[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

America Erupts… ICE Raids Takeover The Streets

AC/DC- Riff Raff + Go Down [VH1 Uncut, July 5, 1996]

Why is Peter Schiff calling Bitcoin a ‘giant cult’ and how does this impact market sentiment?

Esso Your Butt Buddy Horseshit jacks off to that shit

"The Addled Activist Mind"

"Don’t Stop with Harvard"

"Does the Biden Cover-Up Have Two Layers?"

"Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Reinstated by MLB, Eligible for HOF"

"'Major Breakthrough': Here Are the Details on the China Trade Deal"

Freepers Still Love war

Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump

"The Democrat Meltdown Continues"

"Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process"

"Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working"

"Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts"

"Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands

"Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies"

"Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk"

KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel

"Trade should work for America, not rule it"

"The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP"

"How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap"

‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’

Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible"

"Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!"

"If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think"

"Ending EPA Overreach"

Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built

Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew

The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED!

Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing!

Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy?

Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia)

"Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department"

Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent

"Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail"

Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly

"Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them"

ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby

Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson!

"The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent"

7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith

Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening

Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas

Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel

Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza?

What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked

Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225

EXPOSED: The Dark Truth About the Hostages in Gaza

New Task Force Ready To Expose Dark Secrets


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

International News
See other International News Articles

Title: What the heck happened to Germany’s military?
Source: HotAir
URL Source: https://hotair.com/archives/2018/02 ... ck-happened-germanys-military/
Published: Feb 27, 2018
Author: Jazz Shaw
Post Date: 2018-02-27 18:24:25 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 12826
Comments: 114

One of the more controversial platform items in Donald Trump’s foreign policy stance on the campaign trail had been an insistence that our Europen allies start investing more in their own military forces and carrying a bit more of the defense load. One country in particular was called out on this and that was Germany. Many in the media scoffed at the idea and even termed it insulting to our German allies.

But how real was the need for improvement? Recently it’s been revealed that Germany’s military isn’t just behind the curve on investment and improvements. It’s practically dysfunctional. German Newspaper Die Welt reported on the dismal state of the Bundeswehr (the unified armed forces of Germany and their civil administration) last week and the numbers are staggering. (Translated from German – may be imprecise.)
Thus, the total stock of Leopard 2 main battle tanks is 244th In 2017, an average of 176 were available, the remainder was in the repair or was stored in depots. Of these 176 tanks, 105 were actually ready for use, which makes a quota of on average 60 percent – and yet nothing is said about the extent to which maintenance and spare parts supply are actually sustainable…

In the Panzerhaubitze 2000 it is already close again: In the inventory of the Bundeswehr, there is this artillery gun 121 times. But only 75 are available, 42 operational (56 percent).

Even more dramatic looks at the army aviators. The total stock of the NH90 transport helicopter is 58. In 2017, 37 of these were available on average, while only 13 were available (35 percent). Four of them are in action in Mali – which incidentally means that hardly any staff is available for training at home. Failure to withdraw the NH90 from Mali in the middle of the year will stall the ability for years to come.

So the Germans have 95 operable tanks at any given time and less than 200 working Armored Personnel Carriers. Their Air Force is in serious trouble. They have roughly forty operable fighter jets, a good portion of which are already committed to operations around Turkey and Syria.

And then there’s the Navy. Shall we talk about the German submarine force? It’s going to be a short discussion. Coming into this winter they had one (!) operable submarine. Sadly, that one grounded on the rocks a few months ago so their total fleet of subs currently stands at… zero.

How did things get to this point? A recent interview with the German Defense Minister included some choice quotes. One of them was the explanation that Germany hasn’t paid as much attention to the military because “we are surrounded by friends.” The alternate and somewhat more dismal explanation is, “because we just don’t care.”

Germany’s Parliamentary Armed Forces Commissioner, Hans-Peter Bartels, gave a blistering interview to DW this month, citing numerous shortcomings, and they go beyond a lack of heavy machinery. He said that the Army lacked sufficient protective vests, winter clothing and tents to be able to take part in a major NATO training mission. The soldiers are “under stress” and lacking discipline or leadership in too many cases because the German Army has 21,000 vacant officer posts.

So will that be changing? Hey… Germany has politics just like we do. Spending two percent of their GDP on the military is a big ask and will require a lot of votes. Don’t hold your breath. And in the meantime, if something serious flares up in that region you may be waiting a while for the German cavalry to arrive.


Poster Comment:

All of the NATO forces have declined severely. Britain and Germany were two key allies who greatly shrunk their military. And America under 0bama neglected the military badly in fundamental ways. The military was hollowed out.

Trump was right to lower the boom on Germany's Merkel. Despite her backtalk, she's left the German military in a shambles.

America really has no western European allies to speak of.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 20.

#8. To: Tooconservative (#0)

Peace. Long peace is what happened to Germany's military.

Militaries are expensive, and given nuclear arsenals, the Germans knew very well that its army is essentially superfluous as an actual fighting force. It's a way to channel and train young people and give them some civic attachment, but in the days of the Cold War, the Soviets weren't really coming - or if they did, it was the end of the world. And post-Cold-War Russia is much weaker than the USSR, and much less threatening.

The Germans face no real military threats, but they DO face budgetary threats to their economic prosperity.

So they have coldly and rationally decided to let their military wilt down to a token force, because they need the euros that would be spent on it for other meaningful things, and they know that the Germany army is just for show anyway. Nobody is going to invade Germany with an army. Who could? Only Russia, and that would end in a nuclear holocaust anyway, so why spend money, year after year, on a theatrical demonstration (which is all the German Army really is.

Given history, they don't deploy it anywhere (and don't WANT to - that's the key - if they HAVE it, they get pressured by their cost-conscious allies to use it, so they'd rather not have it at all.

Practical good sense is what happened to the German Army. They don't need it. There's no threat. So they go through the motions and spend as little as possible. The money they'd waste on useless armed forces they put, instead, into their economic and social development, and that bears profitable fruit for them.

That's what happened to the European armies in general. We have a world empire. They don't.

The main exception to this is France, which still has an empire, and an army and a navy and air force to deploy to guard it. The UK tries to do the same, but its navy is really shrunken.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-02-28   6:46:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Vicomte13 (#8)

The main exception to this is France, which still has an empire, and an army and a navy and air force to deploy to guard it.

And you were doing SOOOO good right up to then!

The Frogs are only capable of beating themselves,and chances are that would end up in a draw.

sneakypete  posted on  2018-02-28   14:59:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: sneakypete (#14) (Edited)

And you were doing SOOOO good right up to then!

The Frogs are only capable of beating themselves,and chances are that would end up in a draw.

Yes, yes, all sorts of prejudice against the French, blah, blah.

It's not based in present-day military fact. Truth is, the French have the most effective, deployable military forces in Europe, and they are routinely deployed all over the world. No other European power outside of Russia does anything like that. The UK does still have possessions here or there, but British forces don't, for example, keep the government's stable in half of Africa. The French do.

Old prejudices are fun, but objectively, France is, in fact, the most militarily capable and widely deployed European power, with Britain next. They're the only independent military force that deploys in any strength for their own missions also.

Other European countries, the "Coalition of the Willing", are still in Afghanistan alongside of the Americans. But the French - just them - are all over Africa, keeping the stability of their former colonies, keeping the oil flowing and the trade working. Places like Sudan, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Nigeria with its endless strife: these are former British colonies. The British are really gone. They do not have forces deployed all over Africa, and they don't have the forces TO deploy all over Africa. But the French are routinely deployed all over Africa, and have been since the 1960s. They have the forces to do it, and their forces are more experienced operationally, as a whole, than any other Western European country's precisely BECAUSE they always have operational forces in a few dozen countries.

The Soviets called the French "the Cubans of the West" for a reason, and those reasons have not changed: France is still holding her own empire in her orbit, and she's doing it by providing them something that is otherwise in short supply in Africa: peace and stability. French African states have poverty, but they do not lapse into civil war every ten years like the rest of it, because the French keep the peace. This is immensely valuable to the people of those countries. And it works out for the French because the French get the oil concessions and other raw materials, mining and agricultural contracts.

So sure, make fun of the French. They lost to the Germans in 1940. They lost in Vietnam. They left Algeria. Ha ha. Can't fight their way out of a paper bag. Hah hah.

Truth is, in terms of real world military footprint, the only European country besides Russia that really has one outside of the home soil now is France. And it's a substantial footprint.

France is the number four arms exporter in the world (after the Superpowers).

So, have fun with the stereotypes, but come away with some more knowledge.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-02-28   16:09:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Vicomte13, sneakypete (#16) (Edited)

Truth is, the French have the most effective, deployable military forces in Europe, and they are routinely deployed all over the world.

I've read this elsewhere. France does still have its old colonial empire and it keeps them more engaged.

If France is our strongest NATO ally, we really are screwed.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-28   16:47:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Tooconservative (#19)

If France is our strongest NATO ally, we really are screwed.

Of course France is our strongest NATO ally - it has the largest nuclear arsenal. Nobody can invade France anymore.

That's the problem with World War III scenarios. Russia and the US have nuclear arsenals capable of exterminating their enemy several times over, and neither will take a loss.

The Chinese can't win if the US, or Russia, goes nuclear.

The Russians could invade Europe as far as the Americans, or the British, or the French, let them come, and then no farther. Any of those three countries has sufficient nuclear weaponry to destroy Russia as a meaningful entity.

Nuclear weaponry has the odd effect of making military spending all about spending, cash, dollars, power and posturing, because the major combattants (Russia, the US, France, the UK) CAN'T go to war with each other.

China's arsenal is small enough and vulnerable enough to be stricken or knocked down, and it's possible that the French or British arsenals could be neutralized. But the US or Russian arsenals? Can't be neutralized in any meaningful sense, and have the firepower to simply take out every single city in each other's nations, and all of the ports and fleets and factories.

So, who's going to invade? The Russians are passive-aggressive. They've never started anything major against the West ever, and if they didn't back then, now with nuclear weapons, they won't. War with Russia is a fantasy unless WE invade THEM.

And we're never going to do that either, not ever. God. Invade RUSSIA? Who even wants it? We'd know we were lining up for Armageddon, and we'd either die in the snow like everybody else who ever tried it OR, if we were actually going to win, they'd simply wipe our country from the face of the earth and we'd lose.

We can't win. They can't win. And we've both always been mature enough to know that. Other countries - the Japans and Germanys, and probably the Frances and Britains of the past - were NOT mature enough not to know that. But the Russians and the Americans have been throughout the nuclear age.

Who does that leave? China? They are doing the big conventional force thing, for the same reason we do it: it's visible, it's tangible, it employs a lot of people, it looks big and bad and makes people happy. It generates a lot of production and tech, which leads to arms sales and money. There's domestic political power to be had in parades and big armies. But actually going to WAR with the US? We would exterminate the Chinese race from the face of the earth, with nuclear weapons, and they don't have anything like the capacity to hit back in any meaningful way. We might lose a few cities - we might not - but they would be gone. And then we'd all suffer in the nuclear winter.

Russia is the only country that REALLY matters, when you get down to the fundamental truth.

Military spending is about jobs and politics. It isn't about actually defending ourselves from the Russians, or them from us. Truth is: we can't. It's impossible. If we really go to war, we're ALL dead. Every one of us. The United States would be annhilated by the Russians, and vice versa - not one city would be left, and the rural populations would have mass dieoffs from the radiation and the disease. There would be no energy, no transport, no anything - the Sahara Desert times two.

The people in charge on both sides have known that since 1970, when their arsenal matched ours. We can't fight, and we know it, so we haven't.

Conventional war? Not unless one side or the other is willing to be utterly humiliated before the entire world and do nothing. We were so willing in Vietnam, and they were so willing in Afghanistan. Truth is, neither country could win in either place, because the populations were too large to fight, and our economies were not strong enough to send World War II sized armies to go and occupy all of it.

So we lost and they lost.

But any DIRECT assault on the other's homeland, with the actual possibility of conquering the other at home? Automatic nuclear war of extinction. What the Germans did in Russia in 1941-1945 cannot ever be done to Russia again, or to America. Pointedly, what the Germans did to France in 1940 can never be done again either. France doesn't have enough nuclear weapons to completely annhilate the Russians or the Americans or the Chinese, but they have enough to take out the top 100 cities and inflict 200 million deaths - effectively ending the country.

Nobody can invade France, or Britain, unless they can disarm the nuclear forces. The Pakistani and North Korean nuclear threat probably CAN be taken out, by force or espionage.

The Israeli force is a very interesting question in and of itself.

But no combination of surprise or politics can take out the US or Russian arsenal.

And therefore we will always have peace and there will be no war. So all of this military spending is REALLY about employment, political favoritism, spreading around cash and contracts, and having a force sufficient to go beat up the Yusufzahies (or whomever) when our, or the Russians', pride is tweaked.

Military spending should be understood in that light: a big military is an absorber of the unemployed, a discipliner of the lower elements, a brake on crime, available forces for various executive actions, and a great place to generate profits for industry.

It's not REALLY about national survival in war anymore: nuclear weapons guarantee that for the USA.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-02-28   18:16:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 20.

        There are no replies to Comment # 20.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 20.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com