So, just how useless are the European NATO members?

[DinoDoc]

Are European allies useful? If so, in what capacity?

[kentonio]

Or at least even if they did see it coming, they were too cowardly to do anything about it, and in my mind that's the same damn thing.

Yes, because the west was clearly supposed to pre-emptively move NATO military forces into Crimea potentially triggering a war.

Soon it won't be vast enough to keep China from ****ing around with Vietnam, Taiwan and the Phillipines, keep shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf open, and keep Russia from ****ing around in the Med at the same time. Which is what it needs to be able to do.

You won't be able to play world policeman any more in the face of the rising Asian powers? Shame.

It is a fact that your militaries are hollowed out forces lacking the equipment necessary to fight a conventional foe like Russia. I don't doubt for a split second that you could have the kind of military you're describing if you just put up the dough.

Why do you seem to imagine that a Russia that just a few years ago was having components from its nuclear submarines pilfered by underpaid and underfed conscript guards is suddenly capable of conquering half the western world? Yes they spend more than they used to. No this doesn't mean Migs are about to be flying over Paris. Please stop reading Tom Clancy novels, they're apparently rotting your brain.

[Colonâ„¢]

Except none of you have the money to pay for the social programs you already have. Virtually every euro country is running a serious deficit (I realize the US is too, and that's one of many reasons Obama has to go), so there just isn't any money to increase government spending.

You haven't taken a 5 seconds look at countries' respective social, military and deficit spending to see if there's any correlation. Big govt, big deficit France spends just as much on the military as the UK. Bringing German spending up NATO's spending target of 2%/GDP takes a 0.7%/GDP increase. Social spending and pensions takes up a third of German GDP. There is no choice.

Just stop polluting the debate with this stupid distraction about welfare.

[C0ckney]

amid all this ludicrous patriotic penis waving "our military is capable of this, our military is capable of that" , a rather important question has been missed. why would we (as members of society), want 'our' militaries to be capable of doing what they've done recently: pointlessly occupying afghanistan for 13 years; sowing the seeds of a conflict in iraq which could go on for decades, and paving the way for its eventual destruction or; turning the country with the highest HDI in africa into a wasteland.

[kentonio]

It's possible to recognize that aggressively occupying other countries isn't a particularly smart or moral move without being a damn hippy about it.

[Dauphin]

How useful is 'military spending' when considering capability? Is there a PPP or bang per buck adjusted spend chart.

[Hauldren Collider]

You haven't taken a 5 seconds look at countries' respective social, military and deficit spending to see if there's any correlation. Big govt, big deficit France spends just as much on the military as the UK. Bringing German spending up NATO's spending target of 2%/GDP takes a 0.7%/GDP increase. Social spending and pensions takes up a third of German GDP. There is no choice.

Just stop polluting the debate with this stupid distraction about welfare.

You'd think then that the sky wouldn't fall if they cut pensions by 0.7% of GDP and put that into the military, instead of increasing deficits to do so. And yet.

[kentonio]

You'd think then that the sky wouldn't fall if they cut pensions by 0.7% of GDP and put that into the military, instead of increasing deficits to do so. And yet.

Yeah, let's **** over old people to buy tanks and bombs we don't actually need.

[Sava]

Leaving NATO is not a republican plank. If anything, it's more popular among democrats.

citation needed

jesus christ, do you and your brothers ever bother to think before opening your mouths/writing a post?

and oddly enough, your posts are only the second most retarded thing I've read today

[Sava]

pre-emptively: I'm not denying that large swaths of democratic voters are/might be retarded as well

so don't worry, you arent alone in the back of the short bus

[Colonâ„¢]

You'd think then that the sky wouldn't fall if they cut pensions by 0.7% of GDP and put that into the military, instead of increasing deficits to do so. And yet.

You're beginning to make me angry. France has ~45%/GDP on social spending and pensions, yet they spend almost double the share of GDP on the military. IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF WELFARE THAT GERMANY SPENDS LITTLE ON MILITARY. Get it already FFS.

[C0ckney]

It's possible to recognize that aggressively occupying other countries isn't a particularly smart or moral move without being a damn hippy about it.

well you yourself have been quite supportive of military action, realised and potential, in libya, in syria, and the continuation of operations in afghanistan. so while it may be possible in the abstract, it wasn't with you.

[kentonio]

well you yourself have been quite supportive of military action, realised and potential, in libya, in syria, and the continuation of operations in afghanistan. so while it may be possible in the abstract, it wasn't with you.

I'm usually a supporter of overthrowing dictatorial regimes, not least because we were responsible for setting many of them up and supporting their continuing existence to further our interests. Don't confuse that with support for how we prosecute those actions and the often foolhardy post-intervention strategies we keep following.

What I absolutely will not do however is sit and cry about how any military intervention will cost civilian lives when those same civilians are suffering decades of horrific abuse largely thanks to our governments. Sometimes the action is necessary to give people a chance to self determination. Removing a dictatorial government may well result in chaos and bloodshed but sometimes thats the only way that a stable future can result that suits the people actually living there. The western desire to force a peace often just ends up with bitter divisions that never heal and just fester under the surface until they explode.

Afghanistan was a different situation because it was something that basically had to be done in response to the Taliban's actions post 9/11. Watching a group launch an attack on a major western city and not responding to a nation state protecting those people was not in any way acceptable and would have set an example that could have led to unimaginably dire consequences. Trying to build a western friendly state in its place however was just another example of us trying to shape the world in our own interests.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if we could remove an oppressive regime and replace it with a western style democracy where people could live in peace and be happy. As we should have learned by now however it simply doesn't work, and by trying to make it work we usually just end up causing ever more resentment against the west and perpetual conflict.

[regexcellent]

Correct, they won't, because you don't have any planes for them.

Or surface combatants to defend them as part of a battlegroup.

Australia is a great model by the way for what Euro countries could be. They may soon have aircraft carriers too, apparently their PM is talking about outfitting their Canberra class with F-35Bs.

The second one is the big reason. Britain doesn't have the money for the escorts or fast fleet oilers to maintain a carrier battlegroup.

In addition the carrier can only handle short-legged STOVL aircraft like the F-35B and won't have real AWACS planes the way American and French carriers do. Those are severe marks against its capabilities. USN carriers are already hampered outside of USAF tanker coverage thanks to the short range of the Hornet fighters, and we have a lot of tankers in a lot of places. The RAF has no such luxuries and the F-35B has perhaps greater range issues than even the Hornet does.

[ColdWizard]

USN carriers are already hampered outside of USAF tanker coverage thanks to the short range of the Hornet fighters, and we have a lot of tankers in a lot of places.

They use other Hornets to tank the Hornets.