|
Randler posted:Military spending doesn't make for good headlines so most people probably assume we barely spend anything on our military and do not produce any weapons at all expect that one-time we tried exporting Leopard IIs. And they would be right, considering military spending in Germany works like building bridges by routing cement into a river with huge, expensive pipes: Theoretically, it's possible to get a bridge that way. Especially if you waste enough time and effort. My point being, it's not really "military" spending if you just throw money into the trash like this. What private companies do in their spare time (exporting weapons) is another story, of course.
|
# ? May 7, 2018 18:33 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 04:11 |
|
cebrail posted:I find it honestly interesting that the German public, even though there's a relatively wide-spread anti-militarism and anti-military sentiment (compared to other Western countries), never seems to take offence at military spending. The Elbphilharmonie cost 900 million and people were raging for years. That's like 4 Eurofighters in Bundeswehr money. Randler posted:Military spending doesn't make for good headlines so most people probably assume we barely spend anything on our military and do not produce any weapons at all expect that one-time we tried exporting Leopard IIs.
|
# ? May 7, 2018 18:45 |
Cingulate posted:I think as a share of GDP, Germany's military expenditures are very low. As of the last report I can find (source: NATO), the Federal Republic of Germany spends 1.2% of its GDP on defense. The well-known NATO requirement is 2%.
|
|
# ? May 7, 2018 19:19 |
|
Duzzy Funlop posted:Holy poo poo, thread title Seconded. As great as the current one is, this is perfection.
|
# ? May 7, 2018 19:26 |
|
Drone posted:As of the last report I can find (source: NATO), the Federal Republic of Germany spends 1.2% of its GDP on defense. The well-known NATO requirement is 2%. Citation needed. And your president doesn't count.
|
# ? May 7, 2018 19:28 |
|
There is no requirement lmao. You're either in it because the US wills it due to geopolitical relevance or not.
Healbot fucked around with this message at 19:41 on May 7, 2018 |
# ? May 7, 2018 19:39 |
|
Cingulate posted:I think as a share of GDP, Germany's military expenditures are very low. That's true. But as a share of GDP, Germany doesn't spend that much on concert halls, train stations or airports either.
|
# ? May 7, 2018 19:41 |
Randler posted:Citation needed. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_03/20180315_180315-pr2018-16-en.pdf Page 3.
|
|
# ? May 7, 2018 19:51 |
Drone posted:https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_03/20180315_180315-pr2018-16-en.pdf Also from NATO: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm NATO posted:In 2006, NATO member countries agreed to commit a minimum of two per cent of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to spending on defence. This guideline principally served as an indicator of a country’s political will to contribute to the Alliance’s common defence efforts. Additionally, the defence capacity of each member country has an important impact on the overall perception of the Alliance’s credibility as a politico-military organisation. You are technically correct in that it is not, strictly speaking, a requirement (insofar as any international agreement outside of ratified treaty is worth more than the paper it's written on). Nor is it a flawless barometer for a member states' military affairs or its commitment to the alliance. But it is an agreed-upon target established by the treaty organization more than a decade ago, and it doesn't change the fact that the state of the Bundeswehr is, and has been for some time, a joke for a country with as much responsibility as Germany has given its importance within NATO and (more importantly) the EU. Drone fucked around with this message at 19:58 on May 7, 2018 |
|
# ? May 7, 2018 19:52 |
|
Drone posted:As of the last report I can find (source: NATO), the Federal Republic of Germany spends 1.2% of its GDP on defense. The well-known NATO requirement is 2%. Drone posted:You are technically correct in that it is not, strictly speaking, a requirement (insofar as any international agreement outside of ratified treaty is worth more than the paper it's written on). Nor is it a flawless barometer for a member states' military affairs or its commitment to the alliance. But it is an agreed-upon target established by the treaty organization more than a decade ago, and it doesn't change the fact that the state of the Bundeswehr is, and has been for some time, a joke for a country with as much responsibility as Germany has given its importance within NATO and (more importantly) the EU. Ah yes, the "I lied but isn't the really important thing..." deflect, also known as the Sarazzin Salute. Randler fucked around with this message at 20:22 on May 7, 2018 |
# ? May 7, 2018 20:19 |
Verily my point is laid low, as I dared confuse a requirement for an agreement.
|
|
# ? May 7, 2018 20:37 |
|
Drone posted:Also from NATO:
|
# ? May 7, 2018 20:46 |
|
2% sounds more like the SPD target vong nexte Bundestagswahl her
|
# ? May 7, 2018 20:54 |
|
Drone posted:Verily my point is laid low, as I dared confuse a requirement for an agreement. Sure. You were just "confused" about the easily googleable facts. And that "confusion" just coincidentally resulted in you posting one of the most-repeated, most-debunked lies your various presidents like to scream into the ether to show how tough they are on the degenerate Eurotrash. (Also to make your misguided military adventures cheaper, so the electorate can get that third SUV.) Kindly go gently caress yourself and whatever fellow Trumphawks are in your immediate vicinity.
|
# ? May 7, 2018 21:00 |
|
Drone posted:Also from NATO: Randler posted:Sure. You were just "confused" about the easily googleable facts. And that "confusion" just coincidentally resulted in you posting one of the most-repeated, most-debunked lies your various presidents like to scream into the ether to show how tough they are on the degenerate Eurotrash. (Also to make your misguided military adventures cheaper, so the electorate can get that third SUV.) I think we can all agree that "gently caress Trump" every time he whines about low military spending in Germany and other NATO countries. That said, the commitment to reach 2% military spending is not unreasonable, and it's just not acceptable that the Bundeswehr is in such a terrible shape. Spending more money on the military so that we don't embarrass ourselves every singe time when there are Truppenübungen is just common sense. As someone living in Germany, why should Drone not point this out? It has nothing to do with Trumphawks or MAGA chuds. http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundeswehr-luftwaffe-hat-nur-vier-kampfbereite-eurofighter-a-1205641.html quote:Die Besucher der Internationalen Luftfahrtausstellung ILA südlich von Berlin konnten dieser Tage den "Eurofighter" als Meisterwerk der Technik bewundern. Gleich mehrmals donnerten die Kampfjets der Bundeswehr vergangene Woche über das Ausstellungsgelände am Flughafen Schönefeld. Die Piloten zeigten waghalsige Manöver, vor allem die Loopings waren spektakulär. This poo poo is simply not acceptable. It's in our national interest to be at least somewhat able to defend ourselves or our alliance partners. What is von der Leyen even doing?
|
# ? May 7, 2018 21:33 |
|
Torrannor posted:I think we can all agree that "gently caress Trump" every time he whines about low military spending in Germany and other NATO countries. Cut all that poo poo and start building up a EU defensive military. We don't need 2% to defend our ourselves from the Russe once we stop dicking around with separate militaries. Instead, use the money to finally build some goddamn Wohnungen and renovate some schools. This is the poo poo that actually matters, not bombing Afghans.
|
# ? May 7, 2018 21:44 |
|
https://twitter.com/Schlumpfkanone/status/993201324035641344
|
# ? May 7, 2018 21:49 |
|
Incidentally here's an article about the extreme pollen weather, it's apparently really a special thing this year. It's not stopping either, I floated to work today on a cloud of tree sperm, my bicycle is yellow when it used to be red, I think something is growing on my tomato plants, this is some Nausicaa scenario here. Thursday should be rainy though
|
# ? May 7, 2018 21:56 |
|
Torrannor posted:This poo poo is simply not acceptable. It's in our national interest to be at least somewhat able to defend ourselves or our alliance partners. What is von der Leyen even doing? This is not von der Leyen's fault, the entire structure of procurement is rotten to the core. We could pump ten times as much money into procuring poo poo and would only see marginal improvements, if we're lucky. We'd need to completely axe the entire system, send everybody working there to enjoy some well-deserved Hartz IV and build it up from the ground up with new people. Of course, every defense minister even thinking of trying this better be sure to be pure like winter snow, or a sudden, totally unexpected scandal will be unearthed, ending their tenure. Peter Struck did nothing to rock the boat, the other "von" got dumpstered after he got uppity and von der Leyen is ineffectual. After seeing multiple duds in a row like this, I'm slowly getting convinced the defense ministry is cursed. Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Cut all that poo poo and start building up a EU defensive military. We don't need 2% to defend our ourselves from the Russe once we stop dicking around with separate militaries. The EU army can't come fast enough, hopefully in the process we can dismantle our own national procurement system. We could get those bureaucrats some work with our enemies, to make sure their militaries get hosed up, too!
|
# ? May 7, 2018 22:08 |
|
Libluini posted:The EU army can't come fast enough, hopefully in the process we can dismantle our own national procurement system. We could get those bureaucrats some work with our enemies, to make sure their militaries get hosed up, too! EU wide procurement will likely be even more corrupt than the current system
|
# ? May 7, 2018 22:15 |
|
Schwerter zu Pflugscharen ihr ekelhaften Militaristen.
|
# ? May 7, 2018 22:23 |
|
Torrannor posted:EU wide procurement will likely be even more corrupt than the current system I can live with corruption. What I object to is the current German system of blending corruption and Kafkaesque stupidity into clownery of truly farcical proportions. Even the Italian Mafia wouldn't be so bad at this than we are.
|
# ? May 7, 2018 22:31 |
|
"The technical name is actually Leopard 2% because of NATO" I slur completely high on glue fumes as I knock over the paint for my Revell kit
|
# ? May 7, 2018 22:36 |
|
I think I could understand if it was Thursday already...
|
# ? May 7, 2018 22:54 |
|
Randler posted:Sure. You were just "confused" about the easily googleable facts. And that "confusion" just coincidentally resulted in you posting one of the most-repeated, most-debunked lies your various presidents like to scream into the ether to show how tough they are on the degenerate Eurotrash. (Also to make your misguided military adventures cheaper, so the electorate can get that third SUV.) if we agreed to it then we are required to follow through, drone is not a liar
|
# ? May 8, 2018 06:37 |
|
Goa Tse-tung posted:if we agreed to it then we are required to follow through, drone is not a liar Even if that extensive understanding of what constitutes a requirement was correct, the non-binding committments of NATO's 2014 summit would at most require attempting to hit the 2% percent spending target in 2024 ([url=https://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm]see item no. 14). The 2014 summit results also supersede the previous timetable from 2006 for 2016 spending goals, so drone also failed to even use the correct date when repeating his bullshit Trump talking point. Ultimately, Germany still isn't spending below any NATO requirements. Randler fucked around with this message at 06:55 on May 8, 2018 |
# ? May 8, 2018 06:51 |
|
Randlr posted:Even if that extensive understanding of what constitutes a requirement was correct, the non-binding committments of NATO's 2014 summit would at most require attempting to hit the 2% percent spending target in 2024, superseding the previous 2016 timetable ([url=https://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm]see item no. 14). So Germany still isn't spending below any NATO requirements. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 08:35 on May 8, 2018 |
# ? May 8, 2018 06:59 |
|
Deutschland raus aus der NATO und das Problem ist gegessen imo.
|
# ? May 8, 2018 08:28 |
|
Babies Getting Rabies posted:"The technical name is actually Leopard 2% because of NATO" I slur completely high on glue fumes as I knock over the paint for my Revell kit lol
|
# ? May 8, 2018 08:28 |
|
I obviously couldn't not do this ... Bottom is log scale. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 12:21 on May 8, 2018 |
# ? May 8, 2018 08:50 |
I've been accused of many things but being a Trumphawk has never before been one of them. Defense spending targets of NATO member states have been a topic of transatlantic policy for far longer than Trump has been president, and to pretend that this is only an issue because Trump makes it one of his preferred talking points (in the way a gangster extorts for protection money) is highly disingenuous of the actual topic at hand. I don't know why I expected more rational discussion of this from Randler, but to hear him resort to this is oddly disappointing given how generally (and often frustratingly) vernünftig he usually is: Randler posted:Kindly go gently caress yourself and whatever fellow Trumphawks are in your immediate vicinity.
|
|
# ? May 8, 2018 09:11 |
|
Randler is the kind of guy who doesn't understand the "gets off on a technicality" joke because he lives it
|
# ? May 8, 2018 09:15 |
|
Drone posted:I've been accused of many things but being a Trumphawk has never before been one of them. Defense spending targets of NATO member states have been a topic of transatlantic policy for far longer than Trump has been president, and to pretend that this is only an issue because Trump makes it one of his preferred talking points (in the way a gangster extorts for protection money) is highly disingenuous of the actual topic at hand. Simply Simon posted:Randler is the kind of guy who doesn't understand the "gets off on a technicality" joke because he lives it
|
# ? May 8, 2018 10:02 |
|
Cingulate posted:I obviously couldn't not do this ... that image gave me a brain tumor. Also: label your goddamn axes people!
|
# ? May 8, 2018 10:41 |
|
sheep-dodger posted:that image gave me a brain tumor.
|
# ? May 8, 2018 11:03 |
|
Annnnd as a histogram, per decade: Cingulate fucked around with this message at 12:22 on May 8, 2018 |
# ? May 8, 2018 11:19 |
|
ugh. worst charts ever.
|
# ? May 8, 2018 11:25 |
|
Cingulate posted:I obviously couldn't not do this ... Cingulate posted:Annnnd as a histogram, per decade:
|
# ? May 8, 2018 12:05 |
|
Someone please post amdmorecores.jpg but with the amd guy labeled NATO and both axes labeled defense spending, I'm on my phone. Tia
|
# ? May 8, 2018 12:12 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 04:11 |
|
y'all are dicks
|
# ? May 8, 2018 12:16 |