Switch Theme:

Who's the US's Best Friend?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Who is the United States of America's closest ally?
Canada
France
Mexico
North Korea
Russia
United Kingdom
Other

View results
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





oh and take a deep breathe and say "President Michael Richard Pence, 46th President of the United States (R) Indiana....and Dark Lord of the Sith)" then BOHICA if you have any liberal feelings at all that are to the left of the galactic empire.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





I may not agree with Pence's politics, but at least the man has some morals, and a FAR better understanding of international relations than Trump.

CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 Vulcan wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
^^ That is exactly right.

Hence my questions a few pages ago about how the USA supplies its forces in Afghanistan. It does up through a network of worldwide bases.

The USA is the only global superpower, capable of sending and supporting forces anywhere in the world, thanks to bases in its many allies' territories.


Many of which are now in danger of being closed if Trump keeps irritating our allies.


Excellent.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in nl
Wolf Guard Bodyguard in Terminator Armor




 LordofHats wrote:
The obvious answer is the Fortune 500 List


Also the truest one so far.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Frazzled wrote:
 Vulcan wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
^^ That is exactly right.

Hence my questions a few pages ago about how the USA supplies its forces in Afghanistan. It does up through a network of worldwide bases.

The USA is the only global superpower, capable of sending and supporting forces anywhere in the world, thanks to bases in its many allies' territories.


Many of which are now in danger of being closed if Trump keeps irritating our allies.


Excellent.


So you're fine with America losing important parts of the world-wide logistical network that allows it to operate with impunity across the globe? Usually conservatives are against anything that lessens American military might and ability to project power.

If we're going to go that far we might as well cut back on the Military Transport Command, heavy bombers, and cut the carrier fleet down. If we're not going to be in the Power Projection business we can cut back to a military more suited for a defensive posture instead of an offensive one.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/23 23:26:48


CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




Building a blood in water scent

Frazz is an odd duck. He's a staunch isolationist while waving the flag of American Imperialism. I blame the Texas heat.

We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” 
   
Made in dk
Stormin' Stompa





 Da Boss wrote:
The US can cut its defense spending whenever it wants. No other country in the world has any say over it, and none has ever even commented on it. Unlike America commenting on others spending.


I honestly don't think they can.

Without getting into conspiracy theories about the Military Industrial Complex, I question whether the American economy could handle the jobs lost and companies closed, if the US were to make any substantial cuts in their defense spending.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the defense budget isn't that different in any substantial way from China's state-controlled (and supported) economy.

The same kind of impact would be felt if the 2nd Amendment were ever to be curtailed in any relevant way.

.

-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."

18.000 3.500 8.200 3.300 2.400 3.100 5.500 2.500 3.200 3.000


 
   
Made in nl
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






 feeder wrote:
Frazz is an odd duck. He's a staunch isolationist while waving the flag of American Imperialism. I blame the Texas heat.

That, and I suspect he might be secretly a dog.

They are among us!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/24 03:12:18


Error 404: Interesting signature not found

 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





Chicago, Illinois

Jokingly Russia.

Seriously Russia.

In actuality Russia.

Under this government Russia.

Previous government it was based on interests, culture, trade, and a myriad of geographic and resources. It would be in terms of productivity and economy and culture between Canada our biggest nationally similar country, Great Britian which was the creator of the original 13 colonies and much of our cultural identity, or China our biggest trading partner. While Japan coming close as well for having a huge dependency on the United States for its economy and protection. Great Britain and Canada would be our closest 'Friends', while France has been our oldest ally of convenience

There are no friends in politics. Unless you collude with a foreign government to help you win an election :cough:.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/24 04:20:57


From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war. 
   
Made in nl
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc





Steelmage99 wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
The US can cut its defense spending whenever it wants. No other country in the world has any say over it, and none has ever even commented on it. Unlike America commenting on others spending.


I honestly don't think they can.

Without getting into conspiracy theories about the Military Industrial Complex, I question whether the American economy could handle the jobs lost and companies closed, if the US were to make any substantial cuts in their defense spending.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the defense budget isn't that different in any substantial way from China's state-controlled (and supported) economy.

The same kind of impact would be felt if the 2nd Amendment were ever to be curtailed in any relevant way.

.

Well they could realistically speaking. In the broadest sense I believe the US defense and related industries employ 3.5-4 million people. Now that sounds like a lot, but the US has a higher yearly job turn over rate. Now say you cut the defense budget in half, that doesn't mean half those jobs dissapear, because the US is also a major arms exporter.

The issue isn't so much that the US economy couldn't handle it, because it could and defense budget cuts could be invested into other sectors of society that will in turn generate jobs. When talking about the MIC the power comes from the huge effect of their lobbying and targetting the representatives/senators from areas where they have their factories, I think the example of the US Army being forced to buy tanks against their will has been a common example on Dakka. Combine that with a national culture where any talk of a reduced defense budget immediately gets into "why do you hate our troops?!" rethoric and you have a much more powerful political motivation compared to an economic one.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/07/24 06:09:57


Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP) 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 Vulcan wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 Vulcan wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
^^ That is exactly right.

Hence my questions a few pages ago about how the USA supplies its forces in Afghanistan. It does up through a network of worldwide bases.

The USA is the only global superpower, capable of sending and supporting forces anywhere in the world, thanks to bases in its many allies' territories.


Many of which are now in danger of being closed if Trump keeps irritating our allies.


Excellent.


So you're fine with America losing important parts of the world-wide logistical network that allows it to operate with impunity across the globe? Usually conservatives are against anything that lessens American military might and ability to project power.

If we're going to go that far we might as well cut back on the Military Transport Command, heavy bombers, and cut the carrier fleet down. If we're not going to be in the Power Projection business we can cut back to a military more suited for a defensive posture instead of an offensive one.


Yes. Sounds like a good idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 feeder wrote:
Frazz is an odd duck. He's a staunch isolationist while waving the flag of American Imperialism. I blame the Texas heat.

That, and I suspect he might be secretly a dog.

They are among us!


This is a little more accurate:


Actually I only wave the flag of America Hurr!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/24 16:08:04


-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Steady Space Marine Vet Sergeant





Believeland, OH

Not Online!!! wrote:
 Andrew1975 wrote:
For now, I'll go with the UK.

Canada.....they are like our quirky little brother. We like them and all, good trade partner, but ally? I mean yeah they have a military...but its not really a full fledged thing.

Im amazed at the people that say France. Just no. Dont bring up we'd be a common wealth without them. The cheese eating surrender monkeys would be speaking German without us, or possibly Russian, but Russia doesnt beat Germany (and Russia is the country that really beat Germany) without lend lease from.....guess who?

We should have made friendly with Russia when Putin was actually interested in being friendly......but we kept that whole cold war mentality for too long......and you know promoting coops in Ukraine (Russia's "Canada") was kind of Russias last straw with playing nice with the USA. Realizing that the US and Eu were never going to give Russia a seat at the cool kids table....I mean I get why Putin just gave up.

Not a Trump fan at all, but I still dont understand why the US spends so much money on military bases in Europe. Get your own armies. We'd like to have free college and healthcare here, but you know we have to protect the world.....not really sure from whom...but yeah.


Just no.
I'd seriously recommend to read up on your independence war, without the french you would've been pretty boned.
Money was from the french a huge part of the budget of the continental army was paid that way.
Navy, you know the thing to severe the supply lines for the british and to break blockades of the british? Those things that were needed to win such a war?
Was French and spanish.
Yorktown, was only possible with the french...


I'm not saying that they didnt help dramatically or we would have won without them.....Just saying the favor has been repaid over and over.

We quible a lot with the french mostly because they still dream of being an empire. Case in point Vietnam! We got on the wrong side of Vietnam because of the French. Ho had no particular love for the Soviets, and had actually Reached out many times to the US for support before turning to the Soviets. We however sided with the french....that worked out well for everyone!

Lets look at Lybia. France rattled the sabers....but when it came down to it the US had to do most of the work.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Skinnereal wrote:
 Andrew1975 wrote:
Not a Trump fan at all, but I still don't understand why the US spends so much money on military bases in Europe. Get your own armies. We'd like to have free college and healthcare here, but you know we have to protect the world.....not really sure from whom...but yeah.
I'm guessing the US bases in Europe and such are for efficiency. If all of the US forces are based in the US, they're not much use if it takes a week to get anywhere. Navy fleets float around all over the place, but take forever to get where they're needed. Air fleets can only carry so much, and need somewhere to land if they're going to get set up.
Bases can be backfilled or reinforced as required, if they need to deploy. Being near the action saves a lot of time.
It is also a big boost to relations. Having a US base in Italy (I dunno, are there any?) means Italy (or whoever it is) can call on US help any time they need it. A neighbour wanting to move in has 2 countries it has to work against.
Having US troops deployed abroad is much more than military spending.


This only matters if you think the US should be gallivanting around the world with a military presence.....which I don't. Why should Italy have to call upon the US military.....Thats what European armies are for. Sure if the Russians come.....which by the way is never going to happen, we could help, but that doesnt justify the US spending billions of dollars maintaining troops and bases around the globe, especially when we have our own issues here. Europe should be able to defend itself without us for the most part and handle situations in its own spheres of influence. Afganistan and Syria are much closer to Europe than the US....they should deal with it.

I understand that these can turn into Global issues....just dont agree that the US has to be the default military to fix every problem.

Do you guys even understand how many military bases and outposts the US has around the world? It would be one thing if our meddling was actually helpful to the world, but we can look at time and time again where we have only made matters much worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Steelmage99 wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
The US can cut its defense spending whenever it wants. No other country in the world has any say over it, and none has ever even commented on it. Unlike America commenting on others spending.


I honestly don't think they can.

Without getting into conspiracy theories about the Military Industrial Complex, I question whether the American economy could handle the jobs lost and companies closed, if the US were to make any substantial cuts in their defense spending.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the defense budget isn't that different in any substantial way from China's state-controlled (and supported) economy.

The same kind of impact would be felt if the 2nd Amendment were ever to be curtailed in any relevant way.

.

Well they could realistically speaking. In the broadest sense I believe the US defense and related industries employ 3.5-4 million people. Now that sounds like a lot, but the US has a higher yearly job turn over rate. Now say you cut the defense budget in half, that doesn't mean half those jobs dissapear, because the US is also a major arms exporter.

The issue isn't so much that the US economy couldn't handle it, because it could and defense budget cuts could be invested into other sectors of society that will in turn generate jobs. When talking about the MIC the power comes from the huge effect of their lobbying and targetting the representatives/senators from areas where they have their factories, I think the example of the US Army being forced to buy tanks against their will has been a common example on Dakka. Combine that with a national culture where any talk of a reduced defense budget immediately gets into "why do you hate our troops?!" rethoric and you have a much more powerful political motivation compared to an economic one.


America could do this and instead create many more jobs in infrastructure, which we are sadly falling behind. Not only that if we downsize our military guess what? Others have to build theirs, we could be producing equipment and training for the EU armies.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/24 17:46:58


"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma

"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma

"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




Building a blood in water scent

The US is the world's hegemonic superpower precisely because of it's network of bases and military presence. Without it, the US is just another collection of quibbling states, like Europe.

We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” 
   
Made in us
Steady Space Marine Vet Sergeant





Believeland, OH

 feeder wrote:
The US is the world's hegemonic superpower precisely because of it's network of bases and military presence. Without it, the US is just another collection of quibbling states, like Europe.


I think thats an oversimplification. We would still be a superpower even if we closed 3/4 of our foreign bases. We could close every base in Europe, what would be the disastrous result? Yeah we'd have a problem with Afghanistan......if you think we really need to be there...I guess.

There are other avenues to becoming a super power than raw military force projection. The US is a technology super power, an economic superpower, cultural superpower, we are the superpower for so many reasons. Do we need a strong military...absolutely, The Strongest military, absolutely. Do we need to have the strongest military presence in every sphere at all times...no.

Our military is so big and bloated and inefficient, to the point that it threatens itself. Lets look at the F-22, there are not really enough of them because we budget for so many other things, we currently have no plans for a naval air superiority fighter to fill the role of the f-14...which the F-18 just cant do.




"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma

"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma

"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma 
   
Made in nl
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






 Andrew1975 wrote:
 feeder wrote:
The US is the world's hegemonic superpower precisely because of it's network of bases and military presence. Without it, the US is just another collection of quibbling states, like Europe.


I think thats an oversimplification. We would still be a superpower even if we closed 3/4 of our foreign bases. We could close every base in Europe, what would be the disastrous result? Yeah we'd have a problem with Afghanistan......if you think we really need to be there...I guess.

There are other avenues to becoming a super power than raw military force projection. The US is a technology super power, an economic superpower, cultural superpower, we are the superpower for so many reasons. Do we need a strong military...absolutely, The Strongest military, absolutely. Do we need to have the strongest military presence in every sphere at all times...no.

Our military is so big and bloated and inefficient, to the point that it threatens itself. Lets look at the F-22, there are not really enough of them because we budget for so many other things, we currently have no plans for a naval air superiority fighter to fill the role of the f-14...which the F-18 just cant do.




No. The US would still be a great power, like China or Russia, but no longer a superpower. What sets a superpower apart from other great powers is their global reach. For that, you need bases all over the world. If you look at past superpowers, like the Spanish, Dutch and British empires or the Soviet Union, they all had those global base networks. A superpower can project its military power everywhere and meddles in everything. That is what makes them a superpower.

You are right on the US military though. I'd say its operating costs have gone massively out of hand. Look at the Russian and Chinese militaries for example. They can do the same things the US military does for a tiny fraction of the cost. Lower wages in those countries play a part in that of course, but also a big part is how the US military-industrial complex is set up, with defense industries being primarily interested in their own profit rather than the greater good of the state. I think it used to be better in the past. Comparing the costs of past US military projects with the costs of current US military projects there is a clear pattern of inflating costs more and more.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/24 19:03:04


Error 404: Interesting signature not found

 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 Andrew1975 wrote:
 feeder wrote:
The US is the world's hegemonic superpower precisely because of it's network of bases and military presence. Without it, the US is just another collection of quibbling states, like Europe.


I think thats an oversimplification. We would still be a superpower even if we closed 3/4 of our foreign bases. We could close every base in Europe, what would be the disastrous result? Yeah we'd have a problem with Afghanistan......if you think we really need to be there...I guess.

There are other avenues to becoming a super power than raw military force projection. The US is a technology super power, an economic superpower, cultural superpower, we are the superpower for so many reasons. Do we need a strong military...absolutely, The Strongest military, absolutely. Do we need to have the strongest military presence in every sphere at all times...no.

Our military is so big and bloated and inefficient, to the point that it threatens itself. Lets look at the F-22, there are not really enough of them because we budget for so many other things, we currently have no plans for a naval air superiority fighter to fill the role of the f-14...which the F-18 just cant do.




The f-18 is a multi purpose craft that can do a lot of jobs pretty well - but it's not an interceptor. F-15 is the current interceptor and it's aging but still probably the best plane built in large numbers. It is probably the top gen 4 fighter - though it's not as dominant as it used to be. F-22's are just not viable weapons for their cost. You can have 10 f-15's for the price of an f-22. Or almost 15 f-18's.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




Building a blood in water scent

 Andrew1975 wrote:
 feeder wrote:
The US is the world's hegemonic superpower precisely because of it's network of bases and military presence. Without it, the US is just another collection of quibbling states, like Europe.


I think thats an oversimplification. We would still be a superpower even if we closed 3/4 of our foreign bases. We could close every base in Europe, what would be the disastrous result? Yeah we'd have a problem with Afghanistan......if you think we really need to be there...I guess.

There are other avenues to becoming a super power than raw military force projection. The US is a technology super power, an economic superpower, cultural superpower, we are the superpower for so many reasons. Do we need a strong military...absolutely, The Strongest military, absolutely. Do we need to have the strongest military presence in every sphere at all times...no.

Our military is so big and bloated and inefficient, to the point that it threatens itself. Lets look at the F-22, there are not really enough of them because we budget for so many other things, we currently have no plans for a naval air superiority fighter to fill the role of the f-14...which the F-18 just cant do.


The way that a trillion dollar budget works, I doubt the funding for R&D comes from the same silo as the funding for oversea bases.

I agree that the F-22 looks like a bloated boondoggle, although I'm hardly an expert on modern military aviation.

We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 feeder wrote:
 Andrew1975 wrote:
 feeder wrote:
The US is the world's hegemonic superpower precisely because of it's network of bases and military presence. Without it, the US is just another collection of quibbling states, like Europe.


I think thats an oversimplification. We would still be a superpower even if we closed 3/4 of our foreign bases. We could close every base in Europe, what would be the disastrous result? Yeah we'd have a problem with Afghanistan......if you think we really need to be there...I guess.

There are other avenues to becoming a super power than raw military force projection. The US is a technology super power, an economic superpower, cultural superpower, we are the superpower for so many reasons. Do we need a strong military...absolutely, The Strongest military, absolutely. Do we need to have the strongest military presence in every sphere at all times...no.

Our military is so big and bloated and inefficient, to the point that it threatens itself. Lets look at the F-22, there are not really enough of them because we budget for so many other things, we currently have no plans for a naval air superiority fighter to fill the role of the f-14...which the F-18 just cant do.


The way that a trillion dollar budget works, I doubt the funding for R&D comes from the same silo as the funding for oversea bases.

I agree that the F-22 looks like a bloated boondoggle, although I'm hardly an expert on modern military aviation.

From all sources - the f-22 is the most dominant fighter to ever fly. In battle sims vs the f-15 - with the best pilots in the air-force. F-22's just kill and are never spotted. Complete and utter domination.

Honestly though - I think this is probably pretty short lived. No defense is unstoppable. Eventually stealth tech will become useless.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in nl
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc





 Andrew1975 wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Steelmage99 wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
The US can cut its defense spending whenever it wants. No other country in the world has any say over it, and none has ever even commented on it. Unlike America commenting on others spending.


I honestly don't think they can.

Without getting into conspiracy theories about the Military Industrial Complex, I question whether the American economy could handle the jobs lost and companies closed, if the US were to make any substantial cuts in their defense spending.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the defense budget isn't that different in any substantial way from China's state-controlled (and supported) economy.

The same kind of impact would be felt if the 2nd Amendment were ever to be curtailed in any relevant way.

.

Well they could realistically speaking. In the broadest sense I believe the US defense and related industries employ 3.5-4 million people. Now that sounds like a lot, but the US has a higher yearly job turn over rate. Now say you cut the defense budget in half, that doesn't mean half those jobs dissapear, because the US is also a major arms exporter.

The issue isn't so much that the US economy couldn't handle it, because it could and defense budget cuts could be invested into other sectors of society that will in turn generate jobs. When talking about the MIC the power comes from the huge effect of their lobbying and targetting the representatives/senators from areas where they have their factories, I think the example of the US Army being forced to buy tanks against their will has been a common example on Dakka. Combine that with a national culture where any talk of a reduced defense budget immediately gets into "why do you hate our troops?!" rethoric and you have a much more powerful political motivation compared to an economic one.


America could do this and instead create many more jobs in infrastructure, which we are sadly falling behind. Not only that if we downsize our military guess what? Others have to build theirs, we could be producing equipment and training for the EU armies.

You are producing equipment for Europe though, plenty of European countries are working with at least some US equipment. The larger nations in Europe have their own defense industries regardless. It would be cheaper if we did it ourselves, but its convenient to have harmonized equipment standards in a lot of areas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
You are right on the US military though. I'd say its operating costs have gone massively out of hand. Look at the Russian and Chinese militaries for example. They can do the same things the US military does for a tiny fraction of the cost. Lower wages in those countries play a part in that of course, but also a big part is how the US military-industrial complex is set up, with defense industries being primarily interested in their own profit rather than the greater good of the state. I think it used to be better in the past. Comparing the costs of past US military projects with the costs of current US military projects there is a clear pattern of inflating costs more and more.

Yes, operating costs have exploded since Afghanistan and Iraq and have never gone back down even though the operations have been heavily reduced.

But looking at the Russian and Chinese militaries does little, they can in no way, shape or form match what the US military can do on the level they are playing at and they even admit so, hence the heavy emphasis on different strategic approaches. Take into account that Russia is a terrible example in this case, because they spend about 33% more than the US when looking at the percentage of GDP while having nowhere near the same level of capabilities. China actively lies about their defense spending, its estimated they spend between 1.5 to even 2 times as much as they admit. Even so, China has the issue that a lot of equipment they had is either outdated which is increasing their defense budget rapidly to update/replace or cheaply and frustratingly (for the Russians) copied from the Russians until at least recently. This is why Russia only restarted the sales of advanced weapon systems to China in 2016, speculated to be more out of financial necessity than the Chinese stopping the blatant theft. This all helps China drive down costs, as well as the fact that they have zero overseas commitments to spend money on. Their army is big and capable, but not on the US level. They both have very capable regional armies, but the US has a capable global army for the same/less spending relative to GDP.

Lastly you have to consider the disadvantage of cutting edge military tech. The US invests a lot of money in research and development, but its always cheaper to follow the developments rather than making them. As such a good chunk of US budget gets spend on developing new tech that other countries can copy or at least partially copy for their own designs for far less money.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/24 21:39:17


Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP) 
   
Made in nl
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
You are right on the US military though. I'd say its operating costs have gone massively out of hand. Look at the Russian and Chinese militaries for example. They can do the same things the US military does for a tiny fraction of the cost. Lower wages in those countries play a part in that of course, but also a big part is how the US military-industrial complex is set up, with defense industries being primarily interested in their own profit rather than the greater good of the state. I think it used to be better in the past. Comparing the costs of past US military projects with the costs of current US military projects there is a clear pattern of inflating costs more and more.

Yes, operating costs have exploded since Afghanistan and Iraq and have never gone back down even though the operations have been heavily reduced.

But looking at the Russian and Chinese militaries does little, they can in no way, shape or form match what the US military can do on the level they are playing at and they even admit so, hence the heavy emphasis on different strategic approaches. Take into account that Russia is a terrible example in this case, because they spend about 33% more than the US when looking at the percentage of GDP while having nowhere near the same level of capabilities. China actively lies about their defense spending, its estimated they spend between 1.5 to even 2 times as much as they admit. Even so, China has the issue that a lot of equipment they had is either outdated which is increasing their defense budget rapidly to update/replace or cheaply and frustratingly (for the Russians) copied from the Russians until at least recently. This is why Russia only restarted the sales of advanced weapon systems to China in 2016, speculated to be more out of financial necessity than the Chinese stopping the blatant theft. This all helps China drive down costs, as well as the fact that they have zero overseas commitments to spend money on. Their army is big and capable, but not on the US level. They both have very capable regional armies, but the US has a capable global army for the same/less spending relative to GDP.

Lastly you have to consider the disadvantage of cutting edge military tech. The US invests a lot of money in research and development, but its always cheaper to follow the developments rather than making them. As such a good chunk of US budget gets spend on developing new tech that other countries can copy or at least partially copy for their own designs for far less money.

Russia and China do not have the same capabilities as the US mostly because they are in a very different strategic situation (massive continental countries with long borders, rather than being isolated by oceans on all sides), which means they require very different capabilities. The US needs a massive air force and navy, because it needs to be able to project its power across seas. Therefore, it is no surprise that the US indeed has the biggest air force and navy in the world. Russia or China on the other hand do not need to project their power quite that far, and they need to be able to defend a massive amount of territory. That is why they focus on massive armies. And indeed, Russia and China have the biggest armies in the world (China in terms of raw manpower, Russia in terms of mechanised warfare). Of course, this comes with the drawback that their militaries do not have the global power projection that the US has (the US international base network is also an important factor in this though).
But, this was not what I was referring to. What I was referring to is the capability that Russia and China have to develop, produce and employ equipment at a much lower cost than the US faces to develop, produce and deploy similar equipment. This is how Russia and China can field such large armies despite their defense spending being relatively low. And not all of this is due to the US inventing cutting-edge tech, as Russia is just as active in that regard as well (more active in recent years, even), but Russia's R&D projects never have to deal with the same kind of insane costs that the US' R&D has to deal with. Again, this comes down to the Russian and Chinese military-industrial complex being organised more efficiently than the privatised US military-industrial complex. It is after all not just the US who faces this problem, other Western countries with high wages and privatised defense sectors are dealing with exactly the same issue (albeit on a much lesser scale due to the small size of their military and defense sectors).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/24 22:06:08


Error 404: Interesting signature not found

 
   
Made in nl
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc





 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
You are right on the US military though. I'd say its operating costs have gone massively out of hand. Look at the Russian and Chinese militaries for example. They can do the same things the US military does for a tiny fraction of the cost. Lower wages in those countries play a part in that of course, but also a big part is how the US military-industrial complex is set up, with defense industries being primarily interested in their own profit rather than the greater good of the state. I think it used to be better in the past. Comparing the costs of past US military projects with the costs of current US military projects there is a clear pattern of inflating costs more and more.

Yes, operating costs have exploded since Afghanistan and Iraq and have never gone back down even though the operations have been heavily reduced.

But looking at the Russian and Chinese militaries does little, they can in no way, shape or form match what the US military can do on the level they are playing at and they even admit so, hence the heavy emphasis on different strategic approaches. Take into account that Russia is a terrible example in this case, because they spend about 33% more than the US when looking at the percentage of GDP while having nowhere near the same level of capabilities. China actively lies about their defense spending, its estimated they spend between 1.5 to even 2 times as much as they admit. Even so, China has the issue that a lot of equipment they had is either outdated which is increasing their defense budget rapidly to update/replace or cheaply and frustratingly (for the Russians) copied from the Russians until at least recently. This is why Russia only restarted the sales of advanced weapon systems to China in 2016, speculated to be more out of financial necessity than the Chinese stopping the blatant theft. This all helps China drive down costs, as well as the fact that they have zero overseas commitments to spend money on. Their army is big and capable, but not on the US level. They both have very capable regional armies, but the US has a capable global army for the same/less spending relative to GDP.

Lastly you have to consider the disadvantage of cutting edge military tech. The US invests a lot of money in research and development, but its always cheaper to follow the developments rather than making them. As such a good chunk of US budget gets spend on developing new tech that other countries can copy or at least partially copy for their own designs for far less money.

Russia and China do not have the same capabilities as the US mostly because they are in a very different strategic situation (massive continental countries with long borders, rather than being isolated by oceans on all sides), which means they require very different capabilities. The US needs a massive air force and navy, because it needs to be able to project its power across seas. Therefore, it is no surprise that the US indeed has the biggest air force and navy in the world. Russia or China on the other hand do not need to project their power quite that far, and they need to be able to defend a massive amount of territory. That is why they focus on massive armies. And indeed, Russia and China have the biggest armies in the world (China in terms of raw manpower, Russia in terms of mechanised warfare). Of course, this comes with the drawback that their militaries do not have the global power projection that the US has (the US international base network is also an important factor in this though).
But, this was not what I was referring to. What I was referring to is the capability that Russia and China have to develop, produce and employ equipment at a much lower cost than the US faces to develop, produce and deploy similar equipment. This is how Russia and China can field such large armies despite their defense spending being relatively low. And not all of this is due to the US inventing cutting-edge tech, as Russia is just as active in that regard as well (more active in recent years, even), but Russia's R&D projects never have to deal with the same kind of insane costs that the US' R&D has to deal with. Again, this comes down to the Russian and Chinese military-industrial complex being organised more efficiently than the privatised US military-industrial complex. It is after all not just the US who faces this problem, other Western countries with high wages and privatised defense sectors are dealing with exactly the same issue (albeit on a much lesser scale due to the small size of their military and defense sectors).

This is a bit of a silly argument though, this might be true for Russia (which spends more anyway), but it certainly isn't for China, which has a giant coastline where most of its industrialized centres are located and its heavily reliant on overseas trade. As such it is moving towards capabilities on a US level, it just won't get there before an estimated 2050. China wants to have that massive air force and navy, because its land borders are mostly inconsequential regarding neighbours (Russia/Mongolia/Kazachstan) or woefully difficult to operate modern armies in (India), the benefit of having the Himalayas protecting the southern flank and Siberia the northern one. The South and East China Seas are the primary focus for the future of the Chinese military, hence it recently having made the decision to seriously downsize the older Cold War style army in favor of the air force and navy.

No, not all of it is due to the US developing tech, but a good deal of it is. Russia, while investing on its own just like China, has nowhere near the scope and ability the US has in R&D, both because they follow the earlier pacemaker and because they go for alternative or cheaper solutions (and yes some of the US R&D spending is very wasteful, but would you ever get those stories out of China for example? Highly doubtful). Russian and Chinese MIC are heavily subsidized to an extreme level, especially the Russian one couldn't exist on the scale it does without it and China's MIC has for the most part been very outdated until recently and heavily dependant on stealing Russian tech.

Honestly I agree that the Western MIC has some serious issues that might be better solved by some sort of semi-nationalisation (as they frequently represent the only national option regardless), but both Russia and China really aren't getting that much more out of their for the money they invest. As a percentage of GDP spending, the US military is still unrivalled when it comes to gains.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/07/24 22:20:28


Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP) 
   
Made in nl
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






 Disciple of Fate wrote:

This is a bit of a silly argument though, this might be true for Russia (which spends more anyway), but it certainly isn't for China, which has a giant coastline where most of its industrialized centres are located and its heavily reliant on overseas trade. As such it is moving towards capabilities on a US level, it just won't get there before an estimated 2050. China wants to have that massive air force and navy, because its land borders are mostly inconsequential regarding neighbours (Russia/Mongolia/Kazachstan) or woefully difficult to operate modern armies in (India), the benefit of having the Himalayas protecting the southern flank and Siberia the northern one. The South and East China Seas are the primary focus for the future of the Chinese military, hence it recently having made the decision to seriously downsize the older Cold War style army in favor of the air force and navy.

No, not all of it is due to the US developing tech, but a good deal of it is. Russia, while investing on its own just like China, has nowhere near the scope and ability the US has in R&D, both because they follow the earlier pacemaker and because they go for alternative or cheaper solutions (and yes some of the US R&D spending is very wasteful, but would you ever get those stories out of China for example? Highly doubtful). Russian and Chinese MIC are heavily subsidized to an extreme level, especially the Russian one couldn't exist on the scale it does without it and China's MIC has for the most part been very outdated until recently and heavily dependant on stealing Russian tech.

Honestly I agree that the Western MIC has some serious issues that might be better solved by some sort of semi-nationalisation (as they frequently represent the only national option regardless), but both Russia and China really aren't getting that much more out of their for the money they invest. As a percentage of GDP spending, the US military is still unrivalled when it comes to gains.

Just having a long coastline does not necessarily mean you need a strong navy (Russia has a much longer coastline than either China or the US btw, almost as long as both combined, with many essential cities located on it). Coastal defense can be accomplished effectively by smaller ships and land-based assets, and you do not need a dedicated naval aviation arm or the kind of logistical capability that a deep sea navy requires.
But you are right in that China has lots of overseas trade and assets to protect, and that they are moving in the direction of developing a large, powerful navy that can rival the US Navy. But this situation is a very recent development for China, so it should not be surprising that 'they aren't there yet'. China never used to be a maritime power or have much in the way of overseas assets and trade in the past. This focus shift away from having to defend their long land borders to projecting power across the sea was only possible because of the fall of the Soviet Union and therefore the end of the rivalry with Russia and the end of the threat to its long northern and eastern borders.

You are mostly right on the Military-industrial complex part (although your claim that the US has more "gains" as a percentage of GDP spent sounds very dubious and needs elaboration), but not so right on the R&D, Russia does not always go for cheaper/alternative solutions (see the T-14 project, Borey-class submarines or recent Russian breakthroughs in missile technology), especially not in the areas where Russia itself is the pacemaker (mostly missiles and rockets, but also tanks, armoured vehicles, trucks etc.). China too, is trying to move away from copying Russian technology and aims to become a technology leader itself as well, which is clearly visible in recent Chinese projects such as the J-20 fighter, which is roughly similar to the F-22 but produced in a fraction of the time and at a fraction of the cost that was required for the F-22 project. And they definitely did not copy this one from Russia, which yet has to finish development on its own stealth fighter.

Error 404: Interesting signature not found

 
   
Made in us
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord




Inside Yvraine

Steelmage99 wrote:
Without getting into conspiracy theories about the Military Industrial Complex, I question whether the American economy could handle the jobs lost and companies closed, if the US were to make any substantial cuts in their defense spending.
"But muh manufacturing jobs" is never a valid defense when manufacturing jobs in the US will cease to exist in 30 years due to automation anyway.
   
Made in us
Steady Space Marine Vet Sergeant





Believeland, OH

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Andrew1975 wrote:
 feeder wrote:
The US is the world's hegemonic superpower precisely because of it's network of bases and military presence. Without it, the US is just another collection of quibbling states, like Europe.


I think thats an oversimplification. We would still be a superpower even if we closed 3/4 of our foreign bases. We could close every base in Europe, what would be the disastrous result? Yeah we'd have a problem with Afghanistan......if you think we really need to be there...I guess.

There are other avenues to becoming a super power than raw military force projection. The US is a technology super power, an economic superpower, cultural superpower, we are the superpower for so many reasons. Do we need a strong military...absolutely, The Strongest military, absolutely. Do we need to have the strongest military presence in every sphere at all times...no.

Our military is so big and bloated and inefficient, to the point that it threatens itself. Lets look at the F-22, there are not really enough of them because we budget for so many other things, we currently have no plans for a naval air superiority fighter to fill the role of the f-14...which the F-18 just cant do.






No. The US would still be a great power, like China or Russia, but no longer a superpower. What sets a superpower apart from other great powers is their global reach. For that, you need bases all over the world. If you look at past superpowers, like the Spanish, Dutch and British empires or the Soviet Union, they all had those global base networks. A superpower can project its military power everywhere and meddles in everything. That is what makes them a superpower.

You are right on the US military though. I'd say its operating costs have gone massively out of hand. Look at the Russian and Chinese militaries for example. They can do the same things the US military does for a tiny fraction of the cost. Lower wages in those countries play a part in that of course, but also a big part is how the US military-industrial complex is set up, with defense industries being primarily interested in their own profit rather than the greater good of the state. I think it used to be better in the past. Comparing the costs of past US military projects with the costs of current US military projects there is a clear pattern of inflating costs more and more.


I dont agree, If we closed 3/4 of our bases and used other means instead of always defaulting to military we would still be a super power. Even then I'm not worried about being a super power. Whats the use? I've never understood why the US has to be so powerful militarily that we can strikedown the next three countries if we had to.

"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma

"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma

"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma 
   
Made in nl
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc





 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

This is a bit of a silly argument though, this might be true for Russia (which spends more anyway), but it certainly isn't for China, which has a giant coastline where most of its industrialized centres are located and its heavily reliant on overseas trade. As such it is moving towards capabilities on a US level, it just won't get there before an estimated 2050. China wants to have that massive air force and navy, because its land borders are mostly inconsequential regarding neighbours (Russia/Mongolia/Kazachstan) or woefully difficult to operate modern armies in (India), the benefit of having the Himalayas protecting the southern flank and Siberia the northern one. The South and East China Seas are the primary focus for the future of the Chinese military, hence it recently having made the decision to seriously downsize the older Cold War style army in favor of the air force and navy.

No, not all of it is due to the US developing tech, but a good deal of it is. Russia, while investing on its own just like China, has nowhere near the scope and ability the US has in R&D, both because they follow the earlier pacemaker and because they go for alternative or cheaper solutions (and yes some of the US R&D spending is very wasteful, but would you ever get those stories out of China for example? Highly doubtful). Russian and Chinese MIC are heavily subsidized to an extreme level, especially the Russian one couldn't exist on the scale it does without it and China's MIC has for the most part been very outdated until recently and heavily dependant on stealing Russian tech.

Honestly I agree that the Western MIC has some serious issues that might be better solved by some sort of semi-nationalisation (as they frequently represent the only national option regardless), but both Russia and China really aren't getting that much more out of their for the money they invest. As a percentage of GDP spending, the US military is still unrivalled when it comes to gains.

Just having a long coastline does not necessarily mean you need a strong navy (Russia has a much longer coastline than either China or the US btw, almost as long as both combined, with many essential cities located on it). Coastal defense can be accomplished effectively by smaller ships and land-based assets, and you do not need a dedicated naval aviation arm or the kind of logistical capability that a deep sea navy requires.
But you are right in that China has lots of overseas trade and assets to protect, and that they are moving in the direction of developing a large, powerful navy that can rival the US Navy. But this situation is a very recent development for China, so it should not be surprising that 'they aren't there yet'. China never used to be a maritime power or have much in the way of overseas assets and trade in the past. This focus shift away from having to defend their long land borders to projecting power across the sea was only possible because of the fall of the Soviet Union and therefore the end of the rivalry with Russia and the end of the threat to its long northern and eastern borders.

You are mostly right on the Military-industrial complex part (although your claim that the US has more "gains" as a percentage of GDP spent sounds very dubious and needs elaboration), but not so right on the R&D, Russia does not always go for cheaper/alternative solutions (see the T-14 project, Borey-class submarines or recent Russian breakthroughs in missile technology), especially not in the areas where Russia itself is the pacemaker (mostly missiles and rockets, but also tanks, armoured vehicles, trucks etc.). China too, is trying to move away from copying Russian technology and aims to become a technology leader itself as well, which is clearly visible in recent Chinese projects such as the J-20 fighter, which is roughly similar to the F-22 but produced in a fraction of the time and at a fraction of the cost that was required for the F-22 project. And they definitely did not copy this one from Russia, which yet has to finish development on its own stealth fighter.

It goes beyond coastline. China's coastline is much more vital for China than it is for Russia (where the majority of the coastline is inside the Artic Circle, hardly a good direction to attack from, or strategic bottlenecks like the Black Sea and the Baltic). China is heavily investing in a blue seas navy. As we speak the Chinese navy has as many ships as the US navy has under the recently renamed Pacific Command. Not only that its building multiple aircraft carriers and is constantly updating or building new ships of all sizes. The whole South China Sea issue is meant to create strategic depth for a blue seas navy to operate as well as to push a conflict away from the mainland, the islands themselves have almost zero military value beyond them being a tripwire (a few missiles can pretty much blanket the whole island and destroy what's there). Its not surprising that they aren't there yet no, but I don't know if 15 years is exactly new, its just gotten a lot more visible under Xi. As for China not being a maritime power, that is true, but they had plenty of naval trade with others around them when it was allowed (otherswise they just smuggled). But back then overseas trade wasn't vital for most nations, but it is now with many strategic resources not found in China in sufficient amounts.

I think the idea that China could only shift away thanks to the collapse of the Soviet Union is a bit simplistic. Back in 1991 China was a lot poorer and had less money to spend. If the Soviet Union would still existed in 2018 China would still have shifted away, because China economic development mean it has more than enough budget to do that now.

US gains being bigger is just a very basic breakdown. The US spends 3% of its GDP and has a global power projection capacity. Russia spends 4% but has nowhere near that ability to project, mostly in the region and China has probably about 3% as well, but again is mostly able to project in the immediate region. So if seen from a GDP percentage perspective the US gets the better deal. But again, Russia invests in a few distinct areas, while the US tries to do it all. The US likely gets back less per dollar invested, but they cast a much wider net. As for China, yes they are innovating now, but the J-20 is an example of how its easier to play catch up because its produced at a fraction of the time and cost 15 years later while still only being an estimated 33% cheaper. Plus a lot about the development and capabilities will never be known because China keeps that secret, who knows what issues they had during development or what they really cost. Then there is the issue that the J-20 development might have been heavily reliant on espionage in the US.
The issue is that both the Russians and Chinese are less than open about their financing and R&D tracks, it goes down a lot more messy than they likely admit.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/07/25 09:00:01


Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP) 
   
Made in ca
Stone Bonkers Fabricator General






It's Canada. At least it was 2 years ago, things are a little weird right now..... Canada is a NATO, NAFTA and NORAD partner with the US. That's a full military, economic and nuclear umbrella partner. Also, both members of the "5 eyes " so same Intelligence network. Also, the world's longest undefended border. Also, the largest trading relationship in the world, shared language and a similar culture. The US and Canada are so intertwined that Canadian Sovereignty is a real concern in Canada as well as cultural assimilation.
They way I put it is that Canada and America are two very different countries except when comparing us to any other two countries.

 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User





Russia for saving us from a Syrian Apocalypse.

   
Made in fi
Confessor Of Sins




 Skinnereal wrote:
 Andrew1975 wrote:
I still don't understand why the US spends so much money on military bases in Europe.


I'm guessing the US bases in Europe and such are for efficiency. If all of the US forces are based in the US, they're not much use if it takes a week to get anywhere. Navy fleets float around all over the place, but take forever to get where they're needed. Air fleets can only carry so much, and need somewhere to land if they're going to get set up. Bases can be backfilled or reinforced as required, if they need to deploy. Being near the action saves a lot of time.

It is also a big boost to relations. Having a US base in Italy (I dunno, are there any?) means Italy (or whoever it is) can call on US help any time they need it. A neighbour wanting to move in has 2 countries it has to work against.
Having US troops deployed abroad is much more than military spending.


Ramstein Airbase in Germany has been pretty instrumental in most US adventures towards Africa, Asia or the Middle East, for example. A lot of the airlift needed goes through there, and wounded troopers are shipped out by the medical airlift groups stationed there. Many would not survive otherwise, and setting up some new system would take time and effort (and cold hard cash).

And ofc, NATO. While most EU countries keep their own defence industry, at least for some things, a lot of equipment is also bought from the US. Not all of that trade is out of necessity - part is also buttering up the big kahuna who runs the show. And even when there's no equipment bought one might license some technologies from US defense companies. If there was less incentive to buy US gear the prices for the US military would rise, because the companies still want a profit even if they have to make smaller production runs.

So while it costs money to operate bases outside the US it also makes operations more efficient and brings in money...

Oh yes, to stay on topic I'd say the UK. They seem to jump whenever the US asks them, unlike others who at least sometimes ask questions.
   
Made in us
Powerful Ushbati





United States

I would imagine it would be Israel? Given how close the two countries are, I'd say that's most likely. Japan, South Korea are probably pretty high on that list too, though it is hard to say due to our differences.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





North Carolina

 Cheesecat wrote:
I was reading the "US politics" and kept hearing all these deluded Brits talk about how that the US's closest ally is the UK, I was largely baffled by this cause it's clearly Canada. So this got me thinking with all these dissenting opinions who really is America's closest ally? Prove me wrong or

right Dakka, with this %100 scientifically accurate, peer reviewed, double blind, zero margin of error poll.




Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom in equal measure. They're the only allies that have been reliable since the end of World War II, probably because of common interests and origins. Thank God that the long standing agreements outside NATO were never allowed to lapse.


Israel wants to claim the title. But the only thing they care about is defense foreign aid money and our shiny weapon systems, and they tend to bite the hand that feeds them.

Proud Purveyor Of The Unconventional In 40k 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: