War with Russia

[BoldonLad]

If Europe were collectively to increase defence spending, and, scale back dependance on USA, wouldn't this (sensibly) mean also scaling back dependance on USA Arms manufacturers?, which is hardly a win for Trump. Of course, such a change may take years to have significant impact.

 

[HMS_Dave]

If Europe were collectively to increase defence spending, and, scale back dependance on USA, wouldn't this (sensibly) mean also scaling back dependance on USA Arms manufacturers?, which is hardly a win for Trump. Of course, such a change may take years to have significant impact.

Not really, the Western Arms industry is pretty much monopolised by US arms manufacturers. Much of our critical systems rely on it from Trident to Phalanx CIWS to standardised ammunition for artillery, machine guns and then there's logistics. The "special" relationship for example means that the US can develop secret technology and never share it with its NATO allies. But the moment the likes of the UK does, you can bet we must share it with them, for example Chobham tank armour... I'm not sure that Europe would ever be in a position to defend itself from a superpower alone, without US lead support, and the is even before we talk about the lack of resources the continent has compared to the likes North America and Russia. Trump knows this, and why we are living in changing and dangerous times.

 

[Psamathe]

Not really, the Western Arms industry is pretty much monopolised by US arms manufacturers. Much of our critical systems rely on it from Trident to Phalanx CIWS to standardised ammunition for artillery, machine guns and then there's logistics. The "special" relationship for example means that the US can develop secret technology and never share it with its NATO allies. But the moment the likes of the UK does, you can bet we must share it with them, for example Chobham tank armour... I'm not sure that Europe would ever be in a position to defend itself from a superpower alone, without US lead support, and the is even before we talk about the lack of resources the continent has compared to the likes North America and Russia. Trump knows this, and why we are living in changing and dangerous times.

I'd guess that Europe increasing military budgets will be a gradual process (there isn't the money for an instant massive increase). So Governments might decide it's better for them to develop arms manufacturers within their own country (so the retain some of the increased expenditure and reap more of the benefits like employment, taxation, etc.) or at least within the EU.

And developiong local arms manufacturing can be done at the same time as budgest gradually increase.

Ian

 

[HMS_Dave]

I'd guess that Europe increasing military budgets will be a gradual process (there isn't the money for an instant massive increase). So Governments might decide it's better for them to develop arms manufacturers within their own country (so the retain some of the increased expenditure and reap more of the benefits like employment, taxation, etc.) or at least within the EU.

And developiong local arms manufacturing can be done at the same time as budgest gradually increase.

Ian

To be an effective, independent force, would cost an incredible amount of money. The US, with all of it size, spends getting on for 1 trillion dollars on its military, each year. Europe, doesn't need 10 new aircraft super carriers every 20 years but even so, to catch up with a fully independent defence industry and military would require a significant rework and massive investment of the major economies in Europe. Most a running high debt, national health services and high social welfare systems. The social and health welfare budgets would come under increased threat of real cuts to pay for it. There will be little appetite for increasing taxes and will be the death of any Government attempting to impose it, especially in the UK if it will be perceived as defending the EU, i can see Farage's mouth moving to those words now...

Developing local arms manufacturing is only part of the story, there are large defence companies in europe, such as BAE and Rheinmetall, many are involved in shady stuff like bribery and corruption but glossing over that, many have large contracts with the US defence department and are reliant on that. Still, there are hopes of some independent stuff. The Tempest gen 6 fighter is an example involving the UK, Italy and Japan but then there lies another problem, France and Germany are going there own separate way on their gen 6 fighter so fragmentation is also screwing things up and if Europe does find itself in mortal danger with an invasion ongoing, you've got multiple supply lines needing to be maintained with different factories and countries scrambling for the same limited resources...

There needs to be an agreed consensus, Im sure that could be achieved within the EU where naturally, our voices will be heard. Oh, we left didn't we?

 

[Psamathe]

The US, with all of it size, spends getting on for 1 trillion dollars on its military, each year.

A bit off-topic but something I've been wondering about with the current claims Trump is throwing around. Does the US spend massively/significantly more on their military because Europe spends less ie are they really making up for our shortfall or is their spending just something that would be happening anyway?

Ian

 

[glasgowcyclist]

A bit off-topic but something I've been wondering about with the current claims Trump is throwing around. Does the US spend massively/significantly more on their military because Europe spends less ie are they really making up for our shortfall or is their spending just something that would be happening anyway?

Ian

I think they spend so much because they invade and/or bomb so many countries around the world constantly.

I read that their arms budget is the highest in the world, spending more than the next 25 countries put together.

 

[Ian H]

A bit off-topic but something I've been wondering about with the current claims Trump is throwing around. Does the US spend massively/significantly more on their military because Europe spends less ie are they really making up for our shortfall or is their spending just something that would be happening anyway?

Ian

Why do you think that the USA has so many military bases in Europe, including 13 in the UK? Is it pure altruism on their part?

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

If Europe were collectively to increase defence spending, and, scale back dependance on USA, wouldn't this (sensibly) mean also scaling back dependance on USA Arms manufacturers?, which is hardly a win for Trump. Of course, such a change may take years to have significant impact.

Well if someone lies the first step it to call out on it's lies as far as i remember the US stepped up it's NATO involvelment only after 9/11 they always had a big army, but Trump now pretends it's all for Nato which isn't true it's first and foremost because America wants to stay and superpower because without it they wouldn't be able to sustain their debt position.
Secondly if we look at other Nato's member contributions, US is indeed the biggest but the UK, Germany and France follow closely thereafter so we shouldn't let Trump dictate anything because he marginally bigger. and if the UK Germany and France work together, they can confidently say they have the bigger vote.
Thirdly We shouldn't overstate Russia, they are in fact losing in Ukraine,(even if they win some terrain) whilst Ukraine fights with our old hardware and soldiers with very little training compared to ours, the attitude we should have to Russia is should show that. Instead the old fears seem to be amplified, which will lead to Russia trying again if Putin gets his peace here(his as it only benefits him)

 

[Psamathe]

I read that their arms budget is the highest in the world, spending more than the next 25 countries put together.

But interestingly Europe (block) has given more to Ukraine than the US.

I do tend to regard Europe as a "block" in some regards as it behaves as a block on some matters just as the US acts as a "block" on some matters and individual state in other matters. A general point but I do think we can often underestimate the size of aspects of the EU. Similarly (eg similar to Climate Pollution) what can be relevant is the "per head" figure to give a more accurate representation of the effective contributions (somewhere with twice the population would be expected to make twice the total amount paid as well as twice the climate pollution emissions, etc.)

Ian

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

There needs to be an agreed consensus, Im sure that could be achieved within the EU where naturally, our voices will be heard. Oh, we left didn't we?

No we don't need and EU army we have Nato, which accomplished the same without EU bureaucracy

Why do you think that the USA has so many military bases in Europe, including 13 in the UK? Is it pure altruism on their part?

To keep up their role as ''superpower'' as otherwise the role of the US dollar might become le

 

[Psamathe]

Why do you think that the USA has so many military bases in Europe, including 13 in the UK? Is it pure altruism on their part?

Hence my asking about "massively/significantly more" as those troups would need accommodating and feeding, etc. if they were based back in the US.

Many years ago I remember some UK Army General saying how basing troops overseas doesn't cost as much as one might expect and has significant benefits (eg training in different terrains, getting troops used to being away from home", etc.)

So I was wondering if those troops would be redundant (ie not employed by the military) if not based in Europe or just part of the numbers that could be rapidly redeployed to eg Korea if needed. ie US decides it needs <x> troops to meet its need (and they are mobile to where they are deployed is not so important) or is the US saying we need <x> for our NATO obligations, <y> to make-up the other NATO membersa shortfall, <z> for Asia operations, etc.

Ian

 

[matticus]

A bit off-topic but something I've been wondering about with the current claims Trump is throwing around. Does the US spend massively/significantly more on their military because Europe spends less ie are they really making up for our shortfall or is their spending just something that would be happening anyway?

Because as well as keeping traditional threats like the Russkies in check, they need the capability to deal with other increasingly powerful and bellicose enemies.


Such as Canada.

 

[HMS_Dave]

A bit off-topic but something I've been wondering about with the current claims Trump is throwing around. Does the US spend massively/significantly more on their military because Europe spends less ie are they really making up for our shortfall or is their spending just something that would be happening anyway?

Ian

To Billy Bob Hickville in Alabama it probably might.

The reality is the budget will just continue to increase because China.

No we don't need and EU army we have Nato, which accomplished the same without EU bureaucracy

No, Just US bureaucracy instead, which is increasingly unreliable.

 

[BoldonLad]

Not really, the Western Arms industry is pretty much monopolised by US arms manufacturers. Much of our critical systems rely on it from Trident to Phalanx CIWS to standardised ammunition for artillery, machine guns and then there's logistics. The "special" relationship for example means that the US can develop secret technology and never share it with its NATO allies. But the moment the likes of the UK does, you can bet we must share it with them, for example Chobham tank armour... I'm not sure that Europe would ever be in a position to defend itself from a superpower alone, without US lead support, and the is even before we talk about the lack of resources the continent has compared to the likes North America and Russia. Trump knows this, and why we are living in changing and dangerous times.

So, if we can’t defend ourselves, why not just quit trying, and spend the defence budget on something else?

 

[Psamathe]

There needs to be an agreed consensus, Im sure that could be achieved within the EU where naturally, our voices will be heard. Oh, we left didn't we?

No we don't need and EU army we have Nato, which accomplished the same without EU bureaucracy

I wondered (posted here or elsewhere as thread topics being discussed starting to overlap) if there might emerge a sort of NATO but without the US as sort of ETO. Pretty well same as NATO but no US. Not an EU Army (ie not a single force) but a treaty similar to NATO.

Reason: Several leaders of Baltic stated interviewed on TV asked if they thought the US would honour Article 5 (come to their defence if they were invaded) and they gave very much uncertainty to unlikely responses. And that sort of matches Trump's statements about Europe not relying on the US (despite there being treaties).

whilst Trump is for 4 years and it will be a rough ride what he has demonstrated is that they can be an unreliable partner/ally. So maybe Europe get on with sorting things out for itself. It will cost (but it's going to cost anyway) and at least we won't be subject to the wild treatment we seem to be getting from Trump and his minions.

Ian