Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Defence Spending - More Or Less?  
User currently offlineRyanb741 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 3221 posts, RR: 16
Posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 901 times:

The US spends a high amount of its income on its military, whereas in Europe, only the UK and France spends a lot on defence. What do you think - should countries spend highly on defence, or simply remain reliant on a few countries (US/UK/France) to defend them in conflict?


I used to think the brain is the most fascinating part of my body. But, hey, who is telling me that?
13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 896 times:

I think at least in the U.S.'s case, we should spend and worry less about every other country, and worry more about what SHOULD be our first priority...the U.S.

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29784 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 889 times:

Our level of spending isn't that large when compared to GNP.

Actually I do think that there are some priorities that need to be looked at that aren't when compared to "toys".



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 3, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 878 times:

If successive British governments intend to continue to act as a mini-superpower, then defence spending needs to rise. Or, the decision taken to scale back our military commitments. One way or the other, the decision needs to be taken. The two new proper aircraft carriers (as opposed to the current three through-deck cruisers) due to be built in 2008 is a step in the right direction.


She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineLeftseat86 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 873 times:

DO NOT count on France, no matter how high their budget is...remember that inpenetrable Maginot Line in WW2?  Laugh out loud

-Clovis

P.S. We surrender
Best Regards,
-France


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13148 posts, RR: 78
Reply 5, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 867 times:

At 2.7% of GDP, the UK is the highest EU defence spender.
However, the forces are small in comparison to many in Europe, equipment is generally good, with some shortfalls, and training is first class.
The problem the UK has is that large amounts of money are spent on deployment, usually the costs are covered by the contingency fund separate from the defence budget.
All well and good if a major deployment is happening once a year or 18 months, but now the forces are multi-deployed with problems of overstretch.
Chancellor Gordon Brown won't raid the contingency fund for every deployment.
Many in the UK are getting a bit fed up with the UK doing the lion's share of European military deployments.
Who was first into the former Yugoslavia, and apart from the US had the most assets out there?
Who led the Macedonian mission last year?
Apart from the US, who is boxing Iraq in?
Who lead the Stabilisation force in Kabul, (and no one seems to want to relieve them of that role, despite promises from Turkey)?
If the bombing had failed in 1999, who was the only NATO nation willing to go all the way with ground troops in Kosovo? Fortunately not needed in the end.
France, Germany, Denmark and Norway have provided help in Afghanistan, but who's got the biggest non-US combat units in theatre?
Then there's Sierra Leone, (preventing another African slaughter), a small but expensive presence in the Falklands, still a (reduced) presence in Northern Ireland.
I understand European concerns about some aspects of Bush's policies, but until some European NATO nations get their military act together their arguments lack credibility.
The Netherlands have done a good job restructuring their forces to be useful in the post Cold War world, they've reduced spending like everyone else, but not just by 'Salami-slicing' cutbacks.
(Provided airlift capability, a helicopter transport and attack capability for the army, more sealift capability).
If they can do, so can everyone else.
As for the UK, I think a £1-1.5 Billion on the budget for the next few years is appropriate, to safeguard projects as spending on the big ticket items, like the new 50,000 ton carriers ramps up.


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 6, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 862 times:

Interesting point GDB. Especially when you consider that the US Rangers and British Royal Marines are in the mountains of Afghanistan, not natural terrain for either set of troops, whereas the likes of the Germans have specific divisions trained for mountain warfare.


She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineKolobokman From Russia, joined Oct 2000, 1180 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 857 times:

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/96028/6/


I can neither confirm, nor deny above post
User currently offlinePH-BFA From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 846 times:

I must say our defence spending are going to rise very soon with some billions of dollars, since it is very likely we are going to buy some nice Joint Strike Fighters from the USA(and join the project!!!!!!) I can't wait to see them in the Netherlands.

PH-BFA


User currently offlineAlaska739 From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 86 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 827 times:

I would like to see defense spending increase a ton. With the post-Clinton military (stripped down from its former Reagan-era glory), we do NOT have the ability to fight a total war in one theatre, let alone two.

We have also put more emphasis on "toys" (basically bombs) instead of the traditional ground combat war. Massive bombing (as we've done in Afghanistan) makes the enemy scatter and take shelter, ready to fight again another day, whereas sending in a huge number of ground troops takes care of the enemy once and for all. But we do not have the number of troops that we need to do this on one or two or even three fronts. With the growing possibility for conflicts worldwide, our military is not prepared under its current funding. I believe that funds from bureaucratic factions of government that have absolutely no use and are not authorized under the constitution should be diverted to the military where they would become more useful.



north dakota sucks.
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 10, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 820 times:

Don't count on those JSF orders, BFA. I have a gut feeling they will not go ahead or will be reduced even further from the ridiculously low 90 or so now planned for whatever aircraft is chosen.
Dutch defense spending is in a terminal nosedive that, unless reversed quickly, will see our defense forces in a state that is worse than they were in May 1940 (when they had to plunder the army museum to get some weapons to fight the Germans).
The AF is at 1/3 the strength it was 10 years ago, the army at less than half, the navy at about half the strength. The only improvement has been in the marines who are a bit stronger now (they gained a few mortars from the army who got nothing in return).
We've cut back too far and I fear the next cabinet will cut even further, the LPF has the disdanding of the army and airforce as part of its party program and they are about 30% of parliament with the communists/socialists another 30%...



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13148 posts, RR: 78
Reply 11, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 817 times:

I don't really agree with Aslaska739, 'toys are only of so much use in the war against terrorism, human intelligence and the political will to use ground forces, even if it means casualties, are more important in this case.
Using proxy Afghan forces let Bin Laden get away in December.
And all the F-22's and NMD would not have mattered a bit on Sept 11th, had they been available.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29784 posts, RR: 58
Reply 12, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 811 times:

Well the idea that increasing government spending will increase the performance of the economy is about the only one that has survived the free market revolution.

I wish though that more attention was paid for the basics, I would have wished that a simple firing range would have been much more accessable when I was in the service.




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinePH-BFA From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 806 times:

Jwenting, the LPF has announced they are willing to vote in favour of participating the JSF project and buying the JSF. Together there are about 100 votes in favour then and only 50 against. So I don't see any problems so far

PH-BFA


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Have Top Movie Stars Become More/Less Beautiful? posted Wed Feb 15 2006 02:02:51 by AerospaceFan
Which Do You Hate More: Ironing Or Washing Up? posted Wed Jan 25 2006 21:57:41 by 9VSPO
What Is More Important In Iraq Than MS Or LA? posted Sat Sep 3 2005 03:16:13 by MD-90
Month/Day Or Day/Month, Which Is More Used? posted Wed Apr 20 2005 12:31:36 by Braybuddy
When 2 Or More People Need To Decide posted Sun Feb 13 2005 13:48:13 by Duke
More Pivotal Position: Leadoff Or Cleanup? posted Wed Aug 25 2004 09:11:41 by Canarsie VOR
Who's More Rapcore: Papa Roach Or Linkin Park? posted Fri Sep 12 2003 22:05:31 by Lehpron
What's More Important? Nat'l Sec. Or Friendship? posted Wed Jul 30 2003 05:10:15 by Clipperhawaii
Group Targets NFL, More Black Coaches Or A Lawsuit posted Tue Oct 1 2002 20:51:30 by KROC
More Money To Amtrack Or Let It Die? posted Sat Jun 22 2002 21:07:07 by Soku39