Printable View
The German military is actually awful. Most of their equipment is in disrepair. Training is less than great. There isn't much military experience (for obvious reasons). Could Germany have a better military? Yes. But it would take decades to implement.
RB's and Hazir's predictable nonsense aside, I'm not sure I entirely agree with you here. Germany in particular has some serious issues with their military, partly as a holdover from the days of conscription and partly because of a lack of planning/vision. While they certainly field certain equipment that is quite solid (e.g. their MBTs), a lot of their stuff is either outdated or in poor repair - there was a big scandal about fighter aircraft a while back and there have been other high profile embarrassments. IIRC they have a pretty poor organizational structure as well that wastes a lot of money on overhead etc. My understanding is that the professionalization of their military has some ways to go as well. In a straight-up fight between UK and Germany I'd probably bet on the UK, though obviously objectives etc. matter here (the UK trying to occupy Germany would be challenging indeed).Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
The Japanese SDF is a much more capable force, though - there are clear deficiencies in their force structure for constitutional and political reasons - notably the lack of any substantial long range strike platforms - but their basic naval and air complement are solid. Their army is under-emphasized for obvious reasons.
I think there's an important distinction to draw here between whether a force is 'large' or 'strong' and whether it is well designed from a strategic perspective. Japan's military would be sorely tested in a defensive conflict with China or North Korea because they have no way of combating long range threats (e.g. ballistic missiles, naval/air weapons launched from standoff ranges) that have proliferated in recent years. And its military has little to no other strategic value - it's not deployed abroad on peacekeeping or other missions, it's not even really configured for humanitarian missions. So it does a crappy job of deterring China or NK. Similarly the German military could probably hold its own on land against a conventional armored assault (with air cover from the US, of course) but it's questionable whether this is a substantial concern; of much greater need would be, say, naval and air assets to secure European borders and expeditionary capability to provide a meaningful global presence.
The UK military has all sorts of stupidity involved in how its built - far too many bespoke solutions when there are 'good enough' options to be had elsewhere. There's no reason, for example, that the UK couldn't have just ordered a couple of America-class light carriers (or, if they want to go big, a Nimitz class). Ditto for their destroyers, which are unreasonably pricey and they don't have enough to boot. IIRC they are lacking in some cargo and refueling aircraft. But it is certainly true that it's designed as a 'great power' military - a substantial blue water navy, a land and air force capable of real projection power, and a highly professionalized military oriented to a range of conflict intensities.
I have been unsparing of my criticism of European defense policy, but it's not just a matter of how much money is spent - it's the needless duplication of effort, criminal waste of resources, and appalling strategic posture that's problematic. Defense procurement policy in Europe is even more messed up than in the US (if that's even possible) - especially for pan-European development projects which are political footballs with a truly horrendous track record. But that doesn't mean that some countries don't do a better job of producing a thoughtfully constructed force than others. The UK, while far from perfect, does do better than most of its neighbors in this regard.
Of course, that's an entirely different matter whether this is a meaningful metric for permanent membership in the UNSC; while it makes a certain amount of sense, it doesn't really jive with historical reality. China in particular had a piss-poor military (albeit a large one) until quite recently, and Russia's projection power has waxed and waned over the years. While UK/US/France have continued to field relatively large and sophisticated 'global power' forces over that entire period, it's also true that the ambition and scope of UK and French military power has also decreased. UNSC membership has everything to do with historical accident and very little to do with logic.
So, now I don't really know what your answer is.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
@Steely, thanks for being clearer.
Especially as we have two members who, in order to have a more representative UNSC would have to swallow a significant reduction in their status, AND have a veto on any such reduction within the framework of the present UN. FYI, I find the metrics that RB threw on the table so far to be mere fig leaves than serious reasons for their continued permanent member status. Not really worth to bother to go into very deep.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Randblade said size, so I used size. I am aware of the problems with the German military, but I didn't really want to get into qualitative issues largely because the issue at stake seems to largely be the influence and prestige associated with having a large military rather than who would win in hypothetical wars which, realistically, would never take place without US involvement.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Does Germany actually need or want a global military presence?Quote:
I think there's an important distinction to draw here between whether a force is 'large' or 'strong' and whether it is well designed from a strategic perspective. Japan's military would be sorely tested in a defensive conflict with China or North Korea because they have no way of combating long range threats (e.g. ballistic missiles, naval/air weapons launched from standoff ranges) that have proliferated in recent years. And its military has little to no other strategic value - it's not deployed abroad on peacekeeping or other missions, it's not even really configured for humanitarian missions. So it does a crappy job of deterring China or NK. Similarly the German military could probably hold its own on land against a conventional armored assault (with air cover from the US, of course) but it's questionable whether this is a substantial concern; of much greater need would be, say, naval and air assets to secure European borders and expeditionary capability to provide a meaningful global presence.
I think we can all agree that who has permanent seats on the UNSC is largely a historical artefact, as is the exists of permanent-veto baring seats in the first place.Quote:
Of course, that's an entirely different matter whether this is a meaningful metric for permanent membership in the UNSC; while it makes a certain amount of sense, it doesn't really jive with historical reality. China in particular had a piss-poor military (albeit a large one) until quite recently, and Russia's projection power has waxed and waned over the years. While UK/US/France have continued to field relatively large and sophisticated 'global power' forces over that entire period, it's also true that the ambition and scope of UK and French military power has also decreased. UNSC membership has everything to do with historical accident and very little to do with logic.
Not sure why we're comparing the size, quality matters much more than quantity. But go on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
UK 232,675 > Germany 210,000Quote:
Specifically, I used: number of military personnel
Germany has more in quantity in this, but just this.Quote:
number of tanks and armoured vehicles
UK 856 > Germany 698Quote:
number of planes (especially fighters and attack planes)
UK has more aircraft carriers [Germany don't have any], frigates, destroyers and submarines.Quote:
number of warships.
No they don't.Quote:
By each of these metrics, both Germany and Japan have a larger military than we do, except Germany has fewer and less capable ships.
No I did not. Try pressing Ctrl+F and finding the post where I said that. I did say smaller which is an adjective that refers not just to size.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
How does a lack of quality not negate the influence and hypothetical issues. A willingness to use your strength also matters.Quote:
I am aware of the problems with the German military, but I didn't really want to get into qualitative issues largely because the issue at stake seems to largely be the influence and prestige associated with having a large military rather than who would win in hypothetical wars which, realistically, would never take place without US involvement.
Agreed. For as long as we maintain our veto we will never lose our veto, especially outside of the EU. France may agree to give theirs to the EU at one point.Quote:
I think we can all agree that who has permanent seats on the UNSC is largely a historical artefact, as is the exists of permanent-veto baring seats in the first place.
I'm not actually convinced that size is really what lends prestige to a military. Yes, size is part of it, but sophistication and readiness is also a big chunk. The PLA is enormous but doesn't really command much prestige. Even more so for the DPRK forces. Etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I agree that RB was wrong to use the term size, but if we were to imagine that he was trying to describe military 'power' as a proxy for importance to global security (and hence a presence on the UNSC), he isn't entirely wrong. The German and Japanese militaries, while certainly large and sophisticated enough, are not global powers due to a combination of self-imposed restrictions, poor planning/management, and political will. The UK military, while far from its peak, still aspires to a global role. It's not entirely unwarranted to take that into account when suggesting they should have a place on the security council. The biggest flaw in that argument, however, is China, which has never been a global military power, even if it now may aspire to be one.
I think that it would be in Germany's interests to - at a minimum - improve their projection in their near abroad and dramatically improve European security. A more global role is up to their own politicians, and I'm sensitive to the societal aversion to an aggressive military posture in Germany.Quote:
Does Germany actually need or want a global military presence?
Regardless, my point wasn't so much that Germany needs such capability but that if we were trying to make a list of countries critical to global security, Germany would not be on that list despite the size of their forces on paper.
Absolutely. And while I agree it's manifestly unfair and will probably start to get increasingly ridiculous in the next century, I do have some reservations about doing away with the veto altogether; given the utter disaster that is the UNGA (and even the regularly ridiculous bullshit that goes on in the UNSC), I question whether I really want the UN's only real legal instrument (UNSC resolutions) to be run by mob rule. To an extent it makes sense to have global security discussions being held by the major global security actors.Quote:
I think we can all agree that who has permanent seats on the UNSC is largely a historical artefact, as is the exists of permanent-veto baring seats in the first place.
Except I didn't use the term size that I recall ...
If all that mattered was quantity rather than quality then lots of military outcomes would have been reversed such as the Anglo-Zanzibar war. Its been precisely my argument for a while that simply being bigger doesn't make you stronger and that for a small nation we still carry quite a punch.
Sorry for the double post, wanted to quickly respond to RB's crosspost:
You're using active + reserve, Steely was using active alone. It's probably appropriate to use active duty troops as the metric since quality and readiness of reserves is generally problematic except for very specific cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
For tanks, Germany actually has a pretty big lead. Actually fielded numbers are roughly similar but Germany has a lot more in storage, a bunch of which are being upgraded to the latest Leopard 2 standard. Advantage Germany. (It's a little harder to parse out how to compare the range of IFV/AFV/APCs in use by either military, but MBTs are a decent proxy for armored might.)
On aircraft, the Luftwaffe has 125 Typhoons and 85 Tornados; the RAF has 141 and 81 respectively plus 8 early F-35s; given that the RAF also has slightly better numbers on tankers and cargo planes I'd give them a slim advantage.
As for the navy, the UK doesn't have any aircraft carriers either (and won't for a number of years, unless you count the Ocean), though he did recognize that Germany has a smaller Navy overall.
The comparison to Japan is also illuminating: Japan field substantially more active duty troops, decent numbers of fighters (62 F2s which are essentially indigenous F-16s, 71 upgraded Phantoms, and 155 indigenized F-15s), tanks (420 reasonably modern MBTs), and navy (17 attack subs vs. 7 for RN, 4 light carriers vs. 1 for RN, 3 amphibs vs. 2 for RN - though the RN are more capable, 36 destroyers vs. either 6 or 19 for the RN if you want to include the RN's frigates, and a bunch of corvettes and patrol ships). On size alone, Steely was absolutely right about Japan and partially right about Germany.
(And RB, you didn't use the word size, but you said the Japanese and German militaries were 'smaller'. It's hard to understand the word as referencing something not having to do with numbers or size.)
I am using active + reserve as while Germany have not used their active troops in many hostile environments, the UK like the USA has called upon reservists in Afghanistan and Iraq etc - a reservist in the British army is possibly more likely to have been endangered and faced enemy combatants than an active member of the German army. So why should they be excluded?
On aircraft carriers you're right, HMS Queen Elizabeth has been constructed and already begun sea trials but isn't due to be formally commissioned until later this year and won't reach full operating capabilities for another couple of years.
As for smaller, we were having a discussion about overall "raw power" (not my choice of words) and as such was referring to them in overall power projection etc. Smaller does not simply mean fewer which specifically does refer to countable units, it also refers to things like significance etc for which I would absolutely include qualitative judgements.
Because, again, you used the word smaller.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
As for quality, the Germany and Japan are just not that far behind the UK. Germany uses exactly the same aircraft that we do. Japan uses aircraft which are functionally equivalent to various American 4th generation fighters, i.e comparable to the typhoon.
Leopard 2 is about the same as the Challenger 2.Quote:
Germany has more in quantity in this, but just this.
Amount of actual warplanes are basically the same.Quote:
UK 856 > Germany 698
If you were trying say they were 'smaller powerful', 'smaller effective' or 'smaller capable', I suggest you go back to grammar school: the world you'd be looking for is 'less'.Quote:
No I did not. Try pressing Ctrl+F and finding the post where I said that. I did say smaller which is an adjective that refers not just to size.
Because the quality gap simply isn't that great. Some of the best kit the Royal Navy has outperforms the Japanese stuff and the British Army obviously has a hefty chunk of combat experience neither of the other two has, but otherwise they are basically the same.Quote:
How does a lack of quality not negate the influence and hypothetical issues.
If we're playing that card, you should think about the UK willingness or even ability to use it's strength without US support - I am not convinced of UK ability to project it's power successfully against somewhere like Turkey or Egypt if it was acting entirely alone, without allies.Quote:
A willingness to use your strength also matters
But, as I said to Randblade, the gap just isn't that big. Germany and the UK even use a lot of the same equipment.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
A warplane with a pilot without any training or experience is about as likely to be used as a nuke.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
The RAF pilots have far more experience, have flown in many hostile environments and the reason our plane total is so much higher is because of our training planes. I would not for one second exclude those from any comparison as the fact that our pilots are better trained is a good thing not something to be excluded.
No thanks as I'm not a pretentious grammar Nazi.Quote:
If you were trying say they were 'smaller powerful', 'smaller effective' or 'smaller capable', I suggest you go back to grammar school: the world you'd be looking for is 'less'.
Right lets just exclude the "hefty chunk of combat experience" and the training planes, and the reservists who've seen action, and this and that and the other and then they're pretty much the same.Quote:
Because the quality gap simply isn't that great. Some of the best kit the Royal Navy has outperforms the Japanese stuff and the British Army obviously has a hefty chunk of combat experience neither of the other two has, but otherwise they are basically the same.
We have fought wars without the Americans, rarely but that's because we're allies so if one goes in the other generally does too. I don't see how that's a bad thing.Quote:
If we're playing that card, you should think about the UK willingness or even ability to use it's strength without US support - I am not convinced of UK ability to project it's power successfully against somewhere like Turkey or Egypt if it was acting entirely alone, without allies.
Falklands war rings a bell?
Well I wasn't going to bring it up but since you did yes we whooped the Argies arse without the Yanks intervening. Decisive British victory that led to the fall of General Galtieri.
Good thing they attacked prematurely and without sufficient force, and good for you that you received US assistance. *pat pat*
What US assistance?
Source on RAF training being superior to Germany and Japan?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Satellite intelligence mostly. I don't think the Falkland's War is terribly relevant either way, the cold war was still on and the British military was a lot larger back then, as were the militaries of potential opponents (Argentine being a prime example)Quote:
What US assistance?
In addition to intelligence assistance, the US expedited delivery of Sidewinders to the Brits and apparently contemplated lending them a flattop in the event a carrier was knocked out. The US airbase at Ascension was also employed extensively in support of the operation.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
A variety of countries employed economic sanctions as well. IIRC some NZ or Aussie ships were deployed to free up more RN ships for the fight.
As for the rest of this argument, it's clearly silly so I'll leave it at that. Yes, the UK military is one of a small handful that is oriented towards global operations. It is also relatively small and not particularly larger than other Western militaries that do not have global aspirations. They have different capabilities, but it's not obvious that they are uniquely superior. Whether or not that warrants a permanent place on the UNSC is largely irrelevant to reality.
Indeed the US did supply back-end support, we permanently share intelligence with each other and not just uniquely due to the conflict. We were not needing to use American ships, planes, marines etc was my point. Though I was not the one to bring up the Falklands into the debate as I thought it was silly myself but since someone else (Hazir) brought it up we may as well resolve that one.
Absolutely the notion of whether or not a place on the UNSC is warranted due to our raw power today is irrelevant as the fact is we have one and it isn't going anywhere any time soon. However again Hazir was the one who started this argument implying the UK lacks any raw power. We'll never match the likes of the USA, USSR [we may plausibly overtake Russia] or China now that its developing but that doesn't matter. For a nation with just under 1% of the world's population we punch well above our weight still.
The fact it is more often than not in co-ordination with our American allies is not a problem, it is a good thing. It allows us to be even more effective by utilising American goodwill (and being utilised in return).
Yeah, you're so full of raw power that your government didn't know how to publicly climb down fast enough after one of our civil servants showed being annoyed by the Bozo the Clown you have for a minister of foreign affairs. No amount of face saving words can hide the fact that Barnier demanded the statement, and that Davis deivered.
When you talk about the UK's status in the world, especially in relation to the US all you do is bring back memories of Grand Fenwick; you count when everybody else has taken a day off.
RIP CETA: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-i...source=twitter
Don't worry Canada once we're free from the shackles of socialist protectionism we'll be free to do a deal.
CETA is already in effect on a provisional basis. Italy wants to make a show of standing up to the elites by delaying ratification but this is likely to be temporary, just like the last time everyone said RIP CETA.
Possibly yes, possibly no. But either way it seems Europe is spiralling into an ever more protectionist mentality - that we're talking about Canada and CETA when we should have been speaking about TTIP by now says it all.
Why are you obsessing over our trade policies?
Because they're currently our policies.
You expected ratification before you bugger off in 9 months?
No but people are still arguing over whether we made the right move or wrong one leaving your bloc. In case you hadn't put 2+2 together I'd have thought this sentence would provide some context: Don't worry Canada once we're free from the shackles of socialist protectionism we'll be free to do a deal.
Yeeeees, because "protectionism" is sooooo "socialistic".Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Do you even know what the words you're using actually mean?
Also, before you use the word "socialistic" as an insult you might consider the politics of the country you want to trade with, you idiot.
For one I didn't use that word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Wut?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Going full Trump now, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I didn't use the word "socialistic" as you put in quote marks twice. I don't think I've ever used that word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
If "full Trump" is seeking more free trade I think you need to get out more.Quote:
Going full Trump now, eh?
Dude, if you want to play the role of a sophist you first should make damn sure that the words you're using refer to what you think they're referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
"Socialist" and "socialistic" are equivalents, you numbnut.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialist
Oh no, I added an 'ic' to the word which makes it mean exactly the same! How dastardly insidious of me! It's pretty telling that your strongest argument consists of: "But you didn't spell the word in the same way!"
That's sub-Kindergarten-level.
If you're going to use quote marks then the least you can do is make sure the quote is actually what was written. Don't blame me for your mistake. Its interesting that all the examples on your link spell the word the same as I did and not with the extraneous letters you added. The word socialist is itself an adjective so adding "-ic" to it to make it an adjective is utterly redundant.
I know what the word "socialist" means and I stand by it. The EU thanks to the likes of France and Italy has too much socialist protectionism and the sooner we are rid of it the better. Oh and Canada is not socialist in comparison - it may be compared to the USA but the EU is not the USA.
As for your claim that "protectionism" is sooooo "socialistic" yes it can be. Its not always though but in this case it is which is why I added the adjective. Not all cars are red but some cars are including my own, if I refer to my car as a red car then that doesn't mean "cars" are soooooo "red" it means the car I'm referring to is red. Similarly the protectionism I'm referring to is socialist.
Dude, you realize that those thingies (") are not exclusively used for quotations, right? Don't try to tell me that you've never run across this figure of speech where someone tells you that you're using a term in the wrong way?
'Sooo, tell me more about those "socialists" of yours...'
In any case, you are obviously incapable of recognizing of when one should stop digging. And this sophistry about "ic" when I just linked to fucking Merriam-Webster is purely moronic. Let's propose a new rule: Whenever someone's sole argument becomes about spelling then he basically just conceded the argument. "Oh my god! You misspelt the word I was using and replaced it with another one with the exact same meaning, thus changing the argument not one iota at all!"
And Canada is not "socialist protectionist" (or whatever terms float your boat, you pedant dimwit)? Right. Have you looked at their dairy industry lately? Also, you realize that their official opposition party (i.e. the strongest one) is a social democratic party?
You know those 'thingies' have a name right? They're called quotation marks.
Though you seem to be torn into a split personality unable to accept me referring to the EU as overly-socialist while simultaneously insisting that Canada is socialist. Which is your position, the EU isn't socialist or that Canada is? Or both.
The problem is you using words without knowing if they actually apply.