Germany backs down over Greece bailout

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Just to make a small point - in many cases a strong(er) military isn't needed precisely due to the superpower US military subsidization.
South Korea, Japan, Germany - all those countries have a tiny amount of their GDP invested in their militaries, and can afford to do so precisely because of the "subsidy" created by the relatively very large standing us forces and support. (Which lets them get away with it, despite very large potential border threats - China, Russia, North Korea, which could cause a lot of damage, despite technological inferiority, if only due to the lack of standing military manpower).

S. Korea and Japan are steadily moving away from too much reliance on the US and are planning increases on the defence budget.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Just to make a small point - in many cases a strong(er) military isn't needed precisely due to the superpower US military subsidization.
South Korea, Japan, Germany - all those countries have a tiny amount of their GDP invested in their militaries, and can afford to do so precisely because of the "subsidy" created by the relatively very large standing us forces and support. (Which lets them get away with it, despite very large potential border threats - China, Russia, North Korea, which could cause a lot of damage, despite technological inferiority, if only due to the lack of standing military manpower).

S. Korea and Japan are steadily moving away from too much reliance on the US and are planning increases on the defence budget.

This due to US pressure on them to "take up the slack", so that the USA can cut back on it's deployments.
(Umm, are you agreeing with my point or trying to argue something about it?)

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

This due to US pressure on them to "take up the slack", so that the USA can cut back on it's deployments.
(Umm, are you agreeing with my point or trying to argue something about it?)

Quite frankly both countries are beginning to realize that with an increasingly aggressive China on their front door, they cannot possibly rely on the US for every damn thing. So the 'taking up the slack' is not quite grounded in the changing strategic reality of the region which has moved incredibly quickly compared to elsewhere in the world. For the US to even so much as maintain a presence, it needs something like 3 or more carriers, which is sizable in any right.

For you to even suggest that countries can reduce their own spending and rely on the US is a completely outdated and untenable notion.

[Simon_Jester]

Again, when talking about this kind of strategy, we're looking forward towards 2020, 2030, or 2040. A prudent nation might not want to stake their security entirely on the assumption that US military strength will remain dominant indefinitely. The same applies to Europe- but to satisfy that condition, all Europe really needs is a military capable of deterring Russia from invading, which is a much lower standard of military capacity than the sort of massive force the US has.

[K. A. Pital]

Again, when talking about this kind of strategy, we're looking forward towards 2020, 2030, or 2040. A prudent nation might not want to stake their security entirely on the assumption that US military strength will remain dominant indefinitely. The same applies to Europe- but to satisfy that condition, all Europe really needs is a military capable of deterring Russia from invading, which is a much lower standard of military capacity than the sort of massive force the US has.

Europe's military can deter Russia as it is. A Russian invasion of Poland alone, for example, is nigh unimaginable. And that's with pathetic levels of spending in Western Europe and WARPAC stocks in Eastern Europe. Buffer states - Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltics - between Russia and Europe aren't dissappearing any time soon, too.

Europe needs no capacity upgrades to remain safe from any logical invasion - and no amount of military power would deter a crazy and irrational act.

[Simon_Jester]

Again, when talking about this kind of strategy, we're looking forward towards 2020, 2030, or 2040. A prudent nation might not want to stake their security entirely on the assumption that US military strength will remain dominant indefinitely. The same applies to Europe- but to satisfy that condition, all Europe really needs is a military capable of deterring Russia from invading, which is a much lower standard of military capacity than the sort of massive force the US has.

Europe's military can deter Russia as it is. A Russian invasion of Poland alone, for example, is nigh unimaginable. And that's with pathetic levels of spending in Western Europe and WARPAC stocks in Eastern Europe. Buffer states - Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltics - between Russia and Europe aren't dissappearing any time soon, too.

Europe needs no capacity upgrades to remain safe from any logical invasion - and no amount of military power would deter a crazy and irrational act.

Well, there it is.

The only other power Europe could sanely want to worry about fighting is the US, and such a war is unlikely enough that it doesn't really justify the expense of maintaining a military built to the scale of the US. A few more ballistic missile submarines perhaps, but not much more than that.

Much more than that would be a pure luxury, for a Europe that had made a conscious decision to pursue aggressive, interventionist policies overseas.

[aerius]

Wait, we need a stronger, unified military? Is anyone trying to invade us? Is it beneficial to our economic interests?
No? Then why would we need it?
There really is no point in having a superpower-military. The USA is the perfect example: All of their military actions have done nothing to advance any economic interests of them - they simply cost more than they'll ever pay back. Nor were they necessary to preserve any economic interests in the region.

The only argument for a strong military is interventionism for humanitarian reasons. Which is by itself quite problematic.

Hypothetically speaking, what happens if for whatever reason Saudi Arabia and half the middle east decide to carry out an oil embargo against Europe? Your economies would be completely screwed and there wouldn't be much you could do about it. America could threaten to use its military to go fuck their shit up if they don't end the embargo, then back up that threat if needed. I don't think Europe could do that so the Arabs could hold you guys hostage if they felt like it.

[Stark]

You can invent a scenario to demonstrate a need for anything. Without establishing how likely something is, it's meaningless paranoia.

[Shroom Man 777]

Europe could threaten Saudi Arabia by not selling them Eurofighters.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Hypothetically speaking, what happens if for whatever reason Saudi Arabia and half the middle east decide to carry out an oil embargo against Europe?

Then at worst they buy it secondhand, because the ME will sell the stuff. Which yes, will cost more money; but then so does supporting a US-scale military indefinitely against far-out hypothetical threats.

[Thanas]

Actually, our economy pretty much suffered the last oil embargo well. So the threat is not that heavy to us, especially as it is a two-way street.

[Sea Skimmer]

The Mid East oil powers are incapable of another sustained oil embargo. They don't have the liquid cash assets they once did; indeed most of the money they do have is now deeply invested into the west itself in areas like real estate you can't just dump, and they have far greater populations that vastly increase the day to day expenses of running the countries. Saudi Arabia for example has had its population nearly quadruple since 1973 if you count the guest workers who are essential to running the economy. Of course none of this says anything about the security of the oil fields themselves or the lines of supply or all the other commerce every industrial economy depends on. Europe doesn't need a larger military nearly so much as it needs a more modern one. The gap between what the US can do and what the top powers in NATO are able to do in Libya is absurdly glaring, and the gap is getting bigger not smaller.

[K. A. Pital]

The Mid East oil powers are incapable of another sustained oil embargo. They don't have the liquid cash assets they once did; indeed most of the money they do have is now deeply invested into the west itself in areas like real estate you can't just dump, and they have far greater populations that vastly increase the day to day expenses of running the countries. Saudi Arabia for example has had its population nearly quadruple since 1973 if you count the guest workers who are essential to running the economy.

Heh. Remember I asked why the US is not willing to commit to an economic embargo of the KSA at the very least? That place is a theocracy, and the US embargoes Cuba which is just your average dictatorship. That would teach the theocrats a lesson. Suddenly there might even be a rebellion when the sheikhs start losing that oil cash.

[Pelranius]

Provided no one else is willing to buy Saudi oil (or that the loss of American business still drops the oil prices low enough to cause severe problems).