"UK and EU Defense Spending to Fall" Topic
10 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile Article
Current Poll
|
Mako11 | 01 Mar 2015 8:55 p.m. PST |
Given recent events, it is rather surprising to see that Defense Spending in the UK and EU is planned to continue to fall: bbc.com/news/uk-31688929 Apparently, only tiny Estonia plans to meet the 2% NATO Defense Spending minimum, in the future, out of 14 nations examined. The article even mentions revised TO&E structures for some nations, including those of the UK, which, if things don't change, might have some of their units serving under US command, "inside" of US units, instead of serving alongside them, in any future conflict. |
de Ligne | 01 Mar 2015 9:28 p.m. PST |
|
Sundance | 01 Mar 2015 10:10 p.m. PST |
Because, of course, there is no military threat to anyone in the world in this rainbows-and-unicorns world in which we live. |
GeoffQRF | 02 Mar 2015 3:09 a.m. PST |
…But the UK, Nato's biggest defence spender after Washington, will reduce its military budget from $55 USDbn to $54 USDbn in 2015, dropping from 2.07 per cent of GDP to 1.88 as the economy grows this year." So the true spend is actually 'only' £1.00 GBPbn lower (mainly due to withdrawal from Afghanistan), but the stronger economy and currency makes the spend as a proportion of GDP appear much greater. Note the countries increasing spending are Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania. And the number of other EU countries that are not even close to 2% (cough, France, Germany, Italy…) |
Jcfrog | 02 Mar 2015 3:39 a.m. PST |
That is what happens when you are broke and have no real strategic enemy asking for more despite frantic efforts to make us believe of the contrary. |
Tgunner | 02 Mar 2015 5:06 a.m. PST |
That's an odd statement Jcfrog. Your country is heavily involved in fighting in North Africa and requires serious support to do so. And I would think that France must view the situation there as a serious threat if she felt the need to deploy so much force. France is a great ally and has a superb military, but she needs US assets to deploy and support what amounts to a small brigade and a couple of fighter squadrons. A nation of her size and economy shouldn't need it. Wikipedia's entry about Operation Serval (French intervention in Mali) United States: The US Air Force has established an air bridge between the Istres-Le Tubé Air Base in the South of France and Malian capital Bamako using up to five C-17 Globemaster III transport planes to ferry French equipment and troops to Mali.[69] A small contingent of American troops will provide flight support operations at Bamako.[70] On January 26, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta informed French Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian that the "US Africa Command will support the French military by conducting aerial refueling missions as operations in Mali continue,"[71] You think France's spending is enough? Scary… By the way, those are some great articles and enough to give you a solid job creating an OB for French forces in Mali. It's a good start for some Force on Force scenarios. Yet another army I need to collect! |
Jcfrog | 02 Mar 2015 2:32 p.m. PST |
African ops are not strategic threatening stuff. Needing 3-4000 troops, overpaid who mostly don't have much fighting to do ( thanks fully for the LOG) is not a strategic threat. France spends badly on the army just as it does with all the public sector. ( we do have 500 generals, with 500+ secretaries,500drivers, 500-1000 adc..) Europe, not just one shrinking part of it, should group to get some form of airlift, yes. Using US planes ( and during Serval, CDN, UK, BE and a lot of Russians! ) Half or more of everything is not serviceable. About 10-12 bns are really combat worthy ( or sec safe considering the number of "Africans " in them) Always the same ones everywhere. But they have a long tradition of doing with little and improvisation. Fortunately in Africa the foe is rarely able to withstand even that; fortunately for the guys sent there. Don't even talk about the ROEs… |
Mako11 | 02 Mar 2015 9:00 p.m. PST |
500 generals? Man, talk about a top-heavy organization. |
Lion in the Stars | 03 Mar 2015 10:43 a.m. PST |
Wow, I'm not sure the US has 500 generals (of all paygrades)… |
Legion 4 | 03 Mar 2015 10:52 a.m. PST |
Yes, the US and Europe will have to create militias like in Iraq to support the Regulars, Res. and NG … Instead of Al-Sadrs' Shia' militias … We'll have Bubba's Good Old Boys from 'Bama. And don't forget the various White Supremacists, Neo-Nazis, KKK, Biker Gangs, intercity Gangbangers and the ever present radicalized fundamentalist Amish !! |
|