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

[Berkut]

And to be fair, I am really not talking about Germany specifically. They are kind of a stand in for the non-US NATO in general. Or even the non-US western world in general, which I think is becoming rather dangerously complacent in the light of US military domination...which I honestly think is eroding.

[Zanza]

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.

I agree.

So I guess, the only difference we have is that I think that what Germany and the rest of Western Europe currently does is enough to protect "the West" and you disagree about that.

[alfred russel]

Berkut, you have to see that the western democratic world has changed in ways that make a lot of historical examples irrelevant. France and Germany will not go to war for the foreseeable future. That is not because of a temporary diplomatic alignment, or a common enemy, or MAD after both countries armed to the teeth. The western world is integrated now to an extent it never has been before in terms of economy travel, and culture. War (at least between first world countries) is acknowledged as catastrophic.

Russia isn't immune to these forces, even if as of now it is less affected. Invading the Ukraine would be incredibly controversial in Russia. The sanctions and probable seizure of assets abroad would be crippling for their economy.  I don't see what they would gain and the move would be internally destabilizing. It would be even dumber than the US invading Canada, because at least Canada has nice stuff.

[Syt]

Ok, then I just don't get it.

Valmy says that the Bush administration vastly exaggerated the threat of Saddam's regime to the U.S.

[Zanza]

And to be fair, I am really not talking about Germany specifically. They are kind of a stand in for the non-US NATO in general. Or even the non-US western world in general, which I think is becoming rather dangerously complacent in the light of US military domination...which I honestly think is eroding.

That's understood. I only used Germany as an example because I know our own policy best. But I think we are quite similar in general stance to many of our partners in Europe, so it is a good enough example. I don't think that e.g. the security interests of Germany, Sweden, Spain or Romania differ that much from each other. UK and France have a more global focus due to their history, but the rest of Europe is similar.

[Berkut]

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.

You are contradicting yourself within the same post.

You say you don't think you should consider a land war with Russia because it is "unrealistic" then immediately agree with me that plans should be based on what you want to spend. Which is it?

Are you not willing to protect Germany from invasion because you think invasion is "unrealistic" or because you simply don't want to pay for it?

I am stating that it is in fact the latter, rather than the former. There is no will to pay for it, therefore we will simply assume that there is no threat, despite a couple thousands years of European history that suggests that ever single time someone decides war is just not going to happen ever again....war happens again. It is beyond naive to just assume that this time things really are different, when the parallels are so obvious, from the western nations blithely complacent in their assurity that war is all done, to the harsh economic times, to the nationalistic power next door going through serious pain after coming through a losing conflict.

I don't think war with Russia is likely in the next 30 years. But I do think it is possible. And I think it is MORE possible the weaker Europe looks to some Putin-like douchebag. And lord knows the emotional climate in Russia sure seems ripe for demagogues and nationalists.

[Valmy]

Ok, then I just don't get it.

Valmy says that the Bush administration vastly exaggerated the threat of Saddam's regime to the U.S.

Yeah it was kind of surreal.  I mean I got the basic arguements, that they were allegedly continuing their WMD programs and could theoretically use them to distabilize the region or hand off to terrorist organizations...but the rhetoric at the time suggested that this scenario was not only assured but imminent.

[Berkut]

Berkut, you have to see that the western democratic world has changed in ways that make a lot of historical examples irrelevant. France and Germany will not go to war for the foreseeable future. That is not because of a temporary diplomatic alignment, or a common enemy, or MAD after both countries armed to the teeth. The western world is integrated now to an extent it never has been before in terms of economy travel, and culture. War (at least between first world countries) is acknowledged as catastrophic.

Russia isn't immune to these forces, even if as of now it is less affected. Invading the Ukraine would be incredibly controversial in Russia. The sanctions and probable seizure of assets abroad would be crippling for their economy.  I don't see what they would gain and the move would be internally destabilizing. It would be even dumber than the US invading Canada, because at least Canada has nice stuff.

Russia is also not immune to the forces of nationalism, demagoguery, and stupidity.

Everything you are saying in regards to Russia invading the Ukraine can (and was) said and was true about Germany invading Czechoslovakia and Poland. Hitler was worried that he would have to suppress a rebellion of he risked war over the Sudetenland. But its funny how winning makes nationalistic, immature cultures line right up behind the leadership.

And really,do you think Poland had "nice stuff" in 1939? Do you think the "Ukraine" in 1941 had MORE nice stuff than they do now? Of course not. Aggressive regimes are not looking for nice stuff, they are looking for easily snatched assets to prop up their screwed up economies. Does that Ukraine have that? They sure do.

[Syt]

Ok, then I just don't get it.

Valmy says that the Bush administration vastly exaggerated the threat of Saddam's regime to the U.S.

Yeah it was kind of surreal.  I mean I got the basic arguements, that they were allegedly continuing their WMD programs and could theoretically use them to distabilize the region or hand off to terrorist organizations...but the rhetoric at the time suggested that this scenario was not only assured but imminent.

Yeah, and a lot of people bought into it (it's one of the reasons we're here, not on EU OT). Still, while I was against the war, I wish I could say with certainty that Germany/France opposed the war so strongly because they believed the presented evidence was insufficient/wrong and not because they wanted to spite the U.S. You know, broken clocks being right twice a day and so on.

I was very much in favor of Desert Storm (unlike 99.9% of my school who went to protest against it), and think the biggest mistake was not to force regime change there and then. Hindsight's a bitch.

[Zanza]

You are contradicting yourself within the same post.

You say you don't think you should consider a land war with Russia because it is "unrealistic" then immediately agree with me that plans should be based on what you want to spend. Which is it?

Are you not willing to protect Germany from invasion because you think invasion is "unrealistic" or because you simply don't want to pay for it?

You got the order wrong: I am willing to pay for all hypothetical scenarios that I deem realistic. So the first criterion is not the willingness to pay, but rather the threat perception from a hypothetical scenario.
If we were in 1985 right now, I would be willing to pay for a 500k men Bundeswehr with several heavy mechanized divisions because the hypothetical Soviet invasion was not unrealistic back then. In 2013 I am not willing to pay for capabilities that can defend a against a massive land-based invasion because I don't consider that hypothetical scenario realistic.

I am stating that it is in fact the latter, rather than the former. There is no will to pay for it, therefore we will simply assume that there is no threat, despite a couple thousands years of European history that suggests that ever single time someone decides war is just not going to happen ever again....war happens again.

As I said above, I see it the other way around. From my perspective the "war with Russia" scenario is so unrealistic that I am not willing to pay. I think all our interests are protected fine with the current level of military spending. That's where we differ.

It is beyond naive to just assume that this time things really are different, when the parallels are so obvious, from the western nations blithely complacent in their assurity that war is all done, to the harsh economic times, to the nationalistic power next door going through serious pain after coming through a losing conflict.

I don't think war with Russia is likely in the next 30 years. But I do think it is possible. And I think it is MORE possible the weaker Europe looks to some Putin-like douchebag. And lord knows the emotional climate in Russia sure seems ripe for demagogues and nationalists.

I actually find Alfred's argument compelling. I think that this time, things really are different. And that includes Russia. Feel free to call me naive, but I prefer optimistic and believing in the good in humans. 

[MadImmortalMan]

Why is war with Russia so unrealistic? They are the first one I would guess if I had to pick the aggressor in the next world war.

[Zanza]

And really,do you think Poland had "nice stuff" in 1939? Do you think the "Ukraine" in 1941 had MORE nice stuff than they do now? Of course not. Aggressive regimes are not looking for nice stuff, they are looking for easily snatched assets to prop up their screwed up economies. Does that Ukraine have that? They sure do.

You are surely aware of the Nazi Lebensraum ideology, no? So, yes, Poland and Ukraine had nice stuff. Certainly more than they do now because no one (in Russia or Western Europe) would still fall for that agrarian-romantic Lebensraum ideology. I can see a conflict over the rights of Russians in Eastern Ukraine or other former Soviet republics, but about easily snatched assets? Much cheaper to buy them than to fight a war for them.

[alfred russel]

There is no will to pay for it, therefore we will simply assume that there is no threat, despite a couple thousands years of European history that suggests that ever single time someone decides war is just not going to happen ever again....war happens again.

Is this accurate? I know that during and after WWI some people thought it was "the war to end all wars." But Western governments were aware of the threat of Germany, and in particular France went through great sums building the Maginot Line and attempted to hold together various anti German coalitions.

I can't think of a single other circumstance where there was a decision that "war is just not going to happen ever again." I may be forgetting something though.

[Zanza]

Why is war with Russia so unrealistic? They are the first one I would guess if I had to pick the aggressor in the next world war.

I currently have a project in Moscow and my take on Russians is that they are just as vapid, shallow consumerists as we are and are not really interested in nationalism, ideology etc. anymore. Post-modern consumerist society brings peace. 

[Zanza]

And to be fair, I am really not talking about Germany specifically. They are kind of a stand in for the non-US NATO in general. Or even the non-US western world in general, which I think is becoming rather dangerously complacent in the light of US military domination...which I honestly think is eroding.

When I look at that, Europe is still spending a lot on its military capabilties. When you add non-European Western nations like Japan, Korea, Australia, Canada (probably adds up to about 25% of world military spending) we comfortably outspend all possible threats without even looking at the gigantic spending of the USA.