Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  
Alzoc

European Union common defense thread

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

So will the French be in charge?

 

TELEMMGLPICT000169327581_trans_NvBQzQNjv

 

;)

 

It would have to be a white flag, then. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

 

That was one was too funny^^

 

They stole the design of DNCS's Scorpène but failed to calculate the mass properly so the Sub couldn't surface (it could sink very well though).

So they had to increase it's size to increase the buoyancy and they only discover now that it can't fit into the dock anymore xD

 

Stealing intellectual property is all nice and dandy until you realize that you are incapable of actually building what you got your hands on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alzoc said:

 

That was one was too funny^^

 

They stole the design of DNCS's Scorpène but failed to calculate the mass properly so the Sub couldn't surface (it could sink very well though).

So they had to increase it's size to increase the buoyancy and they only discover now that it can't fit into the dock anymore xD

 

Stealing intellectual property is all nice and dandy until you realize that you are incapable of actually building what you got your hands on.

 

Spanish ships having trouble floating?  Sounds like they're keeping with the finest traditions of the Armada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2018 at 6:47 AM, Collimatrix said:

t5KzBLK.png

 

The more I look at this, the angrier I get. 

 

Personally: I would rip out ~60% of US funding (leaving about $250 tril) and let NATO figure out how to pay their own bills. If they can’t, no skin off my back, and maybe that money could be used to pay for stuff over here. 

 

And, let’s be honest, it’s not like there’s anything threatening Europe that NATO couldn’t (theoretically) handle themselves: the Russians sure as hell cant afford a real fight with NATO, and Turkey isn’t a threat either. Hell, the biggest threat to the EU is themselves and their retarded immigration policies, but that’s nothing a little coup can’t change ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

 

The more I look at this, the angrier I get. 

 

Personally: I would rip out ~60% of US funding (leaving about $250 tril) and let NATO figure out how to pay their own bills. If they can’t, no skin off my back, and maybe that money could be used to pay for stuff over here. 

 

And, let’s be honest, it’s not like there’s anything threatening Europe that NATO couldn’t (theoretically) handle themselves: the Russians sure as hell cant afford a real fight with NATO, and Turkey isn’t a threat either. Hell, the biggest threat to the EU is themselves and their retarded immigration policies, but that’s nothing a little coup can’t change ;) 

 

I don't think gutting the US military would benefit us that much.

 

Even if all of NATO raised their defense spending to the same % as the US we would probably still outspend them combined due to the sheer size of the US economy.

 

Ywi4R8T.jpg

 

BTW Ukraine is spending something like 6% on defense.

Edited by Ramlaen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The chart is about percent of GDP spent in the military, not the NATO budget.

 

The US pay about 22,1% of the budget followed by Germany (14,6%) France (10,6) and the UK (9,8)

 

https://cdn.cnsnews.com/styles/content_80p/s3/nato-spend2.jpg

 

So while the US still ends up paying more, it is not as unbalanced as gross spending and GDP spending.

Besides NATO budget itself is ridiculously small.

 

The 2% target by 2024 is another matter as it aim to make sure that each member have a credible military (and that is even discutable given how the 2% are calculated) compared to their wealth.

And here it is true that most European country don't pay much compared to how much they could spend (even per capita it is true).

 

https://cdn.cnsnews.com/styles/content_80p/s3/nato-spend1.jpg

 

So reducing the 3,6% of GDP that the US spend on it's defence would only mean shrinking the US military, which would most likely impair it's ability to project force all over the world (which is why NATO is a credible alliance: because the US can send sizeable  contingent to help anywhere they want).

 

So it is true that NATO remain relevant almost solely thanks to the US ability to send massive amount of forces abroad, and while reducing US spending would force the other allies to take matters on their hands and spend more, it would also mean that the US influence over the world would be drastically reduced.

 

Alternatively the US could leave NATO, which would also force the allies to spend more but wouldn't save a penny to the US.

It would most likely be a net loss for the US since they would lose some "soft" power they had through NATO, wouldn't be able to set the STANAG in line with US tech any more and some countries (especially in eastern Europe)  would stop buying American weapons as a political token altogether

 

To sum up the US pulling out of NATO would be detrimental to everybody (US included) and would be an illogical move (though the trade war was also illogical and detrimental to everybody as well).

A better outcome for everybody would be for the allies (especially for EU countries) to step up in order to stand as equals in military worth, we would reach an equilibrium which would mean more stability (on a slight note it would mean a proportionally lower US influence over the world since it is a zero sum game to some extent).

Alternatively the US could reduce it's spending down to 2% of it's GDP which would mean a better balance as well, but given the current trend I think it is both unlikely and probably not a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ramlaen said:

 

I don't think gutting the US military would benefit us that much.

 

Even if all of NATO raised their defense spending to the same % as the US we would probably still outspend them combined due to the sheer size of the US economy.

 

Ywi4R8T.jpg

 

BTW Ukraine is spending something like 6% on defense.

 

Oh shit, I misread. I though this was a “who’s finding NATO”, not “general expenditures of countries in NATO”. Please disregard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Collimatrix
      Our good friends and Kremlin-controlled propaganda instruments independent journalists at Southfront have just produced a video about the developing situation in Moldova:


       
      Moldova is caught in the ongoing power struggle between Russia and the US-led West for control of the former Warsaw Pact.  The US took major strides in expanding its influence with the 1997 addition of the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary to NATO, followed seven years later by Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia and Bulgaria.  The expansion of NATO Eastward was particularly alarming to Russian leadership, and they claim violated an informal agreement they had with the United States that NATO would not expand.
       
      In the case of Czechoslovakia and Hungary, dissatisfaction with Russia was longstanding, and some Westward gravitation of certain former Warsaw Pact states was inevitable.  The situation in Moldova is more complicated, however, where there is a pro-EU government nominally in control of the government, but a breakway region called Transnistria on the Ukrainian border that prefers closer ties with Russia:
       

       
      (I will give Tied a moment or two to wipe away his tears of joy and nostalgia)
       
      The situation in Transnistria is complicated by the civil war in Ukraine.  Security in Transnistria is overseen by a joint force of Transnistrian, Russian and Moldovan forces.  But Russia is on the other side of Ukraine from Moldova, and Ukraine has disallowed the transit of Russian peacekeeping forces to and from Transnistria.  Additionally, the unclear legal status and porous border between Transnistria and Ukraine has made it an attractive base for gunrunners supplying weapons to the Ukrainian civil war.
       
      In the rest of Moldova things have not been going swimmingly either.  A gigantic fraud and money laundering scheme has siphoned at least $2 billion from the Moldovan economy over the last ten years, which is enormous in a country with a GDP of less than $8 billion:




      Other forms of corruption are rampant, and the economy remains extremely backward compared to the rest of Europe.  The GDP per capita of Moldova is less than half that of Albania's, for instance, and everyone knows how horrible and backwards Albania is.  It is easy to see why there would be widespread discontent. 
      The European Parliament has demanded that Russia cease its involvement in the growing Moldovan crisis, although exactly how this is supposed to work vis a vis Transnistria and what the hell they think they're going to do when the Russians do not listen is unclear.  The Russian government is following the situation, but it is unclear at this time what their response will be.
×