Europe's demilitarization

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by DanS
I guess the report forgot to mention Greece as well.

I didn't read it to be honest. If it forgot about it, no problem. If it said that no european (EU) country spends more than 2% then it's an inaccurate article and its overall validity is compromised.

[DanS]

All told, Greece, Turkey and Macedonia are about $20 billion worth of spending a year. I agree that's a lot of money in the European context.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS
Thank you. Spending on Star Wars is at $10 billion a year and decreasing, not $100 billion a year.

Currently. They want to expand it to be able to intercept multiple missiles at once which is going to require several new launch sites, more missiles, more control equipment etc...

Also the CBO says they $10 billion per year figure doesn't include space based systems which the administration has requested and which the Star Wars system won't function without. Lastly those figures are half a decade old. Newer figures would likely reflect the massive post 9/11 increases in spending plus the DOD's typical cost over runs.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by DanS
All told, Greece, Turkey and Macedonia are about $20 billion worth of spending a year. I agree that's a lot of money in the European context.

I've learned not to take your posts at face value by now. So post credible link.

[Kontiki]

Actually, the article does say that there are four European countries that spend more than 2%. Dan just summarized incorrectly.

Although I might note that while Greece spent 4.4% of its GDP on military expenditures in 2003, that's still 20% less in absolute terms than Canada at 1.1% of GDP.

[DanS]

Newer figures would likely reflect the massive post 9/11 increases in spending plus the DOD's typical cost over runs.

Newer figures don't show an increase. Rather, fiscal year '06 is showing a decrease due to the fact that the program hasn't shown success much lately and they're trying to figure out whether it makes sense to cut bait. Besides, the $10 billion is for all missile defense, not just Star Wars.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Although I might note that while Greece spent 4.4% of its GDP on military expenditures in 2003, that's still 20% less in absolute terms than Canada at 1.1% of GDP.

Hopefully some day it will also fall to 1,1% and below. Because the burden is proportional.
I don't see why Canada needs an army though. It is not in a dangerous neighborhood and if its only neighboor ever wanted it, Canada is beyond hope. So even 1,1% seems too much. (never mind noone knows where that "country" is exactly, or for what )

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by paiktis22


Hopefully some day it will also fall to 1,1% and below. Because the burden is proportional.
I don't see why Canada needs an army though. It is not in a dangerous neighborhood and if its only neighboor ever wanted it, Canada is beyond hope. So even 1,1% seems too much. (never mind noone knows where that "country" is exactly, or for what )

Nah, they need it seriously since they are trying to make a claim on the danish Hans Island - unfortunately, they haven't any ships that are able to reach it

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

Yeah you're right. How are they ever going to get to the top of the Killing People League with that kind of apathy. They should really put more effort into their death-dealing infrastructure. Especially now with all the instability in the region, it's never been more vital that these democracy loving sovereign nations be able to inflict rapid and efficient destruction and slaughter in any situations.

Deathdealing infratstructure would be things like slaughterhouses (concetration camps for humans). Military equipment isn't designed to deal or create death. It's designed allow the completion of objectives in the face of intelligent opposition.

Perhaps part of europes problem is the prevalence of people who do not recognize this important distinction.

[Atahualpa]

Deathdealing infratstructure would be things like slaughterhouses (concetration camps for humans). Military equipment isn't designed to deal or create death. It's designed allow the completion of objectives in the face of intelligent opposition.

Yeah blah blah, I hate this military language so much... it's just nice words for dropping a nuke on a million people

Hey man, you're the only survivor, but you know, this bomb wasn't designed to create death, it's just that this city was full of intelligent objectives and since this poses opposition to our simple minds, we can't let them live *spits*

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by paiktis22


Hopefully some day it will also fall to 1,1% and below. Because the burden is proportional.
I don't see why Canada needs an army though. It is not in a dangerous neighborhood and if its only neighboor ever wanted it, Canada is beyond hope. So even 1,1% seems too much. (never mind noone knows where that "country" is exactly, or for what )

I actually wish we spent more on our military - closer to tune of 2%. I think we need more personnel and better equipment so that we can resume taking a leading role in peacekeeping operations.

[Spiffor]

Geronimo: What's the use, for Europe, to increase its defense spending? The only potential threat in the coming decades is a revanchist Russia, but our nuclear deterrence makes it extremely unlikely that it attacks us.

So, against whom should we be so prepared?

[DanS]

Who thought 5 years ago that we would be fighting in Afghanistan? Further, who thought the weapon most used would be dumb bombs guided by cheap high-tech systems (that, as far as I know, is a US/UK capability only)?

We should be humble about the limits to our foresight.

[Agathon]

Geronimo: What's the use, for Europe, to increase its defense spending? The only potential threat in the coming decades is a revanchist Russia, but our nuclear deterrence makes it extremely unlikely that it attacks us.

I've asked this question three times now. No-one has been able to provide a better answer than NYE, who implied that another Hitler would arise.

[kronic]

Originally posted by DanS
What's "weltpolitik"?

Weltpolitik (translates to nothing more than world politics) is a term that describes the German quest of becoming a world power in the Wilhelminian Era (1888-1918) and relating (interventionist) policies.

There's a growing desire to have a say in a lot of world affairs these days. The application for a permanent seat in the UNSC is a symbol for this. Another sign is the increased presence of German soldiers all over the world. And the government already plans the next steps. Our minister of defense, Peter Struck, demanded last weekend, that we should prepare for sending soldiers in war zones (and dealing with the unavoidable casualties). Germany once had a "civil power" approach to world politics. It's kind of ironic, that it is a red-green government (i.e. the former pacifists) that bascially replaces it with a conventional approach. That said, I'm convinced that the next government (especially, if it is led by the Conservatives) will increase military spending.