Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 1:36 am Post subject: The most powerful European country
Today, which European country is the most militarily powerful? Of course this is purely hypothetical, but if war was to erupt between two major powers in Europe, such as France and Britain, who would win?
I'll give you the defence spending of the top few NATO countries as of 2005 and you'll form your own conclusion. All figures are in billions unless stated otherwise.
The list goes on, of course. But I am sick of poring through the table and arranging them in descending order.
I am a little surprised that some European countries spend so little on military defence. Singapore's military budget is around $6 billion and that puts us a notch above Poland already.
Germany is the most populous European country as well as having the largest economy. Its military budget is paltry in comparison to that of the UK and France. If there's one reason why she should be denied a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, an accusing finger can always be pointed at her capacity to provide any kind of security at all to the world.
One thing, though. The bulk of the European military budget is spent disproportionately on wages whereas a larger proportion of the US budget is invested on military hardware. Simply put, the question raised by Porthos is moot. In the event of a hypothetical war today, Europe would not be able to fight without the help of America.
PS: The numbers were taken from last week's issue of the Economist under the Special Report: Nato's Future. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
Hmm...there are conflicting figures given for military budget expenditure. Do note that my source is only applicable for 2005. Wikipedia gives a different estimate:
1. US - $522.6 2. China - $81.5 3. UK - $60.4 4. France - $45
5. Japan $44.3
6. Germany - $35.1 7. Italy - $28.2
8. Saudi Arabia - $25.4
9. South Korea - $21.1
10. India - $19.0
11. Russia - $18
12. Australia - $17.8
13. Turkey - $12.2
14. Brazil - $9.9
15. Canada - $9.8
16. Israel - $9.4
17. Netherlands - $9.4
18. Taiwan - $7.9
19. Colombia - $6.1
20. Mexico - $6.1
21. Greece - $5.9
22. Sweden - $5.5
23. North Korea - $5
24. Singapore - $4.5
25. Argentina - $4.3
I'll proced to give the Wikipedia-estimated military budget for the following countries where Langcafe has a virtual presence;
Of course, it is not about how much we spend, but how we spend it. But still, some countries spend so little on defence it is almost startling. Perhaps they need to be invaded to be taught a lesson or two.
As for Russia, how the mighty has fallen. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 10:32 am Post subject: Re: The most powerful European country
Porthos wrote:
Today, which European country is the most militarily powerful? Of course this is purely hypothetical, but if war was to erupt between two major powers in Europe, (...) who would win?
Psssssssssssst : it happened already. Everybody lost !
The war between historical opponents like France and GB or Germany is very unlikely to happen in the near future.
By "the near future" I mean next 20-30 years.
It is unthinkable for war to ever erupt between European sovereign nations in future. The European Union may have erred in many ways, but credit must be given where credit is due. This otherwise moribund institution has succeeded in bridging petty differences and bringing everyone together.
It is interesting to speculate about a purely hypothetical scenario where traditional enemies take up arms against each other again. France v. England, England v. Scotland, Austria v. France, Germany v. France, Russia v. almost everyone else, etc.
Maybe the last scenario is slightly more realistic. Russia is still somewhat an erratic and bellicose power.
Porthos, you adopt an overly Eurocentric view of the world. Your inquiring mind does not extend beyond North America and Europe, basically. You are not curious about Africa, Australiasia or Asia. You'd be better off asking about the most powerful country after the United States instead of zeroing in once again on Fortress Europe.
Personally, I think countries who spend so little on military defence need to learn that they cannot piggyback upon the largesse of others for security and protection. Singapore is a tiny nation of only 680 square kilometres and 3 million people, but we have a standing army of over 220,000 and devote approximately 5% of our GNP to defence.
How in the world can countries like Belgium and Poland spend less than us in defence? Aren't their population numbers vastly superior?
In case the peaceniks of this forum deride the abject pointlessness of soldiering in today's context, let me quote Charles M. Province who had something to say on this subject:
It is the soldier, not the reporter who has given us the freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the campus organiser, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves under the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
How in the world can countries like Belgium and Poland spend less than us in defence? Aren't their population numbers vastly superior?
Well, maybe YOU spend too much? Or maybe being a member of NATO guarantees that the budget of NATO is more important than the budgets of individual countries?
How in the world can countries like Belgium and Poland spend less than us in defence? Aren't their population numbers vastly superior?
Well, maybe YOU spend too much? Or maybe being a member of NATO guarantees that the budget of NATO is more important than the budgets of individual countries?
Apart from that ... what has Belgium got to defend?
Belgium is definitely one of my favourite countries in Europe. I think that it is an amazing place, even though no-one else seems to.
loic wrote:
How in the world can countries like Belgium and Poland spend less than us in defence? Aren't their population numbers vastly superior?
I'd imagine that the governments of Belgium and Poland perceive a smaller threat of invasion than that of Singapore do. And in a lot of ways, I can see their point — if someone wants to attack a European country, it seems unlikely that they would choose Belgium or Poland considering the present circumstances. It seems a bit different for Singapore.
Personally, I think countries who spend so little on military defence need to learn that they cannot piggyback upon the largesse of others for security and protection. Singapore is a tiny nation of only 680 square kilometres and 3 million people, but we have a standing army of over 220,000 and devote approximately 5% of our GNP to defence.
How in the world can countries like Belgium and Poland spend less than us in defence? Aren't their population numbers vastly superior?
Absolument ! It's high time all EU countries spent at least 2 % of their GDP on defense, the quicker the better. We cannot rely on the USA.
Benjamin & Ksa: You are right. I was just being deliberately provocative. Being a member of NATO means that the military burden is partially defrayed by being part of a club that offers security and protection.
In fact, Singapore spends more on military in absolute terms than our neighbours. That doesn't say much about Indonesia, The Philippines and Malaysia, though.
Sander: In the modern day, the role of the military is not so much to fight conventional wars, but to participate in peacekeeping as well as counter-terrorism measures. Belgium might be surrounded by friendly countries, but terrorism is not restricted by formal borders. It can rear its ugly head anywhere. Does Belgium have the capability to defend itself from such threats?
Greg: I once read in the reputable military magazine Jane's Defence that France actually possess a rapid strike force that is capable of being deployed anywhere in the world within 24 hours. Shame we never get to see it being put to use in Afghanistan where MAM has explicitly forbidden the French troops from night combat. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
Sander: In the modern day, the role of the military is not so much to fight conventional wars, but to participate in peacekeeping as well as counter-terrorism measures. Belgium might be surrounded by friendly countries, but terrorism is not restricted by formal borders. It can rear its ugly head anywhere. Does Belgium have the capability to defend itself from such threats?
I know, but if you look at Belgium you'll see that the army has no status after their last colonial conflict in 1960.
Belgium occasionally participates in peace keeping missions but that's about it. The military generally does not participate in anti-terrorism activities but that's because the Belgian Police has more authority than in other countries.
The war between historical opponents like France and GB or Germany is very unlikely to happen in the near future.
By "the near future" I mean next 20-30 years.
I may be quite optimistic but I think a war between France & Germany is totally unthinkable. Just typing a war between France & Germany looks completely nuts — a bit like a war between Idaho and Montana. A merger between France and Germany is far likelier.
Sorry Greg, I'm afraid I deleted your post by accident.
greg in noord-frankrijk wrote:
Benjamin wrote:
greg in noord-frankrijk wrote:
A merger between France and Germany is far likelier.
Would you support this?
Totally ! I probably won't see it myself but it may come true in two or three generations.
It sounds like Belgium on a much larger scale. It would certainly require extensive changes to the current systems found in both France and Germany, unless the merger were to be rather loose with a setup similar to how Serbia and Montenegro used to be.
Fab -- if you're reading this, I hope you understand that it is this sort of thing which can give the impression that French people generally identify more with the Germans than with the Italians or the Spanish (etc.). However inaccurate it may be in reality, it is not an accident that I have seen many British-published articles which suggest that there is a common/similar 'Franco-German' culture and identity.
Fab -- if you're reading this, I hope you understand that it is this sort of thing which can give the impression that French people generally identify more with the Germans than with the Italians or the Spanish (etc.). However inaccurate it may be in reality, it is not an accident that I have seen many British-published articles which suggest that there is a common/similar 'Franco-German' culture and identity.
True, true. We see this close Franco-German relationship, and we see the two nations being all huggy kissy, and we tend to associate them with one socio-political block. It seems as if France/Germany always stand side by side in defiance of the UK and U.S.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
