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 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.
>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).
>>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.
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?
>>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?
>>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.
>>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.
>>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
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.