3 ms·

As a European I always have mixed feelings when this comes up. First things first, the European NATO members signed a contract to use 2% of GDP for defense and

As a European I always have mixed feelings when this comes up. First things first, the European NATO members signed a contract to use 2% of GDP for defense and some are not doing that. Not right, they have to honor their agreements. But then why is the US spending so much more than the 2% ? I feel that by and large that Europe and mostly the EU tries to have international influence via commerce. (Trade agreement/or not, customs, economic pressure, regulation, that sort of thing). When you look at the US then in some instance you can't help but thinking that the military is another arm to execute international influence in the world. For that it might make sense to have a large military budget. If that's not your way of making politics, and let's be honest no European country could even do that if they wanted, then it is also less interesting to have a large army in excess of what has been agreed (the 2%) All of that also with the view that probably most people are shocked that it is actually possible to have an actual war in Europe again. This was unexpected and most people thought, we have enough weapons to deter any attacker. let's leave it there. And in fairness that still holds. The 2% seem to be about right to have a useful deterrent for an attack. So in Europe (despite how it looks now with the Ukraine war) a big army was seen less useful and when the Americans say they have to hold a defense umbrella then they are probably right with regards to nuclear defense. But for the rest the Americans seem to have their own motives to have a large army that goes beyond defense and then it feels a bit strange to hear that America has to pay for a big Army because the Europeans don't do it (except the Europeans really should stick to 2%). As the Europeans have less incentive/possibility to use their military for anything else but defense whereas the Americans do.

emptyfile 3y ago
[dead]
indymike 3y ago
> All of that also with the view that probably most people are shocked that it is actually possible to have an actual war in Europe again. Compound interest is powerful, and works both ways. Under-spending on defense for a decade or too leaves large gaps in defense capability. The US overspends, but doesn't always spend on the right things. A good example not having enough artillery ammunition.
- throwup238 3y ago
  > A good example not having enough artillery ammunition. US military doctrine doesn’t use much artillery anymore so why would it still spend a lot on artillery ammunition? US uses maneuver warfare with air support and precision munitions. No one expected to provide a bunch of logistics support to a non-NATO ally that uses our Cold War enemy’s doctrine.
  - indymike 3y ago
    > No one expected to provide a bunch of logistics support to a non-NATO ally that uses our Cold War enemy’s doctrine. Rephrase: No one expected a real land war in Europe without establishing air superiority.
    - throwup238 3y ago
      You can rephrase it all you like it doesn’t change the question: why would the US spend a bunch of money on artillery ammunition when it and its NATO allies don’t use artillery? Why waste money on something we don’t use? The US armed forces make a lot of dumb choices with their funding but “underspending on artillery we don’t use” is not one of them. Even with hindsight it doesn’t make sense.
      - indymike 3y ago
        Oh, boy. The ones that say "cannon artillery" operate howitzers, mostly M-777, M-109 and M-119. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_field_artillery_regiments_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_field_artillery_regime... Our allies largely manufacture their own 155MM systems. Plenty of M-777 M-119s and M-109s are still in use. The idea that the US doesn't have or use artillery is just factually wrong. The fact we didn't have substantially more ammunition stocks for those weapons is a mistake.
        throwup238 3y ago
        >> A good example not having enough artillery ammunition. > The fact we didn't have substantially more ammunition stocks for those weapons is a mistake. Oh boy, so you just contradicted yourself!
Lutger 3y ago
> As a European I always have mixed feelings when this comes up. First things first, the European NATO members signed a contract to use 2% of GDP for defense and some are not doing that. Not right, they have to honor their agreements. While its true that some countries do not honor the agreement, there is often some context missing here. The 2% agreement was made in 2006, shortly after that the financial crisis came. Priorities changed and because for most Europeans defense is actually seen as deterrence and not political influence - as you yourself posit, the 2% norm didn't seem particularly important given the economic collapse we were facing. Nobody believed there would be a war, surving the financial crisis was much more critical to us Europeans. After Russia annexed part of Ukraine in 2014 however, there was a renewed commitment to the norm and spending did actually increase quite a bit - and is still increasing. The EU combined now does spend 2% of its GDP, some countries less and some countries more. Most countries who still do not meet the 2% do have a policy to increase their spending. Since 2014, there is not a single EU country which did not increase their defense budget (in terms of GDP). The only countries where the budget is decreased (again, in terms of GDP) are Turkey and the US. > But for the rest the Americans seem to have their own motives to have a large army that goes beyond defense and then it feels a bit strange to hear that America has to pay for a big Army because the Europeans don't do it (except the Europeans really should stick to 2%). As the Europeans have less incentive/possibility to use their military for anything else but defense whereas the Americans do. Excellent point.
seydor 3y ago
There is no such thing as dominance with trade without a navy. These two always go together and it's the reason why china is building up its navy

emptyfile 3y ago

[dead]

indymike 3y ago

> All of that also with the view that probably most people are shocked that it is actually possible to have an actual war in Europe again. Compound interest is powerful, and works both ways. Under-spending on defense for a decade or too leaves large gaps in defense capability. The US overspends, but doesn't always spend on the right things. A good example not having enough artillery ammunition.

throwup238 3y ago
> A good example not having enough artillery ammunition. US military doctrine doesn’t use much artillery anymore so why would it still spend a lot on artillery ammunition? US uses maneuver warfare with air support and precision munitions. No one expected to provide a bunch of logistics support to a non-NATO ally that uses our Cold War enemy’s doctrine.
- indymike 3y ago
  > No one expected to provide a bunch of logistics support to a non-NATO ally that uses our Cold War enemy’s doctrine. Rephrase: No one expected a real land war in Europe without establishing air superiority.
  - throwup238 3y ago
    You can rephrase it all you like it doesn’t change the question: why would the US spend a bunch of money on artillery ammunition when it and its NATO allies don’t use artillery? Why waste money on something we don’t use? The US armed forces make a lot of dumb choices with their funding but “underspending on artillery we don’t use” is not one of them. Even with hindsight it doesn’t make sense.
    - indymike 3y ago
      Oh, boy. The ones that say "cannon artillery" operate howitzers, mostly M-777, M-109 and M-119. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_field_artillery_regiments_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_field_artillery_regime... Our allies largely manufacture their own 155MM systems. Plenty of M-777 M-119s and M-109s are still in use. The idea that the US doesn't have or use artillery is just factually wrong. The fact we didn't have substantially more ammunition stocks for those weapons is a mistake.
      - throwup238 3y ago
        >> A good example not having enough artillery ammunition. > The fact we didn't have substantially more ammunition stocks for those weapons is a mistake. Oh boy, so you just contradicted yourself!

Lutger 3y ago

> As a European I always have mixed feelings when this comes up. First things first, the European NATO members signed a contract to use 2% of GDP for defense and some are not doing that. Not right, they have to honor their agreements. While its true that some countries do not honor the agreement, there is often some context missing here. The 2% agreement was made in 2006, shortly after that the financial crisis came. Priorities changed and because for most Europeans defense is actually seen as deterrence and not political influence - as you yourself posit, the 2% norm didn't seem particularly important given the economic collapse we were facing. Nobody believed there would be a war, surving the financial crisis was much more critical to us Europeans. After Russia annexed part of Ukraine in 2014 however, there was a renewed commitment to the norm and spending did actually increase quite a bit - and is still increasing. The EU combined now does spend 2% of its GDP, some countries less and some countries more. Most countries who still do not meet the 2% do have a policy to increase their spending. Since 2014, there is not a single EU country which did not increase their defense budget (in terms of GDP). The only countries where the budget is decreased (again, in terms of GDP) are Turkey and the US. > But for the rest the Americans seem to have their own motives to have a large army that goes beyond defense and then it feels a bit strange to hear that America has to pay for a big Army because the Europeans don't do it (except the Europeans really should stick to 2%). As the Europeans have less incentive/possibility to use their military for anything else but defense whereas the Americans do. Excellent point.

seydor 3y ago

There is no such thing as dominance with trade without a navy. These two always go together and it's the reason why china is building up its navy