The reason for the Washington Naval Treaty was to help prevent a repeat of the German-English Dreadnaught Race that helped cause World War I. The idea was to control the size and number of ships in the navies of the major world powers, including the UK, US and Japan. England scrapped a lot of her ships after this went into effect. The US had actually started construction on a new class of Battleships (the South Dakota Class), but scrapped all 6 of the hulls during construction. Instead the US built 3 Colorado Class battleships which did meet with the treaty. Japan took two Battleships under construction (Kaga and Akagi) and converted them to aircraft carriers (which were not restricted the way that Battleships were). Both of these ships participated in the Pearl Harbor attack, and were sunk at Midway. And the Washington Naval Treaty was written to expire in 1936. Construction of new ships after that date have absolutely nothing to do with economics, but about following a treaty. This can be shown by looking at the size and class of ships built after the treaty expired. They all were larger then what was authorized under the WNT. However, during this perios the UK built a lot of other ships, including 10 different classes of Cruisers, over 40 ships total. There were also over 123 destroyers built. The reason for not building Battleships is obvious. The WNT had a pre-set lifespan of 14 years. Battleships typically last for over 30 years. The WNT had hardly expired before she started building 6 of them that exceeded what the treaty allowed. Of course, there were other Naval Treaties, like the First and Second London Naval Treaties. In 1935 you had the Second London Naval Treaty deliberations, in which the nations were essentially trying to extend the Washington Naval Treaty. However, this largely fell apart after Japan walked out of the proceedings. And wording was put in place in the 2nd London Treaty, allowing participants to increase their sizes if Japan or Italy did so. So when Japan started building ships with 16" guns, so did the US.
So you are quick, but when would those nations ever join forces, the UK and France do but that is it.
Do you really want Germany to be flexing it's military muscle? Remember, this is a nation that pretty much started 2 World Wars in the 20th century. And I have no doubt that is part of the reason why they have kept a low profile. However, there is no question they were involved militarily in Afghanistan. With a contingent of over 5,000 soldiers, they suffered 53 deaths and over 240 injured during the operations in Afghanistan. I would hardly call that "useless and refuse to use military power". Germany in fact was the #3 contributing nation in Afghanistan, behind the US and UK. Research, research, research. The facts are out there, and not hard to find.
Afghanistan, yes and that is it. Germany also has peacekeepers in the Balkans and 2 or 3 ship off the east Africa coast. Germany refused to help in Iraq, but that was ok, they refused to help other European nations in Africa and Libya, in both the British an French could have used there help, what is the point of have over 100 jets if you are not going to use them, or have a MBT, Germany spend a lot on it's military, but doesn't use it. Afghanistan was and is a wasted of time and effort, you killed the man you came for, and you can't win unless we invade, Pakistan and Iran, a war against those 2 would be much harder, than Iraq. Look at what the French are doing, over 3,000 troops in Afghanistan, that same number in Africa, the 3rd most sorties over Libya, peacekeepers all over the place, 5,000 troops and 30 jets defending their overseas territories. Or the UK wich 7,000 troop on Cyprus and 20 jets, 10,000 troops in Afghanistan, the 2nd most sorties over Libya, more peacekeepers and troop defending the OST's. Germany for it's economic size is useless, and will not help the southern European nations for some reason. Why does the US and UK still have troops in Germany? I no longer care about WW1 or WW2, I care about what Germany does now, the Germans need to understand that.
Right now, we are hearing increased murmers from various nations that they want to leave the EU. Greenland has already done so (even though Denmark has not). And lately we are hearing more about the possable withdrawl of Germany and the UK. So what would this mean for this "EU Defense Force"? Imagine the UK allowing the EU to pay for this awesome fleet, then they just decide "Oh, we are done with the EU, but thanks for the ships!" And there is nothing that can be done about it. Because Article 50 of the EU Charter allows any member nation to leave at will.
I named the thread wrong, I should have been European defence pact, as Norway and Switzerland would have to be in the pact. Mainly because of there economic power, and the fact Norway is the only European nations that is part of the Arctic ocean. Greenland isn't part of Europe. I said befor there would be an election for who runs the pact and controls the money.
"Have to be in?" I see, so it is not a pact, it is a military dictatorship. And what, they must belong to it or die? Switzerland has such a long-standing stance on neutrality (almost 200 years) that they are not going to join any kind of Military Alliance or Military Force. Period. So unless you intend on the rest of Europe attacking them, count them out. And interesting you say that Greenland is not part of Europe. However, untill 1985 they were a member of the EU. In 1985 they became autonomous, and one of their first acts was to withdraw from the EU. http://eu.nanoq.gl/Emner/EuGl/The Greenland Treaty.aspx You have some really insane ideas that will never come to pass. Remember, pretty much every single "World War" started and was mostly fought in Europe. From the 7 and 30 and 100 Years Wars, to the 2 of the last century and the Cold one. If you try to ram a military organization down their throats, you are going to make many of them want to leave immediately. And you are going to make the rest of the world very VERY nervous. Because every other continent on the planet other then Antarctica has had European colonies within the last century. Heck, some have had them within the last few decades. And you are going to be giving every radical all the ammo they need to start screaming "European Colonialism" all over again. So unless you intend on attempting to occupy every nation on the continent militarily, this will never happen.
That is why 56 were killed, and 245 were injured? 12 of those killed being members of the Kommando Spezialkräfte? And looking through a list of those killed, I see a huge number of combat related casualties, including firefights, mortars, and IED and VBIED attacks (4 in fact were killed on the day they were leaving when a "not-so-smart bomb" struck their bus). You may seperate out those that serve in combat related jobs from those that do not, but I do not do that. And in a war zone where anybody can (and often is) a target anywhere, that distinction really does not apply. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Armed_Forces_casualties_in_Afghanistan
Why do u think that we need a big army ? An army of 100.000 is enough. Carrier .... are useless drones are the future .... . Germany has a little army army but one with a big qualitiy and not with quantity like the usa xD And u also dont need a big army for afghynistan .....
Yes I know I would cut the European army numbers by 350,000, and reserves by over 1 million, then use the many saved to build more MBT's and helicopters. I want Germany and others to spend more money on the military because smaller nations in eastern Europe can't, I am not just talking about Germany, be even European nation would spend 2% of GDP on the military.
I my view New Zealand has the best army in the world, for it's size. The US army isn't the best in the world, unlike it's navy and airforce, which the arm uses to win battles.
Says who? How can you quantify that? It has the largest budget and most combat experience of any army in the world. That goes a long way. The New Zealand army is tiny, lacks many of the capabilties of larger armies, and has little combat experience.
Yes Switzerland wouldn't militarily join, but economically it mite, as the other members would defend them and use there money, meaning Switzerland wouldn't lose any political or economic powers, which is why it sayed out of the EU. Well that is what I want more nations around the world to be nervous about European military power, the Chinese don't care about the Europeans because they a we can't use our military power that would change. It wouldn't be a military dictatorship because some is voted in even 5 years. The British and French could keep the nuclear power and the Germany have more economic power, so the 3 main powers would be happy.
Yes Switzerland wouldn't militarily join, but economically it mite, as the other members would defend them and use there money, meaning Switzerland wouldn't lose any political or economic powers, which is why it sayed out of the EU. Well that is what I want more nations around the world to be nervous about European military power, the Chinese don't care about the Europeans because they a we can't use our military power that would change. It wouldn't be a military dictatorship because some is voted in even 5 years. The British and French could keep the nuclear power and the Germany have more economic power, so the 3 main powers would be happy.
Yes Switzerland wouldn't militarily join, but economically it mite, as the other members would defend them and use there money, meaning Switzerland wouldn't lose any political or economic powers, which is why it sayed out of the EU. Well that is what I want more nations around the world to be nervous about European military power, the Chinese don't care about the Europeans because they a we can't use our military power that would change. It wouldn't be a military dictatorship because some is voted in even 5 years. The British and French could keep the nuclear power and the Germany have more economic power, so the 3 main powers would be happy.
The war in Afghanistan is essentially a series of Pashtun insurgencies located primarily in the east and south of that country. The German forces are stationed in Tajik and Uzbek areas of Afghanistan. Those are not the scenes of much sustained combat. The Germans are essentially garrison troops. There has been a big stink in Germany over the participation of German special operations forces in combat. I think the German special operators have been pulled back.
Of course is the german army better !?!!! PZH 2000, Leopard, PUMA, G36, HK 416, MP5, GMG, MG4, Tiger, ... . Do u ever hear anything about the GSG9, KSK ? No, because they kill in silence. I saw very much videos about USA soldiers who shout "Die Mother(*)(*)(*)(*)er, Bastard, i love killing taliban..." or americans who kill civil people :/ America needed 10 years to find an old men called Osama Of course the US army is bigger but not better.
So your response is to list off a bunch of random weapons that while certainly quality weapons, are no better than U.S./UK/French weapons or equipment? I have heard of GSG9....but apparently you haven't because its a Police unit, not an Army one. German soldiers say the same exact types of things when in combat. Your niave to think combat soldiers everywhere don't say the occasionally "un-PC" thing. Also, language is hardly a measurement of a professional soldier. Finally, your Osama comment is again, silly. You clearly don't know what you're talking about so I'll leave it alone.
Of course i have better arguements But my english is not good so i cant argue ... . But say anything to : "I saw very much videos about USA soldiers who shout "Die Mother(*)(*)(*)(*)er, Bastard, i love killing taliban..." or americans who kill civil people :/"
