Is Your Country Spending Enough On Defense?

[Hamlet]

The UK should increase it's defence budget somewhat. Nobody is going stage a conventional military against us directly, and the only main use is for peacekeeping operations, small scale wars, etc when necessary. The forces should however, be well equiped and trained for that, though.

 

[IceBlaZe]

basta72, your views dont fit this world.
an idealistic world, maybe, but in this world countries like iran and iraq, syria and such's will only take advantage of countries who weaken their defenses and are located in startegical good places.
If USA would stop developing weapons, and will weaken its army, it will be a total chaos. The only reason countries like Iraq and Iran do nothing against other countries or against Israel is because they fear our wrath.
It took the arabs 30 years to understand its not profitable to open war against us, and that was only because we won all the wars they opened.

 

[duke o' york]

There are very few wars in the world that are actually between countries. Sure, Africa has loads of wars that we in the west know next to nothing about, but the vast majority of wars today are either civil wars or between states and rogue groups like the Al Quaida network. I severely doubt that we have seen the end of international conflict and obviously states would be foolish not to arm themselves against the possibility but we should not arm ourselves to the teeth and assume that because a President was sick over a foreign premier then that means that the two nations will be at war.

 

[animepornstar]

we are manufacturing own jets, subs, ships and most other vehicles, we have a own version of the leopard 2, we are manufacturing a version of the fn fnc and we have a very sophisticated anti aircraft defence. this plus a compulsory military service for men cost a lot of money as you might understand.

edit: and the defence budget is on the same level as it was in the end of the cold war, because of the cost to restructure the defence.

 

[Adebisi]

edit

 

[Juize]

Would it be wise from Sweden to eliminate militiary (except militiary training)
because it has not even potential enemies? NATO -membership costs still lottsa money.

 

[MrPresident]

Here some interesting facts, the US has spent $50 billion - $60 billion on its "Star Wars" program. The UN has estimated that it would cost $50 a person for everyone in the world to have adequate drinking water. The UN has also estimated that there are 1 billion people without adequate drinking water. The total cost of supplying these people with the drinking water is, surprise, surprise, $50 billion. Thats not all, the US has estimated that in the future they will spend another $50 billion on "Star Wars".

 

[Juize]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
basta72, your views dont fit this world.
an idealistic world, maybe, but in this world countries like iran and iraq, syria and such's will only take advantage of countries who weaken their defenses and are located in startegical good places.(..)

Hypocricy?
I would add USA to that list also.


Altough basta still is way too idealistic on his comments.

---

What EU needs is few countries putting €€€bigbucks€€€ to the technology and stuff
(I sound like a real professional, don't I? ) and every country to train their own national
army, which would be huge, yet quite inefficient and not powerful.

If something happens, big countries will help losers.

 

[JoeM]

Does anyone know how big our armed forces are here in the UK? There's been a lot of rhetoric, but no mention of figures since we deployed those 1700 Royal Marines....

 

[Maj]

The government here has been steadily cutting the military budget for quite some time now. Increasing funding for better equipment and training, plus accomodating more troops, would help bolster Canada in the international circuit but I'd much rather see money go into the domestic institutions that guide and improve lives (i.e. education and healthcare)rather than those that (some may argue help lay the groundwork for the aforementioned) ultimately destroy them.

But, with the way things are going right now I say we won't need an army a few decades from now given our increasing affinity with the United States. Maybe they'll at least let us keep a make-believe government so we can pretend we have our hands on the reigns.

Yeah, and then when another Stalin comes around, it's back to the United States to defend the world

More accurately, to defend its own interests. The U.S. does not go to war unless it finds its own security at risk. The same can be said of any other state. Alliances are born of politics, not altruism and friendship.

The United States military needs to maintain its budget otherwise it will watch its hegemony crumble. Its economic supremacy has relied greatly on the actions of its military (and intelligence agencies).

 

[IceBlaZe]

USA is not an angel, but its still on our side

 

[basta72]

Yes, I was way to idealistic on my last post. I know that it would never work, and it would have become total chaos if all military would have been disbanded.

But I don´t see any need for increased military spendings. There are better and more important ways to spend the money. And I don´t belive that more military would mean more peace.

 

[Adebisi]

edit

 

[Magnus]

ahhh the grand old debate once again...

guns vs butter

the problem is when one country goes heavy on the butter and starts looking really fat and tempting to a lean starving neighbor who went for the guns. Maybe the butter people are hoping for a cultural flip (blatant civ3 ref ) to save their day?

 

[IceBlaZe]

butter only works on places no one cares about like sweden.
also, sweden were always neutral.. they didnt fight against the germans, they let the germans put any rails for anyone in their land.
its like switzerland, its true switzerland has a good and strong army, but they dont fight. they let anyone pass through their land, no wonder their country is such in good shape these days.
its not a problem to be located these days in places no one will attack and say that you can spend money on better things.
Its luxuries countries like Israel cant afford, if we didnt have a big army we would be non-existent by now.
Anyone knows the term back-seat driver? maybe its not fully suitable here... but I find a strong similiarity.

 

[andycapp]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Yes, most definitely we must spend more on defence.
A couple of dozen billion more would be a small start.
There are a lot of requirements: a nuclear weapons program, a surface fleet, a modern airforce, proper supplies of munitions, a bigger army, missiles, radar programs, two or three nuclear carriers... I could go on for a while.
And it could be done.
And it will be done.

Absolutely my evil comrade, and tomorrow we take over the world. :aargh3:

On a practical note how about we finance this modest increase by slashing funding to Universities and forcing those slothful students and agitating academics into compulsory military service!

 

[Panda]

Guns vs. Butter indeed...

I don't support an increase in the Finnish military budget, unless it's a temporary one (for a few years) to thoroughly modernise and re-structure (from compulsory military service to professional army). If the Russians start an all-out invasion Finland will be toast anyway. And the Helsinki police force should be able to tackle any amphibious assaults Estonia might plan

Maintaining a strong military to reckon with is, however, essential in Europe as well. Nobody expected things go so horribly wrong (to put it mildly) as they did in former Yugoslavia.

But for the EU do be able such things, even when they happen in it's own back yard (left alone peace keeping missions on teh other side of the globe), the Union must grow a lot tighter. Something we currently are at least a decade away.

And I don't think basta72 is entirely wrong. Proper aid to 3rd World countries would, through prevention, contribute greater to the 'War Against Terror' and 'War On Drigs' than 100 jet bombers.

 

[IceBlaZe]

That's a common mistake.
Imam terror has almost nothing to do with 3rd world. only 1 to 10 recruiters to an imam terror organization is there because of frustration, others are there because of religion mostly and feelings of being enemies with the western culture.

 

[Panda]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
That's a common mistake.
Imam terror has almost nothing to do with 3rd world. only 1 to 10 recruiters to an imam terror organization is there because of frustration, others are there because of religion mostly and feelings of being enemies with the western culture.

'Feelings of being enemies with the western culture' wouldn't have anything to do with uneducation, starvation, horrenously high child mortality, rampant diseases and living under the poverty line, no would they?

While I certainly don't underestimate the systematic brain washing of the youth, I believe the reasons I listed to have a higher impact on recruiting terrorists and drug dealers.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Enemies towards the western culture means the western culture violates the true values of the islamic culture.
All that you mentioned might be a factor but its certainly not the main factor, and according to many asumptions and books about imam terror i saw its not the main factor.