Europe's demilitarization

[Dinner]

The US spends more then the next 100 nations combined when it comes to military spending and that strikes many as excessive. A half trillion dollar defense budget doesn't buy us much more then a $400 billion budget or even Clintons $350 billion dollar budget since most of the extra doesn't buy greater capability and instead is being wasted on completely worthless pork barrel projects like Bush's Star Wars program.

Our defense programs are filled with pork and needless duplicate projects. There is no reason why we should have three different air superiority fighters when one would do. There is no reason to start a new Aircraft Carrier design when the existing one is still upgradable and in no danger of becoming obsolete. The US has a $220 billion per year national deficit but Bush insists on spending $80-$100 billion per year on his star wars program which has failed virtually every test it has ever faced (including totally rigged test where every variable was known ahead of time) and which there is no logical reason to spend the money to begin with. Every nuclear powered nation we're likely to face already has enough missiles to overwelm Bush's Star Wars system (even if it theoretically worked) and no one would launch a missile at us anyway since we already have MAD protecting us anyway. Bush's attempts to claim terrorists would launch missiles at us is laughable since they'd likely just put it in a suitcase or in the trunk of a car just like they do their conventual bombs.

In short we can easily reduce our military budget from $500 billion down to around $400 or $350 billion just by cutting worthless or reduntent systems.

[DanS]

I agree with much of that. However, you're letting dislike of Bush cloud your judgment on this.

Clinton's $350 billion during his presidency is comparable to a figure of over $400 billion today, if you consider defense spending as a portion of our economy as constant. Our economy has grown a lot since Clinton's time. Further, I'm sure you know that Star Wars was supported by Clinton every year he was in office.

We don't have a $220 billion per year national deficit. We don't spend $80 - $100 billion a year on star wars. Stop making numbers up. If you don't know the numbers, find out.

[mrmitchell]

Dan, even though he is just making up numbers, I agree. He's got the point I am trying to make.

With a meticulous study of the budget in all departments, we can cut a huge portion of the deficit without losing any capability.

If we follow the same process for every side of the government, voila! no more deficit. But the Defense Dept would be a great place to start.

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Yes, I've become a little disillusioned with strictly realist foreign policy post 9/11.

You're not the only one.

Anyway, to address the topic, I'd much rather see Japan increase its military spending than Europe. Europe's days as the center of world events is long gone, while odds are good that the next century will be an Asian one. A reliable, militarily strong ally in the thick of world events is much better for the US than a fickle union of formerly influential states with the military strength needed to back up their delusions of grandeur. IMO, at least...

You are right, the next war is likely to happen in the east. China, Taiwan, Japan and the Koreas are a terrible combination.
Not to forget India and Pakistan.

I think we should prepare for such an event, but I would rather want to see that we try to prevent it from happening in the first place, because it may easily go nuclear and that would suck incredibly.

[DanS]

He's got the point I am trying to make.

Without knowing the actual numbers, he's just pulling stuff straight from his ass. Or straight from somebody else's ass on one of those extreme lefty web sites he relies upon sometimes. The numbers matter in this situation. Star Wars is a sizeable expenditure, but he's about an order of magnitude off, for instance.

I have my reservations about Star Wars, but at least I'm realistic about how much money we would have left over from killing the program or putting it in hibernation.

With a meticulous study of the budget in all departments, we can cut a huge portion of the deficit without losing any capability.

Waste is just the way the government works. It has always been thus.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Sandman
Europe's military budgets are perfectly adequate. The idea that it doesn't 'take responsibility' for its own defence is silly - who is there to defend against?

I take it that you think that the UK and France spend too much on defense?

[pchang]

All defense spending is pointless. You will all soon be bowing down to your new Chinese masters. Save your money and live the good life now. It will decrease the destruction that will have to rebuilt in the coming world capitulation to the Middle Kingdom.

[chequita guevara]

JohnT is correct. The purpose of the U.S. military occupation of Europe, NATO, and our defense spending is to prevent the rise of a miltary rival in Europe.

Regardless of how much we spend now, if Europe matched us militarily, we'd have to spend more, which would mean Europe would have to spend more. Democracies do attack one another from time to time.

[CerberusIV]

Three things strike me about the original article.

One - it's a french initiative.

Two - it advocates more spending on control systems.

Three - it praises BAe and the UK MoD.

What's wrong with these points? France and the UK are two of the world's major arms exporters. So they have a lot to gain from selling weapons to other people and therefore spend money on improving their wares. The rest of Europe is either politically unwilling to sell guns to other people or just doesn't see the point in trying to break into a market dominated by the current players.

The UK completed a defence review last year. The outcome was not universally welcomed as it pushed advanced control and communications systems heavily. The UK Chief of Staff was quoted, IIRC, as saying "we want to fight alongside the Americans, not like them". Present systems in the NATO countries are mostly more than any non NATO or European country can respond to anyway. More integrated systems are a good idea provided they don't break down - and don't make troops over-reliant on technology.

Most US defence companies would wet themselves with excitement if they could rip off their taxpayers the way BAe (with the compliance of the MoD) has done to the UK taxpayer over the years. This is the same MoD that has screwed up the RN's carrier order and can't even order desert boots that don't melt in the desert!

More european defence spending would be good - for the US defence industry. Remember the talk around the F22 and JSF projects a few years ago? When the push was to secure the funding and orders it was all about the "grey threat" that advanced european fighter aircraft like the Eurofighter and Rafale might get into hostile (to the US) third party hands. Once the contracts were secure and the issue became export sales the talk changed to how the european aircraft were inferior to the US planes. Who profits? Not the european taxpayer.

[Agathon]

All defense spending is pointless. You will all soon be bowing down to your new Chinese masters. Save your money and live the good life now. It will decrease the destruction that will have to rebuilt in the coming world capitulation to the Middle Kingdom.

Pretty much...

[lightblue]

Why would we bother with increased defense spending? Who is going to attack us? Terrorists I guess, but they're not directly attached to a nation state anyway. Russia? Doubt it. China? Will have to go through Russia or the US first.

Keep about 10-15 nuclear armed submarines as a whole and a few dozen ICBMs for MAD purposes and get rid of the rest. Maybe a small peacekeeping force, but tbh i think we should let people sort their own messes out.

[DanS]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
Three things strike me about the original article.

One - it's a french initiative.

Two - it advocates more spending on control systems.

Three - it praises BAe and the UK MoD.

What's wrong with these points? France and the UK are two of the world's major arms exporters. So they have a lot to gain from selling weapons to other people and therefore spend money on improving their wares. The rest of Europe is either politically unwilling to sell guns to other people or just doesn't see the point in trying to break into a market dominated by the current players.

The UK completed a defence review last year. The outcome was not universally welcomed as it pushed advanced control and communications systems heavily. The UK Chief of Staff was quoted, IIRC, as saying "we want to fight alongside the Americans, not like them". Present systems in the NATO countries are mostly more than any non NATO or European country can respond to anyway. More integrated systems are a good idea provided they don't break down - and don't make troops over-reliant on technology.

Most US defence companies would wet themselves with excitement if they could rip off their taxpayers the way BAe (with the compliance of the MoD) has done to the UK taxpayer over the years. This is the same MoD that has screwed up the RN's carrier order and can't even order desert boots that don't melt in the desert!

More european defence spending would be good - for the US defence industry. Remember the talk around the F22 and JSF projects a few years ago? When the push was to secure the funding and orders it was all about the "grey threat" that advanced european fighter aircraft like the Eurofighter and Rafale might get into hostile (to the US) third party hands. Once the contracts were secure and the issue became export sales the talk changed to how the european aircraft were inferior to the US planes. Who profits? Not the european taxpayer.

Excellent post.

I'll have to think about what you've said.

[Agathon]

Why would we bother with increased defense spending? Who is going to attack us? Terrorists I guess, but they're not directly attached to a nation state anyway. Russia? Doubt it. China? Will have to go through Russia or the US first.

How dare you ask such a sensible question!?!?! You are supposed to be paranoid!!!! Evil people are just waiting to attack you, and if you don't spend squillions on guns, a new Hitler is sure to rise!!!!

[Bereta_Eder]

Re: Europe's demilitarization

Originally posted by DanS
. As the referenced report states, other than the UK and France, which spend about 2.75% of their economies on defense, nobody in Europe spends much at all -- none above 2%.

how little you know....

[chequita guevara]

Is that your standard answer for everything these days?