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

[Berkut]

That is a good point, but to a large extent I look at those kind of comparisons as pretty flawed.

We, meaning the West, don't want to just be able to spend as much or more than others, we want to be able to win wars decisively, quickly, and certainly. So much so that for the most part, we don't even have wars, because there is no point in even trying.

To some extent, it is like comparing the budget of the police department to the budget of the various criminals they are trying to stop, and saying "Gee, it looks like we spend way too much on the police - look how little the drug dealers spend compared to the entire police budget!"

Well, yeah, that is because the police are trying to do a lot more than just compete in a tit for tat conflict with drug dealers. Our military spending is not based on the idea that we need to be able to outspend particular other potential threats, but rather that we want to be able (and by we, again, I mean the West) to provide a reasonable level of security. That includes a lot more than just the ability to win some particular shooting war against some particular potential enemy.

It costs a lot even if you never fire a shot in an actual war.

[Zanza]

I think all our potential enemies will be deterred as long as they don't believe they could win a war decisively, quickly and certainly. For that our level of spending seems more than sufficient. Especially as all potential enemies are perfectly aware that we have much more reserves to commit to a prolonged war than they could ever muster.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

With each other?  Sure.  But France is at war right now.
What history shows is that while some rivalries may end (US vs. Britain & Canada, or UK v. France, or Spain v. France), others arise.
The real question is whether some combination of technology and evolved human nature has made war generally obsolete, at least in the developed world.  I'd like to hope so, but wouldn't bet the farm on the idea.

[The Minsky Moment]

When I look at that, Europe is still spending a lot on its military capabilties.

2008 is a long time ago.
Since that time EU national spending on defense decreased in absolute terms and the trend is further down.
In the meantime, Chinese spending has gone way, way up.

[MadImmortalMan]

The real question is whether some combination of technology and evolved human nature has made war generally obsolete, at least in the developed world.  I'd like to hope so, but wouldn't bet the farm on the idea.

Yeah, I'm never gonna put any money on that. The "this time is different" mentality is always a failure.

[Zanza]

2008 is a long time ago.

I couldn't find a more recent one.

Since that time EU national spending on defense decreased in absolute terms and the trend is further down.
In the meantime, Chinese spending has gone way, way up.

Ok. All the tiny islands in the South and East China Sea are not worth the bones of the single Pomeranian grenadier.

[The Minsky Moment]

Ok. All the tiny islands in the South and East China Sea are not worth the bones of the single Pomeranian grenadier.

That's not really the sum and substance of what is at stake.
It's always possible to minimize the apparent stakes.  E.g. "half of an isolated Berlin isn't worth the carcass of single transport pilot from Peoria."

[Zanza]

Ok. All the tiny islands in the South and East China Sea are not worth the bones of the single Pomeranian grenadier.

That's not really the sum and substance of what is at stake.
It's always possible to minimize the apparent stakes.  E.g. "half of an isolated Berlin isn't worth the carcass of single transport pilot from Peoria."

Fair enough. I guess if China somehow tried to starve Taiwan, but still let aircraft through, I would definitely support such a humanitarian mission and wouldn't mind spending millions or billions on it.
Would America have fought WW3 in 1948 over Berlin? Honest question. I have my doubts.

[Berkut]

Wow.

Just....wow.

I am rather despondent that a German could actually ask that question in any kind of seriousness.

[Valmy]

Would America have fought WW3 in 1948 over Berlin? Honest question. I have my doubts.

It depends.  Obviously if they had just attacked then natch.  But if they had negotiated aggressively and raised the stakes even higher than they did historically?  I think so...it would have been hard for us to back down.  It was still early in the Cold War that we might have sacrificed Berlin but I really doubt it.

[The Minsky Moment]

Would America have fought WW3 in 1948 over Berlin? Honest question. I have my doubts.

Perhaps, perhaps not.  But it didn't come to that.  I would suggest one reason it didn't come to that was the fact the US still had significant military assets and a credible threat of employing them in a graduated matter.  Thus, the Soviets elected not to run the risk of further escalation.

[Barrister]

Ok. All the tiny islands in the South and East China Sea are not worth the bones of the single Pomeranian grenadier.

That's not really the sum and substance of what is at stake.
It's always possible to minimize the apparent stakes.  E.g. "half of an isolated Berlin isn't worth the carcass of single transport pilot from Peoria."

Fair enough. I guess if China somehow tried to starve Taiwan, but still let aircraft through, I would definitely support such a humanitarian mission and wouldn't mind spending millions or billions on it.
Would America have fought WW3 in 1948 over Berlin? Honest question. I have my doubts.

In 1948 the US had the bomb, the USSR didn't.

So yes, I think the US would have gone to war for West Berlin.

[Zanza]

Wow.

Just....wow.

I am rather despondent that a German could actually ask that question in any kind of seriousness.

I am only thinking of Berlin in particular in that situation specifically. EDIT: I guess it is comparable to how America never fully committed to fight a total war for North Vietnam or North Korea during the Cold War.


I don't doubt that the Americans would have defended Western Europe. Rest assured, I am quite thankful for what America did for Europe during the Cold War.

[Zanza]

Would America have fought WW3 in 1948 over Berlin? Honest question. I have my doubts.

Perhaps, perhaps not.  But it didn't come to that.  I would suggest one reason it didn't come to that was the fact the US still had significant military assets and a credible threat of employing them in a graduated matter.  Thus, the Soviets elected not to run the risk of further escalation.

I agree, but that brings us back to our original question: are the current military assets significant and credible enough to deter our potential enemies? I still think so.

[The Brain]

I'm shocked that a German who wants to live in Communist China thinks that the military is strong enough.