Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[10ebbor10]

Belgium has no tanks. We're phasing them out, combined with all other tracked vehicles.

 And since the army has to deal with a minor austerity program at the same time (IIRC, 33% budget cut), it also means we won't really have vehicles to move using our fancy new transport craft.

[Sergarr]

a minor austerity program

33% budget cut

wot

[olemars]

And when the UK wanted to investigate a possible submarine contact off its coast recently they discovered that they've scrapped all their maritime patrol aircraft.

[smjjames]

The US military could use an austerity program to rattle it into better shape or something.

[lorb]

Yeah, the us military budget is a little more than the GDP of Belgium ...

[Baffler]

Yeah, the us military budget is a little more than the GDP of Belgium ...

How do you think European countries keep such low military budgets?

[Dutchling]

Yeah, the us military budget is a little more than the GDP of Belgium ...

How do you think European countries keep such low military budgets?

Yeah, this is the sole reason I'm against any cuts to the US military budget.

Soldiers costs money, yo. It's better if the US pays for most of it

[Sheb]

Bullshit, the only possible threat to Europe is Russia (I mean, it's the only country we border), and as a whole we outspend them several time.

[Dutchling]

That we most certainly do. I would feel a lot more secure if that wasn't spend on a couple dozen different little armies though.

Not that integration isn't happening, but it seems to happen so slowly.

[Erkki]

No worries yet NATO, we are holding your north-eastern flank with a war time strength of 350,000 and Europe's largest artillery.

These tables may be interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

[Helgoland]

Bullshit, the only possible threat to Europe is Russia (I mean, it's the only country we border), and as a whole we outspend them several time.

We outspend them, but throwing cash at Russian soldiers is not a valid military strategy. There's a huge amount of wastage, and let's not forget that salaries in the EU are much higher than in Russia. If war broke out right now, those numbers wouldn't be mmuch of a comfort for me.

[Sheb]

True, but my point was that we're already spending enough. What the bloated US budget allow us to do is to waste that spending and not worry too much about integrating European armies.

[Loud Whispers]

Bullshit, the only possible threat to Europe is Russia (I mean, it's the only country we border), and as a whole we outspend them several time.

The only threat of invasion. There are more threats, to be sure; and not all European nations share the same threats.

[Phmcw]

The fact that we ouspend them several times over mean that the funding isn't the problem, not that we'd win. Without an unified army, we're at a big disadvantage, and I don't know how ready we are for a conventional war. Could we even supply our troops with enough ammunistions? I recall that it became a problem in Lybia.

[Loud Whispers]

The fact that we ouspend them several times over mean that the funding isn't the problem, not that we'd win. Without an unified army, we're at a big disadvantage, and I don't know how ready we are for a conventional war. Could we even supply our troops with enough ammunistions? I recall that it became a problem in Lybia.

How are we at a big disadvantage? Europe forms coalitions at the bat of an eyelid and has been doing so for a hell of a long time. Even got historic precedents for it. Logistics wasn't an issue, no one was running out of ammunition except maybe rebel sleeper cells. The issue was public support, this was one of the first military interventions where the US populace who were sick of military intervention were finally reaching majority. Between Britain and France you already have 400,000 of the best soldiers in the world with both nations heavily invested in power projection. Its intelligence services are world class, navies are world class, air forces are world class, its special forces are used as models for the rest of the world's special forces all over, its fleet auxiliary is superb and its soldiers are the veterans of many recent wars.
Russia's military is formidable but I never trust in the strength of an army if the majority are conscripts.
Though I suppose one thing to factor in is that Western Europe's relationship with their army is complicated. Russian pride in power is ostensible enough but Western Europeans tend to be caught between shame and indifference with their armed forces, wishing to cut it down to a smaller reservist force, or pride and support, wishing to increase the defence budget and its active force. It's in a vary precarious position.