Absolutely. Not if they come with exit clauses especially, that's why they're built in there.
Absolutely. Not if they come with exit clauses especially, that's why they're built in there.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Yeah, but he funnily enough believes in equal sovereign partners in the international arena
I mean, believing in two mutually exclusive principles the way he does makes me wonder what the hell goes on in their educational system.
Congratulations America
Since when did I believe that?
Virtually all treaties come with exit clauses.
Hope is the denial of reality
And if they don't there's international law providing for exiting regulations for ending ratification.
@Randblade, you don't believe in international law as a bridle on the sovereignty of nations, yet you refuse to accept that that leaves you with an international arena in which raw power counts and where your country is not a big player.
On the first day of negotiations your negotiator folded on the principles of the talks. How you talk is of imminent importance for what you talk about and what your end result will be. That is what power politics looks like Randy. You have been denying that it would be like that for over a decade but here you have it; raw power politics running roughshot over your country because you thought your sovereignty counted for very much outside of the protection that the EU gave it.
Like I said, you folded on the first day of the negotiations and you will fold on the last day of the negotiations, praying that we'll in the end give you what we appear to deem you worthy of getting from us. Because Randy, not only do we hold the whip, also no deal is at the same time the very worst deal you could get.
Last edited by Hazir; 07-07-2017 at 09:51 AM.
Congratulations America
Indeed which makes it entirely valid to activate them.
Treaties that don't come with exit clauses tend to be either time-limited [eg UK-Sino Hong Kong treaty lasts 50 years] or are permanent and irrevocable unilaterally [eg one nation ceding territory to another]. Some treaties combine different types - eg NATO from memory came with an exit clause that couldn't be activated until at least 40 years had passed.
I accept raw power matters.
I refuse to accept a nuclear-armed G7 nation, a permanent UN Security Council member with the world's fifth largest economy, fifth largest defence budget etc is not a big player. We have raw power. Besides the USA we have the biggest defence budget in the western world.
Of those three only nuclear weapons set you apart. Your UNSC seat is not an expression of what you are but of what you were, and you are not even in the same league as some big powers that are not in the UNSC.
Congratulations America
Such as? The only economies bigger than the UK that are not in the UNSC are Japan and Germany but they have a much smaller military. The only nation to regularly spend more on their miliary than us that is not in the UNSC is Saudi Arabia and they have a much smaller economy.
There are five UNSC permanent members and we are both in the top 5 economies and top 5 militaries in the world so by either metric our position is still justified.
Haha, such a convenient metricYou make up about 1% of the world's population, Your place in the UNSC is just a holdover from when you had an empire.
Congratulations America
Since when did percentage of population matter in raw power? Are you suggesting that Nigeria and Bangladesh have raw power? Military is normally how power is normally measured.
Since you don't think we should be there and since no nation in Europe has spends more on their military than we do than we do you're suggesting there should be no European nations on the UNSC.
Hope is the denial of reality
There has been a surge in references to Godot in the past few months.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Ever heard of this country called India Randy? Or didn't you know how to move the goal posts far enough with them in the picture?
Congratulations America
What are you on about? The militaries of Germany and Japan are larger than ours by any given measure, with the exception of the Deutsche Marine because, you know, just look at a map.
The only thing they lack is our expeditionary capability, and the quality of our submarine force. And probably there's an argument to be made in terms of quality because of all combat experience earned in Afghanistan and Iraq, but what you said is blatantly false.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
And to what extent that lacking expeditionary capability is the result of British refusal to let the EU have a military role independent of NATO?
Congratulations America
What measures are you using?
Defence budget: UK $45.7bn > Japan $43.8bn > Germany $39.2bn
And that's after years of austerity. The UK has consistently outspent both Japan and Germany. Neither of them have nukes.
Uh-huh. The only reason there is no significant expeditionary capacity in the 26 EU countries is because of UK intransigence. Can't have anything to do with their own people having little interest in the sort of effort it requires to create and maintain the ability to project military power.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
None. France is also potent in this regard. The reason Germany isn't is because German doesn't want to be, for historical reasons, and because defensively speaking it has other priorities. Again, look at a map.
Well, since we were comparing the size of countries armed forces, I thought I'd go crazy and use size as the my metric. I know, I know, it sounds bizarre but it just might work.
Specifically, I used: number of military personnel, number of tanks and armoured vehicles, number of planes (especially fighters and attack planes) and number of warships. By each of these metrics, both Germany and Japan have a larger military than we do, except Germany has fewer and less capable ships.
Nukes are worthless in this comparison, because they're unusable. No one's going to go "uh oh, better do what they UK says, they've got nukes". If you take the 5 billion a year we spend to keep Trident, and only take into account what we spend on the military we can actually use we're already spending less than Japan.Defence budget: UK $45.7bn > Japan $43.8bn > Germany $39.2bn
And that's after years of austerity. The UK has consistently outspent both Japan and Germany. Neither of them have nukes.
As for the question of to what extent money spent equals actual potency, I can't really be bothered to get into it. I'll just make the following points:
1) The UK spends a lot of money on home grown programs like Type 45, Queen Elizabeth and Astute (which invariably end up cancelled, or cut back in numbers) where Japan just buys the US export version of [thing], which is a lot cheaper and doesn't necessarily offer much less in terms of capability. Germany doesn't buy US, but isn't constantly setting up super-ambitious programs for cutting edge equipment, then cancelling them, either.
2) Each country in that list has a military that is better than the other two at what they were designed to do. Japan's SDF is there to fight off a potential Chinese attack, Germany's exists to oppose some hypothetical Russian invasion of Eastern Europe and the UK's exists to project power to other parts of the world and tie in with the US military.
3) I am not convinced defence procurement isn't an elaborate scheme for channelling public money into the aerospace industry first and a way obtaining the equipment to defend the country a distant second.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Why are we even discussing GDP and military expenditure? The UK's rank on both measures has varied greatly since it became a permanent member of the UNSC, and its membership status has never changed in spite of that. These measures are irrelevant to the UK's membership status and it should be fair to say that the UK's permanent seat does indeed stem from historical political reasons.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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.
Hope is the denial of reality
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).
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.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
So, now I don't really know what your answer is.
@Steely, thanks for being clearer.
Congratulations America
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.
Congratulations America
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.
Does Germany actually need or want a global military presence?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.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.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Not sure why we're comparing the size, quality matters much more than quantity. But go on.
UK 232,675 > Germany 210,000Specifically, I used: number of military personnel
Germany has more in quantity in this, but just this.number of tanks and armoured vehicles
UK 856 > Germany 698number of planes (especially fighters and attack planes)
UK has more aircraft carriers [Germany don't have any], frigates, destroyers and submarines.number of warships.
No they don't.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.
How does a lack of quality not negate the influence and hypothetical issues. A willingness to use your strength also matters.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.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.
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.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.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.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
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.
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.)
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote