UK Trident vote today

[C0ckney]

as laz very rightly said, if putin were to invade estonia (extremely unlikely in my view but let's go with it), the west would not use nuclear weapons against it - no one is going to destroy the world over the batlic states - but rather use its conventional military to respond. likewise, if western armies intervened in ukraine (again, extremely unlikely in my view) russia would not use nuclear weapons against them but instead some conventional means.

surely then, the best option is to stop wasting money on weapons that serve no purpose, and if we must lavish the money on the military, let's spend it on something that may actually see some use.

[Dinner]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3705545/Nato-prepare-overnight-Russian-invasion-Poland-ship-missiles-region-say-experts.html

The Atlantic Council (one of NATO's coordinating bodies) has some very negative things to say about the military readiness of the alliance's fighting forces. It is a very interesting read and included this little tidbit:

The US accounts for more than 70 percent of all Nato spending and only four other members - Britain, Greece, Estonia and Poland - meet the minimum two percent of GDP spending on defence required by Nato.

So how do we get the others to live up to their treaty obligations and actually contribute something towards the common defense because the US is beginning to feel very taken advantage of by European freeloaders.

[Dinner]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3704173/Russia-DELIBERATELY-bombs-secret-military-base-Syria-used-elite-American-British-forces.html

Another interesting note is that Russia deliberately bombed a position being used by American and British Special Forces in Syria.

[Bereta_Eder]

Actually it pains me to see Greece in that list.
I take solace in knowing we completely shunned NATO reccomndations to form a "flexible mobile intervening force" (to export violence and imperlialism abroad) but rather opted for a traditional long standing conventional army with lots of german tanks russian anti-missile/balistic technology and american air power but I cannot help but feel cheated and sad.

Opposing armies are often in a symbiotic relationship and constantly feed off eachother.

I have no illusions that the "threat from the east" is very real and present but I still know that justifying all those expenses because of a dictatorial expansive neighboor is a very accomodating, for some, narrative.
Always check and re-check yourself.

So the question is not how to get the other countries military expenditures up but how to get ours down

[Giancarlo]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...y-experts.html

The Atlantic Council (one of NATO's coordinating bodies) has some very negative things to say about the military readiness of the alliance's fighting forces. It is a very interesting read and included this little tidbit:



So how do we get the others to live up to their treaty obligations and actually contribute something towards the common defense because the US is beginning to feel very taken advantage of by European freeloaders.

Dailymail... looks more like a tabloid site to me.

Why should other countries spend as wastefully as the US does on its military? Not everyone can build a trillion dollar fighter jet.

And what freeloaders? Like France? Who has time and time again used its large air force to strike targets throughout the world, including in Africa where Muslim terrorist groups have caused problems?

Yeah, but they are "freeloaders". BTW, slightly off topic but the Rafale is one of the best multirole fighter jets out there. France is one of the few countries in the world that has outward projection power and has its forces stationed throughout the world. It has numerous air bases throughout Northern Africa capable of striking militants in Libya and in the middle east if required.

Edit: BTW more on the FREELOADING French, which rank 5th in the world in terms of strength:

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=france

Sorry, but your argument is quite insulting to the various French forces that are combating Islamic groups in certain regions in the world and the substantial contribution their large air force makes in various regions.

[Giancarlo]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...sh-forces.html

Another interesting note is that Russia deliberately bombed a position being used by American and British Special Forces in Syria.

The Daily Mail is a conservative tabloids site with a staunchly right wing tilt that would publish any yellow journalism it could find.

It has about as much weight as the National Enquirer, though it attempts to be more serious (superficially).

[Bereta_Eder]

Agreed daily mail is ****
(very entertaining though, untill you get nausiated)

[Dinner]

Fez, if you don't like the messenger than go to the original Atlantic Council site linked in the article. You will find the information is the same.

The treaty obligation is 2% of GDP. It is time the freeloaders live up to their treaty obligations. The US has been very flexible and forgiving about short circumstances members face, but, when you haven't lived up to your treaty obligations for 20 years straight and counting then we aren't talking about a short term discrepancy. Now, are we?

[Giancarlo]

Call me by my actual name. What freeloaders? Who is freeloading? Why should a nation spend as wastefully as the US does on its rather ineffectual military? We all seen the "incredible work" US ground forces did in Iraq...

Don't quote Tabloids. Haven't you learned anything from the orange fellow you support in the election?

Many nations are facing economic crunches, and spending wastefully and stupidly on the military is the last thing these countries should do. And a nation like France doesn't need to spend at least "2%" of its GDP on the military. BTW, I believe France spends just 2.1% of its GDP on the military and it still has the best projection power out of any European nation (barring the UK - just maybe).

The 2% rule needs to be tossed out.

[Giancarlo]

BTW, there is one nation that should increase its military spending and that is Germany. The shortfalls they have had need to be accounted for. Italy, France, Poland, Spain, etc... are all fine.

[Dinner]

Giancarlo, the freeloaders are the NATO members not living up to their treaty obligations to spend 2% of GDP on defense and being able to field offensive units to contribute to the common defense.

[Giancarlo]

Giancarlo, the freeloaders are the NATO members not living up to their treaty obligations to spend 2% of GDP on defense and being able to field offensive units to contribute to the common defense.

Yet all of them are capable of doing that. Italy, which spends 1.5-1.7% on defense, contributed thousands of men from both the Carabinieri and Army to Iraq during Bush's war. You keep on lying.

France has deployed thousands of troops all around the world and its Rafale fighter jets strike areas throughout the world. The Rafale is arguably better than any American fighter jet.

Germany is really the one I have issues with, but even they fielded units to Afghanistan a number of times.

The 2% requirement is ignored because GDPs happen to be larger. France spends around what India spends on its military, yet spends a far smaller percentage than India. The 2% number is ignored, again, because nations have much larger GDPs than they did twenty or thirty years ago.

[Giancarlo]

According to this dinner dunce, France is freeloading. Even though the French took care of Islamist rebels in several hotspots throughout Africa. But they are freeloaders lmao. Wake up dinner, the French have the best forward projection in Europe. They have air bases throughout Africa.

But they are freeloaders. *rolleyes*

BTW, the French have complained they were left alone in several conflicts including in Mali and the US offered extremely limited assistance. Who is freeloading now?

[Dinner]

Fez, stop being an idiot. And if you want someone to be respectful enough to call you by your new name stop being insulting. You get what you give, Fez.

Also, the French in Mali insisted it was France's sphere and said only they could go in it. As it is they are completely dependent upon the US for resupply and movement as the French lack heavy lift capacity. Which is an example of what I spoke about earlier. When just the US and four others out of 28 NATO members are living up to the obligation of the treaty then something is seriously wrong. 23 out of 28 really are trying to freeload.

[notyoueither]

as laz very rightly said, if putin were to invade estonia (extremely unlikely in my view but let's go with it), the west would not use nuclear weapons against it - no one is going to destroy the world over the batlic states - but rather use its conventional military to respond. likewise, if western armies intervened in ukraine (again, extremely unlikely in my view) russia would not use nuclear weapons against them but instead some conventional means.

surely then, the best option is to stop wasting money on weapons that serve no purpose, and if we must lavish the money on the military, let's spend it on something that may actually see some use.

He didn't say that did he? He asked if people thought we should.

Myself at least thinks yes, go full postal for any NATO member otherwise NATO is meaningless in the face of calculated aggression. I doubt I'm alone.

And no, I do not favour getting NATO into Ukraine. Kiev is 850 KM to Moscow. I don't expect Russians to live with that so long as we're adversaries.

Those weapons serve a very real purpose. They keep countries that could destroy the lives of millions from starting **** that would destroy the lives of millions.