So it begins - historic nk summit

[Hrothbern]

I think you're underestimating the cost of a nuclear program.
But regardless, I they're spending money on that, in the end, then we wouldn't have to spend as much to protect them.
That's an easy spin into a Trump brag fest.

Such a program would indeed take considerable time and money... but yes, let us put that aside for now and see whether it makes sense and if so to what benefits.Let's assume, that as if by magic, the EU would have now a fullblown MAD in place, and not those 300 or so warheads with 4 subs.
IF that would be so, would that really lead to a reduction of the MAD potential, the amount of subs of the US ?
I think not !
Why would the US rely on anybody else than what the US own and control themselves, including the US protection on espionage and cyber ?
=> there is no cost reduction for the US.

The only benefit for the US is that they do not need to risk their own country and people anymore to solve a military issue of the EU.
And if for example there would be a strangulation by Russia or an invasion of Russia into Europe, the US has a free hand to decide what to do in an EU-Russia conflict.

Basically this is the same situation as in the 50ies of last century, where US willingness to defend Europe became uncertain when Russia would have mastered the intercontinental missiles and would be able to retalliate US soil.
The way it was solved then was as first step to build up a limited nuclear deterrence in Europe, to defend against a Russian invasion with the scorched earth tactic, as Russia applied against Napoleon and Hitler.
When reality sunk in in the US, the nuclear deterrence support of the US became a guarantee, which was the base for a very prosperous economical growth. The US more than Europe. But that bothered nobody in Europe. It was a win-win.
Over time the far more expensive conventional military presence could be winded down, relying on the MAD. Much to the benefit of further economical growth.

From: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...-action-what-next.621130/page-2#post-14842029 post #35

On the latter an interesting interview with Pierre Gallois (1986), often regarded as the father of the French nuclear strategy (50ies), as anticipated necessary action to have in Europe a deterrence in place independent of the US before the Russians would be able to hit the US (60ies), which, as Gallion argued, would reduce the willingness of the US to protect Europe under all cirumstances. This fear was increased by the theory of "flexible response" getting hold in the US and the Suez war of 1956, where France and the UK were simply bullied aside by the US.
After the cost calculation was made for defending against Russia with a conventional European army (astronomical cost), his key argument was:
"We are a medium-sized power, not a great power, like America or Russia. Hence logically any enemy cannot take too many risks, to take over such a modest prey. Hence, if we are capable to inflict upon such an enemy enough damages, corresponding to the relatively small value that we may represent to his eyes, then we would be safe and he would do something else than attacking us, because the cost of such an attack would be excessive compared to the benefits of such an attack".
In the light of the geopolitical instability caused by Trump, for the European peninsula of Euroasia, the considerations mentioned by Gallion are even actual again.
http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/V_A5E2A43ED3F84292B85F66FE35C38F90

My question @rah is: do you agree that there iwould be no cost reduction in MAD for the US if the EU had their own ?

 

[ori]

That aint how Trump's brain works, ideology is second to ego. She made him look bad so he got revenge.

by sending an amabassador doing the exact same thing a week or so prior to the photo? I don't think so. I don't care about the mind workings of the US president - he does follow pretty clear policies whether "reacting" or not, he may very well escalate due to bruised egos but ideology is still guiding.

 

[Berzerker]

Well, Trump campaigned on Germany's immigrant problem so its something he's spoken about many times. But he needs a trigger, something to get a rant going. Merkel provided that.

 

[Commodore]

He'd probably claim it a victory if the EU escalated it's own defense spending.

That would kinda be a victory for him though. One of his stated policy goals was to get the other NATO members to start contributing their fair share to the alliance instead of just relying on the US to do all the heavy lifting.

 

[rah]

do you agree that there iwould be no cost reduction in MAD for the US if the EU had their own ?

Probably not in MAD but I believe it might lead to less conventional spending. A reduction in bases and troops deployed would probably be in order. Now if they were just relocated, yes, no saving but if it lead to a reduction, then yeah. But I won't hold my breath for the fuhrer to reduce the military. He will need them when he starts cancelling elections.

 

[Zkribbler]

Trump didn't read the agreement before he signed it.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/21/politics/trump-north-korea-nuclear-agreement/index.html

President Donald Trump offered a misleading characterization of his deal with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un on Thursday, insisting the rogue nation had agreed to begin "total denuclearization" right away.

In reality, the document he signed with Kim only reiterated North Korea's previous commitment to "work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula."

 

[Birdjaguar]

You forget that Trump doesn't read unless its on twitter.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Trump didn't read the agreement before he signed it.

I thought that was already evident in his first press conference:

watch starting about 10:30 how he fields a question about verification. He ruffles through the agreement. He finds the word "complete" and says "well it couldn't be any plainer than that."

He never cared what was actually in the agreement. He's just going to believe the agreement means what he wants it to mean, tell people it means what he wants it mean, and eventually claim Kim broke it, because Kim didn't do what he says Kim said he would do.

 

[Hrothbern]

Probably not in MAD but I believe it might lead to less conventional spending. A reduction in bases and troops deployed would probably be in order. Now if they were just relocated, yes, no saving but if it lead to a reduction, then yeah. But I won't hold my breath for the fuhrer to reduce the military. He will need them when he starts cancelling elections.

Having a military is indeed a domestic security tool of the ultimate kind, conveniently kept out of the public discussions by politicians and media.

A reduction of US conventional troops would be possible, but only if the US would involve less on the international stage. If the shift of power from the Atlantic to the Pacific is the only thing that happens, there will be no reduction but a shift of troops.
I saw recently an article that the US had transported some tank units to Europe.
I think that is clearly showing how deplorable the state off affairs is of the EU NATO members. Either you do not need them, or you have your own gear. So someting really needs to be done by the EU to take their own responsibility.
But if that really needs to be 2% of GDP ???
For conventional defense the EU has ok-ish natural borders: the Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea are covered and to the East Russia and the instable Middle East with Turkey directly on the border.
=> only Russia is an issue from geographics.

From public sources:
Russian federation defense spending is roughly 100 Billion USD on a GDP of 2,230 Billion USD in 2013 and 1,283 Billion USD in 2016.
EU GDP without UK is 14,000 Billion USD. So every 1% is 140 Billion USD. Current defense spending is 1.3% of GDP, or 180 Billion USD (still without UK).
For comparison:
China spends roughly 2% of GDP and is slowly building up MAD & subs. AFAIK for now 300 nuclear war heads or so and a really long way to go. China has no real natural borders except the Himalaya with competitor India and needs also conventional troops for her strong domestic control over some local provinces with too much regional identity.
The US spend roughly 3-4% of GDP as a baseline. More when there are relatievely bigger military campaigns abroad.


I do think that that 180 Billion of the EU is not spent very effectively, compared to the 140 Billion of Russia, because the military is so fragmented between the countries, no clear command line, and also because there is not much practical fighting experience. The Balkan conflicts of the 90ies showing that and more.
So there is a lot to do, a lot of pride to swallow by the local military hierarchies, and because the EU is not one country, it will USD for USD never be as effective as US or Russian spendings

But just filling up to 2.0% of GDP is not doing that.
And a well coordinated and trained conventional military at the level of 2% GDP is in effect overkill and only escalating towards an asymetrical balance with Russia.
So my guess there is that the EU will need a bit of a temporarily catch up, perhaps on top a structural 0.1% more and will focus on her joint military initiative.

I also guess that the EU will start increasing MAD competences on a small burner and will have attention for strategic know how structures. Like kicking out the UK from Galileo, reshape Aerospace competences and locations, reshape intelligence, etc.
But never outpacing China.
Probably they keep even doing that when the US would be again a reliable NATO partner because of the long term geopolitical position.

Back to the original intention of my first post asking what Trump would think about an EU MAD:

I think that Trump, like Obama are justified complaining that they need to support the EU with conventional troops. But imposing 2.0% has nothing to do with that.
But if Trump would support the EU building up their own MAD, he is plain stupid.
If the EU has to some degree their own MAD, and has enough power to stand alone..... over the next decades, sheer because of the geographical proximity of Russia and Europe, these two will drift together and find ways to utilise their high economical synergies.

EDIT: With all the money needed for Climate, and a clear dislike of MAD proliferation, I still see anything towards an EU MAD as bad and a kind of waste.
But current developments are forcing the issue.
Trump both the initiator as the catalysator of that.

 

[red_elk]

Our relationship with Russia was actually improving greatly until very recently. I'd like to see that relationship resume. Of course it's hard for that to happen with certain politicians screaming wild conspiracy theories about Russians "hacking" our elections when all they did, at most, was put out some political ads on Facebook and hire a bunch of internet trolls to talk up Trump.

Putin was quite willing to build partnership with the US and EU until roughly 2003. Then, after certain military and political events he made almost U-turn and started seeking alliance with China.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Best Korea, obviously. Their anthem is strictly superior to our off-key British drinking song.

That’s not their anthem.