sankt-Antonio
:^)--?-<
Tell that to France's nuclear warheads.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Mattis issues new ultimatum to NATO allies on defense spending
- Thread starter Phantast2k
- Start date
- Status
Tell that to France's nuclear warheads.
Frozenprince
Banned
And the Baltic States falling would shift the paradigm of power I Europe back to the Russian sphere of influence as opposed to the EU.
It's much more than just acting as a deterrent force for a few Baltic Sea states and Poland.
Dude Abides
Banned
Mattis: you guys need to be buying more weapons from us.
jakonovski
Member
The US cares. Personally, I'm all for a stronger EU and dimishing Amerian influence. The US has become a bit of a ball&chain.
Hari Seldon
Member
Step #1 to spending this money on social programs is to remove the need to spend the money on the military. Whenever a Dem comes along and says "We need to reduce military spending" the easiest rebuttal is "Putin!". And they are right! What if the answer instead is "Don't worry, Germany and France can handle Putin."
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
It's in their economic interests to keep the Baltic states sovereign. Instability on their doorstep only will only spread. Having a rapid reaction force ready to deploy is in everyone's interest.
Frozenprince
Banned
The entire point of an armed forces deterrent is to AVOID nuclear Armageddon. Having a standing armed force ready to respond within hours is an immense tactical and geopolitical boon.
Exactly. I personally support more EU coordination on defense, as standardisation could reduce costs while reducing dependency on the US.
EDIT
And it would mean that Europe, unlike the UK, would not get tied in to insane products of the military industrial complex like the f35b.
You do realise if Germany spent 2% of GDP on defense it would spend about $15bn a year more than Russia. As it is the UK almost matches Russian spend (of course it largely squanders it on BAE producted tat but still)
The Russian bogeyman is overstated at least in military terms. In a conventional conflict, it's unlikely Russia could for instance successfully invade Germany even if you take NATO off the board. Germany defensive forces outstrip Russias rather limited force projection capabilities by some way.
Frozenprince
Banned
Most NATO states have their own weapons and weapons systems that are equivalent to US systems.
a nuclear deterrent is still a deterrent (and historically it has proven more effective than boots on the ground)
the reasonable thing would be for the US to drop their spending accordingly, not to have everyone start spending more. I don't doubt some countries may go by spending the minimum and trusting NATO to have their backs, but jeez, this smacks of America wanting to drum up business in the defense area
more concisely put
more concisely put
Sure, but if Russia really wanted the Baltic States, they'd be able to take them with or without NATO intervention. Military force isn't the primary deterrent here.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Good. Either spend your share or leave NATO.
Phantast2k
Member
No.
Most countries in Europe buy weapons made in EU. Smaller countries may buy old US stock occasionally. Bigger countries mostly just buy US stuff that is not produced in Europe.
Lol, US tax payer will still get stiffed with the bill of their completely and utterly insane defense budget.
The US doesn't give a shit. They do it for their own benefit. Not only that, the US has brought Nato allies to help on their fucking pointless destructive wars that have long-lasting consequences still today.
nature boy
Member
And outside of Australia, what country in SE Asia could the US rely on to defend the region from China?
Hari Seldon
Member
The US Cares? You mean like career ivy league politicians? The average american gives zero fucks and just wants healthcare and jobs and shit. Oh and to not die in a war halfway around the world.
This nebulous idea of "influence" bothers me lol. Lets spend billions and billions and billions of dollars for this fake currency monopoly money called influence. I want to see the receipts. What do we get out of "influence" and is it worth what we are spending?
darkistheway
Member
This is all this is. Military-industrial complex. They are trying to start another Cold War in Europe, they want boots on the ground in Syria and sabers rattling with Iran and China.
But sure, NATO commitments.
Not nuclear forces though. I think France is the only one that maintains a nuclear triad - land based, air delivered and subs.
I mean, just read anything Kissinger
superdeluxe
Member
Mattis is correct on this.
TheRealTalker
Banned
maybe the can do internal defense spending based on research, etc...
at least via that you can grow your economy and also use that research for other sectors
at least via that you can grow your economy and also use that research for other sectors
Phantast2k
Member
But we only have different priorities because US is sticking around in Europe.
We in Germany are especially oblivious to that. Spending 1,x% vs 2,x% of GDP p.a. on defense can make up a difference of ~ 50 billion / year.
Uuuge as Trump would put it...
sankt-Antonio
:^)--?-<
As far i i know the estimated power index of Germany, Italy, France and Britain combined compares to that of Russia. If Germany wanted to, they could outspend Russia alone.
well maybe such small things as Germany partaking in a invasion without a UN resolution - but hey, you know who called them.
nature boy
Member
Hope that all of those who agree with Mattis also tell Israel all the military aid is over.
gutter_trash
Banned
LOL, typical Trump response
superdeluxe
Member
Honestly, having a strong Germany is a perfect coutner weight to an agressive Russia. Its time for Germany to lead europe
Future PhaZe
Member
Not really. It would immediately just go to nukes if there was ever actual war between Russia and the US. The cost of an air/naval/ground based war would be absurd.
SDCowboy
Member
No, that's a logical response. If that's what was agreed upon to be in NATO, then that amount needs to be paid, or don't be part of it. Something tells me the prospect of the latter will make them find a way to afford it.
And the cost of nuclear war is an even higher
Muffin1611
Banned
If the US would want to cut part of their defense spending while the NATO members raise it in response, this would be a fair demand. It isn't though. They literally want to spend even more on defense. And hitting some arbitrary 2% guideline really isn't the point of this. I'd rather we would not spend more on defense for the sake of hitting a guideline, but instead spend as much as we need to.
Edit: Europe should definitely up their spending on defense though.
Edit: Europe should definitely up their spending on defense though.
sankt-Antonio
:^)--?-<
Where are the receipts?
Darkangel
Member
This is a problem in Canada too. We only spend about 0.99% of our GDP last time I checked.
Our military equipment ranges from barely adequate, to borderline non-functional. I mean holy shit.
Our military equipment ranges from barely adequate, to borderline non-functional. I mean holy shit.
superdeluxe
Member
Robert Gates from the Obama/Bush admin's basically said the same thing.
This is an important thing to remember. Trump most likely wants to kill NATO, or at least weaken it.
It was not an agreed amount but a guideline. As it is, the US just wants everyone (including the US) to spend more, for no real reason. For defense, you don't need absurd amount of money, only enough to form a deterrence. Less than 2% is enough for that.
ClosingADoor
Member
Europe should pay more towards defense. But the US should also realize their spending is not just for NATO, but also their other activities in the Middle-east and Asia. So the direct comparison of numbers is not totally fair.
Frozenprince
Banned
I think people are getting too hung up on the 2% number. His overall point is "put more in and we will put less in".
gutter_trash
Banned
don't worry, we will get over 2% after wasting money on those useless F-35s
freeofgreed
Member
It's a much better response then yours. Saying "LOL, typical Trump response" is a dumb response that doesn't discount anything I say.
When Obama said it, was it also a "typical trump response"?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/10/...es-the-free-riders-among-americas-allies.html
I certainly wouldn't care much. At this point they're one of the few countries with their heads screwed on straight, and they're far and away Europe's premier economy. This would probably be harder to sell at home than in Europe. People are far more afraid of Russia than they are of the fourth Reich
dragonelite
Member
ooh yeah also this..
Weren't current f-16 with up to date modules almost comparable if not better, except for stealth?
freeofgreed
Member
I don't see why they would. Out of all the Europe countries at risk of slipping back into facism. Germany is definitely at the bottom of that list. Plus it's something they all agreed to anyways. If this was a problem for them it should've been a concern when NATO was first created not 20 years later.
Yeah, I don't think a lot of people understand the size of some European military companies...
The F-35 is inferior to most fighters in deployment because it's meant as a jack-of-all-trades piece of tech.
We're also seeing a migration towards drone warfare, so the F-35 is in a weird spot...
Speaking as a Canadian, I'd very much like to see an increase in our military budget, but I don't know how we'd ever get close to 2%. Recruitment levels are stable and citizens aren't exactly being turned away from signing up, so a flat increase in the size of the Canadian Forces isn't on the table. We don't have the sort of historical links that would require a higher military budget for the purposes of rapid and robust intervention (e.g. France's recent participation in Mali). We're a mid-sized power whose defense R&D is correctly targeted at supporting our allies' industries and filling small niches, so significantly increasing R&D wouldn't really achieve much of anything.
We have some long standing military purchases that must be made, and I'm sure we could benefit from improved training facilities and increasing pay. But doubling our military budget would mean an extra 18B per year in defense spending. Even if by some miracle we were able to sort out all the procurement issues and make those purchases immediately (LOL) within a few years we'd have bought all the new and replacement equipment we need. And then what? Just blow 15B+ (assuming the purchases would increase the yearly maintenance costs by 3B, which is really generous) on things we don't even need or want just for the purposes of saying we've reached the target goal - a goal that was made when the West was facing an actual existential threat from the communist block?
I'd rather grab the bulk of that extra spending and help America with its overseas humanitarian efforts. It's a roundabout way to relieve US military spending and worldwide obligations without having to buy military equipment that will just gather dust.
We have some long standing military purchases that must be made, and I'm sure we could benefit from improved training facilities and increasing pay. But doubling our military budget would mean an extra 18B per year in defense spending. Even if by some miracle we were able to sort out all the procurement issues and make those purchases immediately (LOL) within a few years we'd have bought all the new and replacement equipment we need. And then what? Just blow 15B+ (assuming the purchases would increase the yearly maintenance costs by 3B, which is really generous) on things we don't even need or want just for the purposes of saying we've reached the target goal - a goal that was made when the West was facing an actual existential threat from the communist block?
I'd rather grab the bulk of that extra spending and help America with its overseas humanitarian efforts. It's a roundabout way to relieve US military spending and worldwide obligations without having to buy military equipment that will just gather dust.
- Status