Ukranian Crisis
- Thread starter KiwiRob
- Start date
- Status
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Germany's procurement process and budget cuts have done more damage to German defence than any external factors. I wonder if the Germans hired Canadian defence procurement experts....it would explain much.
Germany and Japan are two of the most modern countries in the world. Germany has made great things like the Leopard 2, Modern Nuclear Submarines, ect. Japan has innovated in the same way, but in a more limited way. They could be much stronger, if they could be; instead I'm seeing reduction on the German part. They are still limited by the "Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany". If they could really build up, like in the old days and even mobilize on the scale as the East Germans did, you can guarantee that the Russians won't push into the Baltic's. That would be a final equalizing force in my view. Again, with Japan, they are limited by the "Article 9 Clause" of their constitution. The United States, may have not stamped that personally, but propaganda against both German and Japanese helped facilitate that. I'm glad Shinzō Abe is at least trying to change that now, but two of the worlds most innovative and technologically advanced countries are severely hampered.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Germany has never built a nuclear submarine, only diesel electric with AIP option. They are a leading exporter of subs.
wittmanace
Active Member
Im sure he is referring to the same subs as you, he just meant nuclear armament capable as opposed to nuclear powered and AIP capable (ie Dolphins)
Ah yes, to clarify , I'm referring to the Dolphins.
The only one who is stopping Germany from building up their forces to anything even remotely comparable to cold war levels is our population itself.
The US and our other NATO and EU allies would dance on the tables if Germany suddenly decides to go for a 2%+ of GDP military budget in order to build up it's conventional forces.
Although right now there is a public debate about the awfull shape of the Bundeswehr I have my doubts that anything countable comes out of it.
Suddenly our politicians realized that they probably reduced our armed forces too much but a substantial increase in defense spending won't go well with any party.
And Putin knows that...
The US and our other NATO and EU allies would dance on the tables if Germany suddenly decides to go for a 2%+ of GDP military budget in order to build up it's conventional forces.
Although right now there is a public debate about the awfull shape of the Bundeswehr I have my doubts that anything countable comes out of it.
Suddenly our politicians realized that they probably reduced our armed forces too much but a substantial increase in defense spending won't go well with any party.
And Putin knows that...
wittmanace
Active Member
To be fair, I can see his point regarding Germany to some degree. Looking at instances like the starfighter debacle reminds me of some comments in a documentary about Norway's programme determining its new f/a role aircraft. The sentiments were that the american platform was chosen above others for reasons other than cost or performance, stifling competition. Obviously in the Norwegian case the competitors would never have been local, of course. The issue is still there in the German case that they have known they could buy from America, and that American aircraft used by their own armed forces have the distinct advantage of r&d being distributed over a much larger number. This is of course true for r&d cost distribution for items other than aircraft too. It is interesting comparing the domestic production as well as research and development in America's allies with prior levels, but there are so many other factors.
Platforms are now so high tech and high cost per platform, and the absolute numbers made are so much lower too. Britain making fighters isnt like in the days of the spitfire or hurricane, nor is Germany making items at the rate or cost of a 109.
I do think that availability of american tech and end product, with the above factors, has reduced domestic production, if not capabilities, as a consequence. One might argue whether that is a good or bad thing, though. If expenditure were finite regardless of the two possible histories, the current circumstances at least mean more goods for the funds, whereas completely parallel development and production would reduce the numbers purchasable for the same funds with R&D spread between far fewer units. I dont see events that would lead to Germany needing entire independence regarding research, development and production from its current Allies. If those events arose, Germany would have bigger issues in any case.
Despite all this, I suspect Germany has maintained a basis for a bigger arms industry, should it increase its expenditure, as others have said. A couple of years ago someone posted an article here regarding German possible military superpower status, should they increase expenditure accordingly, if I recall correctly.
What I know about Japanese military Industry could be written on a matchstick, so I shall not comment or offer an opinion.
I agree that it's a people problem also, that can go for the rest of the E.U. too... They are still limited, even with full fledged support and action to 370,000 personnel from the treaty I quoted(Vertrag über die abschließende Regelung in bezug auf Deutschland). You're right, Putin absolutely knows this all too well and why he latches on to Merkel a lot. I believe Germany could be a superpower if the situation warranted it and if there is a will to do it. You have a good technological, scientific, medical, engineering, ect. ect. field base there. The events of World War Two shouldn't be an excuse to hamper anyone, everyone had blood on there hands. Germany and Japan should feel free to exercise their will and innovations to the fullest extent, that's just my view anyways.
Germany still has many military innovations that are nothing short of impressive. Besides subs, look at what they've done in terms of small arms and other land systems.
It's just the politicians restraining the military. Quality matters, but people forget quantity is a quality in itself.
It's just the politicians restraining the military. Quality matters, but people forget quantity is a quality in itself.
wittmanace
Active Member
I think the debate we are having is actually whether Germany's relationship with America, in the post war period, has limited the military-industrial complex (research, development and fielding, production).
Undoubtedly there have been upsides and downsides, but we are debating the extent of it, as opposed to self imposed limitations by virtue of Germany's unwillingness to spend beyond 2 percent of its GDP.
I suspect its a complex issue. Germany has undoubtedly benefited militarily and otherwise form the relationship, to quite some extent too. So has America. Hence the relationship.
Article 9 has very little impact on Japanese innovation in the real world; ever since the Jieitai was founded in 1954, the courts have ruled that having a Self-Defense Force doesn't violate, and it's not like every national-level judge since the 1940s has been appointed by the conservative LDP (who supports the SDF). Now, there are somethings that the SDF can't do because of Article 9 (specifically limitations on offensive weaponry), but that doesn't mean they aren't innovative with what they have. Heck, many of their ships and aircraft have nicer fielded electronics than ours do-something about having Hitachi, Toshiba, Furuno, Sony, Panasonic et al in your domestic industrial base means it's worthwhile to pay a little more money for nicer screens and displays. I was amazed at some of the stuff they had on the MSDF ships I've been, while we thought we were hot stuff with our OJ-663s having up to 16 different colors.
Likewise, having the US around keeps the Japanese from solving things their own way; I'm confident left to their own devices, they'd be perfectly happy sinking the next PLAN ship that screws around in the EEZ around the Senkakus/Diaoyutai. They deservedly get touchy about their sovereignty.
You seem to have a very different definition of "innovation" than everyone else does, and confuse it with "defense policy" and "defense posture".
Oh no, I'm not saying they are not innovative, they clearly are. As I said, they are one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world and of course they have an excellent defense force. I'm merely saying, that they could be a lot stronger and even more innovative without Article 9 in place.
@Wittmanace
The amount of indigenious equipment in the (West) German forces has risen steadily since WWII. These days our industry can supply us with one of the most modern and capable portfolio of ground combat and combat support vehicles (arguably better than what the US has available).
Local and joint programs make up most of our navy and air force while some stuff is imported (like certain missile systems for example). Not that the US doesn't import or license produces some stuff.
Although you are right that lower investments by our government is hurting our defense industry.
@Bluerose
Saying that everybody had blood on his hands in WWII is at best ignorant or worst a dangerous relativation of unspeakable atrocities.
My nation went onto a war of extermination where it killed millions of people many of them in our own stereotype of industrial efficency. We have to remember that and while I am all for a realistic debate about our future security policy we have the obligation not to go all out again with rearmament just for some chest thumping motives!
The amount of indigenious equipment in the (West) German forces has risen steadily since WWII. These days our industry can supply us with one of the most modern and capable portfolio of ground combat and combat support vehicles (arguably better than what the US has available).
Local and joint programs make up most of our navy and air force while some stuff is imported (like certain missile systems for example). Not that the US doesn't import or license produces some stuff.
Although you are right that lower investments by our government is hurting our defense industry.
@Bluerose
Saying that everybody had blood on his hands in WWII is at best ignorant or worst a dangerous relativation of unspeakable atrocities.
My nation went onto a war of extermination where it killed millions of people many of them in our own stereotype of industrial efficency. We have to remember that and while I am all for a realistic debate about our future security policy we have the obligation not to go all out again with rearmament just for some chest thumping motives!
That's a valid point and there were many other atrocities than what the Germans had committed. The NKVD, and the sheer brutality of Stalin killed more civilians than Hitler did by a long shot. Even the dropping of the Atomic Bombs and Fire Bombing cities can be considered acts of genocide. Atrocities are a sad fact of war, whether in the past or in the present.
In actual news: Seems an elaborate Russian prankster, prank called a U.S. general posing as the Ukrainian Interior Minister. Looks like the U.S. general admitted of the possibility of actually equipping Ukrainian soldiers.
http://rt.com/news/195020-prankster-us-general-ukraine/
http://rt.com/news/195020-prankster-us-general-ukraine/
You are doing it again. Relativism at it's finest.
Yes, Stalin's reign and to a lesser degree the regimes that followed him did horrible things. As did Mao or Pol Pot for what it's worth.
But that doesn't make the atrocities of Germany any better. This nation planned and committed genocide and war on an epic scale. Just because other countries don't accept and learn from the wrongdoings of the past doesn't make it any less evil.
Firebombing our cities was exactly what Germany deserved and putting them into the same context as the German actions is just wrong.
The bolded part is highly questionable given that no reliable numbers exist. I've heard all kinds of claims on the subject, from 3 million, to 70 million, but the documented and the demographic evidence suggests the lower figures.
The principal point here, however, is that it doesn't matter so much how many died. What matters is the principal nature of the regimes in question and their capacity as well as culpability in the commission of these atrocities. At the end of the day the total numbers dead are incidental, when we're talking on this scale, a historical footnote. What matters is that regimes of this sort not be allowed to rise in principle, to commit those kinds of acts.
It's highly speculative, but well above 20 million; if you include the Holomodor(Was subjected against Russian's too), ect.
@Waylander also: Yes, that's the point I'm basically trying to make, I'm not excusing any tyrannical regimes here. I lean towards the Pro-Russian sentiment in this conflict, but open enough to all points of view in an object matter. I certainly don't approve of Right Sector(being the current bigger evil of the two) or the Communist party. I just wanted to point out, that historical sentiments plays a big role in the scheme of things here, and I think a lot of things could be different and better if all this regurgitated propaganda didn't occur.
- Status