So, just how useless are the European NATO members?

[kentonio]

Well, no it isn't. That's the point I'm trying to make. You're expecting us to do the fighting and dying for you while not providing anything for the common defense.

When was the last time you fought and died for us exactly? Would it be 1945, over 69 years ago in a war that you only entered after being attacked yourself? Let's stop this pretense that the US is doing anyone else a favour, America extends its military power around the globe for America's own interests, not anyone elses. Oh and while we're on the subject, some of our countries have been doing a fair bit of fighting and dying in America's wars since WW2 too.

Europe as a whole has the largest GDP in the world and is more than capable of handling its own defence if it needed to. Unfortunately because of the US's dominance of NATO and vastly bloated defence budget we've ended up in a situation where America dominates Europe politically using its military shield as a strong political pawn. As a result most European nations don't focus enough on combined defence with their neighbours because why should they bother diverting that spending to defence when they can rely on US coverage? That doesn't mean however that Europe doesn't have military force already capable of managing most of its defence needs, but without American involvement it would not take much to extend that capability to fully cover our own defence needs.

The best thing that could happen for both the US and Europe would be for America to withdraw its military influence over Europe. America would save a fortune, Europe would finally be pushed to cover the shortfall and organize properly as a defensive unit, and America would finally have to deal with European nations as peers rather than vassals which would lead to a much more stable relationship and a reduction of the anti-America sentiment that has pervaded Europe in the last few decades.

[kentonio]

Well, Europe is still self hating and feeling guilty for both the 2 WWs and the colonial period. You can blame whoever you want for this guilt feeling, the fact is it is there. White European = bad, anyone else = good.

It's not self hating to have grown up as nations to the point where we recognize past wrongs and do not want to repeat them.

Now, to say we provide nothing is not true.
It is true we provide close to nothing in terms of front line ground troops, and we freak out as soon as we have 3 dead soldiers, but we do help in terms of logistic.
By some historical irony it looks like we do now what the US did at the beginning of WW2: not providing ground troops, but providing supplies.

So yes, we are supporting you from a distance, and I indeed believe our troops are not ready for fire. Just as you weren't in 41.
But I also believe that given the right circumstances (that means revolution in the civilian mind), we could catch up in less than a year, as you did in 42.

That might be true of your country but the UK for instance has been involved in conflicts around the world pretty much without end since the second world war.

[Felch]

The best thing that could happen for both the US and Europe would be for America to withdraw its military influence over Europe. America would save a fortune, Europe would finally be pushed to cover the shortfall and organize properly as a defensive unit, and America would finally have to deal with European nations as peers rather than vassals which would lead to a much more stable relationship and a reduction of the anti-America sentiment that has pervaded Europe in the last few decades.

Why should we give up our vassals? It is America's destiny to unite the world in freedom.

[regexcellent]

Oh shut the **** up with your idiotic FOX news quoting bull****. You sound like a ****ing moron.

It's not a fox news quote, cockbite, and if it was on fox news that's because fox reports what actually happened just like everyone else. The European militaries had to borrow ordnance from us while bombing a depleted 3rd rate army in their backyard. They are decrepit.

[Colonâ„¢]

Fox's German affiliate about the German military:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/ramshackle-army-at-odds-with-berlin-s-global-aspirations-a-994607.html

A good example is the NH90 helicopter. The report measured the operational capability for these aircraft during the months of April, May and June, a time when most were still flying. A current list from sources close to the manufacturer indicate that all but two of 33 helicopters have since been grounded.

The situation is similar with the navy's Sealynx helicopter, of which only four can apparently fly. In order to improve the aircraft's ranking in the overview, the period used for the averaging was October 2013 through September 2014. However, by the end of June, all of the aircraft had been grounded because of construction defects.

...

With the Eurofighter fighter jet, Wednesday's official list for parliament stated that 42 aircraft were ready for deployment, but the August air force report stated that only eight were "fully" capable of operation.

...

In addition, the Bundeswehr unit currently operating the Patriot missile defense system in Turkey is literally eating into its own inventory. Because certain replacement parts are unavailable, the military is being forced to cannibalize equipment based in Germany in order to keep the Turkey-based Patriots in operation. The Patriots are being used to defend Turkey from possible cross-border attacks in the Syrian civil war. "A priority is given to making sure they get replacement parts, but that also influences the readiness of the Bundeswehr's other Patriots," Bundeswehr officials conceded in response to a query from a Green Party official.

Bit easy to blame it on memories of WW2. We spent a lot more and took a lot better care of the military several decades ago, when those memories were a lot more fresh. The real cause of the neglect is that we take our security for granted and freeridership has a lot to do with it.

[Elok]

Question: if America dropped NATO and the Euros had to defend themselves, could they build up a sufficient force without gutting their welfare states?

[regexcellent]

I doubt it. The money isn't there. Poland is able to finance a meaningfully significant military despite being substantially poorer than the rest but it lacks a lot of the welfare state that the rest of Europe has.

Most European armies are lacking stocks in crucial areas that the Russians have plenty of, in particular artillery. The Scandinavian countries have almost no artillery between them, and the in Netherlands iirc most of their guns don't work.

It's not self hating to have grown up as nations to the point where we recognize past wrongs and do not want to repeat them.

That might be true of your country but the UK for instance has been involved in conflicts around the world pretty much without end since the second world war.

The UK's military has declined substantially in just the past 15 years. Back in 1991 it was able to handle a huge sector of Iraq all by itself. It'd be hard-pressed to do something 1/10th as demanding now.

It won't be long before Australia's navy is more powerful than Britain's, despite having a quarter of the population.

[Lonestar]

Question: if America dropped NATO and the Euros had to defend themselves, could they build up a sufficient force without gutting their welfare states?

Yes. It's just some people think moving the retirement age to 65 is the same as "gutting the welfare state".

[Colonâ„¢]

Nonsense, those 2 things got nothing to do with eachother. The kind of increases needed to get military spending up to a 2% of GDP are barely a blip compared total social expenditures anyway.

[Lonestar]

When was the last time you fought and died for us exactly?

Oh, pff. Seriously? This is what you're going with? "There's never been a war in Europe since NATO started, therefore we haven't had any benefit with US involvement".

Let's stop this pretense that the US is doing anyone else a favour, America extends its military power around the globe for America's own interests, not anyone elses.

It's own interests or not, it is "doing other people favors". It's effectively subsidizing the welfare states of Western Europe. No need to spend money on defense if you know Uncle Sugar is going to come running.

Oh and while we're on the subject, some of our countries have been doing a fair bit of fighting and dying in America's wars since WW2 too.

Yes, guarding contractors who are drilling wells in quiet sectors of Afghanistan is exactly equivalent the US being expected to go toe-to-toe with Russia.

Europe as a whole has the largest GDP in the world and is more than capable of handling its own defence if it needed to.

Yes, if it showed the willingness to spend the money, which is hasn't.

And, again, you're acting as if it's one big country. The biggest component economy of the EU can't even keep a reasonable percentage of it's air force operational, which doesn't speak well to the others.

Unfortunately because of the US's dominance of NATO and vastly bloated defence budget we've ended up in a situation where America dominates Europe politically using its military shield as a strong political pawn. As a result most European nations don't focus enough on combined defence with their neighbours because why should they bother diverting that spending to defence when they can rely on US coverage? That doesn't mean however that Europe doesn't have military force already capable of managing most of its defence needs, but without American involvement it would not take much to extend that capability to fully cover our own defence needs.

Man, both me and Rage have provided sources where that just is not true. You guys are largely sitting there letting your militaries get hollowed out(actually, they are already hollowed out). Sorry, but only having a few dozen Typhoons to defend Germany is not "managing most of it's defense needs".

The best thing that could happen for both the US and Europe would be for America to withdraw its military influence over Europe. America would save a fortune, Europe would finally be pushed to cover the shortfall and organize properly as a defensive unit, and America would finally have to deal with European nations as peers rather than vassals which would lead to a much more stable relationship and a reduction of the anti-America sentiment that has pervaded Europe in the last few decades.

European nations aren't peers to the United States. Individually they have far smaller economies and far weaker militaries. So let's not pretend that they are peers. Taken together, if we were to wave a magic wand and make the EU one country with one foreign policy and one military, it would certainly be a peer, but that isn't the reality. Japan is closer to a peer than all of Europe except France and the UK. China is a peer. The Nordic countries, Italy, Germany, Low Countries, etc. are not peers.

[regexcellent]

Yes. It's just some people think moving the retirement age to 65 is the same as "gutting the welfare state".

Fair point. Consider though that there were full blown overturn-cars-and-light-them-on-fire riots in France over this (not that the French have ever needed an excuse to light cars on fire).

[Colonâ„¢]

The French are one of the European countries that spend the most on their military. Stop linking welfare to defence, it's BS.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Why should we give up our vassals? It is America's destiny to unite the world in freedom.

The TRUTH!

[OneFootInTheGrave]

#5 military spender in 2013?

France.

Behind, US, Russia, China and Saudi Arabia (few % difference with them) with Russia spending only about 1/3rd more than France alone.

[C0ckney]

Question: if America dropped NATO and the Euros had to defend themselves, could they build up a sufficient force without gutting their welfare states?

as colon has said the two things are scarcely related; it's just a canard often trotted out by americans, who presumably feel the need to justify the parlous state of their social protections. what's perhaps more interesting is why anyone would prefer to use society's resources on tanks, bombs and guns rather than to make people's lives better. to me it seems bizarre, but even here in this thread we have people saying, in so many words: "well we may have 600,000 homeless and ruinously expensive healthcare, but at least 'we' have lot of tanks, bombs and guns to [s]kill brown people with[/s] defend ourselves..."

it must come from a desire to feel (and i choose the word feel deliberately here) part of something, even if that something is merely the vicarious pleasure of belonging to to some distant state and the system it protects, of swapping their freedom and surrendering their dignity in exchange for a place in a hierarchy, just as long as they have one. the witless patriots cheering on the soldiers and the politicians who send them to far off lands to slaughter brown people and even feeling some connection with those making the decisions to kill, and pride in those doing the killing, rather than solidarity with those being killed.

but anyway, all the language used talks of threats, dangers, and especially russia (as opposed to what our militaries are actually used for, i.e. killing brown people and imposing western interests on their lands), yet a cursory glance at military spending figures reveals that the four european countries with the highest military spending (france, UK, germany and italy) easily outspend russia, and indeed any two combined outspend it. in other words the resources are already been used for defence, and would still be there if the US decided to withdraw from europe completely tomorrow.