07-06-2005 20:46									#181
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by pchang Because Europe is an easier target. Just look at your history. Europe has been hit by terrorists much more often than the US (at least an order of magnitude more).

That's largely internal terrorism though, you have to diferentiate.

	07-06-2005 20:58									#182
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by DanS I think that's a little too glib a response. Is Europe going to be cool without a capability of reaching out and dealing retribution when the time comes, such as Afghanistan? (In an amount of violence comensurate to that received, no nuking cities involved, etc.) Are Europeans all pacifists?

Dealing retribution to whom? The innocents? Or you think they're not human beings living there?
Plus it doesn't work. You rpoved it in afganistan and iraq and bosnia/kosovo.

	07-06-2005 21:05									#183
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by DanS I think that's a little too glib a response. Is Europe going to be cool without a capability of reaching out and dealing retribution when the time comes, such as Afghanistan? (In an amount of violence comensurate to that received, no nuking cities involved, etc.) Are Europeans all pacifists?

I am cool with that and I am confident that whatever happens, we'll be able to manage it.

	07-06-2005 22:25									#184
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Sir Ralph What's your definition?

Probably at some point below the median.

	07-06-2005 22:43									#185
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by DanS I think that's a little too glib a response. Is Europe going to be cool without a capability of reaching out and dealing retribution when the time comes, such as Afghanistan? (In an amount of violence comensurate to that received, no nuking cities involved, etc.) Are Europeans all pacifists?

Europeans aren't all pacifists, but we'd deal retribution differently:
1. The power projections for specific missions are there. They're largely provided by France and Britain, but they're there nonetheless. Besides, we don't need glitzy tech for power projection, as lo0ng as we aren't fighting an actually strong country.

The OP deals with more expenditures on military research, and you are speaking of massively increasing the European defense spending (considering that you wish it compares to the insane American military budget). I don't see why either -glitzy technologies or massive spending increase- are needed, even if we want to intervene in the occasional Kosovo or Afghanistan.

Many of the bigger countries could change the focuis of their military (from big conscription armies to smaller mobile units) with little cost. Actually, when France underwent this shift, the defense budget got cut.

The only reason of having a serious military tech is to expect a fight against a country that matches our tech. Neither the terrorists nor third world countries do. For the time being, our only technological rivals are the US, Russia, and Israel to some extent. Considering that all involved powers have the bomb, a war between any of those is very unlikely.

	07-06-2005 22:51									#186
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: considering that you wish it compares to the insane American military budget

I don't wish such a thing. I think both the UK and France have reasonable military budgets and at least the UK can hang with us when the going gets tough. In any event, this isn't such a precise exercise that a 1/3rd difference by proportion to our economies would seem to make a critical difference. But some other European countries seem to have militaries and politics that do not reflect serious attention to contingencies in this jungle of a world.

quote: The only reason of having a serious military tech is to expect a fight against a country that matches our tech.

In my view, this is not the case. We have plenty of tech that is useful in Afghanistan, as I have pointed out previously. Tech is useful to harm the bad guys while not harming the innocents. Tech is useful to persuade some of the bad guys that it is unwise to go against us. Tech is useful to reduce casualties, etc. Tech is useful to reduce the costs of the overall mission as well -- i.e., it's a form of spending now so that you don't have to spend more later.

	07-06-2005 22:58									#187
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Because Europe is an easier target. Just look at your history. Europe has been hit by terrorists much more often than the US (at least an order of magnitude more).

And they know how to deal with it. I was shocked when I went through the US in the early nineties. Security checks for domestic passenger flights did not seem to exist. I got delayed numerous times in Britain while my bags were unpacked.

The Europeans have been living with terrorism for years. Munich, the IRA, ETA, and various other nutters have been trying this stuff for years. It just hadn't happened in the US (excluding McVeigh) and 911 was a big wakeup call.

It's like Americans said, "Hey terrorism is a real big problem", and everyone else said, "Yeah, we know."

	07-06-2005 23:02									#188
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: And they know how to deal with it. I was shocked when I went through the US in the early nineties. Security checks for domestic passenger flights did not seem to exist.

And despite it all, we didn't have any problems for half a century. Until we did.

US society still is based upon the premise that internally, nobody wants to hurt the whole. It works the vast majority of the time, even with an amazing number of immigrants.

	07-06-2005 23:16									#189
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by DanS I don't wish such a thing. I think both the UK and France have reasonable military budgets and at least the UK can hang with us when the going gets tough. In any event, this isn't such a precise exercise that a 1/3rd difference by proportion to our economies would seem to make a critical difference. But some other European countries seem to have militaries and politics that do not reflect serious attention to contingencies in this jungle of a world.

I certainly won't dispute that current Swedish defense planning and spending makes no sense.

What I disagree with are the notions that (i) Europe doesn't have the capacity to defend itself against all realistic military threats over the forseeable future, and that (ii) we need power projection capacities beyond light reapid response units fit for UN peacekeeping missions and swift forays into 3rd World troublespots of the sort the UK and France has been doing for decades. Given the attitude of the average European voter to military adventurism, a capacity to send large mechanized forces across the sea and fight a serious war would never be used, and maintaining it would be a perfect waste of money.

	07-06-2005 23:25									#190
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo It's designed allow the completion of objectives in the face of intelligent opposition. Perhaps part of europes problem is the prevalence of people who do not recognize this important distinction.

The objectives involve death-dealing. Every argument by Dan in this thread has been limited to objectives involving death-dealing. What distinction?

	08-06-2005 01:07									#191
	Tired of ads?

All this intelligent opposition crap becomes really meaningless when you look at the targets the US is choosing.

A rag tag band of iraqi insurgents, equipped with t-shirts an AK74 and a RPG. Equally equipped afghan military.
The mighty mighty iraq army.
The only at least worthwile to consider opposition was the serbian army and there they decided to bomb the whole country first targeting power plants and oil refineries and terrorizing the civilians, who are probably more dangerous than a dozen sam sites.

	08-06-2005 01:21									#192
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Atahualpa All this intelligent opposition crap becomes really meaningless when you look at the targets the US is choosing. A rag tag band of iraqi insurgents, equipped with t-shirts an AK74 and a RPG. Equally equipped afghan military. The mighty mighty iraq army. The only at least worthwile to consider opposition was the serbian army and there they decided to bomb the whole country first targeting power plants and oil refineries and terrorizing the civilians, who are probably more dangerous than a dozen sam sites.

The iraqi insurgents are not necessarily lacking in intelligence just cause they are limited in resources. They seem to have used fairly sophisticated techniques, which in fact the Fedayeen Saddam and the Special Republican Guard were preparing before the US invasion.

And IIUC US forces HAVE used technology to advantage. Though perhaps they have overrelied in it as opposed to sufficient numbers of troops.

	08-06-2005 01:34									#193
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: The iraqi insurgents are not necessarily lacking in intelligence just cause they are limited in resources. They seem to have used fairly sophisticated techniques, which in fact the Fedayeen Saddam and the Special Republican Guard were preparing before the US invasion.

come on, you don't seriously want to compare their training and military education to that of a marine?

The only advantage they have is that the US has to take care where to step their feets on, while they are free to move around and have the support of the population. But that doesn't make them intelligent. Only harder to crack.

There are no weapons against intelligent opposition involved. What did the US do in Afghanistan? Level bombing every remote hole that Osama might be hiding in. You could have done that with a bomber squad from 1945.

	08-06-2005 01:37									#194
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: What did the US do in Afghanistan? Level bombing every remote hole that Osama might be hiding in. You could have done that with a bomber squad from 1945.

That's not true in the extreme. You must not have been paying attention to believe this.

	08-06-2005 01:55									#195
	Tired of ads?

Well, if you say so...

	08-06-2005 05:26									#196
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Les dépenses militaires mondiales en augmentation constante LEMONDE.FR | 07.06.05 | 18h24 • Mis à jour le 07.06.05 | 19h01 Pour être informé avant tout le monde, recevez nos alertes par e-mail. Abonnez-vous au Monde.fr Augmentez la taille du texte Diminuez la taille du texte Imprimez cet article Envoyez cet article par e-mail Recommandez cet article Classez cet article Mille milliards de dollars. Un chiffre qui donne le vertige. C'est la somme cumulée consacrée aux dépenses militaires mondiales en 2004, selon le rapport annuel de l'Institut international de recherche pour la paix à Stockholm (Sipri) publié mardi 7 juin. Près de la moitié de cette somme a été déboursée par les Etats-Unis, dont le budget reste alourdi par la"guerre contre le terrorisme". Les dépenses militaires ont atteint précisément 1 035 milliards de dollars (841 milliards d'euros) l'année dernière, soit une hausse de 8 % par rapport à 2003 (956 milliards de dollars). Cela représente $162 dollars par habitant de la planète. Washington a dépensé 47 % de ce montant. Cette nouvelle forte augmentation des dépenses militaires, après une hausse de 11 % en 2003, ne porte toutefois pas le budget d'armement mondial à un niveau record. Il était plus élevé au plus fort de la guerre froide, à la fin des années 1980, note l'institut. Les dépenses américaines ont rapidement augmenté entre 2002 et 2004 à cause de l'importance des montants alloués à la "guerre mondiale contre le terrorisme", principalement en Irak et en Afghanistan, peut-on lire. "La première explication du niveau actuel (...) des dépenses militaires mondiales est le montant des opérations militaires à l'étranger effectuées par les Etats-Unis et, dans une moindre mesure, par ses alliés dans la coalition". LIMITER LA PROLIFÉRATION D'ADM L'ampleur des dépenses auxquelles le gouvernement de George W. Bush doit faire face est la conséquence de la décision d'entrer en guerre contre l'Irak malgré un très faible soutien - notamment de la part de l'ONU -, estime le Sipri. "Les Etats-Unis sont aujourd'hui dotés d'un pouvoir suprême (...) mais ont été limités dans leur champ d'action en Irak sans soutien institutionnel", écrit Alyson Bailes, directrice de l'institut, dans le rapport. "Les événements des dernières années ont peu contribué à l'obtention de solutions mondiales", a-t-elle estimé par ailleurs. En 2004, dix-neuf conflits majeurs ont chacun causé la mort de plus de 1 000 personnes lors de combats. La plupart sont de longue durée, et seulement trois - les opérations contre Al-Qaida, la guerre en Irak et le conflit au Darfour (Soudan) – ont moins de dix ans. "Paradoxalement, la longévité et la récurrence de beaucoup de conflits peuvent les rendre moins visibles sur la scène internationale", a estimé le Sipri, soulignant "le trop peu d'attention médiatique" accordé en 2004 aux conflits au Népal et en Ouganda. "LA COURSE AUX ARMEMENTS CONVENTIONNELS A ÉTÉ SANS LIMITES" Le rapport note que plusieurs initiatives ont eu lieu en 2004 dans le but de limiter la prolifération d'armes de destruction massive (ADM), notamment en Corée du Nord et en Iran. Les accusations américaines et alliées avant le début de la guerre contre l'Irak, selon lesquelles le pays était doté de telles armes, "étaient inexactes et n'étaient pas appuyées par les preuves disponibles", écrit le Sipri. Cependant, l'éviction du président irakien Saddam Hussein et l'annonce par la Libye qu'elle abandonnait ses programmes sur les ADM et les missiles balistiques "ont créé une opportunité unique de progresser dans l'objectif de faire du Moyen-Orient une zone dépourvue d'ADM". Par contre, "la course aux armements conventionnels a été sans limites", note le rapport. La taille des principaux fabricants d'armes dans le monde a "énormément" augmenté, principalement par le biais d'acquisitions, et ces entreprises sont aujourd'hui comparables à certaines des plus grandes multinationales. Le chiffre d'affaires total des cent principales sociétés d'armement est équivalent au PIB des 61 pays les plus pauvres au monde, indique l'institut. Le Sipri déplore enfin que de manière générale "seule une quantité limitée d'informations (soit) disponible sur les ventes commerciales d'armes à travers le monde" et a appelé les gouvernements à exiger davantage de transparence.

quote: WORLD WIDE MILITARY EXPENDITURES ON THE RISE One thousand billion dollars. A number that gives you vertigo. It is the cumulative sum spent on military expenditures world wide for 2004, according to the annual report by the International Institute for Peace in Stockholm, published tuesday June 7th. Close to half of this amount was spent by the United States, whose budget remains inflated by "the war on terror." Total military expenditures reached exactly 1,035 billion dollars (841 billion euors) last year, an increase of 8% from 2003 (956 billion dollars.) This represents 162 per person on the planet. Washington accounted for 47% of this total. This new increase of military expenditures, after an increase of 11% in 2003, does not bring the worldwide military expenditures to a new record; it was higher during the cold war, at the end of the 1980s, noted the report. Expenditures by the United States have rapidly increased between 2002 and 2004 because of the increased sums of money needed for the "global war against terror", mainly in Iraq and Afghanistan. "The primary reason for the acutal level of military expenditures worldwide can be affixed to the military operations conducted by the US in the middle east, and, to a lesser extent, by its allies in the coalition. LIMITING THE PROLIFERATION OF WMD The size of the expenditures by George W. Bush on the military is directly due to the decision to entre to war against Iraq despite the lack of support - notably by the UN -, estimes the institutie. "The US has supreme military power, but is limited in their field of action in Iraq without institutional support" writes Alyson Bailes, director of the instutite, in the report. "The events of last year have not contributed to solving the worlds problems" she estimated. In 2004, 19 major conficts have each caused the death of at least 1000 people during combat. For the most part, only three - the operations against Al Qaeda, the war in Iraq, and the conflict in Darfour - are less then 10 years old. "Paradoxically, the longevity and the recurrance of many of the conficts can make them less visible and less covered internationaly." said the institut, underlining "the lack of media coverage" of the conflicts in Negal and Uganda. THE CONVENTIONAL ARMS RACE IS WITHOUT LIMITS The report also notes several initiatives that took place in 2004 designed to limit the proliferation of WMD, notably in North Korea and in Irna. The american and allies accusations before the war against Iraq, stating that Iraq had WMD, "were inaccurate and not supported by hard evidence" writes the institute. Nevertheless, the capture of Saddam Hussein and the announcement by Libya that it was giving up its weapons programs "created a unique oppertunity to create a WMD free zone in the middle east." However, "the conventional arms race has been without any limits" noted the report. The size of the prinicpal arms manufacturers in the world has "enormously" increased, mainly through increaed purhcases by governments, and some of these companies now rival the size of the biggest multinationals. Total profits by the 100 biggest arms manufacturers is equivalent to the GDP of the 61 poorest countries in the world, indicated the report The institute deplores the "limited information disposable on the sales of commercial weapons across the world" and calls for governments to be more open AFP

------

on the web at
www.lemonde.fr

-------

	08-06-2005 05:41									#197
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

China, the US, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, & the Koreas are where the big increases in military spending are coming from. The US still represents 50% of total world wide defense spending while Japan, Russia, and much of Europe are actually down in real terms.