Spain's $680 Million submarine can only dive, not resurface

[The Larch]

Well, Spain (and Germany) are a part of NATO and are committed to both mutual defence, and on occasion, have entered into military action as part of the alliance in other parts of the world.  Afghanistan is a NATO operation, remember?

Mutual defense doesn't mean so much when neither is threatened by anyone.

Except Spain borders a fairly unstable region of the world. After what's happened in Tunisia, Egypt, Lybia and Syria, who is to say Islamists won't take control of Morocco in the next 20 or 30 years?
The ability to control thousands of miles of coastline might not be important for Germany, but it is for Spain.

Not to mention having territories away from the main land mass. The Navy will always be the main part of the Spanish military as long as Spain has the Canaries, Ceuta and Melilla.

It'll just be at the bottom of the ocean.

I'm talking about the whole navy, not just this submarine. :p

[Berkut]

Things can change fast in geopolitics, but armies take decades to build.  The chance fo an armed confrontation with Russia or China is remote now, but you never know.

If it takes us decades to build an army, it will take them decades to build one too. Enough to time to react accordingly.

Russia is a realistic possible threat. They have nukes, but we don't intend to counter that. As far as conventional arms are concerned, the European Union vastly outproduces Russia in everything and has three times the population. That leaves political will to actually commit military might and that's certainly not there right now. So even if we had a powerful military, we would not commit it anyway.

China is on the other side of the world. No matter what they do, we will never be in an armed confrontation with them. Germany would certainly not do anything but sending strongly worded protest notes if China invaded Taiwan or so.

The irony of the Germans so quickly forgetting the lesson theuy so painfully taught everyone else is rather breathtaking.

The point of a Western military is not to win the next war - it is to prevent the next war. And saying "Hey, if they build up, so will we" doesn't prevent wars, it causes them. That is *EXACTLY* the attitude of West towards Germany pre-WW2. They can build up, but so can we.

And it was true - Germany could not compete in the long run. But it took several tens of millions of dead Europeans to solve the problem in that manner.

The problem with this "If the crazy hyper nationalist country next door starts building up, so will we" theory is that it means you start behind the curve. Because politically, nobody will want to believe what is happening at first. And the crazy country will say they are just looking to secure their borders, or re-take their historically relevant bits like Alsace or Georgia. They don't want anymore than Austria, or the Ukraine, and will certainly stop after that. True, Czechoslovakia is a little more, but then the Poles made us mad, so we certainly won't be looking for more than that.

But more to the point, once hyper-nationalist powers start down the road, they cannot turn back. They get a temporary advantage, and they are compelled to use it. Maybe in the long run it is a terrible outcome from them, but it takes a war to make that clear. And despotic hyper nationlist leaders tend to be the kind of people who require wars to prove that they are wrong.

But you know what stops them from starting? When it is hyper clear that it won't work to begin with, and those who are interested in stopping them have the wherewithal to do so.

You are engaging in a process that is the result of the very successful policy you should be looking to continue. NATO made it clear to the USSR that they were too strong to even countenance war as a means of achieving the Soviet Unions goals. War was prevented. NATO "won" because it never fought.

Now you are sitting here saying "Gosh, see, we never really needed that military, never even used it! lets get rid of the scraps that remain." And the idea that the rest of the EU will come to your aid if needed??? They have already done what you are contemplating, or are in the process of doing so! You are all sitting around saying "Collective security!" while each of you individually are getting rid of your military as fast as you can. That is not collective security, that is a mighty fat and  juicy target.

I don't know, maybe I am wrong. Maybe the lessons of the lat 2000+ years of European history are all wrong, and THIS TIME it really is different, and war is a thing of the past. I hope that is the case.

But I kind of doubt it.

[Berkut]

China is on the other side of the world. No matter what they do, we will never be in an armed confrontation with them. Germany would certainly not do anything but sending strongly worded protest notes if China invaded Taiwan or so.

And if Russia invaded the Ukraine?

[Barrister]

Well, Spain (and Germany) are a part of NATO and are committed to both mutual defence, and on occasion, have entered into military action as part of the alliance in other parts of the world.  Afghanistan is a NATO operation, remember?

Mutual defense doesn't mean so much when neither is threatened by anyone.

Except Spain borders a fairly unstable region of the world. After what's happened in Tunisia, Egypt, Lybia and Syria, who is to say Islamists won't take control of Morocco in the next 20 or 30 years?
The ability to control thousands of miles of coastline might not be important for Germany, but it is for Spain.

Not to mention having territories away from the main land mass. The Navy will always be the main part of the Spanish military as long as Spain has the Canaries, Ceuta and Melilla.

As an aside... how does Spain reconcile it's ownership of Ceuta and Melilla with it's claims on Gibraltar?

[Brazen]

If Spain hopes to salvage its submarines, it must either find some weight that can be trimmed from the current design or lengthen the ship to accomodate the excess weight, The Local notes. Though the latter option is more feasible, it is expected to cost Spain an extra $9.7 million per meter.

AKA the "I'm not overweight, I'm undertall" argument.

Also, I don't believe accommodate is spelled that way even in America.

[Valmy]

As an aside... how does Spain reconcile it's ownership of Ceuta and Melilla with it's claims on Gibraltar?

Very agilely.  I think the main one they point out that Ceuta and Melilla are integral parts of Spain while Gibraltar has that weird overseas classification so are not really British.

[Zanza]

War was prevented. NATO "won" because it never fought.

Now you are sitting here saying "Gosh, see, we never really needed that military, never even used it! lets get rid of the scraps that remain."

As you say, the war was won. So now we can reduce our military to peacetime strength. And I am not convinced that 185k men is the right size for Germany or if we could do with less than that. Alfred said "vastly reduce" and I think that we still have a lot of potential to streamline our military capabilities.

And the idea that the rest of the EU will come to your aid if needed??? They have already done what you are contemplating, or are in the process of doing so! You are all sitting around saying "Collective security!" while each of you individually are getting rid of your military as fast as you can.

No one actually tries to get rid of the military in Europe, so that's a strawman. But question like "Does Spain need subs or the capability to build them" or "Can Germany reduce its armed forces even more?" are perfectly legitimate policy questions even in the light of collective security. A lot of the military capability we have is completely useless against all possible threats out there and on the other hand we do not have the right capabilities to actually take care of the missions our military has.

That is not collective security, that is a mighty fat and  juicy target.

The idea that Europe is a "target" is ridiculous. Who would target us? And more importantly why? The idea that someone in the 21st century goes on a conquest just because he can is not realistic in my humble opinion.

Maybe the lessons of the lat 2000+ years of European history are all wrong, and THIS TIME it really is different, and war is a thing of the past. I hope that is the case.

I am convinced that this time it is indeed different.

[Zanza]

China is on the other side of the world. No matter what they do, we will never be in an armed confrontation with them. Germany would certainly not do anything but sending strongly worded protest notes if China invaded Taiwan or so.

And if Russia invaded the Ukraine?

Strongly worded protest note. 

[Berkut]

China is on the other side of the world. No matter what they do, we will never be in an armed confrontation with them. Germany would certainly not do anything but sending strongly worded protest notes if China invaded Taiwan or so.

And if Russia invaded the Ukraine?

Strongly worded protest note. 

Exactly. And the knowledge that that is all Europe could do is what makes it much more likely to happen.

[Barrister]

I mean - is Russian territorial aggression THAT unlikely in the future?

The EU might not care about Georgia, or Ukraine - but what is Putin's successor decides to press claims to all of the former USSR territories - including EU members in the Baltics?

[Berkut]

War was prevented. NATO "won" because it never fought.

Now you are sitting here saying "Gosh, see, we never really needed that military, never even used it! lets get rid of the scraps that remain."

As you say, the war was won. So now we can reduce our military to peacetime strength.

You've already done that, and then some.[/quote]

And I am not convinced that 185k men is the right size for Germany or if we could do with less than that. Alfred said "vastly reduce" and I think that we still have a lot of potential to streamline our military capabilities.

"Streamlined" is political speak for "Reduce capabilities to save cash".

You *can* do with less, of course. You *can* do with none. Much less than what you have, and you effectively have none in that what you have is incapable of doing anything useful.

If you aren't at that point already, of course.

Which is exactly how this process works. You cut your military, and realize you can no longer accomplish Mission X. So you simply say that you didn't want to do X anymore anyway - then note that gee, without the desire to do mission X, we can cut even more! So you whack off some more stuff, and note "Gosh, we cannot really accomplish Mission Y now either...". No problem - Mission Y was bullshit anyway, and who really wanted or needed to do that? Scrap Mission Y, it isn't important.

Hey! Look! Without the need for Mission Y, we can get rid of ever MORE stuff!

Hmmm, Mission Z is looking kind of sketchy...

And the idea that the rest of the EU will come to your aid if needed??? They have already done what you are contemplating, or are in the process of doing so! You are all sitting around saying "Collective security!" while each of you individually are getting rid of your military as fast as you can.

No one actually tries to get rid of the military in Europe, so that's a strawman.

Wow, they sure have managed to do so without trying. Not a strawman at all. Europes military today is a bit of a joke outside the UK, and you are contemplating getting rid of the joke.
'

But question like "Does Spain need subs or the capability to build them" or "Can Germany reduce its armed forces even more?" are perfectly legitimate policy questions even in the light of collective security. A lot of the military capability we have is completely useless against all possible threats out there and on the other hand we do not have the right capabilities to actually take care of the missions our military has.

You don't have any missions anymore, remember? Nobody will ever invade, you won't ever need to project power, Pax Europa for all time.

That is not collective security, that is a mighty fat and  juicy target.

The idea that Europe is a "target" is ridiculous. Who would target us? And more importantly why? The idea that someone in the 21st century goes on a conquest just because he can is not realistic in my humble opinion.

Wishful thinking at its best.

Russia. China. Both are potential enemies, and making yourself vulnerable has the bonus effect of making hyper-nationalists in those countries more attractive. Could Hitler have even risen to power if France and England had kept their militaries strong enough that Germany simply could not contemplate re-armament? If he could have gotten into power, could it have gone anywhere? I suggest not.

You are now putting Germany in the role of France. We don't need a military, war is an anachronism. When you have a perfect example of another relatively immature, non-Western, nationalistic power itching to prove themselves right next door.

Maybe the lessons of the lat 2000+ years of European history are all wrong, and THIS TIME it really is different, and war is a thing of the past. I hope that is the case.

I am convinced that this time it is indeed different.

It is an interesting perspective, and an interesting argument. I think it even has merit - I *do* think something is different...among the Western, liberal democracies. They don't make agressive war anymore.

But going back to our pre-WW2 analogy, that just means France didn't have to worry about being invaded by England. Germany, which at best was a ridiculously weak, vulnerable, and immature "democracy" (Gosh, where might we find one of those today...hmmm.....) was another story entirely.

So, are things different - yes, they are.

Are they different for ALL the actors involved? Nope, they are not. And until there is some reason to believe that the entire world is a Western, liberal democracy, the actual western liberal democracies would be irresponsible to assume that every other nation is governed by the same political and cultural constraints against aggressive war that we are.

[Kleves]

Germany would certainly not do anything but sending strongly worded protest notes if China invaded Taiwan or so.

An aggressive authoritarian state without regard for the rule of law invades its democratic neighbor (and perhaps instigates a war with the US), and all you do is shrug? Maybe that's your problem right there.

If Germany wants any sort of say in the world we live in (peaceful and democratic or violent and authoritarian; under the rule of law or not; respectful of human rights or filled with atrocities) its going to at least have to be able to fight for it. Closing your eyes and wishing really hard (and hoping the US will bear the burden alone) isn't going to do it. If Germany doesn't care to have a voice in the future, and its highest ambition is to be like Sweden in WW2, left alone to peacefully sell iron ore to the Nazis, well, then, I guess stay on the path that you're on.

[Syt]

If Germany wants any sort of say in the world we live in (peaceful and democratic or violent and authoritarian; under the rule of law or not; respectful of human rights or filled with atrocities) its going to at least have to be able to fight for it. Closing your eyes and wishing really hard (and hoping the US will bear the burden alone) isn't going to do it. If Germany doesn't care to have a voice in the future, and its highest ambition is to be like Sweden in WW2, left alone to peacefully sell iron ore to the Nazis, well, then, I guess stay on the path that you're on.

Honestly, I can't envision a situation, short of Russians crossing the Oder, in which the majority of Germans would condone a major engagement of its military. Even the force in Afghanistan is but lip service at best. "We're just doing humanitarian/construction work! We're not here to fight!"

If Russia invaded Ukraine, and Germany would pledge 50,000 troops to its defense, I have doubts the government responsible for sending the troops would stay in power for long.

Think back to the 80s, and the NATO Double Track discussion (stationing of Pershing II and other missiles in Germany). It was one of (a number of) reasons the Social Democrats were kicked out of power, and when Kohl took over he wanted to go through with it, but was confronted with hundreds of thousands of people protesting against it and had a hard time getting the approval through parliament.

Kohl had promised Reagan he'd follow through, but after taking power was at first so intimidated that he gave (a pissed off) Reagan a phone call that literally almost half a million people were protesting against the decision in is backyard.

And that whole thing was a legitimate response to the stationing of Soviet SS-20 missiles in Europe.

[garbon]

Germany would certainly not do anything but sending strongly worded protest notes if China invaded Taiwan or so.

An aggressive authoritarian state without regard for the rule of law invades its democratic neighbor (and perhaps instigates a war with the US), and all you do is shrug? Maybe that's your problem right there.

If Germany wants any sort of say in the world we live in (peaceful and democratic or violent and authoritarian; under the rule of law or not; respectful of human rights or filled with atrocities) its going to at least have to be able to fight for it. Closing your eyes and wishing really hard (and hoping the US will bear the burden alone) isn't going to do it. If Germany doesn't care to have a voice in the future, and its highest ambition is to be like Sweden in WW2, left alone to peacefully sell iron ore to the Nazis, well, then, I guess stay on the path that you're on.

What could do with its military now if China invades Taiwan (assuming there was will in Germany to fight)?

[Zanza]

You've already done that, and then some.

And the question is whether we can do some more.

You *can* do with less, of course. You *can* do with none. Much less than what you have, and you effectively have none in that what you have is incapable of doing anything useful.

If you aren't at that point already, of course.

We are not capable of doing the things we want to do. We are capable of doing things we don't want to do anymore.

Which is exactly how this process works. You cut your military, and realize you can no longer accomplish Mission X. So you simply say that you didn't want to do X anymore anyway - then note that gee, without the desire to do mission X, we can cut even more! So you whack off some more stuff, and note "Gosh, we cannot really accomplish Mission Y now either...". No problem - Mission Y was bullshit anyway, and who really wanted or needed to do that? Scrap Mission Y, it isn't important.

No, it's not. The reality of military policy in Europe is that countries are shifting into new mission profiles. Military budgets are not actually reduced much, e.g. Germany's grew in nominal terms by about 40% since 2000, which is about twice the inflation rate in that time period, so a considerable real growth.

Wow, they sure have managed to do so without trying. Not a strawman at all. Europes military today is a bit of a joke outside the UK, and you are contemplating getting rid of the joke.

I don't think so. There seem to be quite capable units in our military and when there is political will, they are put to good use too. And with new equipment and units we have also changing the types of missions our military is capable of. That said, yes, we did rid of much of our Cold War capability. But there is simply no point in keeping a massive mechanized tank army to fight in the North German plains against the Soviet guards anymore.

You don't have any missions anymore, remember? Nobody will ever invade, you won't ever need to project power, Pax Europa for all time.

No, that's just your silly strawman.

Russia. China. Both are potential enemies, and making yourself vulnerable has the bonus effect of making hyper-nationalists in those countries more attractive. Could Hitler have even risen to power if France and England had kept their militaries strong enough that Germany simply could not contemplate re-armament? If he could have gotten into power, could it have gone anywhere? I suggest not.

You are now putting Germany in the role of France. We don't need a military, war is an anachronism. When you have a perfect example of another relatively immature, non-Western, nationalistic power itching to prove themselves right next door.

China is still on the other side of the planet. Maybe it is relevant for American security interests, but it sure isn't for European security interests. Russia is still much weaker than we are, even with our reduced military capabilities. Russia is the country that took years to beat Chechnya and could barely invade Georgia.

And if you want to discuss history then yes, I think Hitler would still have gone for a war, even if the UK and France had been stronger. Appeasement didn't work not because France and the UK couldn't back it up with force, but because Hitler always planned a war anyway.

It is an interesting perspective, and an interesting argument. I think it even has merit - I *do* think something is different...among the Western, liberal democracies. They don't make agressive war anymore.

But going back to our pre-WW2 analogy, that just means France didn't have to worry about being invaded by England. Germany, which at best was a ridiculously weak, vulnerable, and immature "democracy" (Gosh, where might we find one of those today...hmmm.....) was another story entirely.

So, are things different - yes, they are.

Are they different for ALL the actors involved? Nope, they are not. And until there is some reason to believe that the entire world is a Western, liberal democracy, the actual western liberal democracies would be irresponsible to assume that every other nation is governed by the same political and cultural constraints against aggressive war that we are.

Fair enough. But I still can't see Russia as a threat to the western-liberal democracies. It certainly is not part of that group, but that alone doesn't make it a threat to us. I would grant you that it is a threat to e.g. the Central Asian and Caucasus republics.
But no matter how much we put into our military, we will never deter it from there, because we clearly lack the political will to get involved in geopolitics of these regions.