jakonovski
Member
Trump is a monumental cunt but there is actually a reason to spend more: the US will not help against Russia under Trump. NATO is compromised by a fifth column that is its biggest member.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Trump told NATO leaders 2% defense spending isn't enough, should be 3%
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
Well, you look up what they have now, you double it, and you'd still probably come short of 3%.
3% is almost unachievable unless they start a nuclear program with ICBM capability.
For comparison 2% would but them over russia in budget so 3% would be like 1 1/2 russias.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
The Bundeswehr has 180k active duty personnel. That's pretty close to the standing army that the Weimar republic was limited to under Versailles, at a time when its population was like 20 million less than it is today. Modern armies are more expensive to field but also far, far smaller than 20th century armies. Much smaller than Cold War armies too. You definitely wouldn't need to go into wmds to spend 3%, although that level would definitely be excessive for German security requirements in the current political climate. They could increase total active duty personnel to ~250,000, while maintaining them at a higher state of readiness. Increase the amount of time on the firing range, increase the flight time for pilots every year, increase munitions stockpiles, invest in purchasing more smart munitions, bring some aircraft and tanks out of storage to fill up the new formations and so on.
dripdripsplash
Member
I need to know the context of this hahahah
This all sounds nice but it's not gonna get you to spend an additional 80billion per year.
Can you do it for a year or two due to new purchases? Sure. But you're not gonna spend an additional 80bn/year for the next 10 years by filling up your stockpile.
If Germany were to go to 3% it would need some money sinker like carriers or wmds.
That's why 3 and even a static 2% is nonsense.
Skellig Gra
Member
This seems a bit disingenuous. All these countries agreed to 2% in the first place. Surely at least a few of them have some idea what's going on.
"Can you believe this guy has more authority than us on the world stage?"
Agreed gonna lol if we have to pay more tax in europe thanks to this orange piece of shit.
RPGCrazied
Member
How about you use some of your billions Donald? Oh wait, we tax payers have to fund your golf vacations every weekend and protecting your family.
They shouldn't give you a cent more.
They shouldn't give you a cent more.
He doesn't get anything anyways. I can't believe that I, a fool on a message board, have more knowledge about that shit than the US President.
nephilimdj
Member
Ofcourse he does, France had to beg USA to take down Muammar Gaddafi. People in this thread thinking France is a powerhouse or doesnt need a better army lol
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Maintaining large stockpiles and then making use of them more readily in training is just part of what you do to maintain higher combat readiness. But the expansion of the armed forces is not difficult conceptually. If 180 -> 250k is too small, then perhaps 300k, or 320k over a period of 5 or 10 years. In the cold war the Bundeswehr was roughly this size without the influx of people from the East. It's totally wasteful for Germany's modern needs, but it's not conceptually difficult.
begging them for what? It was armed rebels that killed Gaddafi, aided by NATO air forces. France would have had the fighter planes to do this solely themselves, but of course wanted NATO to step in and make them look less like an aggressive ex-colonial power. It was about legitimacy.
MisterHero
Super Member
the world needs better cyber
Yes they know it is a non binding goal to only be reached in 2024 which was close to 2 decades after it was agreed to and also roughly 2 years before the financial crisis, financial crisis kind of tend to put an hold of useless expenditures like huge unmatched military forces in a nuclear world.
They also know that even if they want to save face and reach that goal they can just fudge numbers to get there, Germany for example could just classify foreign aid as being a military expenditure, that would mean they spend roughly the 2% give or take.
I have long said France and Germany and Italy need to increase their defense budget, especially Germany, but Trump is seriously a moron. I honestly think he has been ordered by Putin to denigrate NATO and make it unfeasable for anyone. I mean for a lot of NATO countries, it would just be smarter to leave NATO than devote 3% GDP to military when you don't need to.
I only say Germany most because as the de facto leader of the EU, and without Britain in the EU, they need to take a larger role in protecting Western Europe themselves, having the ability to operate outside their borders, guarantee German economic interests and EU interests.
I only say Germany most because as the de facto leader of the EU, and without Britain in the EU, they need to take a larger role in protecting Western Europe themselves, having the ability to operate outside their borders, guarantee German economic interests and EU interests.
SkylineRKR
Member
This guy is absolutely insane, or rather, he simply doesn't know in what kind of world he operates as of now.
Its best to put him out of his misery. Find a way to force him to step down. Set a trap or something, guy is stupid anyway.
Its best to put him out of his misery. Find a way to force him to step down. Set a trap or something, guy is stupid anyway.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Not at all. Rebels even said how the air support became less reliable when the US stepped back. Also coalition strikes still relied heavily on US intelligence and coordination. Hell, British warships were running out of cruise missiles after the first few days.
DiipuSurotu
Banned
PdotMichael
Banned
Give me animated avatars back!
PdotMichael
Banned
That's the only purpose of that nonsense.
Trump doesn't understand that good cooperation is a win-win situation for both sides but he operates with the mind set that the other side must get the short stick so he can show that he is the boss.
I think a bigger issue for German military increases would be personnel, Germans don't like the military and aren't as willing to join as, say, Americans. But any govt that spends a lot of money on the military would get hammered at the polls because, again, Germans don't like the military.
I know that when the military is under a time limit to spend money they tend to end up with bad acquisitions deals and overpay for gear because manufacturers know that the govt negotiators are under pressure to sign something.
I know that when the military is under a time limit to spend money they tend to end up with bad acquisitions deals and overpay for gear because manufacturers know that the govt negotiators are under pressure to sign something.
PdotMichael
Banned
Looking at the fact that the role of the German Navy within the NATO was to protect the access to the Baltic Sea, why not putting some aircraft carriers there? Makes no sense at all but would be great way to spend some money.
Traditionally, the US wanted its NATO allies to spend more so that they would have more resources to draw upon when needed. The rhetoric Americans use is that "everyone needs to contribute more", but that's only because it sounds nice and nobody believes that to be the case. Trump seems to actually believe the rhetoric though.
The Baltic Sea is a terrible place to operate carriers. It's enclosed waters where it'd be easy to locate any carriers and if you know where carriers are, they become very vulnerable. The Baltic is better secured with submarines and surface combatants. As far as I know, it's standing policy for even the US to not deploy carriers there.
PdotMichael
Banned
mhh... you know sarcasm and stuff.
What we need is a return of monitors and battleships!
Astral Dog
Member
Monty style
Same thing with republicans that they always say we need to cut taxes even further. How about we just cut it to zero percent and call it a day?
PdotMichael
Banned
Because they love to spend public money but not for the public.
IISANDERII
Member
He's hoping that his military industrial masters will.
Spyder_Monkey
Banned
Fascism to the extreme.
This is a stopped-clock issue for Trump. Military self-determination in Europe (preferably through a federal military) would improve global stability by checking both Russia and the US.
A world not so forcefully dominated by American might is a more equal world, especially when America is led by a government as dangerous and irrational as who we've got right now.
A world not so forcefully dominated by American might is a more equal world, especially when America is led by a government as dangerous and irrational as who we've got right now.
Similar threads
- Locked