Author Topic: US versus NATO  (Read 19132 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,480
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,394
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #175 on: July 11, 2018, 15:50:02 »
Bang on, exactly what was committed to in the 2014 Summit, but now Trump can claim he was the driving force. I'm sure there was a ton of  ::) when his 4% GDP came up. Looking forward to his self-BZ tweets.

4 is the new 2!  ;D

Funny that, the re-brand on the 2014 promise drawn out by Obama.  ;D

Regards
G2G

Offline CBH99

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 19,715
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 619
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #176 on: July 11, 2018, 15:50:33 »
I think the general point is that if the US wants to include non-military spending as part of their calculations to get to 3% GDP, other countries COULD do the same & get substantially closer to the 2% Trump wants.

I think everybody on this forum is in general agreement on the basic matter...money needs to be spent wisely & capabilities need to be procured/generated effectively.  If that can be accomplished by wisely spending 1.5% of GDP, great.  If it requires sloppy spending of 2% GDP, so be it.

But I think we all agree...using 2% of GDP just for the sake of using it doesn't guarantee new capabilities that can be used.
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Online Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 42,639
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,929
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #177 on: July 11, 2018, 15:57:03 »
So its not about whats right or wrong for the Alliance, it's about blind hatred of the US President; so much so that anything he says cannot possibly be correct.
if you want to ignore everywhere I've said he was off to a good start before going too far, that's on you.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 206,392
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,208
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #178 on: July 11, 2018, 16:26:25 »
We could buy a lot of kit and build a lot of infrastructure fairly quickly by doubling our defence budget.

Recruiting, training, and developing enough people, however, is a completely different matter.

We went through an expansion in the 1980s, but it was very modest compared to a budgetary doubling, and we started with a much healthier organization

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 102,004
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,831
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #179 on: July 11, 2018, 17:22:46 »
This entire issue is a matter of perspective.  I'm not convinced we need to be spending 2% of our GDP on Defence; however, a lot of the military and defence issues we face today are a direct result of the fact that we are moving toward a multipolar world.

For certain the United States could defeat Russia militarily if it committed a substantial amount of resources to do so.  It can't do this though because commiting all its military resources to the European theatre would leave it in a poor position elsewhere. 

Thinking about this, it makes perfect sense for the United States to try and put pressure on the rest of NATO to make additional investments as it no longer has the capacity to match both China and Russia simultaneously.

Long term, the BRICS countries are a major threat to US Hegemony world wide.




Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,480
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,394
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #180 on: July 11, 2018, 17:27:15 »
We could buy a lot of kit and build a lot of infrastructure fairly quickly by doubling our defence budget.

If by "fairly quickly," you mean 10 years instead of 20 years, then sure.

Pat Finn has publically noted that the situation has not improved to any large degree since the procurement challenge he described in 2016.  Particularly, in May of 2018, he described ongoing procurement delays and challenges to numerous major capital programs.

Not to be too pessimistic, but if the Government increased DND's budget to 4% GDP tomorrow, I'd wager we'd be lucky to hit 2% spent by 2024...(the NATO 2% goal date).

:2c:

Regards
G2G


Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 206,392
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,208
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #181 on: July 11, 2018, 18:23:19 »
Political will can solve the acquisition timeline problem - but I don't know what can solve the political will problem.

I really can't see any need or ability to spend 4%, and maybe not even 2%.

Somewhere, safely in a dusty box, is my copy of the 1984 White Paper. Even with the looming Soviet threat, the Mulroney-promised spending was outlandish. Twelve nuclear-powered submarines? Really? Five hundred (I think that it was) tanks? I cannot remember what the associated percent GDP was, or even if one was expressed. I don't even remember the percent GDP actually assigned to defence, but we had 4 CMBG and three over-strength F18 squadrons (a total of fifty-four aircraft) in Germany.

I would like to see some capabilities fleshed out, including fully-manned units (or nearly so, with identified and ready Reserve augmentation pools), with the necessary kit, and that includes Reserve units with a few applicable AFVs, modern tanks included - enough to train on. I would like to see a doctrinal Division, and the capability to deploy up to a Brigade at relatively short notice, or a Brigade's worth of people and equipment deployed to multiple locations (assign an overseas op or two, depending upon size, risk, and duration) to each Brigade and let it get on with its task. I'd like to see a doctrinal Tac Hel Wing/Brigade to support that Div. I'm not sure what the Navy really needs or is practical, but they should have it, too, and we could always use additional fighters, transport, MPA, SAR etcetera capability as well. Replacement plans should commence no later that delivery of kit, to ensure that timely replacement occurs - no more cripples because part manufacture ceased twenty years ago, or disintegration from corrosion begins. And we shouldn't have to move people from under-manned unit to under-manned unit to fill them out for deployment.

For the most part, I think that we have enough units and formations, but they are hollow. If they cannot fight as such, they are useless. I remember small platoons in the seventies and eighties - partially due to people being on course or leave, but there was also a general shortage of very junior Infantrymen, but those are the most readily obtainable/trainable. Battalions had mortar, pioneer, and anti-armour platoons which seemed reasonably well-manned, and four rifle companies.

Armoured Regiments should have three full tank squadrons, and Artillery Regiments enough, and properly-equipped, batteries.

Some re-organization would be beneficial as well, especially the medical, MP, and Int empires. I'd happily revert, or mainly so, at least, to the pre-Dotcom command structure. I've tried hard, but still cannot see any benefit to the confused and convoluted mess that we've had for over a decade now. The Area system was simpler, cleaner, and at least as effective - although I'd like to hear alternative viewpoints. Having double-hatted RJTF/Div Commanders whose RJTF boundaries differ from their Div boundaries is ludicrous. Doctrinally-organized and well-manned Reserve units, with proper training, equipment, and decent personnel/pay support are essential.

Our recruiting, training, and retention problems need to be fixed. Is that really so hard? There are too many bottlenecks in the intake, and too many people get dicked around to the point of quitting. Undermanning contributes to the retention problem, which contributes to undermanning.

Any expansion would have to be carefully and intelligently, and patiently, planned and conducted. Dumping thousands of brand-new Private- and Second-Lieutenant-equivalents into the mix would be worse than Toronto's refugee influx. We would lack experienced instructors and leaders for years to come.


Forgot a comma, dammit.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2018, 18:56:34 by Loachman »

Offline suffolkowner

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 293
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #182 on: July 11, 2018, 18:45:50 »
I have a real concern that if we continue to follow our procurement process as is we will fall further and further behind on equipment recapitalizations. How much of SSE can be expected to be delivered on by 2019, 2023? I think to some degree we are spending more on the risk mitigation than the cost of the risk in these purchases itself. I remember reading a few years ago on the costs of the various project offices and I found them to be slightly outrageous especially when some/most end up being cancelled (I think the CCV was one). I'm talking 10,15,20 % of the total project

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 412,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,698
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #183 on: July 11, 2018, 19:43:58 »
Problem solved: https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1017165063168385029

What if - and hear me out - the Deparment of National Defence bought every Canadian a $4000 dollar pony?

4K * 37 million = 148 billion
Paid off over 20 years = 74 billion per year!
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Online Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 42,639
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,929
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #184 on: July 11, 2018, 19:59:39 »
Problem solved: https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1017165063168385029

What if - and hear me out - the Deparment of National Defence bought every Canadian a $4000 dollar pony?

4K * 37 million = 148 billion
Paid off over 20 years = 74 billion per year!
4000X37 000 000=148 000 000 000÷20=7 400 000 000 per year.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Retired AF Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 33,400
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,481
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #185 on: July 11, 2018, 20:15:38 »
So why do countries like france get to count their germanderie and countries like canada not get to count the RCMP?

Because the French Gendarmerie, like the Italian Carabinieri, belong to their respective Ministry's of Defence.
Years ago, fairy tales all began with, "Once upon a time." Now we know they all began with, "If I'm elected."

Carolyn Warner

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 412,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,698
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #186 on: July 11, 2018, 20:18:09 »
4000X37 000 000=148 000 000 000÷20=7 400 000 000 per year.

So you're saying we need to give every Canadian ten ponies then?  One every second year? 
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Online Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 42,639
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,929
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #187 on: July 11, 2018, 20:27:07 »
Because the French Gendarmerie, like the Italian Carabinieri, belong to their respective Ministry's of Defence.
sounds like a neat accounting trick.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Larry Strong

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 225,131
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,643
  • 546 days from 0 to being King of the Castle
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #188 on: July 11, 2018, 20:56:45 »
sounds like a neat accounting trick.

The Carabinieri (formally Arma dei Carabinieri, "Carabinieri Force" or previously Corpo dei Carabinieri Reali, "Royal Carabinieri Corps"; is the fourth Italian military force charged with police duties under the authority of the Ministry of Defense. Carabinieri are the national gendarmerie of Italy, policing both military and civilian populations. Carabinieri (similar to Polizia di Stato and Guardia di Finanza) are always "on duty" throughout the national territory including out of service hours, during leave and whilst on vacation, and they are always permitted to carry their assigned weapon as personal equipment.

Edited to add:

The main battles in which the Carabinieri took part before World War I are:

Grenoble, July 5, 1815 (baptism of fire)
Battle of Pastrengo, 30 April 1848 – the Carabinieri Corps was awarded its first Silver Medal of Military Valor
Battle of Santa Lucia, 6 May 1848 – the Carabinieri Corps was awarded its first Bronze Medal of Military Valor
Battle of Custoza, 24–25 July 1848
Battle of Custoza, 24 June 1866
Capture of Rome, 20 September 1870 (together with the Bersaglieri)
For its contributions during the First World War, the Corps was awarded its first Gold Medal of Military Valor

In World War II, Carabinieri distinguished themselves in the following battles:

Battle of Klisoura on the Greek-Albanian front from 16 to 30 December 1940 Bronze Medal of Military Valor
Battle at Cafe Struga on the Albanian-Yugoslav front on 18 April 1941
Battle of Culqualber (Ethiopia), 6 August-21 November 1941 – Corps was awarded its second Gold Medal of Military Valor

Do the RCMP operate under these terms or conditions?

The National Gendarmerie is one of two national police forces of France, along with the National Police. It is a branch of the French Armed Forces placed under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Interior—with additional duties to the Ministry of Defense. Its area of responsibility includes smaller towns, rural and suburban areas, while the Police Nationale—a civilian force—is in charge of cities and downtowns. Due to its military status, the Gendarmerie also fulfills a range of military and defense missions
 
Five battles are registered on the flag of the Gendarmerie:

Battle of Hondschoote (1793): Four hundred gendarmes of the 32nd Division (equivalent of a regiment under the Revolution) engaged in battle on the left wing of the army. They seized enemy artillery positions and lost 117 men.
Villodrigo (1812): The 1st legion of Gendarmerie on horseback, belonging to the Brigade of Cavalry of the Army of the North, clashed with the British cavalry on 23 October 1812. Charging with sabres, they penetrated enemy lines, killing 250 and taking 85 prisoners. Colonel Béteille, commanding the brigade, received twelve sabre cuts, but he survived.
Taguin (1843): Thirty gendarmes on horseback were mobilised to take part in tracking the tribe of the emir Abd-El-Kader and participated in his capture.
Sevastopol (1855): Two infantry battalions of the Regiment of Gendarmerie of the Imperial Guard participated in taking the city. The 1st battalion seized a strategic position that contributed towards the final victory. A total of 153 Gendarmes fell.
Indo-China (1945/1954): Three legions of infantrymen from the Republican Guard were formed at the end of 1946. Charged with the formation of the Cochin China Civil Guard, they assumed security roles and patrolled the borders, suffering heavy losses: 654 killed or missing, and 1,500 wounded.

Again, do the RCMP operate under these terms or conditions? IIRC the RCMP carry battle honors in regards to the Northwest Rebellion however their military history does not cover nearly 200 years......

Same applies to the US  Coast Guard...
Quote
The five uniformed services that make up the U.S. Armed Forces are defined in Title 10 of the U.S. Code:

The term "armed forces" means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.

The Coast Guard is further defined by Title 14 of the United States Code:

The Coast Guard as established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times. The Coast Guard shall be a service in the Department of Homeland Security, except when operating as a service in the Navy.
http://uscode.house.gov/download/download.shtml

During times of war or conflict, the President of the United States can transfer any or all assets of the Coast Guard to the Department of the Navy. This has happened twice, in 1917, during World War I, and in 1941, during World War II. The service has participated in every major U.S. conflict from 1790 through today, including landing troops on D-Day and on the Pacific Islands in World War II, in extensive patrols and shore bombardment during the Vietnam War, and multiple roles in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Maritime interception operations, coastal security, transportation security, and law enforcement detachments have been its major roles in recent conflicts in Iraq.

The Coast Guard is commanded by a 4-star USN admiral, known as the Coast Guard Commandant.

As members of the military, Coast Guardsmen on active and reserve service are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and receive the same pay and allowances as members of the same pay grades in the other uniformed services.

Not sure if not sure we can say the same about our Coast Guard...



Cheers
Larry

« Last Edit: July 11, 2018, 22:03:39 by Larry Strong »
Proud sponsor of the Maple Leaf Legacy Project. http://www.mapleleaflegacy.ca

Online Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 42,639
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,929
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #189 on: July 11, 2018, 21:04:24 »
The Carabinieri (formally Arma dei Carabinieri, "Carabinieri Force" or previously Corpo dei Carabinieri Reali, "Royal Carabinieri Corps"; is the fourth Italian military force charged with police duties under the authority of the Ministry of Defense. Carabinieri are the national gendarmerie of Italy, policing both military and civilian populations. Carabinieri (similar to Polizia di Stato and Guardia di Finanza) are always "on duty" throughout the national territory including out of service hours, during leave and whilst on vacation, and they are always permitted to carry their assigned weapon as personal equipment.

Do the RCMP operate under these terms or conditions?

The National Gendarmerie is one of two national police forces of France, along with the National Police. It is a branch of the French Armed Forces placed under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Interior—with additional duties to the Ministry of Defense. Its area of responsibility includes smaller towns, rural and suburban areas, while the Police Nationale—a civilian force—is in charge of cities and downtowns. Due to its military status, the Gendarmerie also fulfills a range of military and defense missions
 
Five battles are registered on the flag of the Gendarmerie:

Battle of Hondschoote (1793): Four hundred gendarmes of the 32nd Division (equivalent of a regiment under the Revolution) engaged in battle on the left wing of the army. They seized enemy artillery positions and lost 117 men.
Villodrigo (1812): The 1st legion of Gendarmerie on horseback, belonging to the Brigade of Cavalry of the Army of the North, clashed with the British cavalry on 23 October 1812. Charging with sabres, they penetrated enemy lines, killing 250 and taking 85 prisoners. Colonel Béteille, commanding the brigade, received twelve sabre cuts, but he survived.
Taguin (1843): Thirty gendarmes on horseback were mobilised to take part in tracking the tribe of the emir Abd-El-Kader and participated in his capture.
Sevastopol (1855): Two infantry battalions of the Regiment of Gendarmerie of the Imperial Guard participated in taking the city. The 1st battalion seized a strategic position that contributed towards the final victory. A total of 153 Gendarmes fell.
Indo-China (1945/1954): Three legions of infantrymen from the Republican Guard were formed at the end of 1946. Charged with the formation of the Cochin China Civil Guard, they assumed security roles and patrolled the borders, suffering heavy losses: 654 killed or missing, and 1,500 wounded.

Again, do the RCMP operate under these terms or conditions? IIRC the RCMP carry battle honors in regards to the Northwest Rebellion however their military experience does not cover nearly 200 years......

Same applies to the US  Coast Guard... http://uscode.house.gov/download/download.shtml

During times of war or conflict, the President of the United States can transfer any or all assets of the Coast Guard to the Department of the Navy. This has happened twice, in 1917, during World War I, and in 1941, during World War II. The service has participated in every major U.S. conflict from 1790 through today, including landing troops on D-Day and on the Pacific Islands in World War II, in extensive patrols and shore bombardment during the Vietnam War, and multiple roles in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Maritime interception operations, coastal security, transportation security, and law enforcement detachments have been its major roles in recent conflicts in Iraq.

The Coast Guard is commanded by a 4-star USN admiral, known as the Coast Guard Commandant.

As members of the military, Coast Guardsmen on active and reserve service are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and receive the same pay and allowances as members of the same pay grades in the other uniformed services.

Not sure if not sure we can say the same about our Coast Guard...



Cheers
Larry
Sounds like we need amalgamation.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline PPCLI Guy

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 154,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,175
  • It's all good
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #190 on: July 11, 2018, 21:21:02 »
This is a slightly ridiculous exercise.  2% of GDP is a very strange metric, as it speaks to opportunity costs that reflect the things that different societies value.  As Infanteer has pointed out, it is highly likely that the US spends substantially less than half of its annual budget "on NATO".

What is interesting is looking at different ways to slice the pie.  The link below from NATO looks at overall expenditure (we are 6 out of 28), spending on personnel, equipment, infrastructure, per capita, per uniformed member etc.

It paints a more nuanced picture....

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2017_06/20170629_170629-pr2017-111-en.pdf
"The higher the rank, the more necessary it is that boldness should be accompanied by a reflective mind....for with increase in rank it becomes always a matter less of self-sacrifice and more a matter of the preservation of others, and the good of the whole."

Karl von Clausewitz

Online Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 152,290
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,710
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #191 on: July 11, 2018, 21:29:27 »
Because the French Gendarmerie, . . .  belong to their respective Ministry's of Defence.

And don't forget that the Paris Fire Brigade (the third largest urban fire department in the world and a unit of the French Army) and the Marseille Naval Fire Battalion (a unit of the French Navy) are the fire and rescue services for their respective cities.
+300
Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

Offline Larry Strong

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 225,131
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,643
  • 546 days from 0 to being King of the Castle
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #192 on: July 11, 2018, 21:30:56 »
Sounds like we need amalgamation.

I think there would be a mutiny in the CG if they were placed under the Code of Service Discipline.....

And not sure how happy the RCMP would be under 24/7/52 duty....

😉

Cheers
Larry
« Last Edit: July 11, 2018, 22:04:26 by Larry Strong »
Proud sponsor of the Maple Leaf Legacy Project. http://www.mapleleaflegacy.ca

Offline GK .Dundas

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 17,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 444
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #193 on: July 11, 2018, 21:35:26 »
from the article you posted
  So why do countries like france get to count their germanderie and countries like canada not get to count the RCMP?
Because among other things the French Gendarmerie have enough armoured vehicles and fire power to invade a small 3 d world Country. Kind of like the old West German Border Patrol. Which had Saladin armoured cars and heavy mortar teams.
.
"Norman. You know my policy on arming morons.If you arm one you have arm them all. Otherwise it 's just not sporting!"

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 206,392
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,208
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #194 on: July 11, 2018, 21:50:07 »
Problem solved: https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1017165063168385029

What if - and hear me out - the Department of National Defence bought every Canadian a $4000 dollar pony?

Favourite response: "I am just worried that we might end up with some old, used Australian ponies."

Online FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 138,850
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,546
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • WordPress Page
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #195 on: July 11, 2018, 21:59:20 »
We are comparing total budgets which should make all armed forces more capable.Part of this spending covers the 6th Fleet,US Army Europe which is larger than many allies armies and USAF Europe.Some units in the US have a NATO mission. Of course if there was a shooting war in Europe the National Guard and the Reserves would get called up plus the Air Guard and Air Force Reserve.Thanks to the war on terror the part time soldiers,sailors,airmen and Marines are more capable and better trained.

US Army Europe stands at roughly 30,000 folks and is constituted primarily by 2nd Cavalry Regiment (Stryker) and 12th Combat Aviation Brigade both in Germany, 173rd Airborne Brigade in Italy plus various service support elements. That's it. Basically all the big stuff bugged out around the time the US decided to take on Iraq.

If one looks at the European armies and only at combat arms bdes and overall active army personnel one gets:

The German army is basically ten brigades - 60,000 folks,
Britain roughly 12 brigades - 82,000
France roughly 10 brigades - 109,000
Italy roughly 11 brigades - 101,000
Spain roughly 9 brigades - 77,000
Poland roughly 12 brigades - 77,000
Netherlands 3 brigades - 25,000
Austria 3 bdes - 12,500 (but designed to mobilize to 9 bdes of 120,000)
Belgium roughly 2 bdes - 20,000
Denmark 2 bdes - 12,500
Hungary 2 bdes - 31,000

I'll leave off Greece at 90,000 and Turkey at 350,000 as well as the real teeny tiny countries.

I know it's fashionable to malign the European Union but to say that US Army Europe is a significant force compared to the European ones is misleading unless you are specifically looking at the very small member states. Quite frankly US Army Europe has negligible combat power and is primarily there as a trip wire deterrence. That deterrence becomes weaker by the day as Trump continues to spout his nonsense (most recently today, a demand to double defence spending to 4% of GDP - in God's name why?) and threatens abandoning Europe.

Does the US still have CONUS based heavy units capable of rapid deployment to Europe even if they wanted to? Reforger is long gone and the European Deterrence Initiative and Operation Atlantic Resolve are very weak watered down replacements.

There is very little question that there is a local conventional force imbalance in Europe that favours Russia.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2400/RR2402/RAND_RR2402.pdf

But even with the current modernization of Russian forces, Europe still outspends Russia significantly for defence. The problem is not so much the amount of spending but how the money is being spent and how Europe is organizing itself for defence. They can and must do better, of course, but Trump's current bleating is entirely counterproductive.

I had the pleasure of working for a number of years with the Interallied Confederation of Reserve Officers and I learned there that organizing Europeans to travel down a common path is quite similar to herding cats (especially the ones from the southern end of the EU- Spain, Italy, Greece and to an extent France) Trump's approach has zero chance of success. The question I have is - does he actually have an end state that he is trying to achieve? Neither he nor even his most rabid advisors can possibly believe that Europe will spend significantly more (The Europeans are all quite self satisfied that they offer decent government pensions, free health care, a good standard of living and a generally secure and safe lifestyle to their people while they know that the same isn't true in the US)

Quite frankly I think Trump is not thinking any further than energizing his base with his tough talk. As far as Europe is concerned, the best one can hope for is that--as a by-product to his rhetoric--the EU will realize that they need to get better organized and get a better bang for their already considerable defence bucks and effect change. I seriously doubt that this will happen.

This has long been a mantra of mine, but the largest expenditure item in most western defence budgets is for the massive personnel related costs of a professional military. Some European countries have personnel costs as high as 77% of their annual budgets (I tried to find Canada's online but it appears to be a secret - if anyone has it let me know). In order to build a larger more capable military (fully equipped and adequately trained) we (Europe and Canada) need a different financial/structural model. To put it into civilian parlance; there's no value in paying a high premium for an insurance policy year after year if it pays out only a marginal benefit when it is eventually needed. We need lighter premiums delivering a bigger benefit.

 :cheers:
+300
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Online Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 152,290
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,710
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #196 on: July 11, 2018, 22:33:46 »
. . .

This has long been a mantra of mine, but the largest expenditure item in most western defence budgets is for the massive personnel related costs of a professional military. Some European countries have personnel costs as high as 77% of their annual budgets (I tried to find Canada's online but it appears to be a secret - if anyone has it let me know). In order to build a larger more capable military (fully equipped and adequately trained) we (Europe and Canada) need a different financial/structural model. To put it into civilian parlance; there's no value in paying a high premium for an insurance policy year after year if it pays out only a marginal benefit when it is eventually needed. We need lighter premiums delivering a bigger benefit.


According to NATO figures Canada's personnel costs (military and defence civilian) are just over 47% of annual budget which is similar to some of the major players like Germany and France but higher than the US and UK who come in around 35%.

Table below extracted from https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2017_06/20170629_170629-pr2017-111-en.pdf
The columns are years from 2010 to 2017.

« Last Edit: July 11, 2018, 22:38:46 by Blackadder1916 »
Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

Offline whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 23,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,559
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #197 on: July 11, 2018, 22:37:33 »
the source I just reviewed confirms BlackAdders note:
 http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/files/files/Defence_Analysis_EN.pdf

It was 47 percent in 2014.

Offline Larry Strong

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 225,131
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,643
  • 546 days from 0 to being King of the Castle
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #198 on: July 11, 2018, 23:22:13 »


Does the US still have CONUS based heavy units capable of rapid deployment to Europe even if they wanted to? Reforger is long gone and the European Deterrence Initiative and Operation Atlantic Resolve are very weak watered down replacements.


 :cheers:

From what I can find.....not dated however.......

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/force-package.htm

Cheers
Larry
Proud sponsor of the Maple Leaf Legacy Project. http://www.mapleleaflegacy.ca

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 93,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,029
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #199 on: July 12, 2018, 00:20:19 »
We already deploy a heavy unit from CONUS to Germany.Once  in country they can marry up with pre-positioned stocks. Trump is right that Germany cutting a deal for gas with Russia undermines NATO. The US or Canada would sell them the gas they need to stay warm.

https://www.army.mil/article/185234/34_abct_rotates_forces_from_poland_to_germany