European military (in)capabilities - why is Europe so "weak"?

[warpus]

Does every European country need a nuclear aircraft carrier? No. Do they need an effective, fast reacting, modern military force that is diverse and strong? Yes. Does most of Europe have this? No.

And $220,000,000 a year is not enough?

If there's a problem, it must be with how that money is spent.

 

[neutrino]

top 20 global military budget. as of 2006, unless different year stated in (). the US$ in billions:

1. US 522*
2. China (2004) 62.5
3. Russia (2004) 61.9
4. UK 51.1
5. Japan 44.7
6. France 41.6
7. Germany 30.2
8. India 22
9. Saudi Arabia 21.3
10. South Korea 20.7
11. Italy 17.2
12. Australia 13.2
13. Brazil 13.1
14. Canada 10.9
15. Turkey 9.8
16. Israel (2004) 9.7
17. Netherlands 9.7
18. Spain 8.8
19. Taiwan 8.3
20. Indonesia (2004) 7.6

from: Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

* includes funding for Afghanistan and Iraq. it will be somewhere along the figure of 460, w/o the operations expense legislated for Afghanistan and Iraq.

different accounting systems tend to conflict w/ official figures. for example, the official Chinese figure will be significantly lower than from the Pentagon estimates, as the former does not include money involved in business operations run by the military. in addition, there are other things like PPP (purchasing power parity) which further complicates the apparent figures.

 

[Winner]

Of the 1 million people who have been involved in peackeeping operations, only 2,000 have been killed over the past 55 years. .2% death rate.

Read something about how UN let its troops down when they need help. Srebrenica is on of the finest examples. 6 times did the commander of Dutch troops asked for aerial support to stop the Serb offensive. Six times, they let him down. And when they finally approved it, it was too late.

UN is completely useless in peacekeeping, sorry to say that, maybe you're a believer in all that international stuff as I used to be, but this isn't what UN should do.

UN should provide humanitarian help, but the military aspects should be left for someone who is competent - NATO, EU, AU and other regional organizations.

 

[Winner]

Well, Winner, the truth it is false to say that NATO does much of the peacekeeping. By far the largest contributors are countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan. No western country comes close.

Westerners tend to contribute more through direct funding of the UN.

Ask yourself why - they get awful lot of money, in fact, UN hires mercenaries to do the work.

One Pacific state, I don't recall its name, sends one half of its army to do peacekeeping, and the money they get from the UN are used to pay for the other half

And the Westerners pay for that.

 

[Winner]

Never think that. Your interests will collide sooner than you think.

Probably you don't understand, but we are moving towards resolution, in which every major human culture will be forced to take part.

Care to elaborate?

I don't see any major conflicting issues between China and Europe, that could lead to a serious crisis. I can imagine that in case of the US (Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam), India, Russia, but not Europe.

 

[storealex]

This is something I've been wondering about. Is it really cheaper to buy weapons abroad? Certainly the likes of Lockheed Martin are not in charitable organizations... nor is the US government. They will make a profit in what they sell.

Politics. We help you in Iraq, and suddenly your weapons are cheap, and you want to buy our weapons systems.

And it's usually always cheapest for small countries to let the big ones devellop. Exception is in computers and electronics.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I dont think more military hardware or much more money is needed. Spain for instance is among the countries in the world spending an smaller GDP percentage in his military. However we have an aircraft carrier plus another one in a couple of years (which is being building now), AEGIS destroyers, a big bunch of fighters including about 100 Eurofighters, Leopards 2E and many other toys. Main lack being a good heavy air transport, but it will supposedly be resolved with the A400 in some years.

I mean Europe as a whole has a lot of firepower that it needs is a common organization in military and exterior matters in general. So not more muscle but more "grey matter" as Hercule Poirot would say.

 

[Winner]

I dont think more military hardware or much more money is needed. Spain for instance is among the countries in the world spending an smaller GDP percentage in his military. However we have an aircraft carrier plus another one in a couple of years (which is being building now), AEGIS destroyers, a big bunch of fighters including about 100 Eurofighters, Leopards 2E and many other toys. Main lack being a good heavy air transport, but it will supposedly be resolved with the A400 in some years.

I mean Europe as a whole has a lot of firepower that it needs is a common organization in military and exterior matters in general. So not more muscle but more "grey matter" as Hercule Poirot would say.

I said that in my opening post - yes, European countries have a lot of firepower, which is completely unnecessary in these days. We're not going to invade Russia, we need completely different structure of our forces, different equipment, different training and different ways of command.

Spending, as I said, isn't the major issue. If we kept it on 2% of GDP, it would be OK.

 

[Scuffer]

I'd like to add another reason why Europe spends less than the US. Defence contracts in individual states are not vital to win power. Contributions from defence contractors are not needed to win power.

 

[Winner]

I'd like to add another reason why Europe spends less than the US. Defence contracts in individual states are not vital to win power. Contributions from defence contractors are not needed to win power.

Hm, you have a point, EADS should start making... "contributions" to the ruling parties in customer countries

 

[aneeshm]

Care to elaborate?

I don't see any major conflicting issues between China and Europe, that could lead to a serious crisis. I can imagine that in case of the US (Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam), India, Russia, but not Europe.

Resources are limited. The ambitions of Europe and China are not. There's enough scope for conflict right there.

In general - things change faster than we think possible, so we should be prepared to treat everyone as an enemy if the need arises. General precaution, to be taken irrespective of time or place.

 

[Winner]

Resources are limited. The ambitions of Europe and China are not. There's enough scope for conflict right there.

In general - things change faster than we think possible, so we should be prepared to treat everyone as an enemy if the need arises. General precaution, to be taken irrespective of time or place.

Well, theoretically, you're right, but I don't think that our interests will come into conflict in foreseeable future.

China is, most of all, pragmatic. Chinese interests lie in Asia. Sure, they're most probably going to compete for an access to resources, but that doesn't have to be violent.

Europe is similar to China in its approach to the world politics - European leaders are often also very cynical and pragmatic. Europe will probably recognize Chinese leadership in Asia in exchange for Chinese restraint in Europe's areas of interest.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Ask yourself why - they get awful lot of money, in fact, UN hires mercenaries to do the work.

One Pacific state, I don't recall its name, sends one half of its army to do peacekeeping, and the money they get from the UN are used to pay for the other half

And the Westerners pay for that.

Ya, but that is not related to western military budgets, and it is still not a whole lot of money in the grande scheme of things. And then, you can argue that the Americans are not doing anything exceptional at all compared to Europe and Japan.

EDIT: Huge point; part of the reason Europe has been able to spend less is that up until recently most of the countries had some form of conscription. Even now, something like 30,000 German soldiers are conscripts. These people don't need to be paid salaries, and salaries are a huge chunk of military budgets. It is a kind of silent spending, since the real cost ends up being the lost wages these conscripts could have earned if they started working a year earlier. It is how countries like Sweden and Finland can makes sure their money goes into acquisition of equipment.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

In the end, it is simply a case of not being able to afford it and knowing that the United States knows that whatever is in Europe's best interest is ultimately in the best interest of the United States. Europe therefor relies on the US to enforce its interests abroad and rightfully so. We have done so without failing, for more than 50 years now.

All the while criticizing us.

The Socialist Welfare state is going to haunt you for a while though. I'm glad that the US hasn't crossed that threshhold.

I don't like that common army thing, makes me a little suspicious. Call me paranoid.

You Americans should support that. It will make your lives easier. It is not Europe who will be your enemy in the future.

I am just going to give a bland idea of what I think of this: Welfare in general is for people that deserve the right to earn it. Self-sufficiency is the way things are and should be, don't rely stuff from others that you should be able to acquire yourself. Like welfare for the unemployed, for instance, money should only be given to those that are actively seeking a job. If you're actively seeking a job so you can contribute to society, then I'm more than happy to help you for awhile. Low cost housing, though I generally don't like this (as my friends main source of income was shot to sh!t by Clintons LC Housing), I do understand that not everyone can make enough to buy an awesome house, so I can accept paying for this, again provided the person is employed and is also helping to pay property tax, etc. It all hinges on being self sufficient and being employed. I'm not willing to pay for freeloaders, which this social welfare stuff tends to pay for.

You can take help from social programs, so long as you also pay into them.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Like welfare for the unemployed, for instance, money should only be given to those that are actively seeking a job. If you're actively seeking a job so you can contribute to society, then I'm more than happy to help you for awhile.

I can only speak for England but fit you are fit to work, you have to prove you are actively seeking work to obtain benefit. I'm not saying that there aren't people cheating the system, but the system principles are sound.

I think it's the level of benefit that perhaps differs between the US and UK, not the principle of who is deserving of it.

As I've said, I can only speak for the UK and not the rest of Europe.

 

[Steph]

I can only speak for England but fit you are fit to work, you have to prove you are actively seeking work to obtain benefit. I'm not saying that there aren't people cheating the system, but the system principles are sound.
I think it's the level of benefit that perhaps differs between the US and UK, not the principle of who is deserving of it.
As I've said, I can only speak for the UK and not the rest of Europe.

Same in France. If you don't answer to control, you lose unemployement benefits. If you don't present to recruiting interview, you lose unemployement benefits. If you refuse to many offers, you lose unemployement benefits.
Anyway, they are decreasing with time, so you need to find a new job relatively quickly.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

I can only speak for England but fit you are fit to work, you have to prove you are actively seeking work to obtain benefit. I'm not saying that there aren't people cheating the system, but the system principles are sound.

That actually is the case here as well, but I don't really know how they check that you are searching. Maybe when they process the application or when you run the W2 tax form or whatever.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

That actually is the case here as well, but I don't really know how they check that you are searching. Maybe when they process the application or when you run the W2 tax form or whatever.

That's the main point of contention. In my view the system is set up for people making a minimal effort to find something. We're drifting well off topic though so I'll save it for another thread

 

[innonimatu]

And it's usually always cheapest for small countries to let the big ones devellop. Exception is in computers and electronics.

Yes, you're right. I just believe european countries would be better off it they cooperated more on the developement and production of the weapons they need, and shared costs and benefits as equitably as possible. EADS was a great step on the right direction, but there are still a lot of duplicated programs (several MBT, missiles, etc.).

Conscription probably doesn't have that great an inpact on military spending. But it's a good thing, as politicians will think twice before sending off soldiers for useless neocolonial wars somewhere off Europe.

Oh, and btw, I'm european too.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

EDIT: Ignore my rambling nonsense!