Quote:Original post by trzy
I wonder whether your social programs would be as expansive had you been solely responsible for your own defense. The amount of military spending to accomplish this would have been enormous.

Shifting useless military budget over to important social programs is a sign of sociopolitical maturity. The US is still too young as a nation to understand this. Someday they will understand that taking care of its own people is for more important for a nation than killing a virtual enemy they essentially created themselves. Even a schoolyard bully becomes an adult one day. The US will hopefully mature over time.

Quote:Original post by trzy
As Europe's population ages and its problems with integration of minorities become more apparent, Russia becomes increasingly beligerent, and globalization forces more competition with emerging economic and military powers like China, Europe's social services may slowly begin to vanish.

You do realize that a very large part of your military budget is actually financed by Asian (especially Chinese) credits ? The more you fight, the more you get under the financial control of China. Ironic.

Quote:Original post by trzy
You Europeans would be in a better position to argue against US military spending if you had self-sufficient militaries of your own. I realize European nations have capable and advanced military forces but during the Cold War (which has been most of the time since WWII), the US was largely responsible for putting up any real defense of Europe against the Soviets. I wonder whether your social programs would be as expansive had you been solely responsible for your own defense. The amount of military spending to accomplish this would have been enormous.

A trade-off between military and social service spending is not unique to the US. The Chinese have recently increased their military spending (which, as a percentage of their national budget, is still far behind the US) while their veterans complain about inadequate pension payments. I've also heard that Britain may be significantly reducing the size of their naval fleet soon.

Britian is rather upgrading it's naval fleet rather than reducing it, though the number of ships may eventually decrease slightly, it's capability will not. We've just launched the first of a new series of attack subs, and our 45 series destroyers are due to start to be launched later in the year I believe. (This is of course ignoring the whole developmenet of new nuclear subs and aircraft carriers planned for the next 10-25 years).

As for Europe not doing anything, the primary reason Britain is designing a new class of aircraft carrier is because of the role the current class is designed to make. During the cold war, Britain was essentially responsible for the defence of Soviet Union submarines, hence all it's carrier fleet is designed with submarine warfare in mind. Because this isn't relavent anymore, a new generation is being designed. The US was responsible for a significant proportion of the brunt of force granted, however the "little things" like making sure subs don't get through and so on were left to us to handle, and our militaries evolved accordingly.

As for "the US was largely responsible for putting up any real defense of Europe against the Soviets", something you may not know is that the independant strategic nuclear deterrent from Britain to the Soviet Union was based on proportionate damage. Such that, any attack from the SU onto GB would result in significant civilian casualties even if only military installations were targetted, due in no small cost to the size of Britain and the proximity of these installations to civilian centres. Because of this, the entirity of Britains nuclear deterrent was targetted at Soviet Union civilian centres, rather than military targets, to provide a proportional cost of destruction and to assure MAD. We may "only" have had 1000 or so nuclear weapons at our disposal during the cold war (This has since been cut to 100-200 or so), but they were to be used in such a way as to assure a realistic deterrent.

Anyway.

Quote:Original post by LessBread

Quote:Original post by trzy
Afr0m@n: The war stayed cold because of the US counterbalance, especially in Europe during the decades before ICBMs became widespread.

The war didn't stay cold between superpower proxies...

Nope, unfortunately it didn't. Anyone who thinks that the world has generally been more "peaceful" since WWII (whether due to nuclear weapons or any other excuse, including US dominance or UN power) needs only to look at all the conflict that has happened since in southeast Asia, in Africa, in the middle east, and even Latin America.

Quote:Original post by Yann L

Quote:Original post by trzy
I wonder whether your social programs would be as expansive had you been solely responsible for your own defense. The amount of military spending to accomplish this would have been enormous.

Shifting useless military budget over to important social programs is a sign of sociopolitical maturity. The US is still too young as a nation to understand this. Someday they will understand that taking care of its own people is for more important for a nation than killing a virtual enemy they essentially created themselves. Even a schoolyard bully becomes an adult one day. The US will hopefully mature over time.

That's a cheap shot and the point about the US being "young" relative to Europe is pretty much invalid in this context. The history of the US prior to its colonization extends to Europe, so our society is in most ways just as old as yours. It just happens that some of us moved to a different location.

Second, do social programs in Europe pre-date the US? Europe didn't learn any lessons regarding useless military budgets until after WWI and WWII. The US hasn't faced the same disasters and hardships as Europe in the aftermath of those wars, but we're certainly not too "young" to understand what went wrong with Europe.

And, I'll point out again that you wouldn't have any budget to shift if you had to pay for a military strong enough to defeat the Soviet Union. Even today, the US has a strategic military presence in Europe which I don't see nations like Germany complaining too strongly about. NATO would also be pointless without American involvement. NATO arguably provides a counterbalance to Russia to this very day and we may soon discover that it will serve useful against China. Eventually, though, you'll have to pay more for it. Which I guess means "shifting" money away from your social programs.

Quote:You do realize that a very large part of your military budget is actually financed by Asian (especially Chinese) credits ? The more you fight, the more you get under the financial control of China. Ironic.

Of course I realize that. Part of the reason is our global military presence. If I were president, I would propose the radical idea of withdrawing from Europe entirely, which would have a huge impact on the policies of your side of the pond. I would also seek to minimize our presence in Central Asia, which has been needlessly iritating Russia and Iran (although I wouldn't trust the Russians to completely withdraw), and would seek to explore ways to lower our presence in east Asia.

I don't think we can withdraw from Korea and Japan until the Korean peninsula is stabilized. Likewise, military co-operation and some organization between allies is still very important.

Original post by python_regious

Quote:Original post by trzy
As for "the US was largely responsible for putting up any real defense of Europe against the Soviets", something you may not know is that the independant strategic nuclear deterrent from Britain to the Soviet Union was based on proportionate damage. Such that, any attack from the SU onto GB would result in significant civilian casualties even if only military installations were targetted, due in no small cost to the size of Britain and the proximity of these installations to civilian centres. Because of this, the entirity of Britains nuclear deterrent was targetted at Soviet Union civilian centres, rather than military targets, to provide a proportional cost of destruction and to assure MAD. We may "only" have had 1000 or so nuclear weapons at our disposal during the cold war (This has since been cut to 100-200 or so), but they were to be used in such a way as to assure a realistic deterrent.

Anyway.

This page claims Britain stockpiled a peak of 400 weapons, although it has built 1200 total since it first got the bomb. It also points out that in the 50's, the UK collaborated with the US nuclear program which no doubt lightened its financial burden. It is also my understanding that the UK relies on American ICBMs (submarine launched Tridents, currently) as its delivery method.

The US ICBM program was extremely expensive. That Europe didn't have to front these costs is significant. I believe keeping up with the US from after the Cuban Missile Crisis (which was partly caused by the Soviets having a much smaller ICBM fleet thus requiring IRBMs in Cuba) was a serious financial burden for the USSR.


It just seems to me that these things should be factored into your analysis of why the US doesn't have social programs as extensive as Europe's. Also consider the problems your systems have and then consider the size of our population. It was predictable that the Europeans here would shamelessly take the opportunity to get a barb in at the US's expense (implying that Americans not only simply hate taking care of people but are culturally predisposed to favoring war), but if you're going to make silly comments, prepare to back them up. Good luck proving that your social programs would be possible had we simply packed up and left after WWII.

Quote:Original post by sprite_hound

Quote:Original post by trzy
You Europeans would be in a better position to argue against US military spending if you had self-sufficient militaries of your own.

There seems to be an awful lot of talk in this thread of a "self-sufficient" military. That concept seems rather medieval to me. IMHO, the military is there for defence. It's not a profit based exercise. The military's role is as a deterrant to make sure that noone else will decide to attack you.

Or maybe that's just a pacifistic and naive idea, and the military is there to make sure the country is respected by others. To be used for the nation's sole economic and political benefit. For the nation's "profit" in whatever form that might present itself. But personally I feel that such an attitude will only lead to disaster in the long run. For both others and for the nation that attempts such a policy.

Don't try to sidestep the issue here. Whether self sufficient militaries are important or not is entirely a different debate. The point is that if your military is not self sufficient and is relying on the money of another nation, you ought to be careful in suggesting that said nation isn't as smart/kind/whatever as yours for lacking social programs.