• 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

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Europeans are a bunch of sissies. Sorry, but except for Russia, most of these countries put defense on the backburner completely in favor of their social policies, and in an event of war would either be completely walked over, or come crying to the US for help. USSR a huge chunk of population in WW2, because they were caught unprepared. Now they are just paranoid, because if they are ever cought off guard again, they might not withstand the devastation. Even the trains in Russia run on different gauge tracks then the rest of the world, because they don't want their enemies to be able to use their rail system.
It's almost like there is some sort of twisted guilt in western europe that they don't want to arm themselves because they made such a big mess in WW1 and WW2.
 


<< Why would the US have air superiority? Because we have a historical example proving we would, in fact we have two. Outside Israel the US has the most highly trained and equiped pilots in the world. >>



Not exactly. To my knowledge, the Saudi pilots have been trained in both USA and UK, so they get the best those two countries have to offer in training.



<< The tactics the US employs are more advanced than any in the world and we have firepower far in excess of others. >>



How do you know american tactics are superior to (for example) tactics used by Frances or UK's air-force?
 


<<

<< Why would the US have air superiority? Because we have a historical example proving we would, in fact we have two. Outside Israel the US has the most highly trained and equiped pilots in the world. >>



Not exactly. To my knowledge, the Saudi pilots have been trained in both USA and UK, so they get the best those two countries have to offer in training.
 >>


Yet they still use towels instead of toilet paper. 😀
Take 5 pilots from Saudi Arabia vs 5 pilots from the USA, I am putting my money on the good old US of A. If you think either US or UK trainers are giving the Saudis all they know in training, I am afraid you are very misguided.



<<


<< The tactics the US employs are more advanced than any in the world and we have firepower far in excess of others. >>



How do you know american tactics are superior to (for example) tactics used by Frances or UK's air-force? >>


Tactics are developed from experience, and US has far more than France in UK in far more varied situations.
 


<<

<< How do you know american tactics are superior to (for example) tactics used by Frances or UK's air-force? >>


Tactics are developed from experience, and US has far more than France in UK in far more varied situations. >>



Well, just about the only larger-scale war USA has been involved in recently was the Persian Gulf. And guess what? RAF was there flying combat-missions too! RAF was also involved in Bosnia and Kosovo. And they can also draw experience from the Falklands-conflict.
 
the us made up over 90% of the forces in the persian gulf, the rest of the guys (well, maybe except the british) where just sending a few troops just so they could say they did.


where 90% of the intrests at stake americas?

the benevolent empire check this out
 


<< Oh really . . . well isn't that swell. And just how long do you think we can maintain a posture of "defending OUR interest" within sovereign countries? It's worked to a large degree in S.Korea but let the "Axis of Evil" talk go to far and we WILL be handed our walking papers much like the Phillipines . . . granted, they seem to be changing their tune a little bit as of late. It seems some intellect somewhere would surmise that America's interest that need defending are much closer to home. >>


Thanks for confirming my initial instincts on your ignorance. You have no clue. Force projection and defending our interests has little to do with being "within sovreign countries" although that is sometimes necessary. Think what would hapen if we didn't have ships and troops in the Gulf, the med and the pacific rim, projecting force and defending our interests. These are all necessary operations, the problem being the defense budgets since the gulf war don't support what is really needed.


<< I would start with a critical analysis of current weapon systems and those in development in comparison to current and projected objectives. Then decide what clearly doesn't work (V-22), from what might work but proably isn't worth the cost (SDI/NMD), from what we currently have that works but is in various states of neglect/disrepair (military pay/healthcare, various aircraft in all branches), from what we're committed to building but proably don't need (JSF). And then make the hard choices that supposedly our elected leaders provide. But if you sling rocks as often as you sling insults we could probably just let you loose on our adversaries. >>


It was just this sort of critical analysis by people like you that was the cause of our intelligence communities failure prior to 9/11. People with no clue deciding what is needed and what is not. And yes I'm willing to sling rocks or insults whichever is appropriate. Who else is going to do it? You?


<< Well you know what Dave, be a leader and make it happen. Do you know schools have cancelled procurement b/c of lack of funds? It's unfortunate you can't have real ordinance but if we ever come to the point of choosing between guns&ammo vs good books&teachers . . . you lose . . . big time! The brass makes request which are often modified by Congress' whims. I think they deserve the lion's share of credit if you have almost a total lack of funds for maintenance and training. >>


What would you know about being a leader,anything? You are not even close to being qualified to tell me to "be a leader". Lots of training has been cancelled due to lack of funds. Credit for this problem gets shared out equally but Congress gets most of any blame. They set the end-strength numbers and they set the total budget, they authorize and appropriate. People have to be paid, the mission has to performed. Those are set in stone. When budgets shrink, the money needed for those comes out of training and maintenance.
 


<< I'm not sure what one has to do with the other but I'm sure if we were left to our own devices, the military could seal any of those borders. >>



LOL.... you think the U.S. military has the resources or manpower to seal off even a fraction of the Mexican border? The usual rule of thumb is that a 10-man squad can adequately provide a defensive frontage of about 50 to slightly over 100 meters, depending on terrain. A platoon can cover up to about half a kilometer, a company can cover a kilometer, maybe two, and a battalion about 3-5, with gaps between covering elements rising to close to a kilometer in the larger elements. If you assume favorable defensive terrain along the entire FLOT (Forward Line Of Troops), and ignore defense in depth to concentrate all forces on forward defense (unlikely, but for sake of argument, let's give it a look), you're talking maybe 10 kilometers forward coverage by a battalion, or perhaps 30 by a brigade, which is the typical amount covered by an entire division.


The U.S - Mexico border is about 2,000 miles, or a little over 3,200 kilometers. Assuming a normal defensive frontage posture, that would require slightly over 100 active divisions in defensive posture alone. To put this in perspective, in 1942, the U.S. Army consisted of a troop basis of 3,600,000 men, and 71 divisions.
 
um well you could always litter the border with tons of landmines.. should lower the risk of anyone trying to cross the border😛
 
OK, OK Dave . . . clearly you have a bone to pick with me and since you insist on trying to stick it up my @ss . . . there's no point in continuing this asinine exchange . . . but have a good day🙂.
 
But if you bothered to look at my links one was from the Center for Strategic and International Studies . . . hmm not working today. Anyway, basically they were saying more money, more money, more money . . . nevermind, it's working read it yourself.
 


<< don't think the US could win a conventional war against the world. Its a manpower issue. >>

It's also an issue of will. The American public has to be cajoled into supporting a war against blood thirsty bastards like Osama Bin Laden. If it weren't for their cowardly attack on the WTO we still would be dicking around instead of taking the appropriate actions that we did after their cowardly act.

Trust me, after the blunder we made in Viet Nam I doubt it would take much to turn the publics opinion against any Armed Conflict based on Idealogical differences.
 
I for one am happier as a citizen (sp?) when my country has a strong defense. I believe that the EU has, and always will take pretty much an anti-US view, with varying levels of "seriousness" on all issues. This is b/c I believe they dont ever want to be seen as "following" the US, but rather going on on their own accord.
 


<< The US spends more money in one week then Russia spends in one YEAR >>



uh, no.

Russia spends about 40bil/year for military, while the US spends about 300 billion. Last time I checked 40*52 did not equal 300.
 


<< Oh really . . . well isn't that swell. And just how long do you think we can maintain a posture of "defending OUR interest" within sovereign countries? It's worked to a large degree in S.Korea but let the "Axis of Evil" talk go to far and we WILL be handed our walking papers much like the Phillipines . . . granted, they seem to be changing their tune a little bit as of late. It seems some intellect somewhere would surmise that America's interest that need defending are much closer to home. >>



1st off we left the Phillipines, we weren't handed 'walking papers'. Our land lease expired and they tried to up our rent, thinking that we were dependant on them. We were not able to come up with a deal so we called their bluff. Their loss. Guam, Singapore & Japan were more than happy to take up the slack. The P.I. was already in a pretty sad state, and after we left whole communities pretty went to sh!t. Not to mention all the people that lost the opportunity for a better life (either by joining the US military or marrying an American).

Also, pretty much all the countries we have bases in are glad to have us there. Their governments anyways. While we are there protecting them (and furthering our own goals) they have to spend less on their defense budget, and more on social & economic programs. If any of those countries wanted us out all they have to do is ask (well, maybe except for Japan).
 
Shippy: Yes, that's an accurate account.

Link - Time Magazine

It didn't have to end that way or that quickly. The lease on the two bases expired in 1992, but a clause in the agreement allowed a lengthy phaseout that could have kept them operating for an additional seven years. When negotiations began in 1990, the administrations of both Aquino and George Bush had such an arrangement in mind. But their two negotiating teams never managed to mesh. The Philippine side held out for a big hike in the $203 million annual payment offered by the U.S. The Americans took umbrage.

Actually, the US was all for keeping Clark Airbase until the Mount Pinatubo eruption. If I'm not mistaken, the Clark rebuilding costs after the volcanic activity were estimated at more than $500 mil.

Had the opportunity to visit Angeles City twice for specific purposes. 😉 The last time in '97. Angeles City may be run down, but there are other.... uh..... let's say "attractions" that can keep a man busy for however long he wants to stay. 😀 😉

By the way, Dennis Rodman's father lives in Angeles City.
 
We have a 2.12 trillion dollar budget, and we only spend 389 billion on the military! That's sad! We should spend 2 trillion on the Military!
 


<< Had the opportunity to visit Angeles City twice for specific purposes. 😉 The last time in '97. Angeles City may be run down, but there are other.... uh..... let's say "attractions" that can keep a man busy for however long he wants to stay. 😀 😉

By the way, Dennis Rodman's father lives in Angeles City. >>



Ahhh, there's nothing like a 3rd world country...😉 And being in the US Navy I've visited a few of them!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top