Author Topic: US versus NATO  (Read 41726 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 73,145
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,914
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #25 on: June 30, 2018, 11:36:24 »
As long as a deficit exists, it means the US has to borrow money to pay for everything.  A quick glance at 2015 figures showed me that discretionary spending was just under 30% of federal spending, and military spending was just under 54% of discretionary spending.  The military share of the deficit is about $135B.  And it looks like a little under 1/3 of total federal debt is held by foreigners.  So the competition for foreign sugar daddies is not as bad as it might seem at a glance.

If the US opts to reduce its spending - particularly money spent keeping US forces abroad, which would suit Trump - rather than increase taxes or borrowing, will any of the so-called freeloading countries care enough to raise their spending to fill whatever gaps they deplore?
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 111,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,930
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #26 on: June 30, 2018, 12:51:57 »
As long as the economy is doing good we can afford our own defense due to an increase in taxes.Its one thing to pay for defense its another thing to have the will to use their armed forces.France,Denmark , Canada  and the newer NATO stateshave shown the will.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 207,215
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,471
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #27 on: June 30, 2018, 19:25:08 »
I think the President feels that Europe should pay their share of their own defense.This isn't a new problem,just one that this President will stand up for NATO even if they wont.We are rotating forces into Europa at no small cost to the US taxpayer.I think the East Europeans are more than willing to provide for their defense to avoid the Russians.

https://www.stripes.com/news/europe/us-assessing-cost-of-keeping-troops-in-germany-as-trump-battles-with-europe-1.535477

France, Britain, Germany and Italy collectively already spend 2 1/2 times as much as their major enemy Russia. When will America be satisfied?

The point of an alliance is not so much to get your allies to ramp up their spending to an unnecessary level but to create a united front of collective resources which would make it foolish for an adversary to attack.

The current administration's rhetoric once again ignores reality to cater to an uninformed base's prejudices. But don't worry. Trump's meeting with Putin next month and I'm sure this time Trump's will throw in for free the reduction of EUCOM to nil strength so that he can use the manpower to create Space Force. :pop:

 [cheers]
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 73,145
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,914
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #28 on: June 30, 2018, 22:22:02 »
>France, Britain, Germany and Italy collectively already spend 2 1/2 times as much as their major enemy Russia.

That suggests to me that NATO should lower its %GDP commitment target for members to about 1%.   An agreement on what spending is relevant (ie. how to measure it) should also be struck (regardless whether or not it is nominally part of whatever passes for a nation's war/defence ministry), so that reporters and talking heads and armchair quarterbacks (like me) have some meaningful numbers to write down on the heads of our pins.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #29 on: July 01, 2018, 00:43:49 »
>France, Britain, Germany and Italy collectively already spend 2 1/2 times as much as their major enemy Russia.

That suggests to me that NATO should lower its %GDP commitment target for members to about 1%.   An agreement on what spending is relevant (ie. how to measure it) should also be struck (regardless whether or not it is nominally part of whatever passes for a nation's war/defence ministry), so that reporters and talking heads and armchair quarterbacks (like me) have some meaningful numbers to write down on the heads of our pins.
1 percent in peace,  2 percent or more in war?
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Online E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 488,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,406
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #30 on: July 01, 2018, 05:52:04 »
1 percent in peace,  2 percent or more in war?

It likely depends on with whom you are at war, doesn't it?

2% might be fine if you're invading Grenada or Panama, but I doubt that 2% will suffice to regain the Baltic states if Putin gambles that he can reincorporate them into Russia at a low cost.

And 2%, even 4% is not going to cut it if you decide to go to war with China ... think more like 20%.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 145,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,639
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #31 on: July 02, 2018, 17:42:15 »
Trump did not create the 2% GDP as a figure, it's been around for a long time and as I recall was agreed upon by NATO as a collective solution. Every state waste money on the military, as they use procurement for domestic political issues. In a perfect world, each ally would focus on producing equipment mainly in one area and everyone else buys it. That is good for the bank account, but bad politics.

Online E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 488,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,406
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #32 on: July 03, 2018, 05:48:04 »
Trump did not create the 2% GDP as a figure, it's been around for a long time and as I recall was agreed upon by NATO as a collective solution. Every state waste money on the military, as they use procurement for domestic political issues. In a perfect world, each ally would focus on producing equipment mainly in one area and everyone else buys it. That is good for the bank account, but bad politics.


Many very good economists will tell you that, in a proper, rational world, every penny spent on the military is a waste. The 'need' for a military is an admission that policy and politics have broken down or didn't work well enough in the first place. Spending good, hard earned money on weapons is inherently inefficient ~ it's something that e.g. Eisenhower understood when he developed both the trip-wire and MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) strategies. He saw wall-to-wall armies as a waste because he wanted to build refrigerators, TVs and cars, not tanks and submarines.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #33 on: July 03, 2018, 08:52:23 »

Many very good economists will tell you that, in a proper, rational world, every penny spent on the military is a waste. The 'need' for a military is an admission that policy and politics have broken down or didn't work well enough in the first place. Spending good, hard earned money on weapons is inherently inefficient ~ it's something that e.g. Eisenhower understood when he developed both the trip-wire and MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) strategies. He saw wall-to-wall armies as a waste because he wanted to build refrigerators, TVs and cars, not tanks and submarines.
The EU and Canada should simply make a new benchmark number,instead of using one from decades ago.

Lets renegotiate NATO. Works so well for America on everything else.

New number, 1.4 percent of GDP. Oh look, almost everyone is close to that, problem solved.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 253,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,063
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #34 on: July 03, 2018, 10:12:49 »
The EU and Canada should simply make a new benchmark number,instead of using one from decades ago.

Lets renegotiate NATO. Works so well for America on everything else.

New number, 1.4 percent of GDP. Oh look, almost everyone is close to that, problem solved.

It took them decades to agree on the 2% number. If they can't get that right, and follow their own policies, then NATO hasn't got much hope as a collective defense arrangement, and they should pull pole on that side show....

Which is what Putin is betting on, of course, and why Trump is kicking a$$.
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #35 on: July 03, 2018, 10:17:16 »
It took them decades to agree on the 2% number. If they can't get that right, and follow their own policies, then NATO hasn't got much hope as a collective defense arrangement, and they should pull pole on that side show....

Which is what Putin is betting on, of course, and why Trump is kicking a$$.
If throwing a temper tantrum and saying that he will take his toys and go home, undermining the alliance altogether is kicking @ss, yes, yes he is.

Shame it's Americas @ss.

Either way, I can guarantee you, Putin is pleased with this. A great return on investment if you think about it.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 226,850
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,949
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #36 on: July 03, 2018, 10:28:26 »
The EU and Canada should simply make a new benchmark number,instead of using one from decades ago.

Lets renegotiate NATO. Works so well for America on everything else.

New number, 1.4 percent of GDP. Oh look, almost everyone is close to that, problem solved.

That is suggesting that every country, and even NATO itself, is *ready* to go with the level of equipment, training and personnel they have now. 

Having worked in NATO TFs, I'm going to suggest we are not - ASW is the easy example for me to use.  If Russia, for example, deploys 1 nuc boat, how many assets are required to locate and track that redboat 24/7?  If Russia deploys 10, or 15, boats at once, can NATO handle that?  How about if you remove the US from NATO?  That is a sizeable portion of NATO sub-surface assets gone - not only in numbers but in operational capability per boat.  Even if, say, the Astute class boats are very capable, there are also very few of them compared to Improved LAs, Virgina's and Seawolfs.

Tossing numbers and %s around means nothing, really.  What matters where it counts is capabilities and the ability for all the different countries of NATO to effectively fight as a collective organization.  That ability to fight is the deterrent to nations like Russia or China, who have capabilities in the air, surface and sub-surface and space.

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/world/asia/19china.html

 :2c:
« Last Edit: July 03, 2018, 10:37:29 by Eye In The Sky »
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #37 on: July 03, 2018, 10:37:32 »
That is suggesting that every country, and even NATO itself, is *ready* to go with the level of equipment, training and personnel they have now. 

Having worked in NATO TFs, I'm going to suggest we are not - ASW is the easy example for me to use.  If Russia, for example, deploys 1 nuc boat, how many assets are required to locate and track that redboat 24/7?  If Russia deploys 10, or 15, boats at once, can NATO handle that?  How about if you remove the US from NATO?  That is a sizeable portion of NATO sub-surface assets gone - not only in numbers but in operational capability per boat.  Even if, say, the Astute class boats are very capable, there are also very few of them compared to Improved LAs, Virgina's and Seawolfs.

Tossing numbers and %s around means nothing, really.  What matters where it counts is capabilities and the ability for all the different countries of NATO to effectively fight as a collective organization.  That ability to fight is the deterrent to nations like Russia or China, who have capabilities in the air, surface and sub-surface and space.

 :2c:
NATO without the US would still handle Russia rather easily. Biggest problem there might be Europe running low on ammo, as they did during the Libya bombing campaign, but that is a relatively easy fix.

Would NATO be as formidable without the USA, especially outside of Europe, no, no it would not. Which is probably what Putin is playing for, and in honesty, America is playing right into his hand.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 226,850
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,949
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #38 on: July 03, 2018, 10:40:25 »
NATO without the US would still handle Russia rather easily.

I don't agree with you.  But I'd like to see why you think this, and is this your belief in all aspects of the battlespace?  (land, air, sea, space, cyber)
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 253,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,063
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #39 on: July 03, 2018, 10:44:47 »
NATO without the US would still handle Russia rather easily. Biggest problem there might be Europe running low on ammo, as they did during the Libya bombing campaign, but that is a relatively easy fix.

Would NATO be as formidable without the USA, especially outside of Europe, no, no it would not. Which is probably what Putin is playing for, and in honesty, America is playing right into his hand.

NATO, without the US, would be Europe 1938.
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 301,651
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,075
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #40 on: July 03, 2018, 10:49:05 »
NATO without the US would still handle Russia rather easily.

Not a chance but I'd also be curious how you came to that conclusion.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2018, 10:56:24 by Jarnhamar »
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #41 on: July 03, 2018, 11:34:32 »
France: 205,000 with 195,770 in reserves

Germany: 180,000 with 145,00 in reserves

Poland: 120,000 with 515,000 in reserves

Spain: 125,00 with 16,200 in reserves

Italy: 320,000 with 42,000 in reserves

Sweden: 14,000 with 26,000 in reserves

Netherlands: 50,000 with 32,200 in reserves

Romania: 75,000 with 80,000 in Reserves

Czech Republic: 21,100 with 11,000 in reserves

Ukraine: 160,000 with 1,000,000 in reserves (Already in a proxy war with Russia)

Denmark: 25,000 with 63,000 in reserves

Bulgaria: 35,000 with 302,500 in reserves

Belgium: 35,000 with 6,500 in reserves

Austria: 30,000 with 27,000 in reserves

Portugal: 40,000 with 211,000 in reserves

Finland: 36,500 with 357,000 in reserves

Croatia: 21,500 with 102,700 in reserves

Estonia: 3,500 with 60,000 in reserves

Greece: 180,000 with 280,000 in reserves

Hungary: 20,000 with 52,000 in reserves

Latvia: 13,000 with 11,000 in reserves

Lithuania: 15,000 with 4,260 in reserves

Slovenia: 7,500 with 8,300 in reserves

Slovakia: 13,500 with 0 in reserves

Including at least 1,600 Nuclear Weapons

Frontline: 1,745,600

Reserves: 3,548,430

Total: 5,294,030

Frontline Troops: 766,055

Reserves: 2,485,000

Total: 3,251,055

Including 8,000 Nuclear Weapons

EU combined military spending :226.73 billion

Russian Military Budget: 66.3 Billion

The Russian bear isn't quite as scary as everyone is making it out to be.

Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline PPCLI Guy

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 179,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,497
  • It's all good
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #42 on: July 03, 2018, 11:38:15 »
NATO without the US would still handle Russia rather easily. Biggest problem there might be Europe running low on ammo, as they did during the Libya bombing campaign, but that is a relatively easy fix.

Would NATO be as formidable without the USA, especially outside of Europe, no, no it would not. Which is probably what Putin is playing for, and in honesty, America is playing right into his hand.

Really.  Leveraging European ISR, Space, Cyber and SOF dominance I assume?  And using all of their aircraft carriers?

This is where lanes matter my friend.  I enjoy your political polemics , hyperbole, and generally well-thought through commentary, mostly because these types of issues are mostly about marshalling facts to support an opinion, which you do quite well.

Geo-strategic military assessment? Not so much.
"The higher the rank, the more necessary it is that boldness should be accompanied by a reflective mind....for with increase in rank it becomes always a matter less of self-sacrifice and more a matter of the preservation of others, and the good of the whole."

Karl von Clausewitz

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #43 on: July 03, 2018, 11:46:07 »
Really.  Leveraging European ISR, Space, Cyber and SOF dominance I assume?  And using all of their aircraft carriers?

This is where lanes matter my friend.  I enjoy your political polemics , hyperbole, and generally well-thought through commentary, mostly because these types of issues are mostly about marshalling facts to support an opinion, which you do quite well.

Geo-strategic military assessment? Not so much.
Russia spends about as much as Saudi Arabia on defense, and I don't think anyone would bet on Saudi Arabia being able to beat the EU in a conventional war.

Russia is able to pick and choose where it wants to project power, and has done rather well in that regard, from taking Crimea, to destabilizing Ukraine and aiding Assad.

Beyond that though, I don't see how they would be able to engage in a conventional war with a United Europe. I also don't see what they gain from tangling with a nuclear weapons power.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 226,850
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,949
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #44 on: July 03, 2018, 12:08:41 »
I've heard the Royal Saudi Navy has some capable nuclear attack, guided missile and Intercontinental Ballistic Missile submarines and their Naval air size and capabilities are matched;  your comparison of the Russian and Saudi Arabia forces based on 'spending' is valid. 

Should we begin to compare them in the land, air force, space and cyber categories as well?

 :whistle:
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 253,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,063
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #45 on: July 03, 2018, 12:16:29 »
France: 205,000 with 195,770 in reserves

Germany: 180,000 with 145,00 in reserves

Poland: 120,000 with 515,000 in reserves

Spain: 125,00 with 16,200 in reserves

Italy: 320,000 with 42,000 in reserves

Sweden: 14,000 with 26,000 in reserves

Netherlands: 50,000 with 32,200 in reserves

Romania: 75,000 with 80,000 in Reserves

Czech Republic: 21,100 with 11,000 in reserves

Ukraine: 160,000 with 1,000,000 in reserves (Already in a proxy war with Russia)

Denmark: 25,000 with 63,000 in reserves

Bulgaria: 35,000 with 302,500 in reserves

Belgium: 35,000 with 6,500 in reserves

Austria: 30,000 with 27,000 in reserves

Portugal: 40,000 with 211,000 in reserves

Finland: 36,500 with 357,000 in reserves

Croatia: 21,500 with 102,700 in reserves

Estonia: 3,500 with 60,000 in reserves

Greece: 180,000 with 280,000 in reserves

Hungary: 20,000 with 52,000 in reserves

Latvia: 13,000 with 11,000 in reserves

Lithuania: 15,000 with 4,260 in reserves

Slovenia: 7,500 with 8,300 in reserves

Slovakia: 13,500 with 0 in reserves

Including at least 1,600 Nuclear Weapons

Frontline: 1,745,600

Reserves: 3,548,430

Total: 5,294,030

Frontline Troops: 766,055

Reserves: 2,485,000

Total: 3,251,055

Including 8,000 Nuclear Weapons

EU combined military spending :226.73 billion

Russian Military Budget: 66.3 Billion

The Russian bear isn't quite as scary as everyone is making it out to be.

Your list of 'assets' doesn't include the levels of political will to resist as a collective, which is always in doubt without a strong US leadership presence.

And I'll throw Canada in with the Euro-trash on this one, sadly, as we seem more interested in currying favour and playing Pseudo-Euro instead of calling them on their ****.

"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #46 on: July 03, 2018, 12:25:08 »
I've heard the Royal Saudi Navy has some capable nuclear attack, guided missile and Intercontinental Ballistic Missile submarines and their Naval air size and capabilities are matched;  your comparison of the Russian and Saudi Arabia forces based on 'spending' is valid. 

Should we begin to compare them in the land, air force, space and cyber categories as well?

 :whistle:
When Russia is able to effectively project beyond their borders with more than little green men, maybe I'll at that point I'll bet on them on any Russia Europe conflict.

As it stands, I will be on europe 9 time out of 10 in any ground war in europe, the odd time being France surrendering before it begins.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 226,850
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,949
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #47 on: July 03, 2018, 12:29:16 »
Maybe you'll change your mind, or consider other things than simple old numbers, once you get some time working in a coalition and/or NATO TF and see what happens sometimes when every country has different ROE and 'national command directions/goals', etc.  Not to even mention different languages, comms systems, TTPs, tactical/operational/strategic goals/intentions.

Russia has none of those concerns (or, at least, different ones at only a national level vice *many nations* level) and it makes it easier for them to send flying telephone poles thru the air at targets.  :nod:
« Last Edit: July 03, 2018, 12:35:29 by Eye In The Sky »
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #48 on: July 03, 2018, 12:36:22 »
Maybe you'll change your mind, or consider other things than simple old numbers, once you get some time working in a coalition and/or NATO TF and see what happens sometimes when every country has different ROE and 'national command directions/goals', etc.

Russia has none of those concerns (or, at least, different ones at only a national level vice *many nations* level) and it makes it easier for them to send flying telephone poles thru the air at targets.  :nod:
Yes, I'm sure that would allow Russia, a country with the GDP of Italy, to outfight Europe, with a potential army twice its size.

Still wouldn't bet on it.

Although maybe Putin holds a summit with America asking for a second front in Europe, if history wants to repeat itself again.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 562,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,244
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #49 on: July 03, 2018, 12:51:17 »
I don't see how they would be able to engage in a conventional war with a United Europe.
I don't see a "united" Europe.   :dunno:


Edit:  Damn, I didn't see.....
Your list of 'assets' doesn't include the levels of political will to resist as a collective, which is always in doubt without a strong US leadership presence.
           What he said.   :nod:
« Last Edit: July 03, 2018, 12:58:03 by Journeyman »
Don't vote?  Don't complain.   www.elections.ca