Org Mobile Site
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?
Is this really a desirable goal?
Speaking as a European, whenever Germany raises military budget, things get ugly.
Put me down for a no.
Put me down for a no.
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. Speaking as a European, whenever Germany raises military budget, things get ugly.
Put me down for a no.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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?
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"?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.
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.
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.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.
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?
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.An endless source of mirth.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
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.
Originally Posted by :
I feel like we should be the drunken angry uncle in this scenario
My interpretation is 'German + French = English'.I feel like we should be the drunken angry uncle in this scenario
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
My interpretation is 'German + French = English'.
But that's not England, it's the UK.My interpretation is 'German + French = English'.
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.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.
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...
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!"
And the US is like, "c'mon, I don't want to finish the rest of this bottle myself!"
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
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
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.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
So I'm the only person who actually thinks the Germans are good people who can be trusted to have a sensible military budget?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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....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
Attached:
70672502.jpg
(23.8 KB)
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?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.
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.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?
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.
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.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.
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.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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO