4 ms·
I see your point, but i am not so sure you understand how expensive force maintenance really is. Healthcare is just one cost, as well as training, logistics, et
by classicsnoot 12y ago
I see your point, but i am not so sure you understand how expensive force maintenance really is. Healthcare is just one cost, as well as training, logistics, etc. By not having to maintain a standing army, there is a huge amount of available capital to spend on whatever.
I think it is a good thing, by the by, i just wish more Eurofolk were aware of how intertwined our countries are. Often times, it feels as if all that ever gets talked about is the 'bad' the US does, and the loudest tend to be the biggest beneficiaries of the 'evil' empire.
- lotsofmangos 12y agoYou have no idea what you are talking about in the slightest. The EU maintains several standing armies and has around 100,000 more active serving personnel than the US does.
- classicsnoot 12y agoTyped huge response. Thought better of it. You may be right, but i do not think you are.
- lotsofmangos 12y agoHere, I know it is from wikipedia which is a crap source, but the numbers are referenced: US active serving personnel - 1,369,532 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces EU active serving personnel - 1,453,028 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union edit - one thing to keep in mind is that although US expenditure is 2.5 times larger than the EU, much of that historically was spent on weapons rather than troops as it was directed towards trying to bankrupt the USSR by the meta-game of convincing them to play the game of arsenal oneupmanship, while having deeper pockets.