Europe's demilitarization

[mrmitchell]

JohnT: If Europe doesn't spend the money, that usually means we're spending the money. Are you cool with that?

I'm cool with it. The US is strong enough to defend our allies as well as ourselves.

What I'm not cool with is the huge amount of ass plowing that our defense industry does to the military and then the military does to the tax payer. Or how the administration has a huge boner for war.

But they're unrelated concepts. We can defend Europe without getting screwed ourselves, and we can have a well kept military without laying waste to every unfriendly oil-rich nation.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

yeah DanS, our military spending is at the right level - we spend more than 50% of total world expenditures on military by ourselves. thats exactly the right level to be at.

[mrmitchell]

Lawrence so the US should not be defensively prepared?

[DanS]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
yeah DanS, our military spending is at the right level - we spend more than 50% of total world expenditures on military by ourselves. thats exactly the right level to be at.

If you adjusted others' spending for purchasing power parity, I'm sure you would get a different picture of relative spending.

[Agathon]

OK DanS

Please explain to me just who the Europeans have to be afraid of, and what likely uses for their military they are likely to face in the next 20 years.

Offhand I can think of UN interventions and the odd thing like the Ivory Coast. I can't think of anyone menacing Europe right now, nor anyone who would like to menace them. Russia is too busy trying to get some Euro action, and it is not at all in their interest to invade Europe.

Explain to me why they need to increase spending.

Right wing New Zealanders are always saying we need to spend more to protect ourselves, which is weird because New Zealand has no enemies.

[Ted Striker]

Even if you had enemies, who in the heck could reach New Zealand in the first place?

[Ted Striker]

I've found the answer:

[Agathon]

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Even if you had enemies, who in the heck could reach New Zealand in the first place?

More to the point, why would they want to reach New Zealand?

[Timexwatch]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Ted Striker
It does seem like America is going well at least no where, they aren't adjusting for an everchanging world, too busy trying to believe that everyone is kinda like them deep down somewhere. But eh, time will sort things out.

Personally I don't see the need for individual European states to have armies anymore, they might as well start decommissioning and then setting up a collective EU Army, they're heading that ways by the looks of it anyways.

I can't imagine the kind of polyglot nightmere a single E.U. Army would be, even with the existing NATO framework.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Lawrence so the US should not be defensively prepared?

so youre saying we need to spend more then half of the worlds total expenditures on defense to be safe?

If you adjusted others' spending for purchasing power parity, I'm sure you would get a different picture of relative spending.

why should I care about relative spending? military spending is always absolute. I dont care if per capita England spends more then the US. its still aint **** compared to our lower per capita spending. you compare armies based on brute strength, not strength adjusted for GDP or population.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

same with direct foreign aid to third world countries. do you think that since england donates 2% of their GDP to them that its worth more then the 0.1% of GDP that the US donates? hell no. theres a time and place for relative, and this is not one of them.

[mrmitchell]

so youre saying we need to spend more then half of the worlds total expenditures on defense to be safe?

For us plus Europe to be safe.

And considering how much teh US takes advantage of the rest of the world, ONLY doing half the spending is a risk.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

For us plus Europe to be safe.

europe can take care of itself - its a highly developed society and its up to them to sink or swim.

And considering how much teh US takes advantage of the rest of the world, ONLY doing half the spending is a risk.

and the only reason we take advantage of the rest of the world is because of our way too big army.

[mrmitchell]

europe can take care of itself - its a highly developed society and its up to them to sink or swim.

Yeah, but we're not hurting for paying the cost. Not only does it not hurt us to cover Europe, but it keeps all the power in our own hands, which is better than risking and letting foreigners have some.

and the only reason we take advantage of the rest of the world is because of our way too big army.

I don't think it's that circular. We take advantage of them because we have money. Army or no will not change that.