NATO

[SolarisKenzo]

Thought:

Trump's presented Europe with the stick. Now it's time to present the carrot - American MIC.
While it is important that Europe develops its own MIC, the US can still benefit greatly if it expedites deliveries to Europe to attract more contracts and enjoy. Europe rearms faster, American MIC expands. Win-win situation.

You clearly underestimate the political support factor towards the US in Europe. Which is low... to use an undestatement.
Anti-americanism was already strong before Trump, imagine now.
It's going to take years, maybe decades, but eventually the US will loose the EU as a market for their weapon systems.
Its inevitable... not easy nor immediate, but inevitable.

 

[T.C.P]

It's going to take years, maybe decades, but eventually the US will loose the EU as a market for their weapon systems.
Its inevitable... not easy nor immediate, but inevitable.

We will see. If the US gets a dem president next who aplogizes for Trumps action and can maintain a non Maga administration for 2-3 terms in a row, then I expect Europe to remain a major American military market. At the end of the day Euro govts are behoden to their own budgets, if the US becomes friednly again and offers cheaper alternatives to German/French made arms, then the cheaper gear will have a market. But this is contigent on US having atleast 2-3 non maga administrations in a row.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

You clearly underestimate the political support factor towards the US in Europe. Which is low... to use an undestatement.
Anti-americanism was already strong before Trump, imagine now.
It's going to take years, maybe decades, but eventually the US will loose the EU as a market for their weapon systems.
Its inevitable... not easy nor immediate, but inevitable.

I think you meant to say "overestimate".
And I also think you put too much weight behind mostly empty political rhetoric.
Europe needs the US as a boogeyman to sell to the general public:

1. Massive rearmament.
2. Potential conscription.

I'm sure if we were to conduct a poll, both decisions would be very unpopular in Europe. The former at least when people would hear about the painful cuts.

The reality is that Europe needs weapons fast. Much faster than it could hope to produce by the end of the decade. And it's only further validated the longer Europe waits with the rearmament programs.
So despite all the talk, I'm sure they'll rush to fill up every American, Israeli, Korean defense company's order log book.
That, or they'll have to choose between buying from Russia/Iran/China.

 

[Feanor]

I think you meant to say "overestimate".
And I also think you put too much weight behind mostly empty political rhetoric.
Europe needs the US as a boogeyman to sell to the general public:

1. Massive rearmament.
2. Potential conscription.

I'm sure if we were to conduct a poll, both decisions would be very unpopular in Europe. The former at least when people would hear about the painful cuts.

The reality is that Europe needs weapons fast. Much faster than it could hope to produce by the end of the decade. And it's only further validated the longer Europe waits with the rearmament programs.
So despite all the talk, I'm sure they'll rush to fill up every American, Israeli, Korean defense company's order log book.
That, or they'll have to choose between buying from Russia/Iran/China.

Or none of those options and instead have very limited foreign policy options as a result. You don't need weapons to stare down Russia and support Ukraine if you're willing to sell Ukraine downriver. You can get by with less if you stay back further, and lean more heavily on a nuclear deterrent.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I don't see any EU army jumping into Ukraine and fighting off the Russians. I don't think they are equipped with for that.It is one thing for Ukraine to complain about lack of munitions, it is another for French.German.UK soldiers to complain about no bullets and no missiles.

Im not sure nuclear deterrents are what they used to be, particularly between powers. You can now totally have a peer war at scale with nuclear powers. If anyone uses nuclear weapons, then MAD comes into play and everyone looses.

The deterrent is your actual capability.

Im not sure the US leadership cares about US military sales to Europe. Europe doesn't buy that much stuff. The real arms race is in Asia and the middle east. How many european ships use Aegis? How many europeans use M1 tanks? Even F-35 sales have been lacklustre and slow.

I find it amusing that Europe still thinks its at the centre of the geopolitical world. Among the two superpowers, Europe, as a region ranks 3rd or below in terms of priorities and interest. It may even be out of the top 5. Going forward with a massively aging population, tiny birth rate, and general economic malaise...

Ultimately the US is being directly challenged for global authority by a power in Asia. That is where its focus and thinking is heading. IMO

 

[Terran]

Im not sure nuclear deterrents are what they used to be, particularly between powers. You can now totally have a peer war at scale with nuclear powers. If anyone uses nuclear weapons, then MAD comes into play and everyone looses.

Even in the 50’s 60’s and 70’s when the nuclear deterrent was at its apex the power v power dynamic had a work around. One that the Russians today love to use. Insurgency and political destabilization operations. Something that Vladimir Putin’s FSB was deeply involved in Eastern Europe before the 2014 invasion. If the national government is unstable or even moreover a puppet of the Kremlin a nuclear deterrent is rendered mute.

 

[Ananda]

The real arms race is in Asia and the middle east. How many european ships use Aegis? How many europeans use M1 tanks? Even F-35 sales have been lacklustre and slow.

Even Euro MIC continue survival more and more related to Middle East and Asia market as Euro market on it is own will not be enough. I once attend Bankers and Industry meeting in Singapore, and during MIC session one of Dasault Executive acknowledged that. Without Middle East and Asian market it is very hard to keep Rafale production line open. This is just an example that shown how Euro MIC looking to Middle East and Asia market to keep maintaining their production line.

This shown fact that Euro defence market will not be enough to sustain their own MIC survivability, while US own market can sustain their own MIC even without export. This talk on more investment in their MIC for 600 - 800 bio Euro or whatever big number being talk , well I believe when the real money come to implementation. Euro constituents will then decide if they want to suffer the welfare program cuts that will come with increase defense. That's the big question down the line.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Even Euro MIC continue survival more and more related to Middle East and Asia market as Euro market on it is own will not be enough. I once attend Bankers and Industry meeting in Singapore, and during MIC session one of Dasault Executive acknowledged that. Without Middle East and Asian market it is very hard to keep Rafale production line open. This is just an example that shown how Euro MIC looking to Middle East and Asia market to keep maintaining their production line.

This shown fact that Euro defence market will not be enough to sustain their own MIC survivability, while US own market can sustain their own MIC even without export. This talk on more investment in their MIC for 600 - 800 bio Euro or whatever big number being talk , well I believe when the real money come to implementation. Euro constituents will then decide if they want to suffer the welfare program cuts that will come with increase defense. That's the big question down the line.

This is largely attributable to a defense-industry ecosystem not suitable for the current reality. The governments must be involved in the R&D and de-risk it and production programs. The best way to do that is to lead by setting requirements, and then make gradual buys that keep production lines open indefinitely.
If Fr*nce for example pledged to keep buying Rafales indefinitely at a low rate, and then a 5th or 6th gen aircraft when industry has one ready, and sell retired Rafales at a low price, it could ensure baseline production capacity in peacetime and instant ramp-up in wartime.
Batch buys and over-reliance on competition is net detrimental to European security at the moment. There's a point where competition starts showing its downsides and loses its upsides, and it's showing right now.