What are your thoughts on Europe's military decline?

>>54893420
Only in the UK and France.

>>54893623
I heard the US is going to quadruple its spending in Europe as well

>>54893420
why get a military when we can get americucks to do our dirty work for us

Kind of an interesting phenomenon. They're being artificially buffered so the environmental stressor to maintain a decent military is simply not there anymore. If the US disappeared tomorrow Russia could probably just take Eastern Europe while these limp dicks stood by and watched.

>>54894699
There's always consequences for relying on foreign powers. If you don't believe me read some history. Also if you don't have a strong military its impossible to have an independent foreign policy

>>54893420
If it ever is reversed, it's because some serious shit will go down.
And if that were to become reality, it'd be too late to really accomplish anything.

File: defenSe.png (414KB, 664x662px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 664x662px

>>54893420
>>54894673
>tfw USA has to pay to keep Europe protected

>>54894673

Confirmed. It's a pretty penny but freedom don't come free, bro.

>>54894736
If that means cheaper petrol for all of us, I'm all for it, Russians are based Conservatives so its a win win

File: joint force 2025.png (165KB, 723x1007px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 723x1007px

>>54894961
So who is informed about the major European militaries here?

I know the UK is starting to expand the Royal Navy and RAF, while the Army is being re-organised but kept static in size. What about the other countries?

>>54895249
Didn't mean to quote...

>>54893420
Didn't Cameron change your military policy already? I read, he wants the military budget increased to $18 billion.
>What are your thoughts on Europe's military decline?
You fucked up and beacuse of that we're fucked up.

>>54894825

>There's always consequences for relying on foreign powers.

See, a country of 9 million can't even hope to win in a war against a great power so we don't really have much of a choice (unless they bail when 3000 soldiers have died because their population starts crying or something *cough America).

File: MB 2016 Top 15 Defence Budgets 2015 blog.jpg (159KB, 630x414px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 630x414px

>>54895335
>Didn't Cameron change your military policy already? I read, he wants the military budget increased to $18 billion.
We spend a lot more than that, m8. Cameron pledged to keep spending at 2% GDP and increasing in real terms, above inflation, every year of this Parliament.

>>54895416
Look at your own military during the Cold War. "But we're a small country" is a pathetic excuse, to be frank. Swedes made sure they could enforce their neutrality.

>>54895573

>Look at your own military during the Cold War.

And how long would it take the soviet union to utterly crush that one? 1 week? 2?

>>54895091
Why not just let them defend themselves?

>>54895698
>And how long would it take the soviet union to utterly crush that one? 1 week? 2?

Neither. It would have been extremely difficult to invade Cold War Sweden. Learn about your own history.

Sweden had the world's 4th largest air force with 1000 front line fighters.

The FOURTH largest in the world. And Sweden prospered in the meantime.

Think about that next time you engage in this "but we're only 9 million" pathetic whining

>>54895905

Yeah, and the soviet union had 5 times our population in their standing army. Good luck chum. And the second largest air force in the world.

Not to mention our lack of nuclear weapons.

Why would European cunts even need a military outside of an ill-equipped defence force anyway? It's not like you have a massive international trade force which needs to be protected by a huge navy or air force, and you have a entire nuclear defence system in Eastern Europe to protect you from the Asian hordes. What is there to worry about?

>>54893420
The likelihood of a fullscale war has decreased dramatically since 1990.

I don't see the issue.

Russia is weak, and not a threat against Europe.

Europe can defend itself from any foreign nation (except murica) with its advanced airforce.

Denmark has recently bought 5.000 new assault rifles, 360 Piranha V APC's and 30 Joint Strike Fighters.

>>54896031
You can't think of war as a 1v1, because it's not. Our strategy was to make it so difficult for the Soviets to invade that it simply wasn't worth their time and effort.

>>54893420
Good, I'm accepting cuck-status
Peace and love lads

>>54896031
>hurr russia would kick our asses 1on1 so it doesn't matter what defence we have
kill yourself, friend

>>54896145
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/2015/12/05/denmark-further-postpones-fighter-selection-until-2016/76729290/

>>54896031
Have you ever studied what happens when a large military attacks a small but well-defended and competent force on territory that greatly favours the defender? Your neighbour during WW2 is one such example and they were nowhere near as well-armed as Sweden.

>>54896044
>It's not like you have a massive international trade force which needs to be protected by a huge navy or air force
Erm, I'm pretty sure most of Europe trades huge volumes with the rest of the world, and these trade routes need to be protected.

Did you think the USA is the only trading country?

>>54896162
Why would the Soviets have even cared for Sweden?

Your military was meant for defence in the case that they did attack, but the chances were so small.

>>54896265

>Your neighbour during WW2 is one such example and they were nowhere near as well-armed as Sweden.

And they lost 10 % of their land, including their second largest city, your point being?

>>54896317
Gotland is a very high priority target for anyone wanting to control the Baltic sea. Other than that I guess the south is a good staging ground for a invasion of mainland Europe.

>>54893420
>What are your thoughts on Europe's military decline?
In Germany, the peace dividend has made financing reunification possible. This prevented East Germany becoming a northern Mezzogiorno.
10/10

>Will it be reversed?
Not really. There's no threat that warrants an increase in spending. If anything Europeans will do more pooling of abilities etc. to achieve more with the same money.

>>54896387
My point being that it came at a VERY high cost for the larger force, and the defenders in that war were poorly equipped compared to Cold War era Sweden

>>54896317
>Why would the Soviets have even cared for Sweden?
Sweden was a huge border between the pact and NATO.

Baltics, Poland, And east Germany were pact countries while Denmark and Norway were NATO.

File: keith.jpg (10KB, 219x231px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 219x231px

>>54893420
Well, we'll have to bail Europe out until Russia collapses again. Still, we can't keep troops there long because we are reorienting on keeping the Chinese contained.

>>54894736
>these limp dicks
this is democrrracy manifest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbVJU1CuM0Q

>>54896602
Russia is not going to attack NATO.

As long as Europe has a credible deterrent that will remain true.

>>54894825
Don't delude yourself. Not that what you wrote was wrong. It's not. But look at the context. The range of possible actions of countries like Germany or the UK is confined by the Pax Americana. If there's not even a remote chance of challenging that, there's no point in wasting money beyond the absolute necessary. Our foreign policy is "independent" within the international order set by the global hegemon.

>>54896659
based video

its a classic

File: F-35B-on-Royal-Navy-carrier-HMS-Queen-Elizabeth-45157052.jpg (75KB, 1024x574px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1024x574px

>>54893420

No real threat from anyone,

Plus this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GK3ORgw-h_4

>>54896958
RAMP

Funny how it's now projected that y'all won't reach a surplus by 2020.

File: 1380126509693.jpg (11KB, 200x215px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 200x215px

>>54896044
>Why would European cunts even need a military outside of an ill-equipped defence force anyway? It's not like you have a massive international trade force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_trade#Largest_countries_by_total_international_trade
Thanks for keeping sea lanes secure btw.

>>54896875
Your assumption is that the international order won't change or be challenged. It is a dangerous assumption because military forces take a long time to build up. All it takes is one moment of weakness, caused by US domestic politics or whatever, some inability to protect an ally, and then everything changes. Even in recent years we've had the US President set a "red line" and a tiny country like Syria has defied it without suffering the consequences.

Furthermore, an independent military is necessary if you want to do something that the Americans won't support outright. One obvious example is the re-taking of the Falklands by the British military, which the Americans were initially against. Only because of the RN's capabilities was the British Prime Minister able to ignore the US President's warnings and press ahead anyway

File: ZIa82Mv.jpg (626KB, 2906x1634px) Image search: [Google]

626KB, 2906x1634px

>>54896995

Ramps 4 Champs

Ah well, interest rates are low so there's never a better time to borrow money.

>>54896995

I think we hit a surplus last year

>>54897160
No we didn't

>>54897194

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/21/uk-income-tax-receipts-surplus-july

>>54896535
You need to start worry only after Finland is overrun.

File: ss+(2016-02-11+at+12.49.39).jpg (387KB, 1175x896px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 1175x896px

>>54897246
hehe mm

>>54897239
That's July. One month in the year. Overall last year we had a budget deficit. Currently our deficit is around -4.4% GDP. See:

http://www.economist.com/node/21604509?t=2&h1=Britain&z=2014/20160210_16

However, the way things are going, we'll likely reach a surplus before the USA, even though their deficit is smaller right now.

>>54897076
>Your assumption is that the international order won't change or be challenged.
Things like that don't change over night.

>re-taking of the Falklands
Good point. And your military was sufficient for that. We don't even have overseas territories. We can afford to have less.

File: deficits.png (10KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 300x300px

>>54897239
>>54897330
Forgot my picture

>>54897406
>We don't even have overseas territories. We can afford to have less.
Overseas territories aren't the only reason you might need to go abroad.

What if there's a trade route or German investment overseas that suddenly needs protection? What if one of your allies gets in trouble and intervention is vital to uphold your foreign policy? Think it through.

>>54897406
>Things like that don't change over night.

They can change very fast. Faster than it's possible to build up a strong military that's for sure.

>>54897415

Why is the US gonna get worse, Didn't Obongo cut the US deficit in half?

>>54897415
Fucking german jews, we need to bring this EU down.

>>54897511
>What if there's a trade route or German investment overseas that suddenly needs protection?
We've got a few frigates for that. No need for more.

>What if one of your allies gets in trouble and intervention is vital to uphold your foreign policy?
Our allies are accessible by land. We've got a couple of tanks, too. And we are in a system of collective security. So we'll do our part and not be alone.

>>54897546
I don't see how the US could lose its mojo so fast one couldn't build up stronger forces in time.

>>54897415
source for picture

File: Germoney.png (547KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

547KB, 900x600px

>>54897600

>>54897569
Yes, but the American system is different. Their budget has to be agreed by two opposing parties, as Democrats control the Presidency and Republicans control the Congress. They have separation of powers. So it's very difficult to plan ahead and there's no agreed path balancing the budget.

In contrast, in Britain if you have a majority in the Commons and your own party accepts it, you can pass a budget. In fact the inability to pass a budget would probably bring down the government because it's such a major thing.

Because our government has the aim of reaching surplus by the end of the Parliament, and it's published plans to do so and has a majority, it's much more likely to happen.

Can you imagine the ungodly mess if the Tories had to agree the Budget with Labour? All the bitching and disagreement? That's the US. Every year for the past several years.

File: sadfrog angry.jpg (57KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 720x720px

>>54897912
>All the bitching and disagreement? That's the US. Every year for the past several years.
>tfw it's true

>>54897771
I got it from a Financial Times article. Can't remember which, I'm trying to find it

>>54897771
>>54898046
Can't find it sorry. But the data is from the IMF, it's all on the IMF's website in table form