence. Likewise, a lot of people see NATO as something past its expiration date. Extra financial burden will only add to that.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Montmorency
We shouldn't lose sight of one of the greatest physical commitments European NATO members can offer, namely their territory itself. And Germany is a lot of territory.
Territory it cannot defend itself, but which contains a lot of European Industrial capacity, including the plants that manufacture Leopard tanks.
Currently Europe is, defensively, rather like an egg with a very hard shell, where Germany is the rich gooey yolk. What it should be is a block of granite - solid all the way through.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
If Germany spent 2% of its GDP, it would have the biggest military budget in Europe, including Russia.
Not only do I want us to spend that much, I also want us to spend it efficiently and make good use of it by finally uniting the European Reich, including islands. Make the Reich Great Again! #MRGA
Can we please help? We have some old issues with the vikings to the west....
https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/70672502.jpg
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Territory it cannot defend itself, but which contains a lot of European Industrial capacity, including the plants that manufacture Leopard tanks.
Currently Europe is, defensively, rather like an egg with a very hard shell, where Germany is the rich gooey yolk. What it should be is a block of granite - solid all the way through.
What would Germany itself and not merely the United States (for whom it would only be a minor bonus) see as the benefit or necessity? What can't Germany achieve without a larger army, and what would it have to give up to get it?
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HopAlongBunny
I would take you to mean the capacity for significant and sustained force projection.
The U.S.A. is perhaps not the only NATO power with this interest, but with European defence in mind, it has the longest and likely most complex chain to manage.
I would assume the rest simply think they will cobble together whatever is needed (if it is ever needed).
If we view NATO's mission as world police, not European defence, then this becomes more important; who, besides the US takes this view?
Not quite as "world police," hopper.
But, the scope of NATO's original mission has changed, though the mission remains.
When NATO was founded, and up through the early 1980s, ALL of the logistics for the primary NATO mission involved getting US, UK and other NATO forces in place near the Rhine so as to counterattack, stop, and then roll back Soviet forces who'd been bled by US and mostly German troopers on their way to and through the Fulda gap. The only strategic logistic/mobility component of that was the cross-Atlantic element and the USN and RN had that pretty well covered.
With the draw down following 1989-1991, NATO cashed in on the absence of a USSR by reducing military expenditures, especially on those components that serve force projection (a function that has become almost a USA only affair at present).
With a somewhat resurgent Russia now serving again as a strategic opponent (though admittedly less combative and aggressive than the Soviets by far), and with the growth in NATO membership to include former Warsaw Pact states, the "line of defense" for the basic NATO mission is further East by a goodly bit. Moreover, while the Cold War featured little likelihood of the Russians pushing through Turkey or into the Southern Balkans, the chaotic nature of the Middle East at present, and of the Middle East/Central Asian region in general, makes some form of threat to Turkey and/or Greece more likely than before, not less. Again, the need to support deployments in service of NATO's primary mission at a greater distance than envisaged in 1960 is increased.
Enhancing NATO's ability for such a force projection would make sense. Cobbling Heavy airlift and sealift together is NOT all that easy. I suspect the Germans have the tech and the resources base to ramp up this skill set faster than the other NATO members, as well as the economy best able to absorb that expense.
This all references the NATO primary mission. If we view NATO as having a role in North Africa or the Levant as a form of "extended defense" zone for protecting its membership, than force projection becomes even more important. Moreover, the ability to project force should enhance whatever deterrent value is to be had.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Seamus Fermanagh
Not quite as "world police," hopper.
But, the scope of NATO's original mission has changed, though the mission remains.
When NATO was founded, and up through the early 1980s, ALL of the logistics for the primary NATO mission involved getting US, UK and other NATO forces in place near the Rhine so as to counterattack, stop, and then roll back Soviet forces who'd been bled by US and mostly German troopers on their way to and through the Fulda gap. The only strategic logistic/mobility component of that was the cross-Atlantic element and the USN and RN had that pretty well covered.
With the draw down following 1989-1991, NATO cashed in on the absence of a USSR by reducing military expenditures, especially on those components that serve force projection (a function that has become almost a USA only affair at present).
With a somewhat resurgent Russia now serving again as a strategic opponent (though admittedly less combative and aggressive than the Soviets by far), and with the growth in NATO membership to include former Warsaw Pact states, the "line of defense" for the basic NATO mission is further East by a goodly bit. Moreover, while the Cold War featured little likelihood of the Russians pushing through Turkey or into the Southern Balkans, the chaotic nature of the Middle East at present, and of the Middle East/Central Asian region in general, makes some form of threat to Turkey and/or Greece more likely than before, not less. Again, the need to support deployments in service of NATO's primary mission at a greater distance than envisaged in 1960 is increased.
Enhancing NATO's ability for such a force projection would make sense. Cobbling Heavy airlift and sealift together is NOT all that easy. I suspect the Germans have the tech and the resources base to ramp up this skill set faster than the other NATO members, as well as the economy best able to absorb that expense.
This all references the NATO primary mission. If we view NATO as having a role in North Africa or the Levant as a form of "extended defense" zone for protecting its membership, than force projection becomes even more important. Moreover, the ability to project force should enhance whatever deterrent value is to be had.
0,8% of GDP increase to German defense budget would mean 32 Bn $. About two times the defense budget of Israel, or three times Poland´s defense budget.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Montmorency
What would Germany itself and not merely the United States (for whom it would only be a minor bonus) see as the benefit or necessity? What can't Germany achieve without a larger army, and what would it have to give up to get it?
Clearly, there is no benefit to Germany.
That's the problem.
Nonetheless one can argue that Germany is benefiting economically from having its defence subsidised by the US, the UK and its poorer eastern neighbours. This would only be a political issue if the economies of the other countries were doing as well as Germany, but they aren't. The problem is compounded by the fact that Germany holds economic sway over the EU by dint of its powerful economy, which is unburdened by the sort of military-industrial-complex a country of its size actually needs to defend itself.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
But at once, there is no real lever since Germany's sheer presence is of such significance to NATO. Unless the US or some European coalition sees its goal as both reducing German political/economic clout while increasing German capacity for military projection in (most likely) US interests - and it's definitely a challenge to imagine how these could be arranged mutually...
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
There is also the internal factor of Germans often not wanting a huge military, much less an enormous military-industrial complex. And then there are those who would want that of course, but according to this article only 32% of Germans support higher military spending:
http://de.reuters.com/article/deutsc...-idDEKBN1441VR
These crazies seriously seem to think that war is not a satisfying answer to conflict and pinko-crazy things like that. They probably weren't beaten enough by their parents to appreciate the pleasure of violence. Weaklings and losers. :no:
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
I mean we make the decisions and we have hundreds of forward projecting bases of forigen soil. It's not exactly a bad deal. Besides the continent is long gone. The settler colonies+the U.K. Are the real power bloc
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Strike For The South
I mean we make the decisions and we have hundreds of forward projecting bases of forigen soil. It's not exactly a bad deal. Besides the continent is long gone. The settler colonies+the U.K. Are the real power bloc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cr-YT0BdIi8
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
There is also the internal factor of Germans often not wanting a huge military, much less an enormous military-industrial complex. And then there are those who would want that of course, but according to this article only 32% of Germans support higher military spending:
http://de.reuters.com/article/deutsc...-idDEKBN1441VR
These crazies seriously seem to think that war is not a satisfying answer to conflict and pinko-crazy things like that. They probably weren't beaten enough by their parents to appreciate the pleasure of violence. Weaklings and losers. :no:
I'd be happy with the .8% going to fund additional Polish troops or UK Royal Marines. Germany need not expand their own military to meet the NATO mandate.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Seamus Fermanagh
I'd be happy with the .8% going to fund additional Polish troops or UK Royal Marines. Germany need not expand their own military to meet the NATO mandate.
This "NATO Mandate" thing is interesting and I always believed it. However, recently the German press and politicians wrote and said more about it and apparently there is no such mandate. I think it was Sigmar Gabriel who said there is no hhard spending requirement in any of the NATO contracts and in some article I read that there was only a conference in 2014 where the members loosely agreed to work towards a 2% goal by 2024 or thereabout. But even that was not binding. So what's this mandate all about?
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
This "NATO Mandate" thing is interesting and I always believed it. However, recently the German press and politicians wrote and said more about it and apparently there is no such mandate. I think it was Sigmar Gabriel who said there is no hhard spending requirement in any of the NATO contracts and in some article I read that there was only a conference in 2014 where the members loosely agreed to work towards a 2% goal by 2024 or thereabout. But even that was not binding. So what's this mandate all about?
There probably weren't firm guarantees that allied troops would fight to the death to protect West Germany either in the event of a Soviet invasion, only a promise to commit troops. So legally NATO could have skirmished for a token period before withdrawing back to France and nuking Germany to stop the Soviet advance. Would this have been against the spirit of the alliance? Aye, but do the legal details of the NATO contract demand anything more?
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
There probably weren't firm guarantees that allied troops would fight to the death to protect West Germany either in the event of a Soviet invasion, only a promise to commit troops. So legally NATO could have skirmished for a token period before withdrawing back to France and nuking Germany to stop the Soviet advance. Would this have been against the spirit of the alliance? Aye, but do the legal details of the NATO contract demand anything more?
So you're saying there is not NATO manadate to spend 2% but a NATO spirit to spend 2%?
In that case the alliance seems to have lost its spirit: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graph...daily-chart-11
Someone should thank Putin for making at least Poland and Estonia spend the spiritual 2%.
As for nuking Germany, I thought that was the Plan B all along? Wasn't there some old cold war joke about how the Bundeswehr was just there to delay the Soviets until the army arrives? (might work better in German, the insinuation being that the Bundeswehr is not a real army but the US Army is)
I think at least the use of tactical nuclear warheads on German territory was considered to destroy larger formations if conventional forces could not stop them.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
I think at least the use of tactical nuclear warheads on German territory was considered to destroy larger formations if conventional forces could not stop them.
I think that the use of tactical nukes was a given; I'm pretty sure the USSR possessed them, although I can't remember if doctrine was explicit about their use.
The allies (U.S.) went so far as to develop the Neutron bomb; maximal radiation burst, minimal blast, with the added benefit that the radiation would dissipate faster than a regular nuclear device:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
...As for nuking Germany, I thought that was the Plan B all along? Wasn't there some old cold war joke about how the Bundeswehr was just there to delay the Soviets until the army arrives? (might work better in German, the insinuation being that the Bundeswehr is not a real army but the US Army is)
I think at least the use of tactical nuclear warheads on German territory was considered to destroy larger formations if conventional forces could not stop them.
Yes, tactical nukes were always considered. They were generally though unlikely to be used because of a possible (probable?) strategic response by the Soviets.
And yes, that joke may have obtained in the early years following the war, when the USA was really the only one with an atomic capability and Germany had barely begun to re-arm.
Those yanks I knew who were in the military and practiced with the Bundeswehr in the 80s and 90s respected your troops a lot -- some of them even wondering if there was a panzertruppen gene somewhere in the German genome.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
A shooting match between the Americans and the Russians would start by a torched contiental Europe. As the Cold War ended we have moved that torched are from Germany/the Low Countries to the baltics/Poland. Slavs always getting the short of end it.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Strike For The South
A shooting match between the Americans and the Russians would start by a torched contiental Europe. As the Cold War ended we have moved that torched are from Germany/the Low Countries to the baltics/Poland. Slavs always getting the short of end it.
And it would end with most of the northern hemisphere torched. I wouldn't feel discriminated against in that situation. Come to think of it, I probably wouldn't feel anything at that point.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
So I'm the only person who actually thinks the Germans are good people who can be trusted to have a sensible military budget?
You're not alone, I'd like them to increase their budget as well. If not on 'offensive weapons' such as tanks and fighter jets then at least on airlift and naval forces and the infrastructure to support it. They could use that for humanitarian aid etc... when disasters occur if nothing else.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
So.... we think that Germans can't be trusted, but are fine with China / Russia and the USA having masses of troops?
Humanitarian aid is all well and good, but given Russia has taken the Ukraine, has troops in Syria and Lybia, it might be nice if we could do more in NATO than give out tents and rations to the needy. No, not fight Kirsk again.
In that case, I'd like the 0.8% GDP to go towards Special Forces / SIGINT / HUMINT.
~:smoking:
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rory_20_uk
So.... we think that Germans can't be trusted, but are fine with China / Russia and the USA having masses of troops?
Humanitarian aid is all well and good, but given Russia has taken the Ukraine, has troops in Syria and Lybia, it might be nice if we could do more in NATO than give out tents and rations to the needy. No, not fight Kirsk again.
In that case, I'd like the 0.8% GDP to go towards Special Forces / SIGINT / HUMINT.
~:smoking:
You could do more in NATO to prevent Russia from taking Ukraine and sending troops to Lybia.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gilrandir
You could do more in NATO to prevent Russia from taking Ukraine and sending troops to Lybia.
NATO is purely defensive unless the foe is definitely very weak. And Russia is not weak.
Send troops into Lybia to do what? Unless it is propping up a dictator not dissimilar to the last one we got killed there's not much to do.
~:smoking:
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rory_20_uk
So.... we think that Germans can't be trusted, but are fine with China / Russia and the USA having masses of troops?
Humanitarian aid is all well and good, but given Russia has taken the Ukraine, has troops in Syria and Lybia, it might be nice if we could do more in NATO than give out tents and rations to the needy. No, not fight Kirsk again.
In that case, I'd like the 0.8% GDP to go towards Special Forces / SIGINT / HUMINT.
~:smoking:
I'm sorry but this reminds me of the time you suggested we scrap out air force for more AA batteries.
NATO has plenty of SIGINT between the US and the UK and Germany hardly slacking there, either. HUMINT requires human resources, which currently means Arab/Pakistani/Turkish operatives - which means recruits. Not a lot of those, and no amount of money can change that.
As to Special Forces - you need large regular forces from which to draw your Special Forces. Investing money in Special Forces is of limited use because what primarily makes them "special" if the human factor you can't buy.
What's more, NATO doesn't really need these things.
What it needs are primarily tanks, escort ships, fighter jets, and above all MEN. Preferably big, angry Teutonic men with sore heads from Oktoberfest.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
I'm sorry but this reminds me of the time you suggested we scrap out air force for more AA batteries.
NATO has plenty of SIGINT between the US and the UK and Germany hardly slacking there, either. HUMINT requires human resources, which currently means Arab/Pakistani/Turkish operatives - which means recruits. Not a lot of those, and no amount of money can change that.
As to Special Forces - you need large regular forces from which to draw your Special Forces. Investing money in Special Forces is of limited use because what primarily makes them "special" if the human factor you can't buy.
What's more, NATO doesn't really need these things.
What it needs are primarily tanks, escort ships, fighter jets, and above all MEN. Preferably big, angry Teutonic men with sore heads from Oktoberfest.
Oh, that's you twisting the utility of having more AA vs having about 20 planes that in the event of a war we could replace in the next decade.
Special forces receive different weapons and training and are trained to think and fight differently. I know "we have always done things this way" is how we get them from the main forces, but there is no reason why this has to be the case. And they have the ability to operate autonomously and have an effect way beyond their number working in concert with mainstream forces. Yes, locals helping would be also massively useful but that takes a lot of time.
I never said NATO is lacking SIGINT. But I imagine you can always have more and better. The little Green Men in the Crimea weren't spotted. Of course money helps recruit! To say otherwise is nonsensical.
Primary MBTs to... do what exactly? Look all big and tough? Fighter jets - yes that would be good to have. Small ships - yes, more the merrier. Men? Yes, probably the armies in Europe are too small, but unless we have a massive desire to hold enemy terrotory they are less of a pressing issue than they once were. Retaining high quality specialists is more important.
~:smoking:
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rory_20_uk
Oh, that's you twisting the utility of having more AA vs having about 20 planes that in the event of a war we could replace in the next decade.
No, that's my appreciation that the best way to kill a fighter jet is with another fighter jet. Static AA defences are sitting ducks and mobile tracked versions are only moderately better, their inability to protect against aircraft and air-craft launched weapons on their own has been repeatedly demonstrated since WWII. AA defences aren't useless, by any means, but they're there to stop whatever the fighters let though, not be the main line of defence. This is why NATO and Russia are able to conduct aerial bombing campaigns with relative impunity once they have eliminated the enemy Air Force.
Quote:
Special forces receive different weapons and training and are trained to think and fight differently.
In terms of weapons, not really, in terms of training and tactics - to an extent that they build on the soldier's existing training, yes. However, the SAS are a bunch of pad bastards who drive around in trucks with machine guns on the roof and fight in four-man fire teams. The Regular army are a bunch of mad bastards who trive around in heavier trucks and fight in 6-8 man sections.
Existing training.
Quote:
I know "we have always done things this way" is how we get them from the main forces, but there is no reason why this has to be the case.
Yes there is, special forces recruit from the regular forces so that no one in the unit is wholly green or untested. Special forces want experienced people with broad skill-sets, you get that by recruiting from regular forces.
Again, with the SAS they want guys who have already been on operations, preferably in combat, and want MORE of that. One might say you're looking for psychological out-liers here. Recruiting from the general population instead isn't really going to work - you can get really good soldiers like that (marines and paratroopers) but they aren't "Special Forces" because they haven't been specially selected from your general pool.
Quote:
And they have the ability to operate autonomously and have an effect way beyond their number working in concert with mainstream forces. Yes, locals helping would be also massively useful but that takes a lot of time.
This last part is debatable in a real "shooting war". Special forces that hit strategic targets produce disproportionate value but those sorts of operations are relatively uncommon. There are only so many generals you can kill or dams you can blow. You seem to be thinking of fermenting an insurgency here, and Special Forces can be helpful with that, but that's a VERY specialised high-stress mission that needs a lot of experience, so we're back to drawing from regular forces.
Quote:
I never said NATO is lacking SIGINT. But I imagine you can always have more and better. The little Green Men in the Crimea weren't spotted. Of course money helps recruit! To say otherwise is nonsensical.
You can have more, yes. Do you need more when you need other things more urgently? The little green men walked out of their bases in Crimea and onto the streets, we spotted them, and we saw the trucks moving. We just couldn't do anything about it short of air-dropping NATO troops.
Money is a risky proposition in the Intelligence business, the last thing you want is agents motivated by money - so it's of limited value in recruiting. Indeed, spys are famously underpaid.
Quote:
Primary MBTs to... do what exactly? Look all big and tough? Fighter jets - yes that would be good to have. Small ships - yes, more the merrier. Men? Yes, probably the armies in Europe are too small, but unless we have a massive desire to hold enemy terrotory they are less of a pressing issue than they once were. Retaining high quality specialists is more important.
~:smoking:
Yes, look big and tough. That's the primary function of armed forces, to look tough. We look weak, which is why Russia is flexing, China also.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Retaining high quality specialists is important. Long service enlisted have traditionally been the backbone of successful militaries. And some skill sets are valuable on "civvy street" and it requires effort/compensation to keep persons with those skills in the military.
Fixed AA
AA defenses are a vital component, as long as they represent a significant threat if unsuppressed. A tech-savvy opponent can and will suppress most such as part of an effort to strike successfully from the air. Yet every multiple-millions-in-cost fighter/bomber that has to be tasked to suppress or destroy a targeting radar or missile site (and you can generally get a SAM battery with targeting radar for less than the cost of the fighter) is one fewer aircraft that can actually be used against the desired target. Even the use of stealth to spoof such systems and go for the target anyway still represents a significant expenditure to overcome the static defense (though admittedly with stealth tech, the cost may have been largely paid in advance).
Following the old Sov' mantra that the best defense against a tank was another (preferably more effective) tank, the best choice for air defense are active air forces that can interdict and destroy the opposition. This is NOT cheaply done however, so the fixed assets more than pay for themselves in altering the calculus of an airstrike.
Special Forces
This has become the "catch-all" term for two very different military functions: commando-style units (SAS, SEALS) and units serving as trainers/cadre for foreign troops (green beret).
The former are highly trained and very expensive light infantry. They add a value by using a quasi-guerilla approach in all conflicts. High value raids, covert recon, and other short-term high intensity missions are their specialty.
The latter are also highly trained, but a key element of their function is to serve as training/command cadre for a force of "locals" and as such they handle training, medical care, 'heart-and-minds' efforts and the like in order to ramp up the capability of the indigenous force so favored.
If these forces -- which almost always 'cream off' the highest caliber of service person -- grow too large then they hurt the larger military from which they are drawn by removing too many of the 'best and brightest' from leadership roles in normal units, watering down the effectiveness of the larger force.
Recruited sparingly they can, of course, generate a lot of value for the cost expended.
It should be noted that these same functions -- raiding and cadre -- have been handed to "line" units and these line units have often performed them quite effectively (US Marine Constabulary in Haiti).
Intelligence
SIGINT is hugely useful, but only if you can tap into the signal. Not all signals are broadcast.
HUMINT is much more expensive, and less likely to generate useful intelligence for the expenses borne. It can, at its best, get access to key information that is not broadcast.
Overall size of regular forces
Both size and quality are components of the deterrence value of a military. No matter how skilled, a superbly trained and equipped company of commandos cannot be in two or three places at once. If regular forces are too few or their capabilities too anemic, then an opponent can attack, knowing it will lose any engagement where confronted by the hyper-elite opposition, but knowing it can win the war despite losing all of those little battles since the overall coverage is too thin.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Seamus Fermanagh
Overall size of regular forces
Both size and quality are components of the deterrence value of a military. No matter how skilled, a superbly trained and equipped company of commandos cannot be in two or three places at once. If regular forces are too few or their capabilities too anemic, then an opponent can attack, knowing it will lose any engagement where confronted by the hyper-elite opposition, but knowing it can win the war despite losing all of those little battles since the overall coverage is too thin.
That's why it would be nice if Germany did actually maintain conventional forces of an amount relative to its size economically and politically. I know all too well that people love to think that special forces and airpower are the future solution, we've been tricking ourselves into that cycle of thinking over and over again since the end of the second war.
To win wars one needs large conventional forces as well as the supporting specialists. As for elite forces they are by and large are there to support conventional forces though they are able to achieve limited goals independently.
Given Germany's understandable guilt over its past and strong trend of pacifism is why I'd push for naval and air lift capabilities. They have the money and industrial base that could support those capabilities which no one in NATO other than the US has in large measure. Even the much hailed independent operations of France in Mali and to some degree Libya required a large amount of US airlift capability and aerial refueling.
If Germany had more capabilities they could contribute hugely to the huge number of EU, UN, and NATO missions that are supported by NATO members without the guilt of sending too many shooters than their mental block can deal with at the moment.
It'd be better for NATO if Germany instead raised several more armored and mechanized divisions which are something the Russians understand, respect and fear but knowing that that will not happen more achievable goals should be sought.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Considering more airlift capacity have been suggested. Luftwaffe have ordered 53 Airbus A400M military transports. Once they are delivered the Luftwaffe will have comparable airlift capacity compared to RAF with their 50 military transports.
It would seem the Special forces component of Bundeswehr is quite adequate. If one looks at the force projection capabilities and Germany accepts to spend more. Maybe they could have a Amphibious assault ship akin to French Mistral Class or US America class, with accompanying air component. They already have a Marine component in their Navy, so with such ship they could project force faster over water, while i dont see any sense for Germany to build a blue water Carrier, while such could fit easily the proposed 0,8% increase in their defense budget.
Personally though im still of opinion that the problem in Europe/NATO is not the amount of spending, but the efficiency.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Airlift capacity assumes an offensive role though, so are amphibious landing ships.
More APC's and more tanks forward-based in the Baltic are defensive, not offensive.
This is not really about a German "mental block" it's about Germany not wanting to spend money when they can farm their defence out to the poorer Baltic States, the US and the UK. Them not having a large military allows them to flex their economic muscle and have better living standards/more competitive businesses than otherwise.
If Germany spent a sensible amount of defence (2% being a MINIMUM) then they would either have to raise business rates or cut welfare, two things they don't want to do.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Airlift and Sealift need not be strictly offensive -- though they clearly enable longer ranged deployments. When I mentioned sealift and airlift I was not specifically referencing amphib assault carriers and the like, simply that civilian ROROs and so forth are limited in their ability to transport military units in the fashion needed by such units.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
We should really get helicarriers. Or if that fails, blimp bombers.
What I find interesting about the manpower debate is that robots/drones are the future anyway, so why waste money on wages now that could be spent on developing terminators and robocops to conquer and appease the planet in the future? We only seem to use our engineers and programmers rather conservatively so far, you rearely see the latest in military technology coming from Germany, because that's just not how we use our assets apparently. What we should really do, is design drones and then have them contract-built in China so we can afford more.
If Putin knew that Germany had a bazillion Terminators in well-protected bunkers that would go out and hunt slavic people if Merkel pressed a red button, he'd be very careful. :stare::inquisitive::stare:
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Didn't know the mandate doesn't actually exist. But for small countries like Netherlands or our southern neighbours spending much on the military doesn't really makes much sense, what's there is good enough for the role we have, a specialised supportive one. We aren't going to win any war we don't stand a chance, but can assist allies when needed. I would feel better if the larger countries would have a larger army though
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fragony
But for small countries like Netherlands or our southern neighbours spending much on the military doesn't really makes much sense, what's there is good enough for the role we have, a specialised supportive one.
Fine enough... and erhh... what is that so special supportive Dutch role? Must be special indeed. And wrapped in secrecy.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tristuskhan
Fine enough... and erhh... what is that so special supportive Dutch role? Must be special indeed. And wrapped in secrecy.
Nothing particular, not of any use by itself
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beskar
Euroarmy
Worst idea ever, the EU's #1 priority is protecting it's bureaucracy, so they will be scrambling foreign troops with little to no affinity with the country they are stationed over member-states, why give the already pretty damn totalitarian EU more tools
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beskar
Euroarmy
Why France should put its nuclear deterrent at the service of, say, Latvia or Hungary?
Why any country should be hostage of others' foreign policy/demands?
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Clearly, there is no benefit to Germany.
That's the problem.
Nonetheless one can argue that Germany is benefiting economically from having its defence subsidised by the US, the UK and its poorer eastern neighbours. This would only be a political issue if the economies of the other countries were doing as well as Germany, but they aren't. The problem is compounded by the fact that Germany holds economic sway over the EU by dint of its powerful economy, which is unburdened by the sort of military-industrial-complex a country of its size actually needs to defend itself.
... having its defence subsidised by the US, the UK and its poorer eastern neighbours?
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_expenditures Germany spends about 40 billion US dollar per year. Half of that is personal costs. The total amount is 1.2 % of the GDP.
Britain spends 55 billion. That is 2% of its GDP.
Germany is not surrounded by potential enemies. And it has no ambition in overseas. So I guess 40 billion is a lot. If Germany raises to 2%, this would be 65 billion, a plus of 25 billion, 10 billion more than the UK. It is almost as much as Russia, which spends 66 billion.
I agree that Germany should raise its expenses due to the Russian aggression to modernize its forces and show the eastern neighbours that the country is able and willing to protect them. But what the hell shall we do with 25 billion extra cash?
If I was the one to decide, Germany would return to the policy of the 1970ies, with no ambition to send soldiers across the world and get involved in military conflicts but to use the money to moderate and help to rebuild.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
What is also being ignored is that Germany plans to increase military expenditure in the following years.
Increasing it by 60+% at once isn't really a smart thing to do, as it would be very hard to make sure than money was being spent efficiently.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brenus
Why France should put its nuclear deterrent at the service of, say, Latvia or Hungary?
Why any country should be hostage of others' foreign policy/demands?
Do Americans complain the Texas nukes are Hostage to New York or Ohio? United States of Europe is the federal government and that will control the Euro-Army.
As for Fragony's points. Armies will become mixed and getting cross stationed over the continent. Military drills to Ode to Joy.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beskar
Do Americans complain the Texas nukes are Hostage to New York or Ohio? United States of Europe is the federal government and that will control the Euro-Army.
As for Fragony's points. Armies will become mixed and getting cross stationed over the continent. Military drills to Ode to Joy.
Hello George.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarmatian
What is also being ignored is that Germany plans to increase military expenditure in the following years.
Increasing it by 60+% at once isn't really a smart thing to do, as it would be very hard to make sure than money was being spent efficiently.
Germany has some experience with increasing military expenses very rapidly, though.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Franconicus
Germany has some experience with increasing military expenses very rapidly, though.
It was a longish process to ramp up under the Kaiser, not done quickly.
The increases made rapidly under the Nazis were done by Speer starting way too late. They didn't truly get their economy shifted from butter to guns much ahead of the USA, despite our late entry.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Speer didn't so much shift production from butter to guns, he standardized and streamlined it.
It was interesting to hear him talk about it in World at War.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Seamus Fermanagh
It was a longish process to ramp up under the Kaiser, not done quickly.
The increases made rapidly under the Nazis were done by Speer starting way too late. They didn't truly get their economy shifted from butter to guns much ahead of the USA, despite our late entry.
AFAIK the Prussians pioneered the cadre method after the post-Jena settlement severely restricted the size of their army.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beskar
United States of Europe is the federal government and that will control the Euro-Army.
And ease the tremendous financial burdain the french nuclear component is (thanks!), in order for us to begin a much needed update of our conventionnal forces. I'd like to see that.
German and finnish friends, would you be pleased to fund EU's nukes? If so, welcome.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tristuskhan
And ease the tremendous financial burdain the french nuclear component is (thanks!), in order for us to begin a much needed update of our conventionnal forces. I'd like to see that.
German and finnish friends, would you be pleased to fund EU's nukes? If so, welcome.
Finland is not in the EU, but Germany is.
Edit: Got EU and NATO wrong way around.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beskar
Finland is not in the EU, but Germany is.
? I must have missed the news..
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beskar
Finland is not in the EU, but Germany is.
Confusing the EU and NATO.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kagemusha
? I must have missed the news..
Gah... was so afraid of beeing wrong I got mind messed.
Aaaah out of NATO, such luck. I wish our nano-president of ten years ago had not knelt before the neocons. How does it feel to be still an independant country, Finns?
PS: got a few bucks for "our" nukes, please?
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tristuskhan
And ease the tremendous financial burdain the french nuclear component is (thanks!), in order for us to begin a much needed update of our conventionnal forces. I'd like to see that.
German and finnish friends, would you be pleased to fund EU's nukes? If so, welcome.
You don't need nukes for a deterrent. Just send your submarines out without missiles.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Confusing the EU and NATO.
Correct. I mixed it up.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
You don't need nukes for a deterrent. Just send your submarines out without missiles.
that was Corbyn's bright idea, no?
frankly, if germany just spent the missing 0.8% of GDP on investment a government spending, financed by tax rises that would do more for peace a security in europe than any other single act.
right now the german economy - aided by a suppressed currency - is de-industrialising the rest of southern europe.
and while we all might hope that italy see's the light, realising that the euro has never don't it a single cent of benefit, and leave..... it ain't gonna happen.
so step up, germany.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Furunculus
that was Corbyn's bright idea, no?
frankly, if germany just spent the missing 0.8% of GDP on investment a government spending, financed by tax rises that would do more for peace a security in europe than any other single act.
right now the german economy - aided by a suppressed currency - is de-industrialising the rest of southern europe.
and while we all might hope that italy see's the light, realising that the euro has never don't it a single cent of benefit, and leave..... it ain't gonna happen.
so step up, germany.
Do you actually have some sort of evidence to back these pretty spectacular claims?
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kagemusha
Do you actually have some sort of evidence to back these pretty spectacular claims?
that italy has not lost one quarter of its industrial capacity since 2008?
http://www.isigrowth.eu/wp-content/u...per_2016_2.pdf
euro-membership takes away the old policy prescription of inflating away structural productivity problems, but if the country has no interest in structural reforms it might as well have inflation as a tool in its toolbox.
or that a 'german' euro isn't 17% undervalued against the dollar in PPP terms?
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-eur...rs-2017-2?IR=T
which in opposite balance leaves countries like italy with an overvalued currency relative to the position of its economic performance.
again, not germany's fault that it introduced the hartz IV reforms in the noughties, which have suppressed the spending power of the german worker an so their appetite for goods which will include imports from neighbouring eu nations, but... you could always transfer wealth;
or that the eu has been incapable of creating the transfer union necessary to make a common currency area a success, by ensuring less competitive areas are not left behind?
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Furunculus
that was Corbyn's bright idea, no?
frankly, if germany just spent the missing 0.8% of GDP on investment a government spending, financed by tax rises that would do more for peace a security in europe than any other single act.
right now the german economy - aided by a suppressed currency - is de-industrialising the rest of southern europe.
and while we all might hope that italy see's the light, realising that the euro has never don't it a single cent of benefit, and leave..... it ain't gonna happen.
so step up, germany.
The Italians and Greeks had weak industry to start with and have responded to the challenge with... increasing the pension age to that of Germany? Increasing productivity? Opening their state industries to become more efficient and compete? Free up the labour market and reduce costs on businesses and encourage new industries? Erm, no. Mainly centred on complaining and demanding that they are allowed to continue to retire at 55 and the detail can be sorted out elsewhere.
A Northern League and a Southern League might make sense with broadly the Protestants living ordered, joyless lives of productive industry whilst the Catholics / Orthodox enjoy their pleasant lives of joyful chaos.
Of course, where the line goes through East Europe, and whether it divides Germany / France is an open question.
~:smoking:
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beskar
Do Americans complain the Texas nukes are Hostage to New York or Ohio? United States of Europe is the federal government and that will control the Euro-Army.
Well, there is no Euro-Army, and no EU Federal Government. But there is conflictual interests within Europe.
So until EU being really a democracy, I don't want the bombs used for other purposes by others countries than for what they are built for: Not be be used. Thanks
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
"Free up the labour market and reduce costs on businesses and encourage new industries? " Like in Bangladesh... Very successful and prosperous country, Bangladesh. No holidays, no pension, no health and safety, children free to go to work at 5 years old, a paradise for enterprises.
-
Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brenus
"Free up the labour market and reduce costs on businesses and encourage new industries? " Like in Bangladesh... Very successful and prosperous country, Bangladesh. No holidays, no pension, no health and safety, children free to go to work at 5 years old, a paradise for enterprises.
With such reasoned arguments, who can compete?
Perhaps there is something between an ultra-controlled market and a developing country?
~:smoking: