If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?

by **taylor4** » Thu Jun 15, 2023 5:51 pm

I recommend reading the post-WWI diplomat, Harold Nicolson; in his SOME PEOPLE chapter "Professor Malone" Uruguay is occupying a fictitious island in the Med populated by Abyssinians in the main.
A roman a clef. It amused the UK's King George V.
The book also details, in semi-fictive style, the meetings of Mussolini and UK Secretary of State Lord Curzon.

by **Octavious** » Wed Jun 14, 2023 12:39 pm

So, the man who has spent most of this thread arguing that the US doesn't need a big military because Canada isn't a threat, and that the European mutual defence clause is not actually about defence, is now criticising ridiculous scenarios

You're a joke, Ora. You live in world so far removed from reality that it's pointless trying to argue with you. I am quite content for you to continue to believe whatever fairy stories make you happy

by **orathaic** » Wed Jun 14, 2023 12:16 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Wed Jun 14, 2023 9:50 am
What would the EU do if Canada invades Malta?

Like you, I am very worried about the threat of Canadian aggression.

Probably sanctions against Canada as a minimum, but I'm not sure if that is within the power of the EU of the member nations to agree. Place significant diplomatic weight on the US to sanction Canada aswell, which would probably force an end to the conflict... But given that it is a ridiculous scenario to begin with you can entirely argue that Canadians have decided they can afford to lose their entire economy and standard of living to take and hold Malta.

Possible military assistance could include blockading the straits of Gibraltar, give that it is within the EU's power to prevent Canadian navy from reaching Malta and closing off European air space...

I don't know, do you think Canada has orbital insert troops capable of taking a sub-orbital flight and landing at any point on the globe? That would look like a ICBM trajectory, so you could justify deploy missile defences to shoot them down.

I think realisticly though, asking the Canadians nicely would probably clear up the confusion.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Wed Jun 14, 2023 9:50 am

What would the EU do if Canada invades Malta?

Like you, I am very worried about the threat of Canadian aggression.

by **Octavious** » Wed Jun 14, 2023 9:27 am

Ok, Ora, tell me

What does this EU department imagine will happen if a none NATO member of the EU is invaded by a foreign power?

by **orathaic** » Tue Jun 13, 2023 11:50 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 13, 2023 6:49 pm
You're trolling now, aren't you?

Am i? Ireland would send humanitarian aid and not troops, because we don't have many troops to send, and are a neutral country.

But the EU department which i cites specifically stated they have done exercises where they imagine these scenarios.

NATO members are a different matter. And NATO underlies the military defence of Europe.

Any non-NATO member can disband their military and 'all means in their power' would mean only non-military support, right?

by **Octavious** » Tue Jun 13, 2023 6:49 pm

You're trolling now, aren't you?

by **orathaic** » Tue Jun 13, 2023 12:23 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 13, 2023 11:59 am

orathaic wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 13, 2023 9:34 am
Maybe you should learn what words means:
I am confident that I understand what the words "all the means in their power" means.

What part of that are you struggling with? Are you seriously telling me that you believe that if Egypt, say, were to invade Malta that there wouldn't be a European military response?

Ireland would not send troops to invade Egypt, no.

Contrast that with the NATO campaign in Afghanistan, when the US was attacked on September 11th, the NATO coalition formed and sent troops into the middle of Asia...

The meaning of those words has been explaining. I actually quoted from my source, i suggest you read it.

by **Octavious** » Tue Jun 13, 2023 11:59 am

orathaic wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 13, 2023 9:34 am
Maybe you should learn what words means:

I am confident that I understand what the words "all the means in their power" means.

What part of that are you struggling with? Are you seriously telling me that you believe that if Egypt, say, were to invade Malta that there wouldn't be a European military response?

by **orathaic** » Tue Jun 13, 2023 9:34 am

Octavious wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 12, 2023 7:57 pm

Seriously???

Mutual defence clause (Article 42.7 TEU)
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power

Maybe you should learn what words means:

theEUExternalActionService wrote: This assistance can, for example, range from diplomatic support and
technical or medical assistance to civilian or military aid, among others. ...
Article 42(7) TEU is consistent with commitments under NATO, which is and
will remain the foundation of collective defence for its members.

As Ireland and three other EU member states are not part of NATO, the provision of humanitarian aid which does not violate our sovereignty is not really much of a military alliance.

by **orathaic** » Tue Jun 13, 2023 9:29 am

Octavious wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 12, 2023 8:20 pm
.
But the biggest error you are making is in the belief that defence is purely about American soil. America is a trading nation that depends on global trade and influence to maintain its standard of living. This cannot be achieved with a few nukes and a couple of regiments

Trade is actually something other people want, so why do you need a world class navy, airforce and particularly army to do it?

Also, given that the US is currently a next exproter of energy, I'm not sure they are as interested in globalisation as they use be.

Though Peter Zeihan maybe lying for national security reasons:
https://youtube.com/shorts/yB3hnR6iy8Y?feature=share

by **orathaic** » Tue Jun 13, 2023 9:23 am

Octavious wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 12, 2023 7:57 pm

orathaic wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 12, 2023 3:40 pm
I am pretty sure that is the target or goal of US military spending, to be able to fight two and a half conflicts anywhere in the world and compete with the next best enemy power.
Bully for them. The goal of the Bengali navy is to be "invincible at sea" in both peacetime and war, but that doesn't make it true. You have a habit of being extremely skeptical about American propaganda except for when it happens to suit your purposes, at which point you accept it without question

I accept that that is their aim. Of course i do. Whether they can actually do so, the question remains should they be spending tax payers money to attempt to achieve this, when the justification is to meet this goal?

It doesn't matter if they utterly fail* to meet their own aims;(and it will not be found out unless and until the US goes to war with a near peer adversary) the money is already spent!

by **Octavious** » Mon Jun 12, 2023 8:20 pm

orathaic wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 12, 2023 5:44 pm
A few nuclear deterent bombers/subs and ICBMs should be enough, combined with a tiny special forces team (maybe 300 of the best?) And the US could sit pretty secure - because, what is Canada going to do exactly?

Ora, mate, Canada isn't the winning point you think it is. Every time you mention Canada you are not dazzling us with your wit and insight, but instead risk coming across as a bit of an idiot.

You cannot have 300 of the best in isolation. The best have to be the best of something, otherwise they are the only. The Swiss Guard is the best of the Vatican, and there is nothing special about them.

But the biggest error you are making is in the belief that defence is purely about American soil. America is a trading nation that depends on global trade and influence to maintain its standard of living. This cannot be achieved with a few nukes and a couple of regiments

by **Octavious** » Mon Jun 12, 2023 7:57 pm

orathaic wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 12, 2023 3:40 pm
I am pretty sure that is the target or goal of US military spending, to be able to fight two and a half conflicts anywhere in the world and compete with the next best enemy power.

Bully for them. The goal of the Bengali navy is to be "invincible at sea" in both peacetime and war, but that doesn't make it true. You have a habit of being extremely skeptical about American propaganda except for when it happens to suit your purposes, at which point you accept it without question

orathaic wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 12, 2023 3:40 pm
But by and large the investment in military hardware and training has had nothing to do with the width of the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans... Natural barriers (which Russia has always lacked) have guarenteed US security for generations... And it is weird that you would not know this.

What is weird is that you consider the oceans a natural barrier that stops Russia and China et al threatening the US, but not the US threatening Russia and China

orathaic wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 12, 2023 3:40 pm
As for EU spending, the EU is not a military alliance

Seriously???

Mutual defence clause (Article 42.7 TEU)
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power

by **Octavious** » Mon Jun 12, 2023 7:00 pm

Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/u ... fy2024.pdf
(official US government figures)

by **Octavious** » Mon Jun 12, 2023 6:56 pm

The Department of Defense (DOD) is responsible for the military forces needed to safeguard the United States’ vital national interests. The President’s 2024 Budget for DOD provides the resources necessary to sustain and strengthen U.S. deterrence, advancing vital national security interests through integrated deterrence, campaigning, and investments that build enduring advantages. The Budget supports America’s servicemembers and their families, strengthens alliances and partnerships, bolsters America’s technological edge, preserves economic competitiveness, and combats 21st Century security threats.

The Budget requests $842 billion in discretionary budget authority for 2024, a $26 billion or 3.2-percent increase from the 2023 enacted level. This growth enables DOD to make the investments necessary to execute the Administration’s 2022 National Security and National Defense Strategies.

by **orathaic** » Mon Jun 12, 2023 5:44 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 12, 2023 5:29 pm
It's funny that you keep talking about Canada as if anyone would even have the idea of Canada invading the USA. Silly talk.

The war of 1812 is still a defining moment in the formation of Canada, but yes, they are now a NATO ally, and another reason the US doesn't need to spend so much on military budgets...

But the point is security.

China has a disputed border with India, and lost territory to the Russian Empire which they may still want back. Indian has the dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir.
Europe has mostly agreed to settle their borders, so only in the last 70 years have have conflict in the Balkans and Soviet->Russian threats to national integrity (well really only since the fall of the Soviet Union has central and Eastern Europe had national security.

The US is the most secure of all these large economic/population blocks and thus the least reason to maintain a large standing military.

A few nuclear deterent bombers/subs and ICBMs should be enough, combined with a tiny special forces team (maybe 300 of the best?) And the US could sit pretty secure - because, what is Canada going to do exactly?

by **Jamiet99uk** » Mon Jun 12, 2023 5:29 pm

It's funny that you keep talking about Canada as if anyone would even have the idea of Canada invading the USA. Silly talk.

by **orathaic** » Mon Jun 12, 2023 3:40 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 12, 2023 2:50 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Sun Jun 11, 2023 4:35 pm

orathaic wrote: ↑
Sun Jun 11, 2023 10:25 am
the US spends maybe ten times the amount as China
Or maybe not? Figures I've seen suggest that it's closer to 3 times as much, and that's from a variety of different sources
It appears Ora is closer to the right answer, based on both Governments' own figures.

Chinese defence budget for 2023: $224 billion (1)
US defence budget for 2023: $2.01 trillion (or $2,001 billion) (2)

On this basis, as at this year, the US defence budget is 8.93 times larger than the Chinese defence budget.

1: Source: Official announcement by the Government of China, reported by Associated Press - https://apnews.com/article/china-defens ... e99b7c9ee7

2: Source: Official US Government figures - https://www.usaspending.gov/agency/depa ... se?fy=2023

Wow, Chinese spending has increased dramatically over the past decade, hasn't it?

That said, the last decade of spending is probably more useful for estimating the current investment (considering all older investments will start to depreciate, so you could roughly estimate the current 'worth' by ignoring depreciation for the first 10 years and then assuming it is 100% in year 11) - though again, that is not going to get you all that far, since the US has spent the last 20 years investing in the needs of the 'War on Terror' rather than planning for a near-peer conflict.
(I think discussed here: https://youtu.be/-A31fegpaAI)

One hopes not, as I doubt they have that capability.

I am pretty sure that is the target or goal of US military spending, to be able to fight two and a half conflicts anywhere in the world and compete with the next best enemy power.

As to the US's security needs, the fact is that since the Pacific was reached and peace with both Mexico and Canada has been guarenteed, there has been nó threats to US sovereignty at all. Neither Germany nor Japan in World war 2 posed any serious threat... The Soviet Union did pose a threat after, but only one of nuclear eradication which would have killed everyone, and it turns out (despite fear-mongering) neither Side wanted that.

But by and large the investment in military hardware and training has had nothing to do with the width of the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans... Natural barriers (which Russia has always lacked) have guarenteed US security for generations... And it is weird that you would not know this.

As for EU spending, the EU is not a military alliance, so you should really think in terms of NATO spending... And that just serves to increase the lead the US has sitting at the head of that alliance.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Mon Jun 12, 2023 2:50 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Sun Jun 11, 2023 4:35 pm

orathaic wrote: ↑
Sun Jun 11, 2023 10:25 am
the US spends maybe ten times the amount as China
Or maybe not? Figures I've seen suggest that it's closer to 3 times as much, and that's from a variety of different sources

It appears Ora is closer to the right answer, based on both Governments' own figures.

Chinese defence budget for 2023: $224 billion (1)
US defence budget for 2023: $2.01 trillion (or $2,001 billion) (2)

On this basis, as at this year, the US defence budget is 8.93 times larger than the Chinese defence budget.

1: Source: Official announcement by the Government of China, reported by Associated Press - https://apnews.com/article/china-defens ... e99b7c9ee7

2: Source: Official US Government figures - https://www.usaspending.gov/agency/depa ... se?fy=2023

If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?

Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?

Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?

Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?

Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?

Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?

Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?

Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?

Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?

Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?

Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?

Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?

Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?

Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?

Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?

Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?

Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?

Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?

Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?

Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?

Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?