International Military Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63163
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 10 Sep 2018 12:40

airbus 380 manufacturing chain


BRF Oldie
Posts: 4620
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Neshant » 10 Sep 2018 14:30

Singha wrote:Image

^^ They are all relying on the US to come save their ass in the event of a war with Russia.

That's what the low numbers of tanks and planes suggest.

Trump is right to ask them to pay their share of the US defence budget.

The numerous (Soviet origin) tanks in Poland are remanants of the Cold War.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 6645
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 10 Sep 2018 16:19

They should not be paying "their share of the US defense budget" whatever that means. This is not how this is supposed to work. The past 3 US presidents have put pressure on NATO partners to establish and then get closer to the desired 2% GDP on defense. More important than this is an outcome and capability-based approach which is currently happening concurrently (define capability gaps and then plug them). As expected, some nations have responded positively and had plans to plug those gaps. France and UK are a perfect example as both have realized that they need to do this. Germany still lags, and despite talk there of being less reliant on the US presence and support, they haven't really backed that up with cold hard cash. Trump is just talking about it loudly compared to Obama and Bush but there should have been no doubt in Europe that they needed to step up once Obama announced that long-term, the US will be pivoting 60% of its presence to the Asia-Pacific (now Indo-Pacific) region of responsibility.

This chart from 2016 is a bit dated, but good indication of where things were then. Last year Greece also achieved the 2% target. This year the NATO Secretary General expects 8 Nations to be at or above 2% adding Lithuania and Latvia and later France as well. Of course the Trade Wars may get a lot more nations closer to 2% GDP by tanking their economies but then that is not the right way to go about it :rotfl:


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bart S, brar_w, chiru, dnivas and 31 guests