With respect, none of that is vaguely accurate any more. If the USA evaporated tomorrow, the remaining EU/NATO countries would have close to 1/3rd of the military budget of the planet. The UK, France and Germany together matches China and Russias total military budgets.
Europes military budgets are vastly larger than they need to be. If a stronger military was needed, coordinating and integrating spending and forces would yield far more than spending more money. I suspect that if the US pulled out, Europe would drop its military spending towards more reasonable levels, since there would no longer be an obligation to prop up the US military industries.
However, thats somewhat beside the point. The US spend 4-5 % of GDP on the military. The Europeans cluster around 1,5-2,5 %.
The US spends 18 % of its GDP, or $ 8000 per person on healthcare. Half of that is government spending. Medicare, Medicaid, VHA, IA, childrens etc. which covers just under 1/3 of the population, including most of the most expensive patients in the population.
The average European government spends about 9 % of GDP on healthcare. Covering all the population, with generally better results and yielding improved economic competitivness.
Be afraid, be very afraid. On my last trip through City Airport I was charged £8.50 for a bottle of Duvel*. A very specific situation, granted, but no wonder the Eurobusinessdrones were looking stunned and disoriented, weeping into their beers, waiting for their flights home.
[QUOTE=Grim Render]
With respect, none of that is vaguely accurate any more.
[/QUOTE]
And with respect back to you, I disagree.
So what? The point isn’t how much they spend, it’s whether what they spend makes their military effective for the jobs they need to do, not comparing military budgets to see who spends more. China and Russia are local, regional military powers and are unable to act in any meaningful way away from their borders. Unfortunately, despite what the EU nations spend annually, they are also unable to act in a meaningful way away from their borders. They have us, however…and our military allows us and them to do so, as can be seen in most of the recent dustups that have happened where the US and various European allies acted together to achieve some military end.
So, you think that the Europeans spend money on their budget solely to prop up US military industries? :dubious: I don’t even know what to say to that. And you think that if the US pulled back in it’s budget, this would cause the Europeans to lower their own budget substantially? That their current budget is actually too much? And you base that on simply looking at the numbers and saying ‘well, China and Russia only spend X, so as long as we spend X+Y we are obviously better and spending more than they are, so all is good’…as if China and Russia are the only reason to spend money on a military?
I think that this is exactly the point. If the US decides to cut back substantially, then the Europeans will have to up their own percentage. Not because it’s the numbers game you are playing here, but because their current military simply can’t project power outside of Europe, yet many of their vital strategic needs and resources COME from regions where they wouldn’t be able to project power or protect their interests. WE do that for them today…but if we aren’t doing it then they will have too. I doubt they are foolish enough to think that if we aren’t guarding our collective interests, and if they can’t, then it’s no problem because no one would bother with them anyway, since the world is such a nice, peaceful place and all.
And yet, despite this, the Europeans are currently struggling to maintain their system NOW…and that’s without a doubling (or more) in their collective GDP going towards the military as they have to pick up the slack when the US cuts back in the future. They are struggling a lot more than we are, and many European countries are cutting back on things like healthcare and other social services in an effort to balance budgets. My own point is that as many of them seem to be on the edge now, a tipping point might come when/if the US has to cut back on our own military and the Europeans have to dig deeper (they ALREADY have much higher taxes, so where will they dig deeper to find more?) to start addressing the holes in their own military system.
Never said it was. You ever heard of the expression ‘the straw that broke the camels back’? That’s what I was talking about.
My point is that the budgets are already vastly overengineered for the essential puropse of a military: Keeping the country safe. The need to intervene militarily in conflicts on the other side of the planet is at best tertiary, and I suspect, not worth the investment.
In any case, if it should become a priority, there is far more to be gained in integration and steaming the various European defense budgets than in throwing more money at it.
It is not anything I can cite, but I see very little reason for the current level of military spending beyond propping up military industries, of which the US has the most. Most large defense contracts include many years of reciprocal buying clauses.
The primary reason for a military is to ensure an nations safety. When you outspend any potential enemy by a large amount, the question becomes what is the secondary puropse, and how much of your national budget is it worth?
I don’t see that at all. Could you expand on that?
“Many”? Once again, could you specify? I work in private sector health care in Europe and try to keep up, this is an alien description to me.
So…any military system should have the ability to project overwhelming force to any corner of the planet ? And any first world nation should have access to this? Are you sure you shouldn’t be reexamining some fundamental assumptions there?
[QUOTE=Grim Render]
My point is that the budgets are already vastly overengineered for the essential puropse of a military: Keeping the country safe. The need to intervene militarily in conflicts on the other side of the planet is at best tertiary, and I suspect, not worth the investment.
In any case, if it should become a priority, there is far more to be gained in integration and steaming the various European defense budgets than in throwing more money at it.
[/QUOTE]
See, and that’s the difference. The main purpose of a military is, IMHO, to protect a nations interests, not simply to keep a country safe…whatever that actually means. In order to protect a nations interest in the modern, global world it has to be able to project it’s power on a global scale, since much of a modern nations interest is so highly interconnected to trade and external resources.
And the EU can’t do that…they rely on the US to carry the majority of the water and provide the heavy lifting in that regard. It’s not a matter of streamlining their budget, it’s a matter that they don’t have the capability at all, and if the US bows out they would have to build it…or have to rely on someone else to do it for them. Or, I guess, hope that the rosy view of the world that seems common on this board is accurate, and no one would want to interdict or erode their access to external resources or trade.
I wasn’t really asking you for a cite, more a yes or no question.
Again, the flaw here is that you don’t actually seem to grasp the real purpose of a military in a modern, global context. It’s not about how much you spend, it’s about what capabilities that spending grants you…and about what, exactly, you are trying to accomplish with what you spend. The Europeans have been able to spend on what is basically a local defense force, because they have the US as a military partner…and WE spend the money necessary to allow us collectively to project military power on a global scale, which allows us to protect all our common interests.
You don’t see that there are several European countries, and the entire EU structure for that matter, has been having some hard times and have been cutting back? You never heard of ‘austerity’ or the PIIGS nations or anything along these lines?? I can certainly expand on this if you really want me too, but…well, it’s almost a thread of it’s own if we are going to get into that fundamental of a question and answer to be honest.
Yes, many. Not all, but certainly more than a few have been at least going through the motions of austerity and cuts in their budget…some fairly severely, but all but the richest are doing this to one extent or another. Again, this is pretty basic, and if you haven’t heard of this it really warrants a thread of it’s own.
No. A modern superpower that wants to handle it’s own security needs to be able to project military force in the critical locations to protect it’s (or in the EU’s case their) vital strategic interests and access to critical resources. Should all first world nations have access to this? Yes…in one way or another. And, of course, they currently DO have that, since all first world nations are allied to the US…which can in fact do this. If the US stops doing it, then yeah…pretty much need to reexamine their basic capabilities in light of having to protect and defend their interests, either collectively or individually.