Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?

[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?

[Furunculus]

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.

[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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Montmorency]

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?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Montmorency]

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...

[Franconicus]

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.

[Sarmatian]

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.

[spmetla]

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.

[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.

[Gilrandir]

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.

You could do more in NATO to prevent Russia from taking Ukraine and sending troops to Lybia.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.