|
| Thread: Why can't S. Korea, Japan, and Germany pay for their own national defense? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
posted May 20, 2010 05:24 AM |
|
|
Why can't S. Korea, Japan, and Germany pay for their own national defense?
I know that there's a post-WW2 treaty that severely limits Germany and Japan's military functions, but we live in a nuclear age, so who cares? It's not like conventional warfare between modern countries is an anticipated scenario, and the two regimes during WW2 are extinct, so it makes no sense to put a bar on the modern governments. It makes just as much sense to not allow somewhere like Romania or modern Thailand to have a national defense since they participated in the Axis. Places like the UK might protest about it, but if the US retires their military bases and tells said countries they'll have to make their own national defense, it's not like anybody has the power to do anything about it, so just do it. Treaties are ink on a page, and outdated treaties aren't worth the ink that was put on them.
South Korea's situation is even dumber. One doesn't even have a (weak) historical excuse to cover their military for them. N. Korea's economy is massively dedicated to maintaining a huge army (relative to their size), so it would be crippling for S. Korea to have to match them, but they don't have to. They can just maintain a decent national defense and the looming threat of nuclear power will keep any sane dictator at bay. The US troops stationed in S. Korea pretty much serve as a sacrificial lamb, since there's not nearly enough to rebel a hypothetical N. Korean attack. They're there so that if an invasion were ever to happen, NATO would immediately have the green light to act.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2010 05:26 AM |
|
|
Because then they can't support their social spending. Duh.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted May 20, 2010 05:33 AM |
|
|
Behave, I want to hear non-emo opinions about this and you're not helping. Everybody can start trolling after the 3rd page.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted May 20, 2010 05:59 AM |
|
|
Btw this is what made me bring this up. NK is being a stinker.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2010 07:30 AM |
|
|
Are you kidding? I don't know where you read this, but it's definitely wrong.
Stockholm International Peace research Institute puts this figures on the table, for 2008:
Highest military expenditures have of course the US:
1) USA: $607 BILLION This is an amazing 41.5% of the military expenditures in the whole world and a per head expenditure of nearly $2000 per year.
....
6) Germany: $46.8 BILLION
7) Japan: $46.3 BILLION
....
11) South Korea: $24.2 BILLION
Per Head Figures, by the way, see Saudi Arabia on 2nd place with an amazing $1500 per year.
Let's not forget North Korea. There are no figures in terms of money, but NK puts about a quarter of its economy into the military and has a standing army of 1.2 mio people (of coure South Korea counters that with an army of nearly 700.000). The NK army, however, is basically stuck in the 1960s and 1970s, in terms of technology; the air force with its 650 machines would probably be annihilated by 3 US carriers with some Destroyer backup. They have about 20.000 guns, and they are supposedly developing nuclear weapons, but the bottom line is, even against South Korea an offensive action would be based on manpower alone and hopelessly stretch the logistic capabilities.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted May 20, 2010 08:26 AM |
|
|
I sort of typed up this thread after reading that article I posted, but apparently after some googling what I thought is severely dated. I always thought those countries just had fairly small national guards and that was about it. Japan only has a national security force, but I guess with its huge population and budget it still ends up ranking high intentionally. S. Korea has been really stepping up its domestic defense so its not US dependent, but the big issue that's still relevant is that Seoul is pretty exposed right near the border and I can't see logistics being an issue for that. With US carriers involved and modern ballistics it could be gruesome, but I'm talking about S. Korea relying on its domestic capabilities.
But what of the US bases? I don't see them as serving a worthwhile enough purpose and the defense budget is already so damned high; they should either withdraw or stay only if the host country would be willing to pay for their upkeep. Auxiliaries have historically been very problematic, but with the accelerated rate of accountability these days it might not be such an issue. Having a US presence in hot spots serves as a big deterrent by itself without any action being taken, but if that's the case I think outside financial support is merited.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2010 09:04 AM |
|
|
Blizzard, you got the politics wrong, so much wrong in fact, that I'm wondering what they are telling you in the US.
For Europe, there are basically NO troops stationed anymore, and what the US have in Europe is NOT for support of the Europeans. EUCOM is based in Stuttgart Germany and is currently heavily restructured. TROOPS are pulled out. In the near future, restructuring is aiming to replace the tank troops and infantery - which have been called back already for the most part: In Germany NO US infantery is stationed anymore and only ONE tank division minus one brigade - with the 2nd Stryker Cavalry, the 173rd Airborne Brigade and two F-16 wings in combination with the planned national missile defense bases.
It's something the US is affording themselves - continue to maintain bases to be able to land their highly mobile units anywhere fast. The actual commitment in Europe is minimal. What is counting, is NATO and the alliance between EU and US, but make no mistake here. The US aren't doing this for the world, they do it to be able to take care of their own interests, without having to ask anyone.
There are plans in the EU for a combined defense effort of all member states, by the way.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted May 20, 2010 09:13 AM |
|
|
I know that Europe is mostly just a pit stop to the M.E. after 89', but places like Israel and S. Korea are still fairly attached to a US presence and there's a good amount of money flowing into them. Not just with the US army, but with the case of Israel, literally just giving them money.
Btw, what's the deal with the US bases in Germany? Does Germany let them be there or are they technically allowed to be there whether they want them or not?
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2010 09:39 AM |
|
|
Since the Treaty of the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, made in 1991 after the German reunion, Germany is again a fully sovereign country.
Before this treaty, both Germanies had no influence whatsoever on bases, troop- stationing and so on within their borders - the Soviets in the GDR, and Brits, Americans and French in the FRG could do whatever they wanted - no peace treaty in effect and both countries officially still OCCUPIED.
After this treaty, Germany IS sovereign again - but there are treaties of course, especially in combination with being a member of NATO - as long as Germany IS member of the NATO, it has to allow the presence of troops within their border (which makes sense).
By the way, GERMANY has always paid for most of the costs for maintaining the bases, and still does it...
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted May 20, 2010 10:16 AM |
|
|
So is the European presence in Iraq and Afghanistan basically solely because of NATO obligations? Because even Sweden has troops there and I can't fathom them wanting to do that.
This is turning into a Q & A. I'll stop after this.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2010 10:19 AM |
|
Edited by Binabik at 10:20, 20 May 2010.
|
But if all the American bases in Germany are closed, where will the American servicemen buy cheap German cars to ship back to the states? And if the bases in Asia like Okinawa are closed, where will they get cheap Japanese stereos and cameras to bring back to the states? I mean a lot of those guys have really killer stereos they bought for almost nothing!
But more to the point...Quote:
I'm wondering what they are telling you in the US
They don't really tell us anything at all. It's pretty much a non-issue and nobody really cares where the bases are. You hear about some of the larger bases, mostly because of military who were stationed there. But as far as news goes we don't really hear much.
I always looked at it as a post cold war and post WW2 thing. As far as I know the bases have been slowly closing down, both overseas and domestic bases. Domestically LOTS of bases have been closed down in the post cold war era. There's more to it than just the easing of cold war tension though. A lot of it is just cost cutting and consolidation of redundant services. And I'm sure the process will continue.
JJ, you mentioned the US military budget. I'm not sure how much that tells you. For one thing, I don't know what those numbers mean. There is a huge amount of military budget that's not really military in nature. But the main thing is, the US government is extremely bureaucratic, inefficient and wasteful. The only way they manage to even accomplish anything is to throw huge sums of money at it. Think about it, you said the US had 41% of the world military budget. It doesn't take much thinking to realize that the US doesn't have anywhere near 41% of the world military, they probably only have a small fraction of that amount. It's just that it's expensive as hell for what they get out of it.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2010 10:57 AM |
|
|
@ Blizzard
Right. The war in Afghanistan began as a British/US operation only. At the end of that first operation UN Security Council ratified stationing of the so called International Security Assistance Force which was overtaken by NATO in 2003. NATO commitment is important for the US (and the Brits) because that makes the whole operation more legitimate.
I can't speak for the other European nations, but in Germany we are increasingly unhappy with the involvement there and would back out rather yeaterday.
@ Binabik
Quote:
I always looked at it as a post cold war and post WW2 thing. As far as I know the bases have been slowly closing down, both overseas and domestic bases. Domestically LOTS of bases have been closed down in the post cold war era. There's more to it than just the easing of cold war tension though. A lot of it is just cost cutting and consolidation of redundant services. And I'm sure the process will continue.Quote:
Exactly. The THREAT is different. Large bodies of tanks and infantery doesn't cut it anymore; restructuring is all about creating highly mobile task forces.
Quote:
JJ, you mentioned the US military budget. I'm not sure how much that tells you. For one thing, I don't know what those numbers mean. There is a huge amount of military budget that's not really military in nature. But the main thing is, the US government is extremely bureaucratic, inefficient and wasteful. The only way they manage to even accomplish anything is to throw huge sums of money at it. Think about it, you said the US had 41% of the world military budget. It doesn't take much thinking to realize that the US doesn't have anywhere near 41% of the world military, they probably only have a small fraction of that amount. It's just that it's expensive as hell for what they get out of it.
Umm, no. The reason why the US have these high costs is simple: they are AT WAR. Nigh on ten years now. Leading one or more wars is terrbly expensive compared to just maintaining a force. Add to that the extreme high level of technology the US war effort demands in termy of equipment, fuel, ammunition and so on. Even rations for the troops - I mean, think about it. They are not foraging the occuopied countries, they import the stuff from home, and I don't think all the officers are living on dry ration bars. 
Think about the propaganda apparatus, the press and news contingents, the organizational problems not only the war as such, but its presentation at home costs.
It comes with warring in a democracy, you might say. 
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted May 20, 2010 12:59 PM |
|
Edited by angelito at 12:59, 20 May 2010.
|
Quote:
So is the European presence in Iraq and Afghanistan basically solely because of NATO obligations? Because even Sweden has troops there and I can't fathom them wanting to do that.
Depends on who you define as "them!.
It is always the government of each country which decides to send troops or not. Of course many or even most people of those countries are against it, because they still have the opinion "own soldiers for own problems". As JJ already mentioned, most of the germans are against the current situation in Afghanistan. We send our soldiers, they die there, and those talibans still sell millions of tons of opium around the world. We build a soccer stadium for them, and they use it for public hangings...and so on.
But it is not us to decide, it is our government.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2010 01:42 PM |
|
|
What "government", angelito?
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted May 20, 2010 01:54 PM |
|
|
I thought you guys had a representative democracy over there.
And yeah, if I was a paranoid superpower I wouldn't want to make the rest of the world less dependent on me and lose military foothold.
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2010 02:00 PM |
|
|
Very (cynism, beware) surprisingly government always turns out to have over-, under-, sideways-estimated this and that before an election, sadly and very (cynism, beware) surprisingly not enabling them to let deeds follow words.
To be fair, leaving Afghanistan immediately hasn't been a realistic option. I think, it's terminated for 2013 currently.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted May 20, 2010 06:28 PM |
|
|
@Bin:
Quote:
Think about it, you said the US had 41% of the world military budget. It doesn't take much thinking to realize that the US doesn't have anywhere near 41% of the world military, they probably only have a small fraction of that amount. It's just that it's expensive as hell for what they get out of it.
It's pretty damn ridiculous dude. Look at these things (I have a fascination with carriers). I remember reading that the U.S. Navy and Airforce is enough to destroy every other one combined, though that's obviously speculative, it's completely believable.
The salaries for the large standing military alone are surely very substantial. There's a lot of soldiers getting paid vastly more than, say, a generic grunt in China.
It's the % of GDP that's the most relevant to look at. The US is going to end up having the biggest military budget by default, even if it adopted nonintervention policy, but 4.0 GDP is still really high; double what it should be.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted May 20, 2010 07:51 PM |
|
|
(Mostly joking) 100+ years from now, when the military is disbanded, I'm going to buy an aircraft carrier and use it as a platform to rent out for offshore parties and conventions. Then I'll buy another one and make a mall out of it and have vendors pay me their rent, and then I could sail around to different port cities. Mobile shopping center. Then I'll eventually buy a 3rd one and build a solar power plant out of it and then anchor it in the middle of the south Atlantic or Pacific, and electronic transports could use it as a recharging station. Then I'll buy the rest and use them for the same thing.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2010 07:55 PM |
|
|
|
Speaking about Korea... Might get hot there.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted May 20, 2010 08:09 PM |
|
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia_pacific/10131683.stm
It's real life trolling on an epic scale. N Korea knows it can get away with this because nobody (for good reason) is willing for Seoul to get flattened and then just destroy N Korea immediately afterward.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
| |
|
|
