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

[Zanza]

NATO is a formal means of recognizing a principle that exists outside of NATO. And that is that wars of aggression should be resisted. Of course, under your plan, you could not resist an invasion of the Ukraine even if they were in NATO.

I know you ignored my post where I pointed out that your argument that somehow Western Europe is abolishing its military has no foundation in reality, so what you call my plan is not my plan nor that of my country. We could resist - not nearly as well as during the Cold War - but we have considerable military capabilities left. Certainly more than e.g. Chechnya or Georgia, which could pose some resistance to Russia. Combined with the capabilities of our numerous allies - even excluding the US - I am confident that we could counter anything Russia is able to send. Except for their nuclear weapons of course. However, that doesn't answer the question whether our military has the right capabilities and whether we can still get rid of some that are useless. The thread opener - submarines - would not really help us much to defend Ukraine.

There is another word for this viewpoint. And it has nothing to do with altruism or any kind of admirable human motivation.

I would never claim altruism or admirable human motivation. We are talking about foreign policy after all. It's about interests.

[Zanza]

I am impressed at how long you were able to go before pulling out that red herring.

About the same time as your out of context Holocaust reference.

Of course, the US military in Gulf War 2 was actually much smaller than it was in Gulf War 1, so I guess even your red herring is based on lack of relevant information.

Your point being? In 2003 a Western democracy started a war because it was armed and ready. Or do you actually believe the bullshit reasons your politicians gave you? You can't be that naive. They started the war because they wanted it and there was not enough public resistance due to 9/11.

[MadImmortalMan]

IMO, it's wrong to ally with another state and not build a military capable of helping defend that ally. If Germany and Poland got invaded by Russia, I expect the US Army to get there and start wrecking things. If Mexico invades the US, I expect German tanks in Texas.

[Zanza]

It only takes one party to start a war. What are you supposed to do when your neighbor is arming to the teeth, nothing? Is not arming supposed to somehow be morally superior?

Is surrender the "proper" thing to do?

No. But we are talking about current political realities, not some hypothetical scenario. In the current political realities, I think it is a fair question to ask whether the interests of Europe are served best with its current military spending. Or whether spending less and changing the mission profile might actually serve our interests better.

[Duque de Bragança]

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

Much better than than its ownership of Olivença or its (intermittent) claim on the Ilhas Selvagens (Savage islands).

[Berkut]

I am impressed at how long you were able to go before pulling out that red herring.

About the same time as your out of context Holocaust reference.

Of course, the US military in Gulf War 2 was actually much smaller than it was in Gulf War 1, so I guess even your red herring is based on lack of relevant information.

Your point being? In 2003 a Western democracy started a war because it was armed and ready. Or do you actually believe the bullshit reasons your politicians gave you? You can't be that naive. They started the war because they wanted it and there was not enough public resistance due to 9/11.

Make uup your mind - did they start the war because they "wanted it" or becuase they were armed and ready?

Of course, the latter doesn't support your claim, but the former (which would...except that it doesn't make sense since the US has been "armed and ready" pretty much continuoulsly since WW2, and yet has not been start wars left and right), is what you started with.

But I am not going to fall into the trap of turning the disucssion into another argument over the Iraq War and why it started. Nice try though.

[Valmy]

Your point being? In 2003 a Western democracy started a war because it was armed and ready. Or do you actually believe the bullshit reasons your politicians gave you? You can't be that naive. They started the war because they wanted it and there was not enough public resistance due to 9/11.

That was a really bizarre twilight zone era to live through eh?  I remember Bush's speeches all but suggesting Iraq's Republican Guard would be parading down Broadway in triumph if we did not act fast.  It was just...weird.

[Zanza]

IMO, it's wrong to ally with another state and not build a military capable of helping defend that ally. If Germany and Poland got invaded by Russia, I expect the US Army to get there and start wrecking things. If Mexico invades the US, I expect German tanks in Texas.

Yes. My argument is that Europe is still capable of defending itself (or North America) against all potential threats. That argument is rejected by Berkut though.

But I don't see any reason why we should care about our capability to defend Taiwan. However, apparently some here think we do have some obligation to be able to intervene there. We certainly don't have a formal obligation - other than our UN membership - and I don't think it should be our policy to take such responsibility and build the necessary capabilities either.

[Berkut]

It only takes one party to start a war. What are you supposed to do when your neighbor is arming to the teeth, nothing? Is not arming supposed to somehow be morally superior?

Is surrender the "proper" thing to do?

No. But we are talking about current political realities, not some hypothetical scenario.

Current political realities ought to include understanding the risk involved in hypothetical scenarios.

Otherwise you don't need any military at all, since currently there is no war going on at all.

In the current political realities, I think it is a fair question to ask whether the interests of Europe are served best with its current military spending. Or whether spending less and changing the mission profile might actually serve our interests better.

At least you are finally acknowledging that your "mission profile" is based not on what you actually need to do, hypothetically or otherwise, but rather simply on what you are willing to spend.

[Zanza]

Make uup your mind - did they start the war because they "wanted it" or becuase they were armed and ready?

Of course, the latter doesn't support your claim, but the former (which would...except that it doesn't make sense since the US has been "armed and ready" pretty much continuoulsly since WW2, and yet has not been start wars left and right), is what you started with.

No, early 2000s after 9/11 were special with regard to being "ready". I think the American people would normally not stand for such an aggressive, unprovoked war like Iraq. So the "ready" really applies for this particular time. Your politicians seized the moment - that's the "wanted it". Only the "armed" is true for the entire time since WW2.

But I am not going to fall into the trap of turning the disucssion into another argument over the Iraq War and why it started. Nice try though.

Fine with me, I care for the question about the right level of Europe's military capabilities and obligations more anyway.

[Zanza]

Your point being? In 2003 a Western democracy started a war because it was armed and ready. Or do you actually believe the bullshit reasons your politicians gave you? You can't be that naive. They started the war because they wanted it and there was not enough public resistance due to 9/11.

That was a really bizarre twilight zone era to live through eh?  I remember Bush's speeches all but suggesting Iraq's Republican Guard would be parading down Broadway in triumph if we did not act fast.  It was just...weird.

Is that supposed to be humorous somehow? Excuse me, my Germaness makes it hard to recognize that.

[Berkut]

IMO, it's wrong to ally with another state and not build a military capable of helping defend that ally. If Germany and Poland got invaded by Russia, I expect the US Army to get there and start wrecking things. If Mexico invades the US, I expect German tanks in Texas.

Yes. My argument is that Europe is still capable of defending itself (or North America) against all potential threats. That argument is rejected by Berkut though.

But I don't see any reason why we should care about our capability to defend Taiwan. However, apparently some here think we do have some obligation to be able to intervene there. We certainly don't have a formal obligation - other than our UN membership - and I don't think it should be our policy to take such responsibility and build the necessary capabilities either.

Honestly, Zanza, I don't think you should care about defending Taiwan either - at least not directly.

I do think Germany (and by Germany I mean the EU, and by the EU I mean the liberal Western democracies as a whole) should be interested in their ability to project force as needed to help with the basic security of the planet as a whole. I do think the West should in fact care about protecting the "rest of the West", like Taiwan.

That does not mean Germany should go build some aircraft carriers of course. But I do think they should have the cultural and societal will to realize that the planet really isn't that big, and in fact the freedom of others, even if they are far away and speak some other language, is important.

Do I think Germany should be sitting around thinking how they can defend Taiwan specifically? Of course not.

I do think Germany should be sitting around thinking about how they can contribute to global security as part and partner with their allies, and do so in a meaningful manner. If China invaded Taiwan, and if that resulted in a war with the US over the freedom of a fellow western, liberal nation (like Taiwan) I don't think even in an ideal world that would see the Bismarck 2010 sailing into battle in the Taiwan Strait.

It would very likely (in my "perfect" world) see a squadron of German fighters being willing to deploy and fight, as an example, as part of a multi-national western force.

And I most certainly think Germany (and Europe) are dangerously kidding themselves if they think the threat of a more conventional war is a thing of the past. Dangerous because acting like there is no threat is the one thing they can do to increase the threat tremendously.

And of course it isn't all about "war" - war is just the failed outcomes of policy. War is what happens when you make it seem like war is a possible way for a party to achieve it's goals. The way to make it not happen is to make it clear it cannot work, now or in the near future.

[Zanza]

Current political realities ought to include understanding the risk involved in hypothetical scenarios.

Otherwise you don't need any military at all, since currently there is no war going on at all.

Yes, and my hypothetical scenarios do not include a land war with Russia, because I find that so unrealistic that planning for it or going a step further and build mitigating capabilities is a waste of time and resources. Or any kind of war with China. They do include having to intervene in a Mali like situation though.

In the current political realities, I think it is a fair question to ask whether the interests of Europe are served best with its current military spending. Or whether spending less and changing the mission profile might actually serve our interests better.

At least you are finally acknowledging that your "mission profile" is based not on what you actually need to do, hypothetically or otherwise, but rather simply on what you are willing to spend.

Of course. In a world of scarcity, how else could one ever come up with a realistic and useful policy? Thinking about hypothetical scenarios without considering the real world context should be left to internet armchair generals, not policymakers that must make hard compromises.

[Valmy]

Is that supposed to be humorous somehow? Excuse me, my Germaness makes it hard to recognize that.

No.  Not intentionally anyway.

[Zanza]

Ok, then I just don't get it.