tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post7975313805092525136..comments2024-03-27T20:37:08.065+01:00Comments on Defence and Freedom: The marathon is overUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-12854376325848952212010-02-26T02:37:17.152+01:002010-02-26T02:37:17.152+01:00Its sad Sven, but instead of fishing for good idea...Its sad Sven, but instead of fishing for good ideas for the future, US politicians rely upon fear tactics to manipulate voters. It was once the communist, now its Muslims...things never seem to changeCharlienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-56698045212877261592010-02-22T22:48:03.116+01:002010-02-22T22:48:03.116+01:00I know this other side of the U.S., but it is very...I know this other side of the U.S., but it is very, very difficult to hear among all the other noise whenever the topic is related to national security / military budgets.<br /><br />The U.S. is the only country I know where politicians go on campaign and fish for votes by emphasizing how much they are "strong on defense" and that they want a large(r) "defense" budget.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-63065266720924390562010-02-22T22:34:19.156+01:002010-02-22T22:34:19.156+01:00I know I'm late on the subject matter but I th...I know I'm late on the subject matter but I thought the topic was interesting. I study International Governments at university so I'm not ignorant about the topic at hand. The bottom line Sven is that the US still believes it can intimidate other nations by the use of force. So it carelessly spends enormous sums of money on useless and unnecessary military projects. Europe on the other hand realized in the post-war years that a large powerful military isn't a necessity to achieving great economic success. Germany and Japan are two good examples of this. Neither nation had a much of a military in the post-war years and within two decades became global economic powers. Some will argue that the U.S "protected them" from a Soviet or Chinese threat. That is utter nonsense. The Germans didn't need large fleets around the world or an army of two million to secure trade deals and build a strong economic infrastructure. Just to let you know, I am an American and I think the US needs to cut its military down to an appropriate size and join the rest of the developed world in the 21st century. Instead of behaving like the Cold War never ended.Charlienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-89515944974384450442009-06-26T16:29:15.007+02:002009-06-26T16:29:15.007+02:00Sven I think your comment at 16:02 answers your ow...Sven I think your comment at 16:02 answers your own question. DoD keeps running because it uses a bad planning process to build its budget. It first identifies every mission in the world it wants to do, and then sets out to buy stuff. Instead it should get guidance on what the US govt can afford to spend on defense and then make decisions on strategy objectives. But our leadership was raised stupid and resists change.J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01031567700911395326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-46379269614240048282009-06-26T04:41:12.507+02:002009-06-26T04:41:12.507+02:00The US is perhaps concerned that an asymetric enem...The US is perhaps concerned that an asymetric enemy may gain strength in rogue states.<br /><br />Oh hang on ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-63149163987756517872009-06-26T03:37:43.727+02:002009-06-26T03:37:43.727+02:00I think that rumour started off at the height of t...I think that rumour started off at the height of the Cold War in Europe in the late 70's and early to mid 80's when the Americans had a military pressence in West Germany and the US had the GIUK gap open in the Atlantic in case the Soviets were successful in a fast large scale invasion of Western Europe<br />however Sven you're right, we're well capable of defending ourselves today!Paul Iddonhttp://www.pauliddon.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-34556932062414420572009-06-26T02:31:33.323+02:002009-06-26T02:31:33.323+02:00Arms racing isn't useful among allies - it'...Arms racing isn't useful among allies - it's useful if another bloc or power wants to overpower yours.<br /><br />European military power is in excess of what's necessary to defeat all powers near European NATO at once.<br />European NATO could - without U.S. assistance - successfully defend itself against Russia, Belarus, Iran and all Arab countries at once.<br />More military expenditures would have absolutely no utility - even when we take the U.S. out of the equation.<br /><br />Other powers than our neighbours are a job for nonmilitary security or deterred by British and French nuclear weapons.<br /><br />Well, the latter isn't even necessary because we're at fairly good to very good terms with all major powers today.<br /><br />THAT is real security policy.<br /><br />I admit that the "Europeans are protected by Americans and couldn't defend themselves" B.S. is a common myth. Well, actually - I think it's common only in the U.S..S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-80026235102398832092009-06-26T02:08:15.727+02:002009-06-26T02:08:15.727+02:00Look at the USAF which argues feverishly for more ...<i>Look at the USAF which argues feverishly for more than 187 F-22 as if it was the only combat aircraft in its service (or even national service). Powers like Germany, UK, France, Spain, Japan, South Korea (all geographically closer to potential near-peers) feel comfortable with numbers like that for their total air power.</i><br /><br />Probably because "powers" like Germany, UK, France, Spain, Japan and South Korea know they can depend on those excessive US Air Force planes to make up for their country's shortcomings, in planes and planning.<br /><br />And leaning on the Americans is the source of their "comfort"?<br /> The very least you could do is say "Thank You".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-7439414186092969752009-06-25T22:17:32.618+02:002009-06-25T22:17:32.618+02:00...something that anonymous comments cannot have b......something that anonymous comments cannot have by design.<br /><br />I took the CVN-21 specs as ironic.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-74213786881713184692009-06-25T21:32:37.880+02:002009-06-25T21:32:37.880+02:00"CVN-21 class aircraft carriers which are twi..."CVN-21 class aircraft carriers which are twice the size as the Nimitz ones and carry around 500 fixed winged aircraft each!"<br /><br />There goes your credibility.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-91065003747497567062009-06-25T18:01:43.725+02:002009-06-25T18:01:43.725+02:00Not really.
I believe that the permanent global p...Not really.<br /><br />I believe that the permanent global presence / forward deployment strategy is excessively wasteful and risky, though.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-78496926757020467152009-06-25T17:58:53.472+02:002009-06-25T17:58:53.472+02:00and just to add to your last comment there Sven yo...and just to add to your last comment there Sven you forgot to add they're building 12 new massive CVN-21 class aircraft carriers which are twice the size as the Nimitz ones and carry around 500 fixed winged aircraft each!Paul Iddonhttp://www.pauliddon.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-1374301091701936882009-06-25T16:02:41.987+02:002009-06-25T16:02:41.987+02:00Why should I neglect that?
The U.S. had 15+ years...Why should I neglect that?<br /><br />The U.S. had 15+ years for downsizing its armed services to reasonable post Cold-War levels.<br />It was a conscious decision to cling to an oversized military instead.<br />The personnel costs are merely a consequence.<br /><br />I admit that the social services for veterans in their civilian life couldn't easily be deleted, but that's just a small share of the overall budget.<br /><br />Look at the USN which clings to its "313 ship" ideal and can't even stand its present size.<br /><br />Look at the USAF which argues feverishly for more than 187 F-22 as if it was the only combat aircraft in its service (or even national service). Powers like Germany, UK, France, Spain, Japan, South Korea (all geographically closer to potential near-peers) feel comfortable with numbers like that for their total air power.<br /><br />Look at the USArmy which thinks it needs to expand to be better able to kick ragtag militias for little gain at the other end of the world.<br /><br />It was and is a conscious decision to keep the military at near-Cold War level and to increase military spending again. Unavoidable costs like nuclear reactor disposal, veterans care, chemical weapons destruction and base cleanup are just a small art that doesn't change the overall picture.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-58810080580191635852009-06-25T14:57:23.893+02:002009-06-25T14:57:23.893+02:00You are neglecting the fact Sven that the US milit...You are neglecting the fact Sven that the US military has many more servicemen/women in their forces than other NATO countries and also a correspondingly higher budget, much of which goes to healthcare costs.<br /><br />One can also argue that it is healthcare costs in the US that is eating GDP much more than defense. Still I would agree that technology and science budgets should be expanded.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-85640085380096856502009-06-25T12:07:02.911+02:002009-06-25T12:07:02.911+02:00The end isn't predictable, but it was obvious ...The end isn't predictable, but it was obvious that the arms race ended when the other power ceased to participate. That happened in about 1988-1994.<br /><br />It was also obvious that the reason for the arms race was gone - that became obvious in around 1986-1992.<br /><br />It's been a one-man marathon for years - exhausting for no purpose. He kept running because he was somehow used to it. It felt and feels somehow natural to run even though all others around him were at a walking pace.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-62739627923100253682009-06-25T11:38:02.377+02:002009-06-25T11:38:02.377+02:00Focusing on better spending rather than larger spe...Focusing on better spending rather than larger spending should be a good starting point... and in your blog you provide some very sound points about this topic.<br /><br />However, I don't know if in a debating game I would allow this comparison as a valid one, given that a marathon is a race where the end is clearly defined, known and accepted by all the participants, while in a metaphorical "arms race" military spending is figured out in what-if scenarios where the "end" is not clearly predictable. Lots like the Caucus-Race in Alice in Wonderland...Paolo Snoreply@blogger.com