Germany's defense minister warns that her country currently can't meet its long-term NATO commitments because of a widespread grounding of German military planes and helicopters.
"At the moment, we are below the target numbers announced a year ago on airborne systems we would want to make available to NATO within 180 days in cases of emergency," Ursula von der Leyen told the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag over the weekend. "The reason is the delays in getting replacement parts" for planes and a recent grounding of German navy helicopters.
Scores of German military aircraft have been grounded, according to confidential reports recently leaked to the German media. Only 42 of 109 Eurofighters are considered airworthy, as are 38 of 89 Tornado fighters. Of Germany's C-160 military transport planes, only 24 of 43 are in service and a delivery of replacement Airbus transportation planes is behind schedule.
Reported tears in the tails of German Sea Lynx helicopters that are taking part of European Union anti-piracy operations off the Horn of Africa led to the grounding of 22 of those aircraft.
Over the weekend, a military transport plane bringing German equipment to western Africa to help in the fight against Ebola was stuck on Gran Canaria island because of a technical problem. The German defense ministry said Monday that the plane is still there awaiting repair.
The revelations have embarrassed the German government, after Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier assured the U.N. General Assembly over the weekend that Germany would take on a greater international security role
A growing number of German ruling coalition and opposition politicians are calling on Von der Leyen to spend more to fix the widespread problems. This year, Germany reduced defense spending by more than $1 million, to $41.3 billion, which is far below NATO's recommended level of 2 percent of the GDP.
"This is embarrassing for such a large country as Germany with such a big economy," former German armed forces chief of staff Harald Kujat told Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg radio.
That is a sorry state. I can understand a state wanting to not spend as much on guns and ammo as the US. We certainly spend a lot, but to not even have the ability to maintain the 'guns and ammo' you have in it's small amount is quite surprising.
Well nations like Germany tend to rely on other nations to carry out military actions - yeah I get there are reasons that they (and other) don't want Germany to have a powerful military but maybe they should just bankroll other nations that are willing to do the fighting.............
Can't keep relying on the United States to do all the work - not just in warfare but in terms of humantarian support that only the military seems able to do quickly.
The germans are pretty anti-war generally, but they were in both of the US wars in the middle east in the last decade and are also involved in numerous peace keeping or monitoring missions around the world.
They do spend less than some other countries on their military of course, but that's up to them I guess.
Germany's defense minister warns that her country currently can't meet its long-term NATO commitments because of a widespread grounding of German military planes and helicopters.
"At the moment, we are below the target numbers announced a year ago on airborne systems we would want to make available to NATO within 180 days in cases of emergency," Ursula von der Leyen told the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag over the weekend. "The reason is the delays in getting replacement parts" for planes and a recent grounding of German navy helicopters.
Scores of German military aircraft have been grounded, according to confidential reports recently leaked to the German media. Only 42 of 109 Eurofighters are considered airworthy, as are 38 of 89 Tornado fighters. Of Germany's C-160 military transport planes, only 24 of 43 are in service and a delivery of replacement Airbus transportation planes is behind schedule.
Reported tears in the tails of German Sea Lynx helicopters that are taking part of European Union anti-piracy operations off the Horn of Africa led to the grounding of 22 of those aircraft.
Over the weekend, a military transport plane bringing German equipment to western Africa to help in the fight against Ebola was stuck on Gran Canaria island because of a technical problem. The German defense ministry said Monday that the plane is still there awaiting repair.
The revelations have embarrassed the German government, after Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier assured the U.N. General Assembly over the weekend that Germany would take on a greater international security role A growing number of German ruling coalition and opposition politicians are calling on Von der Leyen to spend more to fix the widespread problems. This year, Germany reduced defense spending by more than $1 million, to $41.3 billion, which is far below NATO's recommended level of 2 percent of the GDP.
"This is embarrassing for such a large country as Germany with such a big economy," former German armed forces chief of staff Harald Kujat told Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg radio.
No surprise.
If it is up to our politicians , only their pet projects receive funds... and armed forces isn't very well loved. Risky and no prize to be won.
Kilkrazy- Man tell me about it. I was on a DB train last night, 90 minutes late. Tried to get a different train, it was also 90 minutes late. Got a train as far as Frankfurt, and only managed to get a connection because it was 10 minutes late. Got in 2 hours later than the plan.
Kilkrazy wrote: Last time I went to Germany, it was a year ago, I noticed their train system was rather badly maintained.
Pretty much the entire infrastructure is in terrible shape. Schools, autobahnen, streets, railroads, public transportation...the problem Germany has, from a financial point of view, is that on the one hand, taxes are freaking INSANE, forcing everyone with a high income to exploit each and every loophole there is, but on the other hand, you got a giant social safety network that eats more money than you could possibly get. This is now, slowly, starting to fall back on Germany. Companies aren't satisfied by the poor infrastructure. Everyone can point to exact shortcomings and mistakes and tell how much they affect each given company, putting the German state in a terrible place for negotiating about additional taxes etc. Not that I'd complain, but Germany has to get its ass up. It's time to completely turn the tax system around and make it more transparent. The problem for a lot of high-income citizens isn't that they pay a lot of taxes - it's that those taxes just disappear into nowhere with no means of tracking where the money goes. I rather donate the money I save by avoiding taxes because I can easily track where it goes.
Create "tax pools" showing exactly where the money goes. Lower taxes. Lower social security costs and, with the saved money, increase wages by...lowering taxes.
They do spend less than some other countries on their military of course, but that's up to them I guess.
Not really. The point in NATO is mutual defence, but if one country chooses not to pay the agreed minimum it's not realy mutual.
Germany may have managed to avoid too much of a financial crisis by not having a structural deficit, but it seems that you can see where they should have been spending more money. The refusal to spend in hard times may yet damage them.
but that's not enough for some people on here, apparently.
it's going to cost a lot of money over the next few years to prop up western capitalism in the face of climate change. maybe we should find another way to do it.
but that's not enough for some people on here, apparently.
it's going to cost a lot of money over the next few years to prop up western capitalism in the face of climate change. maybe we should find another way to do it.
Er...if GERMANY is the one saying it can't make its NATO commitments, evidently its NOT THE PEOPLE ON HERE.
but that's not enough for some people on here, apparently.
Yeah, yeah
Some folks inherit star spangled eyes
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord
And when you ask 'em, "How much should we give?"
Ooh, they only answer "More! More! More!", y'all
but that's not enough for some people on here, apparently.
it's going to cost a lot of money over the next few years to prop up western capitalism in the face of climate change. maybe we should find another way to do it.
You do know that analysis is bogus.
The only way to can try compare is to somehow standardize the cost to purchase/operate the military between countries.
Don't get me wrong, the US will be way up there on that charge, but not to that extreme.
I think % of GDP is pretty instructive. Ohhhh, the U.S.A. favorite theocratic hate-spewing dictatorship is all the way up here. That nice buddy-buddy of ours!
I think % of GDP is pretty instructive. Ohhhh, the U.S.A. favorite theocratic hate-spewing dictatorship is all the way up here. That nice buddy-buddy of ours!
There is a joke here in NZ that we cant afford to fire our few missiles.
I think its somewhat normal for nations who arent fighting wars etc or havent had a conflict in a while to start letting their military degrade. I dont know much about Germany and its role in global conflicts. But I assume they dont fight often.
Swastakowey wrote: There is a joke here in NZ that we cant afford to fire our few missiles.
I think its somewhat normal for nations who arent fighting wars etc or havent had a conflict in a while to start letting their military degrade. I dont know much about Germany and its role in global conflicts. But I assume they dont fight often.
They've been in Afghanistan and do humanitarian and peacekeeping missions elsewhere.
I think % of GDP is pretty instructive. Ohhhh, the U.S.A. favorite theocratic hate-spewing dictatorship is all the way up here. That nice buddy-buddy of ours!
% of GDP is only a good comparison if you don't consider why a nation's military is as big as it is. Otherwise its like saying a Blue Whale is fatter than an Elephant.
Remember the US military isn't just protecting the US. Its protecting a good chunk of the globe, including a lot of the countries we get compared to who have smaller military spending.
But sure, ridicule us. Have fun fending off Russia all on your own Europe
I wonder what would happen if someone in the German Government were to inquire, as Japan did, about renegotiating their WW2 treaties in order to expand their military capabilities.... I mean, if funding is the issue, then if they were to get more money, they could handle the upkeep on the gear they have.
Or, they could stop using DHL, and use UPS or FedEx... I've never had anything arrive late shipped through them
Grey Templar wrote: Remember the US military isn't just protecting the US. Its protecting a good chunk of the globe, including a lot of the countries we get compared to who have smaller military spending.
Yeah, exactly. We're subsidized defense for all of NATO, and more.
Grey Templar wrote: % of GDP is only a good comparison if you don't consider why a nation's military is as big as it is.
I would say % of GDP is a good indication of how much a country invest in its military. The reasons for investing in the military might be completely justified, or conversely show a disturbing mindset.
For instance, Israel investing 6.2% of its GDP in its military make sense given how they are surrounded by hostile countries and have had a lot of wars in their recent history, with lots of lasting tensions.
On the other hand, Saudi Arabia, which officially took part in no war in recent history, was never attacked on its territory, is surrounded by allied nations and is allied with the U.S., spending 8.9% of its huge GDP in its military is quite concerning to say the least. Especially given their lackluster record in term of human rights. Just compare this to the spending of their main rival, Iran, which is spending only 1.8% of its GDP in its military (here, though, Wikipedia does not give any details, but if this does include only the regular military and not the pasdaran forces, this number is completely moot).
Grey Templar wrote: Remember the US military isn't just protecting the US. Its protecting a good chunk of the globe, including a lot of the countries we get compared to who have smaller military spending.
And why so?
Grey Templar wrote: But sure, ridicule us. Have fun fending off Russia all on your own Europe
I have always wondered where this strange idea U.S. people have that we would be invaded by Russia if they stopped protecting us come from. Do you really think that Russia would invade a nuclear power? Did you even noticed all the countries there are between, say, Germany and Russia? That is a completely unrealistic idea.
I have always wondered where this strange idea U.S. people have that we would be invaded by Russia if they stopped protecting us come from. Do you really think that Russia would invade a nuclear power? Did you even noticed all the countries there are between, say, Germany and Russia? That is a completely unrealistic idea.
I have always wondered where this strange idea U.S. people have that we would be invaded by Russia if they stopped protecting us come from. Do you really think that Russia would invade a nuclear power? Did you even noticed all the countries there are between, say, Germany and Russia? That is a completely unrealistic idea.
You're under 18 aren't you. Thats so cute.
Thats kind of the point, its not the Cold War anymore. Russia doesnt have the manpower or military capability to take and hold the half dozen or so nation-states and millions of square miles of land in between it and Germany.
LordofHats wrote: And Nazi Germany didn't have the manpower to take and hold Russia in 1941. They still tried, and millions of people still died.
Just because something isn't feasible doesn't mean someone won't try (granted I doubt Putin really wants to try).
Even if he did, the Russian "army" can barely deal with a bunch of armed civilians, they would get their asses kicked if they ever tried to fight any modern military force. And that is assuming that they could even drive their tanks 100 miles west before they all broke down!
I rattle that more up to 1) Controlling the Black Sea has been a Russian ambition since forever (literally, as long as there's been a unified Russia, they've been trying to control the Black Sea), and 2) Putin wants to be seen as the guy who returned Russia to greatness, and all greatness requires a little conquering. He tried it in Georgia and got meh results. Now he's trying his hand at the Ukraine.
He's banking on indirect and limited direct military involvement to keep everyone else from getting too involved, but given the economic sanctions and Russia's already glass economy, I think the sanctions are ultimately going to bite him a lot harder than he thinks.
I have always wondered where this strange idea U.S. people have that we would be invaded by Russia if they stopped protecting us come from. Do you really think that Russia would invade a nuclear power? Did you even noticed all the countries there are between, say, Germany and Russia? That is a completely unrealistic idea.
You're under 18 aren't you. Thats so cute.
Thats kind of the point, its not the Cold War anymore. Russia doesnt have the manpower or military capability to take and hold the half dozen or so nation-states and millions of square miles of land in between it and Germany.
Cool. The Europe doesn't need the US any more. Get rid of NATO. That really really really works for me.
I have always wondered where this strange idea U.S. people have that we would be invaded by Russia if they stopped protecting us come from. Do you really think that Russia would invade a nuclear power? Did you even noticed all the countries there are between, say, Germany and Russia? That is a completely unrealistic idea.
You're under 18 aren't you. Thats so cute.
Thats kind of the point, its not the Cold War anymore. Russia doesnt have the manpower or military capability to take and hold the half dozen or so nation-states and millions of square miles of land in between it and Germany.
I have always wondered where this strange idea U.S. people have that we would be invaded by Russia if they stopped protecting us come from. Do you really think that Russia would invade a nuclear power? Did you even noticed all the countries there are between, say, Germany and Russia? That is a completely unrealistic idea.
You're under 18 aren't you. Thats so cute.
Thats kind of the point, its not the Cold War anymore. Russia doesnt have the manpower or military capability to take and hold the half dozen or so nation-states and millions of square miles of land in between it and Germany.
I take it you've never seen a Porsche, or a Mercedes-Benz, or an Audi.... You've probably never had Doner-Kebap either. And I'm guessing you're not old enough to drink, but take it from me, the beer is worth it as well
There's also Bayern-Munchen/Allianz Stadium. Oktoberfest (that's actually a really REALLY good reason to take Germany). I mean, I probably could go on and on, but I think you get the idea
Frazzled wrote: Then you need to read more actual history on the Cold War and what went on thats not written by the Greens Party.
You are aware of the fact that the cold war is finished, right? You have heard of the fall of the Berlin wall, the dismantling of the USSR, etc? You are aware that West Germany is not adjacent to a country that was basically under direct control from a Russian government, but that now there are some of actually independent countries between reunified Germany and Russia? You have took notice of how the military budgets have actually been toned down a “little” bit?
Might want to take a look at that:
Spoiler:
Do you actually believe this downward trend is because we know everything there is to know on nuclear weapons?
Given the nature of modern "war" (since apparently they have all been downgraded to "conflicts" now ) and the general global atmosphere, do we even need NATO any more? Hell, do we even need a standing army, navy and air force in the West?
LordofHats wrote: That assumes that buying things from others is the sole goal of any state, which it isn't.
No, it doesn't. It is a simple indication of how interconnected and dependent large chunks of the world are. It is why China can get away with such poor rights (the west buy too much from them to annoy them) and why we don't seem to care about the constant warfare in africa (not enough profit) but we do like getting involved in the middle east (yay, oil! Not to mention the great enemy ).
Reminds me of a joke a friend of mine told me from our Afgan mission...
Q: 'what do you call a Canadian armoured division?'
A: 'a historical re-enactment'
I mean, we went willingly into a desert war zone in our freaking forest greens because we couldn't afford to keep desert combat gear on hand in case we'd ever need it!
Q: 'what did the Taliban say when they first encountered Canadian troops?'
A: 'why is that forest shooting at us?!'
But at least some of our tanks got upgraded to finally include air conditioning! Unfortunately we're still flying Sea Kings...
SilverMK2 wrote: It is why China can get away with such poor rights
Countries have been getting away with human rights abuses since forever, not because someone needs their trade but because it isn't their problem.
and why we don't seem to care about the constant warfare in africa
There's constant warfare in Africa both because no one outside Africa cares and the powers that be in Africa like war. It's what keeps them in charge.
we do like getting involved in the middle east
Yeah. So glad we intervened into Syria.
I'm not saying that trade doesn't matter. I'm saying that it is but a single issue and that it isn't the great war deterrent you're saying it is., Relevant ideological and political motivations will overwhelm that interest. Look at the Ukraine. Western Europe is reluctant to be much harder because they want Russia's gas. Russia can push it's war in the Ukraine because Europe wants that gas. That strong trade relationship has allowed Russia to execute it's war, and has done nothing to prevent it.
Strong trade relationships might benefit strong economies but they often come at the expense of weak economies, and the relationship only prevents war in so far as the trade benefits override other interests.
That is not what I said, but you seem completely unwilling to discuss the issue. First making derisive patronizing remarks, then avoiding to answer whatsoever. Do you really believe that NATO is the only thing preventing Russia from invading Western European countries? Then why are they not invading all those countries outside of NATO with military spending that are way lower than those of France, Germany or the UK?
Automatically Appended Next Post: And just to clarify: it was on Dakka that I, literally for the first time, heard about how apparently some U.S. citizen believe that NATO is the only reason Russia is not invading Western Europe, and how Western Europeans were parasites that sucks the sweet U.S. military expenditure while giving nothing in return. That is some opinion I had never been exposed to before, and that I have still never been exposed to anywhere else. So, yeah, I would be genuinely interested in learning more about this idea. Because believe it or not, it has never ever been discussed, or even mentioned, in French media that I know of.
That is not what I said, but you seem completely unwilling to discuss the issue. First making derisive patronizing remarks, then avoiding to answer whatsoever. Do you really believe that NATO is the only thing preventing Russia from invading Western European countries? Then why are they not invading all those countries outside of NATO with military spending that are way lower than those of France, Germany or the UK?
So now you want NATO? Why? I thought you just typed that there's no way Mother Russia could get to Germany. I guess you don't need us then.
Actually, I do not really care about NATO. I just mentioned you misrepresented what I wrote. I never wrote I wanted it removed. I mean, certainly you need our protection .
You are still refusing to answer any question.
Did you noticed the edit?
Restate your direct question, but bear in mind you've already stated opinions about the US efforts in regard to NATO during the Cold War. Good people died in that cause.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: And just to clarify: it was on Dakka that I, literally for the first time, heard about how apparently some U.S. citizen believe that NATO is the only reason Russia is not invading Western Europe, and how Western Europeans were parasites that sucks the sweet U.S. military expenditure while giving nothing in return. That is some opinion I had never been exposed to before, and that I have still never been exposed to anywhere else. So, yeah, I would be genuinely interested in learning more about this idea. Because believe it or not, it has never ever been discussed, or even mentioned, in French media that I know of.
The questions are the sentence ending with an interrogation mark. Those: “Do you really believe that NATO is the only thing preventing Russia from invading Western European countries? Then why are they not invading all those countries outside of NATO with military spending that are way lower than those of France, Germany or the UK?”
Because even though I have never heard anyone questioning our commitment to NATO, I have never heard anyone seemingly believing that it was currently helpful. As far as I know, I have not met any French expressing a different idea on it than “This is something that was useful in the past and may be useful in some hypothetic future, we feel relatively close to other members of NATO in term of culture and values, so it makes sense to be allied to them”. Never “This is a fundamental part of our survival”. Maybe very rarely “The U.S. are bad guys/bullies, we should get out of NATO”.
Actually we do not speak of NATO much, but this goes along the perception of it I mentioned.
I don't think Frnace was originally in NATO. EDIT I was incorrect-they pulled out in 1966 but rejoined joint command in 2009.
Do I think NATO is the only thing protecting Western Europe from RUssia? Now - no. They have no interest. Then-you betcha beanie.
Eastern European NATO members... thats a different story. If I were them I wouldn't plan on NATO actually doing anything unless Russia just goes balls to the wall and invades all out. If they do it piecemeal over a year, its all over for you.
Except freaking Poland. Da Poles aint gonna take no crap no more...
Even if he did, the Russian "army" can barely deal with a bunch of armed civilians, they would get their asses kicked if they ever tried to fight any modern military force. And that is assuming that they could even drive their tanks 100 miles west before they all broke down!
That statement reminds me of a quote made in a similar vein about the Soviets a while back. It went something along the lines of 'kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down.'
Specifically, it was a comment made by Hitler on the eve of the invasion of the Soviet Union by Germany. At the time the Soviets had an army that had a year or two previously had great difficulty in beating a heavily outnumbered and outgunned Finland and had also been crippled by the execution and removal of many senior officers.
Remind me again how that turned out?
Whilst I don't think the Russians are up to the standards of the US/UK or comparable professional Western militaries, they are a damn sight better than they were ten years ago. The Russian military does recognise it's weaknesses and is making a determined effort to overcome them, and they appear to have the backing of the Russian government who are putting their money where their collective mouth is.
Compare that to quite a few Western countries who make grand pronouncements of how their forces are adapting to dominate future battlefields and yet consistently fail to fund or staff such efforts. Let's not get cocky or it might come back to haunt us.....
Frazzled wrote: Do I think NATO is the only thing protecting Western Europe from RUssia?
Now - no. They have no interest.
So, why the whole “If we withdraw, good luck dealing with Russia”? I mean, I saw it wrote basically that way in here.
I agree about then, but then is a completely different question. The world has changed quite a lot.
Oh. Okay. I remember a comic posted in here that was really implying that if the U.S. were to stop protecting Western Europe, we would be instantly threatened by Russia. I thought you share that idea.
I find it funny "Cold War" is in play now after Romney got blasted in a debate by Obama saying the Cold War is over. Someone should have mention that to Putin. Or press the "Reset" button...
Jihadin wrote: I find it funny "Cold War" is in play now after Romney got blasted in a debate by Obama saying the Cold War is over. Someone should have mention that to Putin. Or press the "Reset" button...
I have always wondered where this strange idea U.S. people have that we would be invaded by Russia if they stopped protecting us come from. Do you really think that Russia would invade a nuclear power? Did you even noticed all the countries there are between, say, Germany and Russia? That is a completely unrealistic idea.
You're under 18 aren't you. Thats so cute.
Thats kind of the point, its not the Cold War anymore. Russia doesnt have the manpower or military capability to take and hold the half dozen or so nation-states and millions of square miles of land in between it and Germany.
Why would Russia even want to invade Gemany?
Oktoberfest of course silly.
But they only have soft drinks there. A true Russian would never drink something that contains less than 40% alcohol.
I feel kind of bad for Germany. Because of WW2 they've basically been bullied into being ashamed for their entire past.
There's a theory among leftist German academics called "sonderweg". It used to be a nationalist word about Germany's special path but now its been corrupted into "everything leads to nazis". Basically these people think that everything about German history and culture led them to the nazis and the holocaust.
Frederick the Great? Nazis.
Gutenberg? Nazis.
Martin Luther? Nazis.
Willhelm II's progressive reforms? Nazis.
Bismarck? Nazis.
You get the idea. I think the notion is ludicrous, and I think we all need to get over WW2 and let the germans be proud of themselves for something besides beer.
I have always wondered where this strange idea U.S. people have that we would be invaded by Russia if they stopped protecting us come from. Do you really think that Russia would invade a nuclear power? Did you even noticed all the countries there are between, say, Germany and Russia? That is a completely unrealistic idea.
You're under 18 aren't you. Thats so cute.
Thats kind of the point, its not the Cold War anymore. Russia doesnt have the manpower or military capability to take and hold the half dozen or so nation-states and millions of square miles of land in between it and Germany.
Why would Russia even want to invade Gemany?
Oktoberfest of course silly.
But they only have soft drinks there. A true Russian would never drink something that contains less than 40% alcohol.
EmilCrane wrote: I feel kind of bad for Germany. Because of WW2 they've basically been bullied into being ashamed for their entire past.
Still better than Japan's way .
In Japan everything was swept under the rug in the name of the cold war and now they're well on the way to being a military power in the Asia-Pacific region.
Jihadin wrote: Well. Japan is one huge Aircraft Carrier in that region
True, its strategic position is invaluable in the region. But the big thing was that during the korean war the US military kinda forgot that when you go the war you don't just need guns and ammo, you also need food, water, socks, spare tires, shirts and all the other minor logistical stuff. So Japan got a huge economic boost from procurement. During that time many of the administrators and officials who held positions of power during the Imperial Era got their old jobs back because it was either them or commies.
You get the idea. I think the notion is ludicrous, and I think we all need to get over WW2 and let the germans be proud of themselves for something besides beer.
Bayern Munchen... and the Deutsche Fusball team (or whatever the hell they call the national team )
NATO exist's not to stop the russian hordes but to simply stop europeans attacking each other.
Although if the US completely withrew all overseas military commitments and disolved NATO i could see the USA saving a hell of alot of money. although some countries would probably cease to exist without american insurance
Israel
South korea
Taiwan
just to name a few
Also the arguement that the world is too interconnected and reliant on trade that a large scale war could break out is moot. One of the leading arguements before the break out of the first world war, was that the worlds econmies were too reliant on one another and no one would be stupid enough to fight due to the economic devestation
EmilCrane wrote: I feel kind of bad for Germany. Because of WW2 they've basically been bullied into being ashamed for their entire past.
Still better than Japan's way .
In Japan everything was swept under the rug in the name of the cold war and now they're well on the way to being a military power in the Asia-Pacific region.
Allow me to laugh at this EmilCrane. With 12 defense ministers in the last 8 years (one lasted 54 days!!) plus tales of graft and corruption in the Defense Department that would put Chicago to shame Japan might look like a military power but it's very far from being one no matter how much PM Abe wants to emulate grandaddy's career.
EmilCrane wrote: I feel kind of bad for Germany. Because of WW2 they've basically been bullied into being ashamed for their entire past.
Still better than Japan's way .
In Japan everything was swept under the rug in the name of the cold war and now they're well on the way to being a military power in the Asia-Pacific region.
Allow me to laugh at this EmilCrane. With 12 defense ministers in the last 8 years (one lasted 54 days!!) plus tales of graft and corruption in the Defense Department that would put Chicago to shame Japan might look like a military power but it's very far from being one no matter how much PM Abe wants to emulate grandaddy's career.
M.
Fair enough, Japan looks strong on paper at least.
mitch_rifle wrote: NATO exist's not to stop the russian hordes but to simply stop europeans attacking each other.
No.
NATO exists because we had tanks sitting nose to nose at the Brandenburg Gate, had to airlift in food to Berlin, and were on the edge of war with the USSR, several times.
Its like history is just ignored nowdays.
mitch_rifle wrote: NATO exist's not to stop the russian hordes but to simply stop europeans attacking each other.
Although if the US completely withrew all overseas military commitments and disolved NATO i could see the USA saving a hell of alot of money. although some countries would probably cease to exist without american insurance
Israel
South korea
Taiwan
just to name a few
Also the arguement that the world is too interconnected and reliant on trade that a large scale war could break out is moot. One of the leading arguements before the break out of the first world war, was that the worlds econmies were too reliant on one another and no one would be stupid enough to fight due to the economic devestation
we all know now how that turned out.
Well.....till someone manage to build a nuke Israel can more likely hold it own and more likely expand its border
South Korea military is based on Conscription so basically every male 18 and up are either in the military or can go back in the military. They have resources to expand their combat units threefold on short notice
Taiwan is basically protected by the fact everything space related is made in Taiwan and more likely includes the wrenches use in space to beat a component into operations. Everyone wants to go home after a space trip
Israeli nukes will not disappear the day the U.S. cut their support to Israel. They have already managed to beat back some Arab armies by themselves before getting U.S. support.
mitch_rifle wrote: Both heavily funded and supplied by the US. The real threat is american retaliation.
Israel's military is self sufficient in pretty much every way that matters. It's been pointed out numerous times over the decades they've rarely dipped into our offerings.
mitch_rifle wrote: No one is ever going to use nukes, unless they want the world to end
You'll forgive me if I view the opinion on future socio/polical/military affairs by someone who can't distinguish between NATO and the EU with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Frazzled wrote: Do I think NATO is the only thing protecting Western Europe from RUssia?
Now - no. They have no interest.
So, why the whole “If we withdraw, good luck dealing with Russia”? I mean, I saw it wrote basically that way in here.
I agree about then, but then is a completely different question. The world has changed quite a lot.
Dude you have to understand something us Canadians have been dealing with forever. When dealing with americans they did everything and saved the world since the dawn of time and never lost a war lol. When dealing with the brit its kinda the same so never let the 2 of them in the room together lol. It is better to sit back and laugh as they both saved the world in ww2 and how even now when they start wars they are saving us all from some new threat no one heard of but them.
On a side note the only true enemy of a Canadian is the dogs of quebec the only things that refused to fight in ww2 and suck the life of all those the live near DEATH TO QUEBEC
EmilCrane wrote:I feel kind of bad for Germany. Because of WW2 they've basically been bullied into being ashamed for their entire past.
There's a theory among leftist German academics called "sonderweg". It used to be a nationalist word about Germany's special path but now its been corrupted into "everything leads to nazis". Basically these people think that everything about German history and culture led them to the nazis and the holocaust.
Frederick the Great? Nazis.
Gutenberg? Nazis.
Martin Luther? Nazis.
Willhelm II's progressive reforms? Nazis.
Bismarck? Nazis.
You get the idea. I think the notion is ludicrous, and I think we all need to get over WW2 and let the germans be proud of themselves for something besides beer.
You get the idea. I think the notion is ludicrous, and I think we all need to get over WW2 and let the germans be proud of themselves for something besides beer.
Bayern Munchen... and the Deutsche Fusball team (or whatever the hell they call the national team )
Proud of Bayern München?
Still leads to Nazis:
okay, he may not be as fluent in German as Hitler, but he gets the point across
Lol, I think that my point was more about how they have an "awesome" soccer team (although, we all know there's really nothing awesome about soccer... so, there ya go) or two in that country.
Ohh... and they get pretty fired up about auto racing. Seriously. They have Semi-truck racing, go kart racing, Formula, Rallye, "stock"/GT car racing, Endurance racing..... No joke, if it has a "civilian" purpose of moving a person from point A to point B, the Germans will devise a way to race it.
