• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

European Union alarmed at vast increase in US defense budget

FelixDeCat

FelixDeCat

Lifer
I was watching CSPAN-2 today and saw Gundther Burghardt speaking on behalf of the EU (recorded 2-19-02). Among the points made were that large increases in US defense spending might lead to a new global ARMs race. He also mentioned that US defense spending already far out strips world defense spending, and the 'new weapons technology' gap grows far wider than it already exists.

There were also other points made that the EU is no longer 'defended' lands as set forth in existing treaties established after WWII, but are partners of equal wieght and defenses.


I think the EU is feeling its oats, and is wary of Americas sheer power, economic or otherwise. I feel that the EU should not be overly concerned with our business.
 
The London Times recently had an article that said that if there was a war that was US vs the World, the US could win with one arm tied behind its back.
 


<< The London Times recently had an article that said that if there was a war that was US vs the World, the US could win with one arm tied behind its back. >>

w00t?
 


<< I think the US shouldn't spend more money than it already is on defense. >>



Amen. People feel too damn safe now. I mean, I actualy went into the city today, and bought stuff! Dear god! And I can see ground zero from my window!

</sarcasm>

Armani
 
<< The London Times recently had an article that said that if there was a war that was US vs the World, the US could win with one arm tied behind its back. >>

whut? the writer doesn't know about nukes? we might reduece em to vast lifeless expanses but we'd be f*cked too😛
 


<< << The London Times recently had an article that said that if there was a war that was US vs the World, the US could win with one arm tied behind its back. >>

whut? the writer doesn't know about nukes? we might reduece em to vast lifeless expanses but we'd be f*cked too >>



Even in a conventional battle we could easily handle most countries. In fact on a conventional front if any nation was suicidal enough to attack the 50 states directly we would clean the floor with them. If the world united against us and attacked without nukes we could probably clean their clocks. We would have greater difficulty attacking other nations but we could systmatically destroy nearly every nation on earth with conventional weapons. China and Russia would probably be difficult. Our millitary has the ability to project power well beyond our coast, carrier groupings give us mobile millitary bases.

The US is moving to the next level of combat decades ahead of the rest of the world. Within 10 years you could see some seriously scary unmaned attack craft (land, air and sea). In effect we could attack without the risk of human casualties on our side. In addition they are talking about actual deployment of naval vessels that would fire railguns (bit further out, 25 years I believe). These vessels would have the ability to completely annialate costal (and near costal) installations. Their power would exceed the old battleships by orders of magnitude, they would also be absolutely deadly to other naval vessles.

The stuff on our millitaries "want list" is going to put us a long way ahead of the rest of the world (if we can afford it).
 
soon, the US armed forced will be like the Skynet machines in the future scenes from The TERMINATOR, and the rest of the world will be like the puny humans.
 

Even in a conventional battle we could easily handle most countries. In fact on a conventional front if any nation was suicidal enough to attack the 50 states directly we would clean the floor with them. If the world united against us and attacked without nukes we could probably clean their clocks. We would have greater difficulty attacking other nations but we could systmatically destroy nearly every nation on earth with conventional weapons. China and Russia would probably be difficult. Our millitary has the ability to project power well beyond our coast, carrier groupings give us mobile millitary bases.



we may have the tech, but against overwhelming forces willing to die.. eh, i think not so good. kinda like the endless zerg rush against a terran. can't beleive i brought up starcraft🙂
 
This simply tells me that we are on the right track. Now we should double our defense spending and show the world that we have no intention of ever allowing ourselves to be pushed around. We need to focus our efforts on weapons that can destroy targets while minimizing the risk facing U.S. personnel in the field of battle.


I love the fact that if the world were a big "schoolyard" we would be the big, strong, and intelligent kid🙂
 
During 1980's the defense budget was even larger (and that's excluding inflation).

And there is no way in hell that we could win a war against the world.
 
Maybe if the Euros decided to actually have real defense forces, they wouldn't be too worried about ours. However, they just spend their money on stifling socialist systems that keep their people from their true economic potential. The Brits have a very good military, but their economy does suck. 😀

we may have the tech, but against overwhelming forces willing to die...

You've apparently never heard of the BLU-82 or the CBU-87. 🙂
 
And there is no way in hell that we could win a war against the world.

why not? most of the world has no military at all. It would actually be quite easy I think.
 
military spending

The US' total military spending in 2001 is only slightly behind the rest of the world combined. With that skyrocketing in post 911 times, combined with our far superior technology, the only thing the US is lacking in is manpower. the US could muster a full army of about 80,000,000 troops in wartime, that is far less than the rest of the world, however, with modern day warfare, most of the killing that we could do would be from afar, we could kill hundreds of millions and even billions without risking a single US troop. A more likely scenario would be something like North America or even THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE vs the rest of the world. Basically, we would kick their asses.
 


<< And there is no way in hell that we could win a war against the world.

why not? most of the world has no military at all. It would actually be quite easy I think. >>


Don't be silly. Millions of people would have to be drafted; additional aircraft carriers would have to be built; we need need significantly more warplanes, cargo planes, helicopters, tanks, etc.; and our ammunition supplies would have to be increased manyfold. For all this, we would need a defense budget of several trillion dollars.
 
If we had the will to throw everything we had at the world? We might have a chance. But in the question of "can the US take on the world" there are FAR more variables than brute force. One is the will of the people to carry out full scale war.

Secondly, China would probably win a war of attrition against us. If China and Russia combined man power against us in a conventional war, we'd be screwed. Remember, to win a war you have to take territory, and hold it.
 
Chrisjor: WTF? How much military might does the US need?

Could the US win a war against the whole planet, no. There's a lot more to winning a war than being able to shoot down planes and blow up tanks, besides, there are a lot of militaries out there that can take out a fair share of US planes/tanks if need be.
 


<< Chrisjor: WTF? How much military might does the US need?

Could the US win a war against the whole planet, no. There's a lot more to winning a war than being able to shoot down planes and blow up tanks, besides, there are a lot of militaries out there that can take out a fair share of US planes/tanks if need be. >>



To answer your question: The U.S. needs enough military might that we would never have to stop and wonder, "do we have enough military might"? I would say a tank in every American driveway would just about do it. Now if we could just get those damn Canadians to do something........oh well.
 
You've apparently never heard of the BLU-82 or the CBU-87.

cargo planes are easy to shoot down though🙂 sure u might escort em, but even with a couple thousand ugly old as %#@ fighters combined with some pretty modern ones .. the swarm eventually wins🙂 missles are good, but u can only carry a few per us plane🙂
 
Enough military might for what? Has the US ever been short since the War of 1812? The US already has way more than it needs for it's defense, it has enough to deploy forces in various bases throughout the world and to carry out major missions such as the Gulf War. I don't see any lack of military might.

 


<< Enough military might for what? Has the US ever been short since the War of 1812? >>



Oh yes. Both WWI and WWII caught us VERY short of both men, and material.
 


<< Oh yes. Both WWI and WWII caught us VERY short of both men, and material. >>




<< uhh no. >>


Uhh yes. Look at your history, see where we were before those wars started say 1915 and 1940. We were very, very weak. Took a herculean effort by every American to support both of those wars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top