Support NeoGAF

[TatteredHat]

I'd rather see each country spend what they need to spend to have a functional standing army rather than demand each country spend 2% and end up in ridiculous situations like with Germany. EU countries aren't looking to have armies that can be used to project force aggressively like the US is, we've had enough of that after 2 world wars, thanks.

 

[Woorloog]

It would have to become a gigantic landbased army, much bigger than Britain's or France's who do have those things.

I wonder who would transport it and keep it supplied. I mean, i doubt Germany would want to fund massive amount of transport capacity, for a defensive army wouldn't need that. And offensive army... Do i need to say any more?

2% GPD mil-spending for EU NATO countries is not realistic or feasible. Nor does it have any point in today's world, as noted, 1% GPD mil-spending is pretty good deterrent.

I'm thinking Mattis wants NATO to be something that can be used offensively and aggressively, which is complete nonsense.

Couldn't you dump that into military research and weapons development?

Why?

 

[Hari Seldon]

With a GOP lead Congress? Lol, what dreams in a fairly tale night.

Yeah not immediately, but if say Obama 2.0 comes along in the future and realizes we don't need to protect Europe because France and Germany, two countries that should easily be able to handle Russia on their own, are holding the line maybe we can cut back. None of this is going to happen overnight, obviously.

 

[witness]

No arguments against this, it's in the agreement and I actually really like the language Mattis used.

 

[Frozenprince]

Ideally, America would dissemble its vertical empire in favor of a more equitable and multilateral approach to the defense of liberal democracies. A grand European army protecting a stronger EU is more sustainable than dependency on America. It's also a lot more fair. We don't have to pay for them, and they aren't living under our thumb.

But this won't lead to anything too fruitful, because Trump wants to increase military spending and has chastised Europe for attempts at self-defense.

I pipe dream of a federal EU with its own standing defense forces.

It's a nice dream.

 

[Jamiaro]

Hard not to agree with that. And Finland is not even a part of NATO.

 

[Extra Sauce]

“Americans cannot care more for your children’s security than you do. Disregard for military readiness demonstrates a lack of respect for ourselves, for the alliance, and for the freedoms we inherited, which are now clearly threatened."

By your boss.

 

[Skellig Gra]

Fine by me.

 

[mnz]

So is it in America's interest to have less military bases in Europe?

That's the thing. Trump talks like it is, but it's basically new policy if it's true.

 

[jfkgoblue]

And the worse thing about is that 2% isn't anywhere near enough for defense, much less scenarios with Russian false flag ops or intervening NK. Look at the shitshow that was Libya

So then who wants a few F-35s?



Hey now to get those freedoms all you have to do is serve 20+ years in the military for free healthcare and a college education for your kids

The kids college is 10 years but you can personally get free college from 3 years active duty(less than a single contract). We do take care of our military both while in the military and after separation( as long as it was an honorable discharge).

 

[Boney]

]

Couldn't you dump that into military research and weapons development?

 

[Anarion07]

America spends a percentage of its gdp on military? But trump told me it's below 0!

Seriously though, if it's in the contracts he's in the right, for once

 

[Chichikov]

(crossposting from poligaf)

That whole "poor american taxpayer" argument would have some merit if the US was willing to lower its defense spending in response. But this administration wants to increase defense spending regardless, so this is all fucking bullshit.

 

[Woorloog]

America spends a percentage of its gdp on military? But trump told me it's below 0!

Seriously though, if it's in the contracts he's in the right, for once

It is not a contract, it is a guideline.

EDIT Or looks like it is a target. But not exactly binding.

 

[jakonovski]

The flipside is that if Europe increases defense spending to 2%, the US will lose influence proportional to the decrease in demand for their troops and weapons to be stationed. Which is exactly why the US, when sane, doesn't want a strong European military.

 

[Laekon]

No lies detected. The US spends an obscene amount of money and manpower defending the entire Western world, it's only fair the other countries in the Alliance pull their own weight.

We did a great job defending the Western world from Afghanistan and Iraq. We waste an obscene amount of money on companies that are now better at lobbying then creating weapons.

 

[Anarion07]

It is not a contract, it is a guideline.

My bad

 

[freeofgreed]

“Americans cannot care more for your children’s security than you do. Disregard for military readiness demonstrates a lack of respect for ourselves, for the alliance, and for the freedoms we inherited, which are now clearly threatened."

By your boss.

This is something Obama pushed as well. Russia and ISIS are far greater threats to Europe's security than Trump is.

 

[JaggedSac]

I think it would be wise for the EU to up their defense spending at this point. US cant be relied upon. If I were them, I wouldn't be giving that increased spending to American companies though if it were at all possible.

 

[necrosis]

a better solution is for NATO spending goals to be reigned in. the issue at hand is the US spending too much, not other countries not spending enough

 

[Duxxy3]

I agree. We spend far too much of our money protecting other countries. Countries that refuse to spend money defending themselves because we do it for them.

 

[Frozenprince]

(crossposting from poligaf)

That whole "poor american taxpayer" argument would have some merit if the US was willing to lower its defense spending in response. But this administration wants to increase defense spending regardless, so this is all fucking bullshit.

It is, but he's still not wrong.

This isn't some four year only grand strategy. It's meant to be a long term retraction and contraction that outlasts the current political order.

It's just, yeah, the current order would fuck it up.

 

[kmag]

Germany has limited it's force projection capabilities post WW2 for obvious reasons. A defense army is naturally limited in scope.

It's difficult to envisage Germany spending 2% of their GDP on it's military without drastically reinventing it's mission capabilities from a primarily defensive role to an offensive force projection role.

 

[jfkgoblue]

I pipe dream of a federal EU with its own standing defense forces.

It's a nice dream.

At that point the EU is essentially the European US with its "countries" being states. As it stands now it is a confederacy not unlike the US prior to the constitution under the articles of confederation.

 

[sankt-Antonio]

Lol, get fucked US. You want to be world leader, NATO members to look the other way while you engage in shady geopolitical meddling and have everyone join your pathetic proxy wars? Then pay for that privilege/service.

 

[dragonelite]

I pipe dream of a federal EU with its own standing defense forces.

It's a nice dream.

I also want a federal EU hope trump and brexit can put some speed behind it be forcing EU countries to work more together.

 

[Frozenprince]

At that point the EU is essentially the European US with its "countries" being states. As it stands now it is a confederacy not unlike the US prior to the constitution under the articles of confederation.

I know, that's my point. The end goal should be a federal republic of Europe, not just a loose confederation that pledges mutual cooperation.

It's something that's never happening but nice to think about.

 

[Disagree Guy]

If every country only had an army for 'defense' then it'd render itself pointless (and rightly so)

I know it's slightly OT but it annoys the hell out of me. They should call it 'war' spending because that's what it's there for.

Sadly.

 

[gutter_trash]

Germany has limited it's force projection capabilities post WW2 for obvious reasons. A defense army is naturally limited in scope.

It's difficult to envisage Germany spending 2% of their GDP on it's military without drastically reinventing it's mission capabilities from a primarily defensive role to an offensive force projection role.

this is true, they got Japan-ed into being a defense only military.

Germany also has some highly trained counter-terrorism task forces.

Basically what the US wants is that these countries waste money on expensive vehicles that may not necessarily meet their needs.

How is Luxembourg supposed to spend 2% when they are micro-state?

 

[Woorloog]

Lol, get fucked US. You want to be world leader, NATO members to look the other way while you engage in shady geopolitical meddling and have everyone join your pathetic proxy wars? Then pay for that privilege/service.

Indeed. If NATO was a defense alliance as it is supposed to be, where participants help each other, it would be acceptable. But as it is, NATO is a hammer for the US to further their geopolitical goals. And least, it is more of that than a defense alliance.

 

[Jarmel]

Why?

You would be meeting the quota while also furthering your own industries and companies. It seems like it would be more sustainable and generally better for your economy than just hosting some insanely large land army.

 

[kmag]

I agree. We spend far too much of our money protecting other countries. Countries that refuse to spend money defending themselves because we do it for them.

That's not why you spend so much on your military. It has nothing to do with protecting others. It's basically a giant corporate welfare scheme which has the knock on effect of being a massive source of job creation.

That's the main reason you spend too much. It's nothing to do with protecting the free world or whatever other bullshit you've been sold.

 

[hEist]

as a German, I am totally fine with it and it's fair.
still don't understand why Germany only pays 1,2%.

 

[nature boy]

That's the thing. Trump talks like it is, but it's basically new policy if it's true.

Why should the EU authorize US military bases in Europe if the US wants to go it own way.

The flipside is that if Europe increases defense spending to 2%, the US will lose influence proportional to the decrease in demand for their troops and weapons to be stationed. Which is exactly why the US, when sane, doesn't want a strong European military.

This.

I agree. We spend far too much of our money protecting other countries. Countries that refuse to spend money defending themselves because we do it for them.

Yes, poor Euro countries that were attacked on 9/11 (only time Article 5 was invoked)

 

[Woorloog]

You would be meeting the quota while also furthering your own industries and companies. It seems like it would be more sustainable and generally better for your economy than just hosting some insanely large land army.

No no, what the fuck would we do with weapons R&D? Nothing. Better weapons aren't... not anytime soon.
It would be waste of money and cause a larger military industrial complex, which is not a good thing. Too much power, no morals.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I don't understand how the US millitary budget is justified to the population at large. And now they want other countries to spend more on the millitary? Fuck off Mattis

Why should the US pay so much for others security that they don't want to pay for?

If you want defense, help pay for it. If not. Then you didn't have to join NATO

 

[4Tran]

This is nonsense. Countries will spend as much on the military as they feel they need, rather than trying to hit some sort of arbitrary GDP percentage. The US spends what it does on its military because they want to, not because of any such quotas, so why should anyone else do so?

If the US wants to pull back on some of its European commitments, then they can do so, but the main reason they have so many European commitments to begin with is because it benefits the US to do so. So backing down from that will just hurt American capabilities.

Why should the US pay so much for others security that they don't want to pay for?

The US does so because of their own interests.

 

[Hari Seldon]

The flipside is that if Europe increases defense spending to 2%, the US will lose influence proportional to the decrease in demand for their troops and weapons to be stationed. Which is exactly why the US, when sane, doesn't want a strong European military.

Who cares? What can you buy with "US Influence"? Our massive economy is not influence enough?

 

[necrosis]

That's not why you spend so much on your military. It has nothing to do with protecting others. It's basically a giant corporate welfare scheme which has the knock on effect of being a massive source of job creation.

That's the main reason you spend too much. It's nothing to do with protecting the free world or whatever other bullshit you've been sold.

exactly

the alternative would be spending this money on social programs, but US citizens have been indoctrinated by "support our troops," "bootstraps" bullshit

 

[NYCmetsfan]

This is nonsense. Countries will spend as much on the military as they feel they need, rather than trying to hit some sort of arbitrary GDP percentage. The US spends what it does on its military because they want to, not because of any such quotas, so why should anyone else do so?

If the US wants to pull back on some of its European commitments, then they can do so, but the main reason they have so many European commitments to begin with is because it benefits the US to do so. So backing down from that will just hurt American capabilities.


The US does so because of their own interests.

This is laughable in regards to NATO. European capitals need it to not worry about Russia. Europe has no defense without NATO

 

[mnz]

Couldn't you dump that into military research and weapons development?

Well, that's usually done through contracts in modern military. You would still need projects to work towards.

Why should the EU authorize US military bases in Europe if the US wants to go it own way.

I don't understand this sentence. The bases are already here and the EU has nothing to say about it.

 

[MisterFalcon]

How is Luxembourg supposed to spend 2% when they are micro-state?

They have a massive fleet of AWACS aircraft. (for tax reasons)

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

The US does so because of their own interests.

I feel bad for countries like Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland. The rest of Europe seems to think their survival is solely a US interest.

 

[Frozenprince]

This is laughable in regards to NATO. European capitals need it to not worry about Russia. Europe has no defense without NATO

Baltic States I'm sure are just thrilled at the prospect of an insolvent NATO.

 

[Jarmel]

Well, that's usually done through contracts in modern military. You would still need projects to work towards.

Yea normally you would outsource it Lockheed but it seems like they could use it as an excuse to fund internal German engineering departments/companies.

 

[4Tran]

This is laughable in regards to NATO. European capitals need it to not worry about Russia. Europe has no defense without NATO

The only countries that have any real cause to worry about Russia are the Baltic States. Russia doesn't share any direct borders with anyone else, and the Russian military isn't up to the task of running 100km+ offensives.

I feel bad for countries like Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland. The rest of Europe seems to think their survival is solely a US interest.

Poland can take care of themselves, the Baltic States are indefensible though, and they've always been indefensible.

 

[sturgboski]

When can we stop spending so much on the military in the US. Like a decade ago we were spending $60b more than the sum of the next 25 countries under us when ordering largest military budget. How many armaments are not being used but still being built or hell how much surplus is sold to militarize the police. What good could come if we moved some of that military spending to healthcare, green technologies, education, NASA, sciences, public works, etc.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

So is it in America's interest to have less military bases in Europe?

Yes, because SE Asia is where most resources should be directed.


Europe as whole is largely inept when I'm comes to crisis. Obama had to wrangle France into stopping the sale of Warships to Russia while it was invading Ukraine.

 

[freeofgreed]

How is Luxembourg supposed to spend 2% when they are micro-state?

If they couldn't afford it then they shouldn't have agree'd to it when they joined NATO.

 

[Phantast2k]

Lol, get fucked US. You want to be world leader, NATO members to look the other way while you engage in shady geopolitical meddling and have everyone join your pathetic proxy wars? Then pay for that privilege/service.

What the fuck are you talking about?