Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 140

Thread: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?

  1. #31
    Shadow Senior Member Kagemusha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Helsinki,Finland
    Posts
    9,469

    Default Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    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
    Ja Mata Tosainu Sama.

    Member thankful for this post:



  2. #32
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Quick Shot Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Crazy Cars Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, Cub Shoot 2 Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Treasure Diver Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Slack Man Champion, Japanese Baseball Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Super Mario Mushroom Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Fish Kill Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, KF 9000 Champion, White Van Man Champion, What-A-Shot Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    10,103

    Default Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    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.
    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.
    "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." -- A. de Tocqueville

    "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." -- J.K. Galbraith

    "When you're in jail, a good friend will be trying to bail you out. A best friend will be in the cell next to you saying, 'Damn, that was fun'.” -- J. H. Marx

    Members thankful for this post (3):



  3. #33
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    14,824

    Default Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    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?


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  4. #34
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,046

    Default Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    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?

    Member thankful for this post:



  5. #35
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    14,824

    Default Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    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.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  6. #36
    Member Member V:force Champion HopAlongBunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    3,036

    Default Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    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
    Ja-mata TosaInu

    Member thankful for this post:

    Husar 


  7. #37
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Quick Shot Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Crazy Cars Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, Cub Shoot 2 Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Treasure Diver Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Slack Man Champion, Japanese Baseball Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Super Mario Mushroom Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Fish Kill Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, KF 9000 Champion, White Van Man Champion, What-A-Shot Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    10,103

    Default Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    ...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.
    "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." -- A. de Tocqueville

    "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." -- J.K. Galbraith

    "When you're in jail, a good friend will be trying to bail you out. A best friend will be in the cell next to you saying, 'Damn, that was fun'.” -- J. H. Marx

    Member thankful for this post:

    Husar 


  8. #38
    Apr 04-Nov 11 Senior Member Strike For The South's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Between Louis' sheets
    Posts
    10,154

    Default 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.
    “I was not designed to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest.” -Thoreau

    Sometimes chicken, sometimes feathers.


  9. #39
    Horse Archer Senior Member Sarmatian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Novi Sad, Serbia
    Posts
    4,233

    Default Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    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.

    Member thankful for this post:

    Husar 


  10. #40
    Coffee farmer extraordinaire Member spmetla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Kona
    Posts
    2,517

    Default Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    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.

    "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"
    -Abraham Lincoln

    Members thankful for this post (3):



  11. #41
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    7,722

    Default 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.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  12. #42
    Member Member Gilrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    3,316

    Default Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
    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.

  13. #43
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    7,722

    Default Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilrandir View Post
    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.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  14. #44
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    12,779

    Default Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
    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.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  15. #45
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    7,722

    Default Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    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.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  16. #46
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    12,779

    Default Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
    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.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  17. #47
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Quick Shot Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Crazy Cars Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, Cub Shoot 2 Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Treasure Diver Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Slack Man Champion, Japanese Baseball Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Super Mario Mushroom Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Fish Kill Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, KF 9000 Champion, White Van Man Champion, What-A-Shot Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    10,103

    Default 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.
    "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." -- A. de Tocqueville

    "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." -- J.K. Galbraith

    "When you're in jail, a good friend will be trying to bail you out. A best friend will be in the cell next to you saying, 'Damn, that was fun'.” -- J. H. Marx

    Member thankful for this post:



  18. #48
    Coffee farmer extraordinaire Member spmetla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Kona
    Posts
    2,517

    Default Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    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.

    "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"
    -Abraham Lincoln

    Members thankful for this post (3):



  19. #49
    Shadow Senior Member Kagemusha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Helsinki,Finland
    Posts
    9,469

    Default 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.
    Ja Mata Tosainu Sama.

  20. #50
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    12,779

    Default 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.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    Member thankful for this post:



  21. #51
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Quick Shot Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Crazy Cars Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, Cub Shoot 2 Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Treasure Diver Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Slack Man Champion, Japanese Baseball Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Super Mario Mushroom Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Fish Kill Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, KF 9000 Champion, White Van Man Champion, What-A-Shot Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    10,103

    Default 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.
    "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." -- A. de Tocqueville

    "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." -- J.K. Galbraith

    "When you're in jail, a good friend will be trying to bail you out. A best friend will be in the cell next to you saying, 'Damn, that was fun'.” -- J. H. Marx

  22. #52
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    14,824

    Default 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.
    Last edited by Husar; 04-13-2017 at 14:03.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

    Members thankful for this post (3):



  23. #53
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    29,930

    Default 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
    Last edited by Fragony; 04-13-2017 at 15:06.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    this supports and the people from

  24. #54
    Incorruptible Forest Manager Member Tristuskhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Oaks and Menhirs, Brittany
    Posts
    808

    Default Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fragony View Post
    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.
    "Les Cons ça ose tout, c'est même à ça qu'on les reconnait"

    Kentoc'h Mervel Eget Bezañ Saotret - Death feels better than stain, motto of the Breton People. Emgann!

  25. #55
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    29,930

    Default Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tristuskhan View Post
    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
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    this supports and the people from

  26. #56
    The Red-titled Forum Administrator Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    No longer in Albion
    Posts
    15,455

    Default Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?

    Euroarmy
    "We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" - Daryl Davis
    "What makes something right or wrong?" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." # | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs." RG

    Member thankful for this post:

    Husar 


  27. #57
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    29,930

    Default Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Beskar View Post
    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
    Last edited by Fragony; 04-14-2017 at 06:36.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    this supports and the people from

  28. #58
    Senior Member Senior Member Brenus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Wokingham
    Posts
    3,523

    Default Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Beskar View Post
    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?
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire.

    "I've been in few famous last stands, lad, and they're butcher shops. That's what Blouse's leading you into, mark my words. What'll you lot do then? We've had a few scuffles, but that's not war. Think you'll be man enough to stand, when the metal meets the meat?"
    "You did, sarge", said Polly." You said you were in few last stands."
    "Yeah, lad. But I was holding the metal"
    Sergeant Major Jackrum 10th Light Foot Infantery Regiment "Inns-and-Out"

  29. #59
    Humanist Senior Member Franconicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Trying to get to Utopia
    Posts
    3,482

    Default Re: Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    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.

  30. #60
    Horse Archer Senior Member Sarmatian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Novi Sad, Serbia
    Posts
    4,233

    Default 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.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO