Is it in the US' interest that eg Europe militarizes?

On the economic/political front, I can agree with that (about one nation being enough to break up the whole project). I just don't see any particular nation in the EU/NATO having sufficient motive to want to go after another nation militarily. Nor do I see what they would gain from it. I am also of the opinion that the European populace is pretty pacifistic overall but I have no direct examples to prove that.
 
Spoiler :
I don't think the US's high spending on the military is directly responsible for a lack of investment in social services/policies (1). I also think that US military spending is a large driver of economic growth that would be largely absent without military spending (2). Finally, I think that Europe's military expenditures and 'free loading' has very little, if any, impact on US military spending or economic growth (3).

To elaborate -
(1) The left in the US likes to point out our budget would be under far less strain and would have more room for investment in social policies if military spending is decreased. I agree with this stance, however, I think the left tends to overlook the fact that a pretty large percentage (if not outright majority) of the US public would not support increased spending on social policies even if our budget was less strained and/or military spending is decreased.

Many Americans have come to view social programs as quasi-communist interventions in American society and also view those who depend on said social programs as parasitic leaches. The segment of society that holds this view or variations of it simply will never go along with social program spending no matter the budget situation.

(2) The same segment of American society outlined above, along with a substantial proportion of American society that is not part of the social-program haters are very much pro-military spending. This has direct benefits to the US economy as defense contractors employ a lot of people.

Additionally, there is indirect economic growth that is the result of American R&D investment in our military's capabilities. As I pointed out before, there are a lot of technological innovations that came about because of US military spending. And as I also point out, there is a huge portion of the US population that would not ever support that kind of R&D with taxpayer dollars if it wasn't tied into the US military.

Now, to be clear, I'm not saying this is an ideal situation, nor is spending through the military necessarily the best way to grow the economy. I'm also not saying that these kinds of technological innovations could have only come through the military. But I am saying is that the US public by and large will not support research into the kinds of technology that have provided for massive economic growth with taxpayer dollars if that funding wasn't funneled through the military industrial complex.

(3) I think Europe's 'free loading' is largely due to US policies, not a deliberate attempt to actually get something for nothing. We don't, for example, put strong controls on the healthcare industry to lower cost. Europe does and they benefit from our inordinately high expenditures. Like wise, we don't do much in the way of forcing Europe to spend more on it's defense and end up having to put in more of our resources into making NATO work than we would otherwise have to.

However, if Europe were to pick up more of the NATO tab, I don't think that would translate into lower US military spending because again, the US public massively supports that spending and would not see it drastically cut or spent elsewhere. The only real change I could see coming from increased European spending on their military is that the US would simply shift more military resources to Asia, not decrease spending.

And I don't think that if Europe spent more on their budget on the military that this would have a drastic impact on the US economy. If we assume that increased European military spending means less money available for European consumption of goods and services, we would also have to assume that it would mean greater European consumption of US defense products. So I'm not sure if the net effect would be a wash or a small gain to the US economy.




Which economic argument? That the US economy benefits from increased military spending? I think it does (I have outlined as much above) but for different reasons than probably most US right wingers. I essentially see the US military as primary driver of technological R&D - which the US public won't support if it wasn't tied into the military.

I will point out again, however, that I don't think this is an ideal situation.

Thanks for taking time to answer in detail :)
 
Well, it certainly isn't that European peoples themselves are somehow fundamentally different human beings. That theory has been put paid so many times I don't really even want to dignify it with addressing it - rather, that humans and the cultures they form are products of interplay with their environments. Europe, historically and probably to this day has some specific characteristics that should be recognizable. Let's take one of your more horrific examples in that long and good post of yours - Imperial Japan in the 20th century. Not only was it a country rapidly arming to "catch up" with rival powers in order to exert its share of power on the world stage it had some fundamental characteristics that should be warning signs. An industrializing/industrialized power when compared to its neighbors, heavily populated to just flat overpopulated, and an economy that more than anything needed space and resources to continue on its path of prosperity since it was relatively manpower and skills rich and relatively resources poor.

Not that this is necessarily a recipe that spits out Imperial Japanese aggression, but rather a situation in which an increased likelihood of bad friction is present. Imagine a USA that couldn't Drill Baby Drill when it feels the pinch.

I'd also agree with Hobbs that some of the rumbling for Europe to start arming does stem from what are not entirely unfounded fears of the rising Middle Kingdom.

Sorry for my late reply--I'm terrible about getting back quickly--but thanks for this reply.

Tim definitely seemed to be suggesting that Europeans are uniquely and inherently violent, and need to be controlled by the US and Russia, which he thinks are more responsible with power for some...reason.

But anyway--Imperial Japan was a perfect storm of a rapidly industrializing and growing country with political unity, a strong military, weaker and less unified neighbors, a desire to emulate and match other imperial states, and the worst case of ultranationalism the world has ever seen, to the point that when the Russo-Japanese War ended, there were riots in Tokyo because Japan did not annex as much land as people expected it would. Circumstances made up a lot of the ingredients in the mix needed for Imperial Japan to bring hell to earth, but if it hadn't been for that unbelievable amount of nationalism and warmongering, it's unlikely the military leadership would have been anywhere near as bold or insubordinate as it was.

Modern Europe has few, if any, of these characteristics. There's a largely strongly pacifistic youth culture and pacifistic older generations as well. The population definitely isn't growing quickly in most European countries, and declaring war on a neighboring state and annexing its territory became almost unthinkable there after the war (Yes, Putin seized his own Sudetenland, but I'm not counting Russia as "Europe" here, because it tends to be in its own distinct sphere and this thread is clearly talking about NATO and/or the EU). Only a handful of political groups in Europe, chiefly Jobbik, even dream of anything like that. Fortunately, Hungary is powerless to try Crimea-style takeovers of Slovakia, Transylvania, and other examples of terra irredenta even if Jobbik gained power. Most countries in Europe are much more closely intertwined than they were in 1939 or 1914, and the better part of the public in most EU countries are hesitant about air strikes on terrorist groups in the Third World, let alone full-scale wars of conquest against their own neighbors. Most of Europe has moved beyond that long ago. Russia hasn't, and still thinks like it's 1914 when it comes to laying claim to whole ethnic groups and their lands (handing out passports to Ukrainian citizens of Russian background and then claiming the right to "protect" them, claiming to represent Estonians of Russian background, etc.).

I think that the overall Zeitgeist of Europe is pretty pacifistic; if informed that the US would withdraw most troops and force Europe to spend more on the military or have less protection, most European states would either not re-arm or do so only partially and grudgingly, preferring a softer stance towards Russia over an expensive and politically unpopular rearmament program. Which, of course, would only embolden Putin--we've seen this before.
 
The US only has a brigade in Europe, we are no longer the unifying force for Europe. Currently there are two unifying forces for Europe, the first being the common currency. I don't say the European Union because it isn't a union, Only the currency which was done without a central government. The result is nations coming to default because they spent wildly expecting someone else to pay, its a big union. Nevertheless the common currency is the only common thing between them excepting the second unifying force, NATO. NATO is the common defense. That means that individual nations could cut their strength and depend on the other nations to defend them. The problem is, they all did that, once again expecting everyone else to pay, and so the sum total of all the strength of NATO in Europe is very small. Putin knows this of course so he can do pretty much as he wishes.

MAD is fairly meaningless. There has been no use of nuclear weapons since WW2 and unless its terrorists I can't see it happening. If NATO was approaching military defeat on the continent, would France employ nuclear weapons to defend Germany, Poland etc, already mostly overrun, and thereby bring about its own destruction? No, they would cut a deal with Russia to stop on the Rhine. This is a very old Russian dream. The rest of Europe Finlandized. The greatest industrial power in Europe a part of the Russian empire. Would the UK use nuclear weapons to defend Germany etc? Same thing as France, they still have the channel. NATO is weak, Russia is becoming stronger every day.

Do you guys actually play Civilization? While our world and the game aren't the same the principles are. One difference is in the game you can press the button on those nasty enemies and then go have a nice dinner out. France and the UK can't do that. If they push their buttons there are no more dinner outs, families die, bad things happen. MAD is madness.

It takes tanks and jets and boots on the ground.
 
Not that I disagree with the fact that Putin is a dirtbag and his power play with Ukraine has been far too close to Sudeteland for comfort, but I think I need to repost something I said previously :

Despite all the scaremongering, Russia conventional power is actually well within (actually probably below) the league of Europe (remember, it only takes UK to match the military expense of Russia, and only France + Germany to match its population) - it's more the willingness to use force than the actual amount of force which is worrying.
 
They are building like mad. With all the losses in trade due to the Ukraine has Russia cut its program of expansion of its military? Well yes, just announced a 5% cut. NATO cuts that every time a politician needs a raise or someone thinks of a new social program.

Once upon a time population really mattered a lot more than it does now. France's population expansion made Napoleon's conquests possible. Later German population expansion caused the French a lot of concern, and almost led to the fall of Paris in WW1 even though they only had to fight on one front.

In WW2 things changed. The Germans, with only a small fraction of the populations of the rest of Europe were able to conquer much of it, all the way to Moscow and north to the arctic circle. It was lucky for the allies that Hitler was nuts and declared war on everyone, otherwise the UK might have eventually accepted a peace.

Now as then its what you bring to the party. Armies break through and mobility finishes things off in weeks, not years. The size of the French and German population doesn't much matter if Germany has been overrun in the first couple months of the war. It takes 4 months to train a raw recruit into the US army. It takes more months to build their equipment, by then its all over.

Regarding expense, I'd guess you can get 10 Russian soldiers for the cost of 1 English or French. The NATO nations all have a good standard of living and high pay. Not so the Russians. Expand this out to include factory workers producing weaponry and what an English or German makes vs a Russian. Further include all the retirement, national health care, and there is absolutely no comparison to the amount of bang for the buck NATO gets compared to Russia. Russian armies have always been huge. Now they are well supplied with modern equipment. They are led by a truly unified command. NATO...well that's sort of true, but countries hold back part of their strength. An executive order can split the force. This was true in the Cold War years as well. The Germans wanted to forward deploy and not give an inch, but didn't foot the bill for a large force. The French and Brits wanted to defend in depth and try to survive long enough to raise new armies. it was a mess. eventually all the disagreements and the fact that DeGaulle was, well...can't use those words on this forum, caused the French to drop out of the military organization. The Russians on the other hand are just the Russians.
 
(3) I think Europe's 'free loading' is largely due to US policies, not a deliberate attempt to actually get something for nothing. We don't, for example, put strong controls on the healthcare industry to lower cost. Europe does and they benefit from our inordinately high expenditures. Like wise, we don't do much in the way of forcing Europe to spend more on it's defense and end up having to put in more of our resources into making NATO work than we would otherwise have to.

However, if Europe were to pick up more of the NATO tab, I don't think that would translate into lower US military spending because again, the US public massively supports that spending and would not see it drastically cut or spent elsewhere. The only real change I could see coming from increased European spending on their military is that the US would simply shift more military resources to Asia, not decrease spending.

And I don't think that if Europe spent more on their budget on the military that this would have a drastic impact on the US economy. If we assume that increased European military spending means less money available for European consumption of goods and services, we would also have to assume that it would mean greater European consumption of US defense products. So I'm not sure if the net effect would be a wash or a small gain to the US economy.

Some people argue that the US is in fact freeloading on total conflict avoidance spending.

The US only supplied 80 UN peace keepers in 2015. Ten EU NATO members each supplied more peace keepers than the USA, a total number of 4248. Three non NATO EU members also supplied 1013 peacekeepers. Other EU countries supply less peackeepers than the USA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_UN_peacekeepers

The USA also supplies peacekeeper to the observer fprce between Egypt and Isreal, 715 acording to Wiki. EU NATO countries also have forces there but they are outnumbered by the US contingent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_Force_and_Observers

The USA also has 621 peacekeepers in Kosovo according to wiki. EU NATO countries outnumber the USA here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Force

EU NATO countries also supply peace keepers elsewhere.



The USA is not paying its contributions to the UN on time. $3bn owed in 2015.
http://untribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Screenshot-2015-09-14-at-3.20.41-PM.png


The USA only contributes 0.19% in international aid. Eight EU NATO countries provide a bigger percentage than the US. Germany provides 0.41% and the UK provides 0.71%.

http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/documentupload/ODA 2014 Tables and Charts.pdf
 
Not that I disagree with the fact that Putin is a dirtbag and his power play with Ukraine has been far too close to Sudeteland for comfort, but I think I need to repost something I said previously :

Despite all the scaremongering, Russia conventional power is actually well within (actually probably below) the league of Europe (remember, it only takes UK to match the military expense of Russia, and only France + Germany to match its population) - it's more the willingness to use force than the actual amount of force which is worrying.

It isn't realistic to expect french or british soldiers to die for Finland.

Following a WW/WWish event, there probably will be a return to smaller zones of control of some powers. Either way you see it, an EU of half of Europe and 500 million people has failed. This project is likely to cost me having to even migrate, yet i still hope my own country will free itself of this dramatically exposed pseudo-union.
 
The Americans are going to blindly continue throwing money at their military to retain that superpower status, no matter what happens. It gives them a lot of leverage and it seems it would be political suicide to attempt to change the status quo, so I don't see it happening anytime soon.

In what universe are we blindly throwing money at our military? Our military spending is at approximately 3.5% of our GDP if I remember correctly from the last time I had this argument with someone. Compare that to, say, Oman, whose military spending is at I think 10% or 11% of their GDP.

In fact, if I remember correctly, I think the US wasn't even in the top 10 for military spending as a percentage of GDP. So blindly throwing money at our military is hardly an accurate statement. It's just that the US is just so darn wealthy that we can afford to spend more than numerous nations combined on our military and it's still just chump change for us.
 
Oman is muslim absolute monarchy next country in civil war. I do not say that Oman spends money on military wisely, but its ruling elite have all reasons. USA, China or Russia would not need any military to protect themselves.
 
Oman is muslim absolute monarchy next country in civil war. I do not say that Oman spends money on military wisely, but its ruling elite have all reasons. USA, China or Russia would not need any military to protect themselves.

:confused: Every nation needs a military to protect itself. Not to mention, the US, Russia, and (to a lesser extent) China have military obligations to their allies which necessitates the maintaining of a large and capable military to fulfill.

But the main point is that US military spending isn't really a detriment to our economy and we are more than capable of improving our social services while still maintaining the military we have. The reasons we don't improve social services (as has already been pointed out in this thread) are all political, not economic.
 
:confused: Every nation needs a military to protect itself. Not to mention, the US, Russia, and (to a lesser extent) China have military obligations to their allies which necessitates the maintaining of a large and capable military to fulfill.
China has allies?
I was under the impression they have accomplished the stunning feat of getting SEA to present a halfway coherent united front on any issue* and have managed to buy off some sordid little African dictators during a commodity boom.
*Unfortunately for China, said united front is opposing Chinese interests.

But the main point is that US military spending isn't really a detriment to our economy and we are more than capable of improving our social services while still maintaining the military we have. The reasons we don't improve social services (as has already been pointed out in this thread) are all political, not economic.
I would disagree with that. If recent trends for supercarriers and the F-35 hold true, we will increasingly be spending more for less capacity.
 
I would disagree with that. If recent trends for supercarriers and the F-35 hold true, we will increasingly be spending more for less capacity.

You are still missing the point of what I am trying to say. My point is that US military spending is a minuscule percentage of our GDP, despite how large the raw numbers look. So even if we engaged in extremely wasteful military spending, it would still have a minimal impact on US economic health.

That's the problem with just about every criticism of US military spending. All the critics look at the raw dollar amount of what we are spending while completely ignoring the fact that our military spending isn't even in the top 10 in terms of spending as a percentage of GDP. Hell, the US could ramp up spending to 10% of GDP and we'd still be fine. Keep in mind that during World War II, US military spending was at 40% of our GDP and it still didn't break us. So the 3.5% that it's at now is, like I said earlier, chump change for us. I get that $597.5 billion is a big number for most nations on earth, but the simple fact remains that it just is not that big of a number for the US. I mean, look at the military we have now at just 3.5% of our GDP. Now imagine what type of military we would have if the US decided to ramp up to that 40% we were at during WWII. I imagine we would be building more weapons than we have soldiers to use them.
 
Not sure where you are getting the 3.5% number, as Politifact puts defense/homeland security spending (discretionary and mandatory) at 16% with 54% of discretionary spending going toward the military.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...art-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/

If you aren't going to bother to read my posts, I'm going to lose my patience rather quickly.

From six posts up:

Commodore said:
Our military spending is at approximately 3.5% of our GDP
 
If you aren't going to bother to read my posts, I'm going to lose my patience rather quickly.
img-thing
 
While we are on the subject though, the percentage of the federal budget consumed by the military is no indicator of what we can sustain economically; but it does actually emphasize my point that our problem with social spending is a political one, not an economic one. You know, since Congress sets the budget and all.
 
:confused: Every nation needs a military to protect itself. Not to mention, the US, Russia, and (to a lesser extent) China have military obligations to their allies which necessitates the maintaining of a large and capable military to fulfill.
Not realy. Nobody would attack large country with millions of people and nuclear bomb.

There are countries with no army for decades already and it almost seems that it was the protection which saved them from threats and problems plaguing region. For example Costa Rica.

Oman probably needs protection. From democrats, from countries looking after their oil, from radical muslims, from fighters from neighbouring country.

Regards obligations, when three biggest countries give up armies, there would be much less need of other countries wanting protection.
 
Regards obligations, when three biggest countries give up armies, there would be much less need of other countries wanting protection.

History says otherwise. Every time a superpower has either collapsed or given up its obligations, instability and conflict has always followed.

As for your comment about no one attacking a country with nuclear bombs: Nuclear bombs are part of the military so...
 
History says otherwise. Every time a superpower has either collapsed or given up its obligations, instability and conflict has always followed.

As for your comment about no one attacking a country with nuclear bombs: Nuclear bombs are part of the military so...

Collapse changing stability by its very definition, I do not argue this. But honestly I believe that we moved on in history and current Germany is not looking for blitzkrieg in case when Russia and USA will keep minimal forces.

Its realy nitpicking from your side. Economy capacities and knowledge of nuclear bomb substituting real nuclear bomb but I accept that its useful keep some for better effect. Army should be also useful in case of zombie apocalypse or alien invasion. But the spending is ridiculous.
 
Back
Top Bottom