General / Off-Topic Demands for Germany to increase Military spending to 2%

Sunleader

Sunleader
I would like to know your opinion on this.
Do you think Germany should Run a Military for 2% of igs GDP.

2% of the German GDP would be about 70 Billion Dollar.
Which would put Germanies Defense Budget at an Size where it would Equal that of Russia (which currently spends 70 Billion on defense as well. Albeit for Russia thats 5% of their GDP)

So.
It would mean that Germany would nearly Double its Military compared to right now.

Whats your take on that?
You think this would be a Good Idea?
 

Talarin

T
170320054624-nato-chart-spending-percentage-gdp-032017-780x439.jpg


Germany has made the commitment, and the US maybe feels that if other NATO countries actually did what they said they'd do then they could pull back or re-allocate some of their own spend. I think, if you look at NATO spending as an aggregate, it's fair to say that the US has been making up for a lack of European spend for some time.

At the same time, I think there's a valid question as to whether the 2% target is necessary.

Edit: NATO Defense spending report, 2009-2016
 
Last edited:

Sunleader

Sunleader
Yaffle said:
http://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm

It made a commitment to do it, so Mr Trump has a point.
Click to expand...

You think so?
**
Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will:

halt any decline in defence expenditure;
aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows;
aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls.
**

Thats from 2014.
So they only committed to AIM to MOVE TOWARDS the 2% Guideline. And even for that the timetable is to do it by 2024.



The text is pretty wage in general.

In minimum interpretion it demands that NATO States halt the decline of spending. And start to increase Spending for Defense faster than their GDP growth by 2024.
And continue to do so until they hit the 2% target.

In maximum interpretion it demands that NATO States reverse the decline in defense spending. And reach 2% of their GDP by 2024.


Either ways the agreement contains no requirement or agreement that Nato states should have 2% right now.
So its rather questionable if Trump really has any point here.


To begin with tough.
I am more worried to the European reaction if Germany would run a Big Military Program. Than about what Trump thinks ^^
I mean we are talking about Germany really almost doubling its Military Power.
This would mean Germany would field the Largest Army in Europe. Being considerable larger than France or the UK :)

So my Question is if you would support this idea of the German Army gaining this much power :)
 

Patrick_68000

Patrick_68000
Talarin said:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/...rt-spending-percentage-gdp-032017-780x439.jpg

Germany has made the commitment, and the US maybe feels that if other NATO countries actually did what they said they'd do then they could pull back or re-allocate some of their own spend. I think, if you look at NATO spending as an aggregate, it's fair to say that the US has been making up for a lack of European spend for some time.

At the same time, I think there's a valid question as to whether the 2% target is necessary.

Edit: NATO Defense spending report, 2009-2016
Click to expand...

Even if the majority of NATO countries come to 2%, I do not think that the United States will lower their military budget, since China is increasing its budget continuously
 

Patrick_68000

Patrick_68000
NATO budget 2016 = 2 billion euros --- New headquarters of NATO = 1.1 billion euros --- Look for the error

9332772.png
 
Last edited:

amigacooke

amigacooke
Sunleader said:
This would mean Germany would field the Largest Army in Europe. Being considerable larger than France or the UK :)

So my Question is if you would support this idea of the German Army gaining this much power :)
Click to expand...

As far as I am aware, Germany doesn't have nuclear weapons whereas France and the U.K. do, that levels the playing field somewhat (levels and leaves it smoking). In my opinion, Germany doesn't need an army to lead the EU, its economic power has led to that position already.
 

Boomer Kay

B
Sunleader said:
Whats your take on that?
You think this would be a Good Idea?
Click to expand...

I think the US is violating the agreement:

We agree to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets, to make the most effective use of our funds


As far as I am aware, Germany doesn't have nuclear weapons whereas France and the U.K.
Click to expand...

Yea, and maintenance of those is rather expensive.
US was planning to spend a trillion on "rejuvenating" their nuclear arsenal over the next few decades.
So yea, I guess all NATO members could run an expensive "nuke" program (with questionable value), just to throw money at the defense contractors.
 
Last edited:

beelbeebub

beelbeebub
Patrick_68000 said:
NATO budget 2016 = 2 billion euros --- New headquarters of NATO = 1.1 billion euros --- Look for the error

http://savepic.net/9332772.png
Click to expand...

NATO itself is just the liaison organisation to co ordinate all the different member militaries. It handles things like standards (so ammunition or fuel is standardised). It doesn't itself operate any tanks, jets or ships. So spending it's budget on office space is exactly what it should be spending it on.

Article 5 of the NATO treaty has been invoked just once......by the US after 9/11. So all the billions that the other NATO countries have spent in Afghanistan and the ME, all the soldiers killed and maimed were at the request of the USA.

NATO was formed to stop the USSR taking over Europe an then posing an even bigger threat to the USA. It served the US interest to keep the USSR out of western Europe.

After the fall of the USSR and until recently the threat from.Russia was minimal. For all the bluster and fear of Russia, it's military spending is only around $65bn a year. For comparison that is less than half the spend of Germany, France and the UK combined.
 

TheAntitheist Crusader

T
I think Germany should increase to 2%, all NATO countries should. As for having a problem with Germany....no. They are a huge liberal democracy, this is not the 30s, also since the UK and France have nuclear weapons and Germany don't, why on earth should Europe fear Germany ? which is a NATO ally anyway.
 
Last edited:

Patrick_68000

Patrick_68000
beelbeebub said:
NATO itself is just the liaison organisation to co ordinate all the different member militaries. It handles things like standards (so ammunition or fuel is standardised). It doesn't itself operate any tanks, jets or ships. So spending it's budget on office space is exactly what it should be spending it on.
Click to expand...

I know, but 1.1 billion euros for offices is a lot and France gives 10% of the budget of NATO
 

Becks

Becks
Sunleader said:
To begin with tough.
I am more worried to the European reaction if Germany would run a Big Military Program. Than about what Trump thinks ^^
I mean we are talking about Germany really almost doubling its Military Power.
This would mean Germany would field the Largest Army in Europe. Being considerable larger than France or the UK :)

So my Question is if you would support this idea of the German Army gaining this much power :)
Click to expand...

It's not even clear whether the german population themselves would allow that.

The military is seen pretty critical over here. Anyways, the government which introduces a compulsory military draft without a pretty damn good reason can kiss the next election goodbye ^^
 

EISENHORN01

EISENHORN01
Good to see those bastions of and defenders of democracy FRANCE AND GERMANY holding up to their commitments on defence spending. Oh no wait hang on THATS THE U.S AND THE U.K looks like it's normal service resumed you lot sit back and let us BLEED for your freedoms.
 

amigacooke

amigacooke
EISENHORN01 said:
Good to see those bastions of and defenders of democracy FRANCE AND GERMANY holding up to their commitments on defence spending. Oh no wait hang on THATS THE U.S AND THE U.K looks like it's normal service resumed you lot sit back and let us BLEED for your freedoms.
Click to expand...

Given the attacks that have happen in the UK, France, Germany, Belgium, Sweden and the US, I find these comments particularly stupid and offensive.
 

Boomer Kay

B
EISENHORN01 said:
Good to see those bastions of and defenders of democracy FRANCE AND GERMANY holding up to their commitments on defence spending. Oh no wait hang on THATS THE U.S AND THE U.K looks like it's normal service resumed you lot sit back and let us BLEED for your freedoms.
Click to expand...

Yea. Except you don't "bleed for our freedoms", you "bleed for your defense contractors", so they can make the big buck.

Posted this before:
http://armedforcesjournal.com/a-failure-in-generalship/

Enjoy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-books-ensure-Britain-met-Nato-target.html
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom