Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Odinfrost]

Someone find forth a proper video or source or something for this one as I am probably going to paraphrase a bit here.

Trump is threatening to pull over 9k American troops from Germany due to the latter not living up to the 2% GDP Military spending goal. For once I can get Trumps outrage because it is now 2020 which is where that 2% spending should start happening... HOWEVER, and this is where the paraphrasing begins:
Trump claims that Germany hasn't paid their dues for years. THAT IS NOT HOW THAT DEAL WORKS!
so Germany owes NATO millions/billions. THE DEAL NOR NATO DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!
And that 2% is too little anyway and they should pay more. HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FUCKING ANYTHING!

And that is just the small part I managed to get from the small part of the news segment I ended up hearing. So there might be more to it. (and its danish news, so is not a good source for all of yall non-danish speakers)

[Pannonian]

Someone find forth a proper video or source or something for this one as I am probably going to paraphrase a bit here.

Trump is threatening to pull over 9k American troops from Germany due to the latter not living up to the 2% GDP Military spending goal. For once I can get Trumps outrage because it is now 2020 which is where that 2% spending should start happening... HOWEVER, and this is where the paraphrasing begins:
Trump claims that Germany hasn't paid their dues for years. THAT IS NOT HOW THAT DEAL WORKS!
so Germany owes NATO millions/billions. THE DEAL NOR NATO DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!
And that 2% is too little anyway and they should pay more. HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FUCKING ANYTHING!

And that is just the small part I managed to get from the small part of the news segment I ended up hearing. So there might be more to it. (and its danish news, so is not a good source for all of yall non-danish speakers)

He doesn't understand how ramps work ... or water bottles...

And you expect him to have a clue on international defense treaty budgets?

[Thekri]

Someone find forth a proper video or source or something for this one as I am probably going to paraphrase a bit here.

Trump is threatening to pull over 9k American troops from Germany due to the latter not living up to the 2% GDP Military spending goal. For once I can get Trumps outrage because it is now 2020 which is where that 2% spending should start happening... HOWEVER, and this is where the paraphrasing begins:
Trump claims that Germany hasn't paid their dues for years. THAT IS NOT HOW THAT DEAL WORKS!
so Germany owes NATO millions/billions. THE DEAL NOR NATO DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!
And that 2% is too little anyway and they should pay more. HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FUCKING ANYTHING!

And that is just the small part I managed to get from the small part of the news segment I ended up hearing. So there might be more to it. (and its danish news, so is not a good source for all of yall non-danish speakers)

I actually find it very strange that Germany is being slow to meet that 2% goal (Obama's initiative BTW, not Trumps), if I was them I would be ramping as fast as possible, because if there is one thing Trump has made very clear, it is that the US is an unreliable partner. All of our allies should be working rapidly to develop their own military, because key parts of their infrastructure are tied to the US military, that they assume will be there to support.

A prime example is missile defense, which is an area where most of NATO relies on the assumption that US missile defense assets will always be there. That same assumption cost the Royal Navy a lot of lives in the Falklands, which is why they reprioritized missile programs thereafter, because the assumption that US AEGIS ships would always be available to screen RN ships turned out to be false. Now more then ever, European Nations should take a long look at what happens if the US Military doesn't show up for even a small scale conflict. This is going to be expensive, a lot of the more technology and logistics focused branches have been allowed to atrophy due to American military dominance in those fields. This isn't good for America, and it certainly is far worse for them.

The pulling Troops from Germany thing is something Trump has been trying to do for years. It has nothing to do with this, he wants them out because Putin wants them out. Same reason he is undermining the US position in Kosovo. But Germany should be accelerating its defense spending anyway.

[Felya]

Is this the "well.... well.... you guys can protest, so we can t-totally hold massive political rallies, they're just as important!" defence?

Also kinda shoots himself in the foot when he tries to argue protests should be dispersed and such now.

Only Trump Lives Mater...

[Pannonian]

I actually find it very strange that Germany is being slow to meet that 2% goal (Obama's initiative BTW, not Trumps), if I was them I would be ramping as fast as possible, because if there is one thing Trump has made very clear, it is that the US is an unreliable partner. All of our allies should be working rapidly to develop their own military, because key parts of their infrastructure are tied to the US military, that they assume will be there to support.

A prime example is missile defense, which is an area where most of NATO relies on the assumption that US missile defense assets will always be there. That same assumption cost the Royal Navy a lot of lives in the Falklands, which is why they reprioritized missile programs thereafter, because the assumption that US AEGIS ships would always be available to screen RN ships turned out to be false. Now more then ever, European Nations should take a long look at what happens if the US Military doesn't show up for even a small scale conflict. This is going to be expensive, a lot of the more technology and logistics focused branches have been allowed to atrophy due to American military dominance in those fields. This isn't good for America, and it certainly is far worse for them.

The pulling Troops from Germany thing is something Trump has been trying to do for years. It has nothing to do with this, he wants them out because Putin wants them out. Same reason he is undermining the US position in Kosovo. But Germany should be accelerating its defense spending anyway.

Why should germany increase military spending? Historically speaking that doesn't end well...

And that's not some SJW bullshit. Look at their (especially prussian) history and their fethisization of the military and what it lead to. The current role of the military and it's importance is very delibarte.

Honestly, the glorification of the military in the US is something that creeps me out to this day.

[ati87]

Someone find forth a proper video or source or something for this one as I am probably going to paraphrase a bit here.

Trump is threatening to pull over 9k American troops from Germany due to the latter not living up to the 2% GDP Military spending goal. For once I can get Trumps outrage because it is now 2020 which is where that 2% spending should start happening... HOWEVER, and this is where the paraphrasing begins:
Trump claims that Germany hasn't paid their dues for years. THAT IS NOT HOW THAT DEAL WORKS!
so Germany owes NATO millions/billions. THE DEAL NOR NATO DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!
And that 2% is too little anyway and they should pay more. HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FUCKING ANYTHING!

And that is just the small part I managed to get from the small part of the news segment I ended up hearing. So there might be more to it. (and its danish news, so is not a good source for all of yall non-danish speakers)

It's time of peace and frankly the 2% seems a bit pointless if you think about it. What are you spending money on? Not R&D and when you do spend money it's a bottomless hole (F35)

[Twdft]

I actually find it very strange that Germany is being slow to meet that 2% goal (Obama's initiative BTW, not Trumps), if I was them I would be ramping as fast as possible, because if there is one thing Trump has made very clear, it is that the US is an unreliable partner.

I don't know how many countries, even those within NATO, really really want Germany to have better armed forces. You have to mentally break people to be soldiers willing to kill and that's a process you can't take back. I am old enough to have done my then still mandatory army service and what a waste of 10 months of my life that has been. Well not entirely, I learned to appreciate the value of honesty and teamwork even more than I had before. Learned nothing to actually win a war. But that's fine with me, I don't think Germany should again train her young people to go to war.

Why are armies still a thing, btw? You'd think as technically advanced as humanity has become we would have come to the conclusion that killing is bad, mmmkay.

[Fahrenheit]

I think there is some real blood in the water type momentum building against Trump now. Some of these polls are just getting crazy. I think the combination of the economy tanking, the poor virus response, the lack of any rational discourse on the race protests, has really gave some tailwinds to groups like the Lincoln Project and Republicans Voters Against Trump to peel away the moderate/right leaning voters that didn't like Trump or Clinton, but went with the devil they didn't know.

[Adam Jensen]

I don't know how many countries, even those within NATO, really really want Germany to have better armed forces. You have to mentally break people to be soldiers willing to kill and that's a process you can't take back. I am old enough to have done my then still mandatory army service and what a waste of 10 months of my life that has been. Well not entirely, I learned to appreciate the value of honesty and teamwork even more than I had before. Learned nothing to actually win a war. But that's fine with me, I don't think Germany should again train her young people to go to war.

Why are armies still a thing, btw? You'd think as technically advanced as humanity has become we would have come to the conclusion that killing is bad, mmmkay.

Armies will continue to be a thing so long as mankind is brutish and violent.

Despite our progress, mankind is still brutish and violent. Even those of us who aren't brutish and violent need armies to protect ourselves from those who are . . . which . . . when the bullets start firing . . . make us brutish and violent.

[Thekri]

Why should germany increase military spending? Historically speaking that doesn't end well...

And that's not some SJW bullshit. Look at their (especially prussian) history and their fethisization of the military and what it lead to. The current role of the military and it's importance is very delibarte.

Honestly, the glorification of the military in the US is something that creeps me out to this day.

There is a massive difference between an increase in military spending and militarization. The former is just responsible government, the later is cultural death spiral that threatens everything decent in the world.

The primary purpose of a national military is to protect territorial sovereignty, safeguard your citizens, and allow autonomous foriegn policy. If your military is inadequate to the task of doing that, your sovereignty exists at the mercy of those that do. Where that balance is depends heavily on where the country in question is.

For instance, Canada has very little need for a military, because it is perhaps the best naturally defended nation on the planet. Invasion of Canada is essentially a logistical impossibility for any nation except the United States, just by virtue of geography. Therefore all Canada really has to do is maintain a relationship with the US that is good enough to ensure they aren't in danger of being invaded, and they can proceed to spend fuck all on their military if they want. Canada, much like the US, uses its military exclusively overseas, at has no real purpose for defense.

Germany doesn't have that luxury. If it wants to maintain its autonomy, its options are essentially 1) Increase military spending to establish a credible German military 2) Strengthen the EU Military coordination, and shift toward a truly European Military 3) Continue to rely on a US military commitment.

They tried 2), with decidedly mixed results, and that isn't the way the political momentum is trending right now. 3) is the status quo, which is looking riskier every day. There is no realistic option 4), where Germany sticks its head in the sand and pretends everyone will act in good faith without parity in military power. Russia made that abundantly clear in 2014. So by process of elimination, 1) is the only viable option for Germany.

There is a huge difference between "Credible Military" and "1940 Wermacht". The model Germany should be aiming for probably looks something like the JSDF, the Japanese Military. It is a highly potent, self contained force with no serious weaknesses, but also completely lacking in long range logistics capacity. Basically it will fuck you up anywhere with 500 miles of the Japanese Home Islands, and can't do much past that range. Germany probably needs something considerably more powerful then JSDF (Japan actually spends less in absolute terms then Germany, and FAR less per capita), but the basic structure of Japans military is better. Japan also has a lot more natural geography advantages then Germany, which is hugely helpful.

The key point I am making here is that Germany (And France) need to be able to stand up to Russia on their own without getting laughed out of the room. Because the US is taking a decidedly Pro-Russian lean in the area, which does not bode well for Germany. It isn't that I think a war is likely, it is that Merkel and her successors need enough clout in their corner to get Putin to stand down in Eastern Europe in the scenario where the US does not have Germany's back. That won't happen unless Germany actually has the potential to win a military conflict in Eastern Europe on their own, which they currently do not.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know how many countries, even those within NATO, really really want Germany to have better armed forces. You have to mentally break people to be soldiers willing to kill and that's a process you can't take back. I am old enough to have done my then still mandatory army service and what a waste of 10 months of my life that has been. Well not entirely, I learned to appreciate the value of honesty and teamwork even more than I had before. Learned nothing to actually win a war. But that's fine with me, I don't think Germany should again train her young people to go to war.

Why are armies still a thing, btw? You'd think as technically advanced as humanity has become we would have come to the conclusion that killing is bad, mmmkay.

Sure, noble goal and all. I wish you were correct. Sadly, Putin doesn't see it that way. Neither does every other strong man in the world. If only one side is willing to use violence, then that side wins every time.

If Germany lacks a military power, and Russia decides it owns Belarus now, then there is fuck all the Germans can do about it. Belarus can't defend itself, so either the west goes to war over that or they do not. Right now the force that everyone is counting on to stop that is all of NATO standing together, but if that fractures, someone has to step up, or let Russia role over Eastern Europe. France would probably follow Germany into such a conflict, Britain and the US are increasingly in the "Maybe" camp. Nobody else has a significant enough economy/military base to be significant.

It is also worth noting that 2% is REALLY not a lot. The current levels of military spending across the globe are absolutely unprecedentedly low. They were already low on a historical scale at the end of the cold war, and they plunged after that. As an example of how the reality clashes with the perception, US Military Spending as percentage of GDP has actually dropped under Trump. It grew in absolute terms, but it shrank per capita.

In 1960, the world average military spending was over 6 percent, today it is slightly above 2%. Nobody is suggesting Germany actually militarize. We are saying it would be a good idea for them to go up to roughly the world average, so they can exercise greater autonomy. This goes for France and especially the UK in equal measure. This is the opposite of American jingoism, I am saying they need to break away from us, because we can no longer be trusted to lead, and unfortunately a Biden presidency won't change that.

[Omega10]

I think there is some real blood in the water type momentum building against Trump now. Some of these polls are just getting crazy. I think the combination of the economy tanking, the poor virus response, the lack of any rational discourse on the race protests, has really gave some tailwinds to groups like the Lincoln Project and Republicans Voters Against Trump to peel away the moderate/right leaning voters that didn't like Trump or Clinton, but went with the devil they didn't know.

Fingers crossed.

Trump supporting republicans are closing ranks as tightly as they can and projecting as much of a possible image as they can. But they are increasingly looking out of touch and ridiculous. Pence has finally thrown his weight fully behind Trump after so much silence, so he will also go down with the ship should it sink badly.

The bad news is that Trump will throw the full power of the US Government behind getting himself reelected. The good news is that much of what he does will backfire or have no effect. The REALLY bad news is that many of these actions will substantially hurt the US and its citizens. And the REALLY REALLY bad news is that a lot of the "positive" news will be things that delay bad news until after the election. I don't think December of this year and January of next year will be good months for the US. Think back to 2008 when Bush left office, but worse.

[Felya]

I think there is some real blood in the water type momentum building against Trump now. Some of these polls are just getting crazy. I think the combination of the economy tanking, the poor virus response, the lack of any rational discourse on the race protests, has really gave some tailwinds to groups like the Lincoln Project and Republicans Voters Against Trump to peel away the moderate/right leaning voters that didn't like Trump or Clinton, but went with the devil they didn't know.

I think Trump faces a problem with perception of the economy. If he doesn’t pivot away from using wallstreet as the benchmark, the nearly 20% unemployed and their families, might realize that they are not counted in Trump’s economy.

[Pannonian]

There is a massive difference between an increase in military spending and militarization. The former is just responsible government, the later is cultural death spiral that threatens everything decent in the world.

The primary purpose of a national military is to protect territorial sovereignty, safeguard your citizens, and allow autonomous foriegn policy. If your military is inadequate to the task of doing that, your sovereignty exists at the mercy of those that do. Where that balance is depends heavily on where the country in question is.

For instance, Canada has very little need for a military, because it is perhaps the best naturally defended nation on the planet. Invasion of Canada is essentially a logistical impossibility for any nation except the United States, just by virtue of geography. Therefore all Canada really has to do is maintain a relationship with the US that is good enough to ensure they aren't in danger of being invaded, and they can proceed to spend fuck all on their military if they want. Canada, much like the US, uses its military exclusively overseas, at has no real purpose for defense.

Germany doesn't have that luxury. If it wants to maintain its autonomy, its options are essentially 1) Increase military spending to establish a credible German military 2) Strengthen the EU Military coordination, and shift toward a truly European Military 3) Continue to rely on a US military commitment.

They tried 2), with decidedly mixed results, and that isn't the way the political momentum is trending right now. 3) is the status quo, which is looking riskier every day. There is no realistic option 4), where Germany sticks its head in the sand and pretends everyone will act in good faith without parity in military power. Russia made that abundantly clear in 2014. So by process of elimination, 1) is the only viable option for Germany.

There is a huge difference between "Credible Military" and "1940 Wermacht". The model Germany should be aiming for probably looks something like the JSDF, the Japanese Military. It is a highly potent, self contained force with no serious weaknesses, but also completely lacking in long range logistics capacity. Basically it will fuck you up anywhere with 500 miles of the Japanese Home Islands, and can't do much past that range. Germany probably needs something considerably more powerful then JSDF (Japan actually spends less in absolute terms then Germany, and FAR less per capita), but the basic structure of Japans military is better. Japan also has a lot more natural geography advantages then Germany, which is hugely helpful.

The key point I am making here is that Germany (And France) need to be able to stand up to Russia on their own without getting laughed out of the room. Because the US is taking a decidedly Pro-Russian lean in the area, which does not bode well for Germany. It isn't that I think a war is likely, it is that Merkel and her successors need enough clout in their corner to get Putin to stand down in Eastern Europe in the scenario where the US does not have Germany's back. That won't happen unless Germany actually has the potential to win a military conflict in Eastern Europe on their own, which they currently do not.

- - - Updated - - -



Sure, noble goal and all. I wish you were correct. Sadly, Putin doesn't see it that way. Neither does every other strong man in the world. If only one side is willing to use violence, then that side wins every time.

If Germany lacks a military power, and Russia decides it owns Belarus now, then there is fuck all the Germans can do about it. Belarus can't defend itself, so either the west goes to war over that or they do not. Right now the force that everyone is counting on to stop that is all of NATO standing together, but if that fractures, someone has to step up, or let Russia role over Eastern Europe. France would probably follow Germany into such a conflict, Britain and the US are increasingly in the "Maybe" camp. Nobody else has a significant enough economy/military base to be significant.

I get your point, but i think it is rather moot.

1. Technically the way you describe canada is the same for germany. It has no enemies on its borders. So if Germany needs an army in case Belarus is attacked by Russia, wouldn't the same go for Canada?

2. This will be more of a philosophical discussion, and you probably wont see it the way i do, but that okay:

Military spending doesn't prevent wars. If it would, WW1 would never have happened. And WW2 neither.

After WW2 we came to the conclusion the most reliable way is to make war the financial worst idea. That's the reason behind the EU, and it has worked great so far.

If we take Russia: Sure, Russia could attack the EU... and would loose huge amounts of money due to not being able to sell their natural resources to the EU. And that's the most important part of the russian economy. How long can an invading army be sustained on turnip soup?*

So to recap: I see no specific reason for germany to increase military spending (as long as we dont talk about the eu as a whole, and then singling out germany is moot) and on top of that, i don't think the policy you propose is really helpful.

*Of course, this fails if the leader is totally unhinged and doesn't care. Even if i hate Putin, i think he is evil, but he is not stupid. He wouldn't last long if the economy is in shambles.

[Thekri]

I get your point, but i think it is rather moot.

1. Technically the way you describe canada is the same for germany. It has no enemies on its borders. So if Germany needs an army in case Belarus is attacked by Russia, wouldn't the same go for Canada?

2. This will be more of a philosophical discussion, and you probably wont see it the way i do, but that okay:

Military spending doesn't prevent wars. If it would, WW1 would never have happened. And WW2 neither.

After WW2 we came to the conclusion the most reliable way is to make war the financial worst idea. That's the reason behind the EU, and it has worked great so far.

If we take Russia: Sure, Russia could attack the EU... and would loose huge amounts of money due to not being able to sell their natural resources to the EU. And that's the most important part of the russian economy. How long can an invading army be sustained on turnip soup?*

So to recap: I see no specific reason for germany to increase military spending (as long as we dont talk about the eu as a whole, and then singling out germany is moot) and on top of that, i don't think the policy you propose is really helpful.

*Of course, this fails if the leader is totally unhinged and doesn't care. Even if i hate Putin, i think he is evil, but he is not stupid. He wouldn't last long if the economy is in shambles.

I get your point, and I do respect it, but I think it is naive to think both aren't necessary. Military force is a necessary backstop for that political and financial threat. Without it, strongmen get to have their cake and eat yours too. Russia is not the military Juggernaut it pretends to be. 2% of the GDP of Germany is more then the 5% of GDP that Russia allegedly spends on their military (In reality Russia almost certainly spends far more, because the distinction between military and non-military spending is not exactly clear in Russia).

You are entirely correct that militarization does not prevent wars. But parity does. It doesn't really matter if both sides are maintaining at ~2% or at around ~40%, as long as the fight is going to be roughly equally, neither side can be particularly confident of an easy win, and other factors can come into play. Parity at a low level is far better for everyone, and that is fortunately still the situation.

In fact, from that perspective, Germany has all the leverage in any confrontation with Russia, because its economy is 2.5x the size of Russia's. It can basically do what Reagan did to the Soviet Union, and force it to try to keep up until breaks. I really don't think that is a good idea (It arguably wasn't a good idea then either), but it is a fun trick to have in your back pocket.

[Pannonian]

I get your point, and I do respect it, but I think it is naive to think both aren't necessary. Military force is a necessary backstop for that political and financial threat. Without it, strongmen get to have their cake and eat yours too. Russia is not the military Juggernaut it pretends to be. 2% of the GDP of Germany is more then the 5% of GDP that Russia allegedly spends on their military (In reality Russia almost certainly spends far more, because the distinction between military and non-military spending is not exactly clear in Russia).

You are entirely correct that militarization does not prevent wars. But parity does. It doesn't really matter if both sides are maintaining at ~2% or at around ~40%, as long as the fight is going to be roughly equally, neither side can be particularly confident of an easy win, and other factors can come into play. Parity at a low level is far better for everyone, and that is fortunately still the situation.

In fact, from that perspective, Germany has all the leverage in any confrontation with Russia, because its economy is 2.5x the size of Russia's. It can basically do what Reagan did to the Soviet Union, and force it to try to keep up until breaks. I really don't think that is a good idea (It arguably wasn't a good idea then either), but it is a fun trick to have in your back pocket.

Ah, a nuanced approach. Wasn't counting with that on MMO-C

I'll fully agree with you that you need some kind of parity, and there is the need for military spending, though i'd really prefer if we could find a more european approach.

28 single countries with their own army is just fucking stupid. If we would act as a block in case Russia does something stupid, then we should do this beforehand.

My country is very small. About 8 million people total (1/4 living in the capital), and still we have an army with all the "necessary" bits (planes, tanks, ships, special forces). though given we are so small, it's just 16 planes (of whom only 8 can be in the air at the same time, and not at night (they dont work at night...), our few dozen tanks are decades old, and one of or 2 speed boats sank a few years ago (no more marine without Triest ).

So in case Russia attacks, it would be stupid for us to go alone, but if we go with say germany, then our troops don't really matter. I'd much rather prefer a comprehensive EU force where every nation contributes what they're really good at. Coming from a nation where skiing is really important, our Gebirgsjäger are at least decent (special forces on ski) and they'd be a real contribution instead of 8 partially working jets and some obsolete tanks.

So this whole tanget just to agree with you. Sorry, i took you for one of these "SPEND NOW ON GUNS!!!" guys...

[cubby]

/snipping for size management only

I'm sorry, but you're incorrect. I'm not sure if we're having a semantic issue, but the overall result would have changed dramatically if we'd used the Wyoming method. Hillary would have still lost, but the numbers would have been much closer.

It's possible that we're doing that thing where one small difference or word is causing an unnecessary argument. In your point you mentioned the difference between the Senate EV and the House EV - and perhaps you could explain why you're separating those, when in the end they are combined.

Farther back you said:

It doesn't work that way, though. The EC doesn't vote based on general popular vote, only the popular vote in the state, which wouldn't change. The proportionality of House EC votes would stay the same, even if it was "weighted" even more compared to the Senate EC votes than now. And Trump had a 244-187 edge in House EV.

Your scenario only works if the losing party had a higher House EV count, but a lower Senate EV count. Increasing the "weight" of the EV count would bring the total EV count higher for that party.

Arguing that the proportionality of the House EC would stay the same. That is incorrect. Because currently the House EC isn't proportional to the full population - the math behind the vote "worth" comparing states like Montana to Texas. So even though the states vote in the EC as a block of votes, the number of votes each state gets would change - as I pointed out above using the Wyoming method.

I'm going to stop here and wait for a reply to make sure we're still on the same page. I can explain further.

[Thekri]

Ah, a nuanced approach. Wasn't counting with that on MMO-C

I'll fully agree with you that you need some kind of parity, and there is the need for military spending, though i'd really prefer if we could find a more european approach.

28 single countries with their own army is just fucking stupid. If we would act as a block in case Russia does something stupid, then we should do this beforehand.

My country is very small. About 8 million people total (1/4 living in the capital), and still we have an army with all the "necessary" bits (planes, tanks, ships, special forces). though given we are so small, it's just 16 planes (of whom only 8 can be in the air at the same time, and not at night (they dont work at night...), our few dozen tanks are decades old, and one of or 2 speed boats sank a few years ago (no more marine without Triest ).

So in case Russia attacks, it would be stupid for us to go alone, but if we go with say germany, then our troops don't really matter. I'd much rather prefer a comprehensive EU force where every nation contributes what they're really good at. Coming from a nation where skiing is really important, our Gebirgsjäger are at least decent (special forces on ski) and they'd be a real contribution instead of 8 partially working jets and some obsolete tanks.

So this whole tanget just to agree with you. Sorry, i took you for one of these "SPEND NOW ON GUNS!!!" guys...

That I agree with, and alliances are the key to parity and have been for a long time. What is rapidly becoming apparent is that those alliances are more fragile then we thought they were. Between Brexit and Trump, two cornerstones of that alliance have broken off, and Turkey and Hungary are increasingly vague as to which side they are on. Hence the need for a more rounded national defense force, that does not eliminate the need to also build strong alliances.

In fact, I am not actually even particularly fixated on the dollar (Euro) amount. It is the military structure that desperately needs to be addressed. Many NATO nations have very a poorly rounded military, because they relied on allies for critical functions. Instead of self-sufficient militaries, it was really one big NATO force that only worked when everyone was playing. I use the Falklands because it is a perfect example of that. Britain was relying on the US almost exclusively for fleet protection and long range force projection, and while they made it work, it was really, really ugly. This is why Britain is moving back toward real fleet carriers and such, because they realized they can't count on American Carriers being present and involved. Germany has similar problems, especially with their mechanized forces. While their armored corps is excellent, their logistics capability is pathetic. They built their military under the assumption that German tank battalions would be operating out of US supply depots, which was a solid assumption during the old war. This is the reason behind the creation of NATO standards for fuel and ammunition, which are still a very useful thing.

This can bite them in the ass in a big way if Germany does have to deploy to Belarus or something. Their current military has enough combat power to stop Russia, but it can't actually operate out of Belarus in the first place. It doesn't have the capability to get all the spare parts, fuel, ammunition, forward air bases, communication infrastructure, food, water, medical infrastructure, and ten million other things into place and running. Adding France and the UK to the mix compounds the problem rather then solving it. They have all the tanks and fighter planes they realistically need, they lack the Cargo planes, recovery vehicles, fuel tankers, and all the expeditionary logistics.

That is why I suggested the Japanese model, which is actually an excellent example of how to build a professional, effective, and self-sufficient without breaking your budget or militarizing your country. Japan actually makes almost all of its own equipment too, from warships to tanks, pretty much everything is designed and built in Japan. It opts out of almost all the big international clusterfuck weapons projects like the F-35, and just builds its own stuff, which is uniformly excellent. They do all this on 0.9% of their GDP, and it is a military that absolutely nobody wants to challenge on its home turf. Which is fine, because Japan never wants to use its military anywhere except its home turf anyway.

[cubby]

I don't think this passes even as a backhanded compliment if it comes from an alt-righter, and I don't think any decent human being would feel flattered that a bigot expects anything from them.



Bad faith sealions gonna sealion.

Where are you getting this alt-right stuff re PhaelixWW? I'm just curious because going back a few weeks/months PhaelixWW was really hashing up the Chump Administration for their coronavirus bullshit.

[Benggaul]

I guess selective memory is the name of the game for the alt-right who don't have the spine to come clean with their bigotry.

First page of your history too, tch tch tch.

Uh no, sorry, you're wrong here. And you've been wrong the past few posts. Just stop. Much like with Skroe I don't always agree with everything Phaelix has to say, but he's definitely not some "alt-right bigot" here because he disagrees with how to solve the EC problem. Good grief, people. Let the right tear themselves apart; we should be better than that.

[Breccia]

The proportionality of House EC votes would stay the same

Your original statement was wrong. @Antigannon showed you this, but you didn't read it -- which is concerning, considering what you accused me of. The above quote is you moving the goalposts afterwards.

I gave you every chance, dude.

On topic: Texas Gov. Abbott is due to give a press conference later today. It might have something to do with four consecutive record-breaking number of COVID-19 hospitaliziations -- each 2,000 or so people.

Texas and Florida have similar death counts, if you can trust the numbers from Florida. For the last two months, they saw-tooth back and forth from about 15 to about 40 and back again. The rolling 5-day average is basically level. Based on comments on local news pages, it seems Abbott doesn't publicly admit the rising cases/lack of progress has anything to do with his re-opening of the state. Florida appears to be the same.

Forbes goes into more detail, and it's...it's bad.

There were 2,326 coronavirus patients in Texas hospitals Monday, the Department of Health reported—an increase from the 2,287 reported on Sunday, which had been the old record.

Hospitalizations in the state have increased almost every day since Memorial Day, when large crowds gathered at popular vacation spots as health experts warned those gatherings could lead to a resurgence in the virus.

In the 21 days since Memorial Day, 17 of those days had higher hospitalization counts compared with the day before.

Case counts and the percentage of tests coming back positive also spiked over the past week, with the 7-day average for positive tests staying over 6%—a threshold health officials there say the state should remain below—since June 2.

On Wednesday, Texas reported its single-day high in new cases, with 2,504; the state would go on to report at least 2,000 new cases for three out of four days from Wednesday-Saturday, after not having a single day hit that number before last Wednesday.

Trump says he talked to Abbott, and

I spoke with the governor of Texas, where they’ve done a fantastic job, but he said that they’ve had some outbreaks in prisons...he’s got it in great shape.

Trump talking about "great shape" is a slippery slope without handrails that can't hold a glass of water. But Trump talking figuratively about great shape mandates yet another callback:

It’s one person coming in from China. We have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.

Also, @cubby what are the "cruel and unusual" implications for a state that allows a lethal outbreak to run through prisons? Asking for one hundred sixty-two thousand friends.