What's with all these low conflict risk countries spending so much on their military?

[legoboy]

I mean I understand when countries that have potential conflicts spend money on their military's, but whats with countries like the U.K and Canada spending.

In 2010 the U.K had the fourth highest military spending in the world. But seriously, who the hell is going to invade/attack the U.K.

Same goes for Canada. What on earth justifies Canada getting a Nuclear Submarine?
It's basically under the U.S's sphere of protection and it's not anybody is going to invade Canada anyways.

Also looking at Greece's military spending makes me go With there economic situation what were they thinking allocating 3.3% of their GDP to their military. Another country in my opinion with basically no conflict risk and yet hands out dollars for it's military.

 

[skhan]

I mean I understand when countries that have potential conflicts spend money on their military's, but whats with countries like the U.K and Canada spending.

In 2010 the U.K had the fourth highest military spending in the world. But seriously, who the hell is going to invade/attack the U.K.

I'm not that much of an expert but i'll make a few guesses here since i have been reading a lot of strategic, defense and political news.

For Uk its simple, they always have and will go on to have ugly ambitions. Be it they have changed their wordings to 'our interests' or 'our national interests' its one and the same and they want to somehow or the other control nations states with the existing threat of deadly weapons in their possession.

Same goes for Canada. What on earth justifies Canada getting a Nuclear Submarine?
It's basically under the U.S's sphere of protection and it's not anybody is going to invade Canada anyways.

Well what to say about Canada, they have been the big dwarf of north america but not so long you will have to recall some mad quest by Russians, Americans and Canadians to plant their national flat somewhere deep under water around the North pole.

Canada was left alone to play go fetch coz US was also on this oil or what kinda new gold rush. Also, since the US is having major economic woes i guess Canada finds herself suddenly in the mood to get into action to fill the void in the world left by US.
I also want to point out Australia is racing up for such a role and they keep trying to show the world how concerned they are about things happening around the globe.

Also looking at Greece's military spending makes me go With there economic situation what were they thinking allocating 3.3% of their GDP to their military. Another country in my opinion with basically no conflict risk and yet hands out dollars for it's military.

I'm totally with you on Greece, but i guess they have their grand ambitions as well. They have some super undying love for cyprus(so does UK by the way) so automatically some super hatred towards Turkey. Turkey was facing recession not so long ago but i don't know when or how they may have just turned things around and they are making immense military spending so Greece in their own minute way are spending on defense or offensive weapons.

 

[Todjaeger]

I mean I understand when countries that have potential conflicts spend money on their military's, but whats with countries like the U.K and Canada spending.

In 2010 the U.K had the fourth highest military spending in the world. But seriously, who the hell is going to invade/attack the U.K.

Same goes for Canada. What on earth justifies Canada getting a Nuclear Submarine?
It's basically under the U.S's sphere of protection and it's not anybody is going to invade Canada anyways.

Also looking at Greece's military spending makes me go With there economic situation what were they thinking allocating 3.3% of their GDP to their military. Another country in my opinion with basically no conflict risk and yet hands out dollars for it's military.

From what you ask, and how you ask it, how about asking why any countries spends more on defence than you think is necessary to repel an invasion.

A nation's defence spending is to provide significantly more than just sufficient force to deter or repel an invasion. And invasion or the threat thereof is not the only sort of defence threat which exists to nation-states. Have you even considered reading any of the defence policy, planning or review papers put out by countries like the UK? Or how about the ADF Whitepaper? Many countries publish papers detailing their defence budgets, as well as overall force and capability planning. This would tell you what they are planning for.

-Cheers

 

[Astute]

I mean I understand when countries that have potential conflicts spend money on their military's, but whats with countries like the U.K and Canada spending.

In 2010 the U.K had the fourth highest military spending in the world. But seriously, who the hell is going to invade/attack the U.K.

Same goes for Canada. What on earth justifies Canada getting a Nuclear Submarine?
It's basically under the U.S's sphere of protection and it's not anybody is going to invade Canada anyways.

Also looking at Greece's military spending makes me go With there economic situation what were they thinking allocating 3.3% of their GDP to their military. Another country in my opinion with basically no conflict risk and yet hands out dollars for it's military.

I think its fair to say defence spending is not just about stopping your country from being invaded,it also about stopping your allies from being attacked or invaded, the cost of this is enormous as allies could be anywhere around the globe and having aircraft ,ships and all other types of equipment able and ready to go if needed is not cheap.

 

[Astute]

I'm not that much of an expert but i'll make a few guesses here since i have been reading a lot of strategic, defense and political news.

For Uk its simple, they always have and will go on to have ugly ambitions. Be it they have changed their wordings to 'our interests' or 'our national interests' its one and the same and they want to somehow or the other control nations states with the existing threat of deadly weapons in their possession.

The uk as ugly ambitions, I dont think so .the uk and its allies have fought in 2 world wars not for our own gain but for the rite of people to be free this as cost the uk dearly . Even after the end of ww2 uk forces have fought around the globe to help protect people who can not protect them selfs and even now they are in harms way in far away places, being able to do this costs ,

the uk defence budget is big but the armed forces have never had value for money you just have to look at the size of the uk forces and compare to other countries, the truth is we know we can not relie on all friendly nations to act if a conflict starts some like the idea of ,usa, uk, and other allies defending them but look the other way when they should act.

oh one more thing would a country with such ugly ambitions have one of the worlds largest aid budgets which will soon reach 11+billion pounds about 16 +billion dollars
and much of this money is going to countries like russia,india,pakistan and even china who right now are spending billions and billions on there armed forces,,,,,
just a thought

 

[StingrayOZ]

Greece and turkey are still having somewhat of a cold war. They have disputed territory and have come to opening firing on each other.

Uk has territory all over the planet. The british also have to take some responcibility for the decisions made and for past colonies.

As others have said, its not to stop invasions, its to ensure global peace, security and human rights.

 

[Astute]

Uk has territory all over the planet. The british also have to take some responcibility for the decisions made and for past colonies.

As others have said, its not to stop invasions, its to ensure global peace, security and human rights.

Yes the uk has links all over the world which have been there for 100s of years there past colonies of which Canada,Austrailia,New zealand are but a few have now grown over them years into very succesfull independant countries .You say the British have to take responsability for the decisions made they have on many occaisions in blood, Most British people still think of these countries has family has many including myself have family in austrailia,and canada and i could not imagine a reason if one of these countries were in conflict that we would not be there with them,

Has for the reasons for defence 100% agree

 

[Belesari]

I'm not that much of an expert but i'll make a few guesses here since i have been reading a lot of strategic, defense and political news.

For Uk its simple, they always have and will go on to have ugly ambitions. Be it they have changed their wordings to 'our interests' or 'our national interests' its one and the same and they want to somehow or the other control nations states with the existing threat of deadly weapons in their possession.




Well what to say about Canada, they have been the big dwarf of north america but not so long you will have to recall some mad quest by Russians, Americans and Canadians to plant their national flat somewhere deep under water around the North pole.

Canada was left alone to play go fetch coz US was also on this oil or what kinda new gold rush. Also, since the US is having major economic woes i guess Canada finds herself suddenly in the mood to get into action to fill the void in the world left by US.
I also want to point out Australia is racing up for such a role and they keep trying to show the world how concerned they are about things happening around the globe.



I'm totally with you on Greece, but i guess they have their grand ambitions as well. They have some super undying love for cyprus(so does UK by the way) so automatically some super hatred towards Turkey. Turkey was facing recession not so long ago but i don't know when or how they may have just turned things around and they are making immense military spending so Greece in their own minute way are spending on defense or offensive weapons.

That Dwarf is sitting on one of the biggest collections of natural resources on earth and only has a small population of about 20m or so. While once the threat of russia could be said to be the reason now its the same as the UK and others. International responsibilities as well as overseas territories (Faulklands anyone).

History is littered with countries that felt the need for a military was gone. Their corpses are many where they can be found at all.

Canada's fleet needs replacing. With increasing activity in the north by countries such as russia and the new IceBreakers planned more are needed.

Bottom line is that a nation has to be able to defend its boarders or it isnt a sovereign nation.

Some small nations are the US protective umbrella completely yes but others while under it are also a part of it. No one likes leaches and the Canadians never have been that.

----------------------------------------------------

Mainly though the fact is that the world is now more interconnected than ever. Places like the US,Canada, UK all import Alot of things they simply cant or wont make in country. So nations need to be able to put down trouble before it starts. The best way to do that is by being overwhelmingly strong so it Never does.
If the trade stops civilization crumbles.

-----------------------------------------------------

As for the UK's 'Ugly Ambitions' :flame its the same for any western nation today. We try and keep the horrible in the world from swallowing us all. The West has had 2 world wars to teach it the folly of just ignoring the world. Most of the time we listen atleast for awhile. Better UK ambitions than Iranian.

GOOD GOD. I'd hate to see what you have to say about US abmitions :lol

 

[Belesari]

Greece and turkey are still having somewhat of a cold war. They have disputed territory and have come to opening firing on each other.

Uk has territory all over the planet. The british also have to take some responcibility for the decisions made and for past colonies.

As others have said, its not to stop invasions, its to ensure global peace, security and human rights.

I believe that the greeks and the Turks getting along like brothers is a sign of the apocolypse somewhere isnt it

 

[PCShogun]

In 2010 the U.K had the fourth highest military spending in the world. But seriously, who the hell is going to invade/attack the U.K. ?

As pointed out, the U.K. has alliance commitments to uphold. Who would have thought Argentina would try to have taken the Falkland Islands?

Also, remember that the military serves as a deterrent, as well as political tool.

Same goes for Canada. What on earth justifies Canada getting a Nuclear Submarine?

Canada bought three older Upholder class diesel boats from the U.K. for a bargain basement price of $750 million. I think one of these has actually served 2 days of active duty in three years time while the others have served less than 6 months due to problems that, frankly, may never be repaired. This purchase was intended as a stop gap measure for their older Oberon class diesel boats. Canada had wanted a nuclear powered sub then but the only available yard was working on the Vanguard class at the time. Diesel boats also do not do well under ice as snorkeling is required to recharge at an efficient rate and impossible to do under the thick ice of the North Pole. Nuclear subs do not need to surface. These are not missile boats, they are attack boats that Canada is looking to possibly purchase.

Also looking at Greece's military spending makes me go With there economic situation what were they thinking allocating 3.3% of their GDP to their military. Another country in my opinion with basically no conflict risk and yet hands out dollars for it's military.

Also, remember that in many situations, the military can and has been used to quell internal conflict, not just external. Recent and current history points this out clearly. For Greece, however, the threat is Turkey more than anything else. Will an armed conflict happen between two NATO allies? Probably not, but if it were to happen, these two would be the most likely place. Again, its the military that gives the political forces time to negotiate. Why negotiate when there is no risk?

 

[StingrayOZ]

I believe that the greeks and the Turks getting along like brothers is a sign of the apocolypse somewhere isnt it

I think it would take more than that to make them get along.

I think its very possible the two sides will scale up to a real conflict. The relationship has to be one of the classic hatreds. It goes back hundreds almost a thousand years. Personally I think its worse than india vs Pakistan or Arab v Israeli.

I believe the only reason Greece is in the EU is because Turkey is. I don't think they really wanted either (they knew Greece was going to be a basket case) but accepting one and not the other would have started a war. They both joined NATO so that they would be protected by the other by NATO. (That and Turkey is prime positioned for missile sites for the US)

Greeks would rather die a painful death that cut back military spending, more so if it looks like the Turks a getting something.

 

[swerve]

I believe the only reason Greece is in the EU is because Turkey is. I don't think they really wanted either (they knew Greece was going to be a basket case) but accepting one and not the other would have started a war.

Turkey isn't in the EU.

When Greece joined in 1981, Turkish membership was only a distant possibility. Turkey had just had a military coup, which bars you from membership, & was very far from being eligible legally (hadn't adopted any of the acquis communautaire, & showed no signs of doing so) or economically. It didn't even get round to asking until 1987, & wasn't accepted as a candidate (the first step to membership) until 1999.

And there wasn't a war.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Well I apologise for my ignorance. My understanding of the EU is pretty pathetic and I should checked be making such comments. I do recall Greece not wanting Turkey in the EU, Turkey getting some sort of member status.. which I've obviously misinterpreted.

I thought there was a war, the Greco Turkish War and much later followed with the err, sort of armed conflict over Cyprus.

I do believe there is a bit of a cold war going between the two of them. Sizing each other up, and given that there may be significant resources in the disputed zones with neither giving an inch conflict is a real possibility. Hence why both sides tend to spend big on defence.

 

[Volkodav]

As pointed out, the U.K. has alliance commitments to uphold. Who would have thought Argentina would try to have taken the Falkland Islands?

It could be argued that it would have been cheaper for the UK to have constructed three CVA01 carriers and the associated escort and support vessels, airgroups etc thereby detering Argentinas abitions than it was to retake the Falklands.

Bullies don't pick fights with anyone they think could stand upto them, let alone with anyone they know could and would stomp them into the ground, they only take on those they perceive as too weak to react or defend them selves.

Adequate defence spending can avoid the need to go to war.

 

[PCShogun]

It could be argued that it would have been cheaper for the UK to have constructed three CVA01 carriers and the associated escort and support vessels, airgroups etc thereby detering Argentinas abitions than it was to retake the Falklands.

Bullies don't pick fights with anyone they think could stand upto them, let alone with anyone they know could and would stomp them into the ground, they only take on those they perceive as too weak to react or defend them selves.

Adequate defence spending can avoid the need to go to war.

Yes, I completely agree. That was the point I was trying to make. The military is both a deterrent and a political tool.

 

[Volkodav]

Yes, I completely agree. That was the point I was trying to make. The military is both a deterrent and a political tool.

Its a catch 22, nations that spend enough on defence usually are able to deter agression but find it difficult to justify the expense to the general public, nations that fail to provide an adequate defence often don't survive or if they are lucky are just humilliated.

 

[swerve]

It could be argued that it would have been cheaper for the UK to have constructed three CVA01 carriers and the associated escort and support vessels, airgroups etc thereby detering Argentinas abitions than it was to retake the Falklands.

Except this is a specious argument. The seizure of the Falklands in 1982 would not have been deterred by the RN's possession of CVA01/2/3, if the government had behaved in the same way as it did in 1979-82. The Argentineans had been deterred in 1977 (by the previous government, headed by James Callaghan) by Operation Journeyman - and we didn't have three carriers then, we had one, working down to retirement next year. All we sent was an SSN (secretly) & two frigates - & Argentina backed down. The important thing was that we showed determination.

In 1979-82 the Thatcher government, all unwitting (it ignored briefings, & took no notice of Argentinean actions, because it didn't think Argentina important enough to pay any attention to), led the Junta to think it was being sent signals that the new British government wanted shot of the Falklands, & wouldn't fight. Deterrence failed not because of our naval strength or lack of it, but because of our perceived unwillingness to act. A couple of frigates & the hint of an SSN & there'd have been no invasion.

Our last CTOL carrier was decommissioned in December 1978. Until summer 1980, all we had was Hermes - with no ski-jump, & no operational Sea Harriers. Then for the next year, we only had Invincible. Argentina didn't invade. For the first few months, we had a government that had shown determination to defend the Falklands, & after that it took some time for Galtieri etc. to assess the new government. Isn't it obvious that if the deciding factor had been our naval strength, the Falklands would have been invaded in between 1979 & 1981, when we only had one STOVL carrier & Sea Harrier wasn't operational, not in 1982, when we had two - both more capable than the one we had in 1979-80, & could fill both with fighters?

I've explained this so many times that I'm bloody sick of it. It's like telling people that the Japanese constitution doesn't forbid aircraft carriers. The lead-up to the Falklands war is one of the great internet myths, one of those false stories that millions believe because it's so widely spread.

 

[PCShogun]

All true,

the point of the discussion is not to be applied to a single instance, such as the Falkland conflict. I used this as an example of one possible reason why a standing military was beneficial even for those nations that appear to have no need of a large military. I stand by the statement that the military is a political tool, if the government politico's choose to not use that tool? Well, we can use this example as a scenario of that result also.

 

[Volkodav]

Except this is a specious argument......

I've explained this so many times that I'm bloody sick of it. It's like telling people that the Japanese constitution doesn't forbid aircraft carriers. The lead-up to the Falklands war is one of the great internet myths, one of those false stories that millions believe because it's so widely spread.

And if you read my second paragragh you will see we are on the same page for much of what you have said. In a nut shell you need capability and the perception that you will use it.

On the Falklands specifically I was under the impression that one of the driving reasons for Argentinas actions was the need to distract their people through some form of grand expedition they thought they could get away with. I agree the apparant lack of will to contest the islands encouraged them but it is also true that the UK governments retirement of their last CTOL carrier, its Phantoms, Buccaneers and AEW Gannets, the commando carriers, the last of the Tigers and the sale of HMS Invinsible to Australia sent a pretty strong message that the UK was not interested in being able to project power outside of Europe. i.e. perception. Argentina though the UK had neither the will or the capability.

It could and has been argued that almost no one, including many in the RN, had any idea just how effective and capable the Seaharrier would be. On paper what most saw was a rough equivalent of the A-4C Skyhawk that had the advantage of being able to take off and land vertically.

Argentina was more desperate in 82 and the UK was perceived as being weaker. Had the RN had 3 CVAs in 1982 that mistake would not have been made.

 

[jorgedr]

And if you read my second paragragh you will see we are on the same page for much of what you have said. In a nut shell you need capability and the perception that you will use it.

On the Falklands specifically I was under the impression that one of the driving reasons for Argentinas actions was the need to distract their people through some form of grand expedition they thought they could get away with. I agree the apparant lack of will to contest the islands encouraged them but it is also true that the UK governments retirement of their last CTOL carrier, its Phantoms, Buccaneers and AEW Gannets, the commando carriers, the last of the Tigers and the sale of HMS Invinsible to Australia sent a pretty strong message that the UK was not interested in being able to project power outside of Europe. i.e. perception. Argentina though the UK had neither the will or the capability.

It could and has been argued that almost no one, including many in the RN, had any idea just how effective and capable the Seaharrier would be. On paper what most saw was a rough equivalent of the A-4C Skyhawk that had the advantage of being able to take off and land vertically.

Argentina was more desperate in 82 and the UK was perceived as being weaker. Had the RN had 3 CVAs in 1982 that mistake would not have been made.

Not really, I think, the RN strengh did not play much on the decision to take the islands, but the fact that RN was "far away" and the perception that they would not come that far and that in the end the USA will cool down both parties (which showed an absolute lack of history research from the military joint) Galtieri really thought that Reagan was his friend... a few weeks ago the last call from Reagan to Galtieri was sort of declassified and then Galtieri for the fisrt time really knew the huge mistake he had done, unfortunately that call happened 30 minutes after the ships went past the no return line and communications were off (April 1 1982 at night), one carrier near and the posibility of a SSN in the area would have stop the military intentions, 12 carriers in the north atlantic wouldn´t stop the military joint, they were desperate and stupid.

The willing to use your military muscle is the best deterrent asset and you have to be sure that the message really gets through (it did not with Galtieri and Co.) guess the most recent case was Georgia vs Russia and in that case Georgia was close to Russia geographically, is not that they had the "too far away, too expensive expedition" "advantage".

Grettings from Buenos Aires.