You won't have minerals------> you won't have tanks. Google GDP (PPP). We are 6-th there. Only USA, China, India, Germany and Japan ahead. You think 2 000 tanks help you to old several years if somebody would invade you? Don't think so. That is why we prefer to have 20000 of them It was, but it ended with Red Army taking Berlin. And check history, please. At least, it wasn't from Germany alone/ There were also Nothern France+occupied Czech+ Italy+ Slovakia+ Romania+Finland + Hungary. I hope we won't attack at all, honestly
Thanks Anyway, i cant think of at present, of any country that actually poses a military threat to Europe.
Russia has a bigger GDP than the UK or France, but that is just because it has 80 million more people than those 2 and 60 million more than Germany. But in economic terms the Germans, UK and France are way ahead, plus Russia GDP is made up of energy exports to the Europe. In a war the Russian economy would be about the same as Spain or Italy, not the UK, France or Germany. Plus people must see that the Russian spending is very near the most it can, where as European spending is half what it can.
Hmm.....and? Rly? It is hard to call banking operations and "services sector" made-up and credit boosted economy with minimal production of material goods "way ahead". More likely a "bubble that will burst". Ignorance, ignorance...more ignorance. All trading with all resources is 10% of Russia's GDP. Educate yourself. Who told you that?
Services isn't just banking, and it doesn't make a bubble the US fed did that, and cheap imports from China. So Russia would loose 10% of it's GDP, where is the link that proves only 10% of Russian exports is energy. Russia spends 3.5% of it's GDP on the military, Europe must less than 2%. So Russia can't afford more than a 1.5% increace, where as the European can double there spending and the rest of there economy could still work ok.
What makes you think so? The last time i checked Eu was in the debt crysis, and Britain had 416 % external debt. Bubble is going to blow. Who told you that? We won't lose 10%, because we are using a lot of these resousces for ourselves. It is your industry, which will collapse and this is you who will suffer significant GDP decrease. Russia's economy. "на добычу полезных ископаемых приходится всего 10,4 % структуры добавленной стоимости (9,0 % ВВП" the mining accounts for only 10.4% of the structure of added value (9.0% of GDP). Who told you that we can't afford 10% increase? Proof?
But the bubble just popped, it will not do so again for another 10 years orso, The UK has a large debt, like the US but it can pay it's debt back, unlike Greece and Ireland, they are just to small. So I don't read Russian. No I am say all Europe needs to do is double it's spending and Russia will never be able to spend enough and keep it's economy going. That state is normally around 5% of GDP.
Could you quote where I say Russian warfare is rusty and that their attack subs are useless? What version of the Harpoon/Patriot/F-15?
And there is one thing you must strongly consider when contemplating war with Russia. One of it's largest GDP sectors. Defense. Russia is the world's 2nd largest military and defense supplier in the world. To the tune of around $9 billion a year. And in the event of a war, that output would be quickly converted from export to domestic use. Russia is the second largest arms exporter in the world, and it's major exports in these lines are fighters, tanks, air defense systems, helicopters, APCs, and small arms ranging from rifles to rocket launchers. Where does the UK or Germany fall when it comes to the amount of arms produced? How long would it take them to produce the equipment needed to supply a Tank Division or Fighter Air Wing? I bet Russia could do it in a few weeks at most. I bet it would take the UK months to do it.
I would fully agree here. Especially when the S-300 is nothing like the PATRIOT, other then being an air defense missile system. The S-300 is a long range high altitude system. The PATRIOT is a medium range medium altitude system. If you want to compare similar systems, you need to go to THAAD, not PATRIOT. And even then, I would bet that the PAC-3 would give the S-300 a run for it's money. Of course, with the PAC-4 comming out, I will have to wait to see how well that one would work. http://www.angelcabrales.com/launcher.html
Come on we both know export weapons are different from demoestic, plus the Europe demoestic market is bigger than the Russia market full stop. Then you have a united European building program in jets and helicopter, BAE is very big and so are other European companies. 9 billion isn't really that much, if we are talking about a full Europe-Russia war, that would be about 2% of war spending. On man power and building of weapons I just don't see how the Russians could win.
No Hitlar thought he could build more than the USSR once he had taken care of Britain, then he would have beaten the USSR, without a doubt. He never thought he would have more men just that they would be better men. In a war Russia would loose. If the Europeans had a unified command, and spend more on defence, Russia wouldn't just loose but be taken by Europe.
Trust me, I am fully aware of the difference. But that is normally in things like electronics. And even the export versions behave very much like the domestic ones. I am sure I could be given an export PATRIOT launcher, and operate it just as well as I do the one I handle every day. And the export in most cases can quickly be converted into a full featured domestic version with a few upgrades. Yes, I know all about BAE, they produce our current LMTVs. But the difference is that the Russian factories are up and running, and manufacturing equipment all the time. They sell it about as fast as they are able to produce it. This is very different from the rest of Europe, which is still trying prototypes as a way to get people to buy their products. And you can't see how the Russians can win? *shakes head*
Why do you think it is all about money? Because it surely is not. For one, there will never be a unified European command. Never has been, never will be. No matter how much you wish there was. And it takes more then money, it takes manpower. And what percentage of people in Europe would volunteer to serve? I bet not many. Then there is the time required to train them, time to build up the forces, time to coordinate them, etc, etc, etc. If Russia decided that 6 months from now they were going to attack, there is not a (*)(*)(*)(*)ed thing Europe could do about it, other then to roll over and wait for the US to arrive to help bail them out. And if you get your wish and NATO is dissolved, you had all better learn how to speak Russian, nyet?
Who told you that? There were a lot of persons sure, that Greece and Ireland can pay their debt back too just a couple of years ago. I am not stopping you from using google-translator. Anyway I gave you translation of the key statement. Who told you that? USSR spent up to 18% of it's GDP ( if you can say "GDP" in terms of non-market economy) on military and was growing quite fine for 2% for a long time. http://www.politicalforum.com/4615205-post46.html Here you go. Just re-read what you posted in that thread to convince yourself, that you "changed" you opinion in this thread. Basic versions. But I assume the same will go to the latest versions. I understand your "PATRIOT" patriotism, but you have to accept that both are long-range and high-altitude SAMs. PAC-2 with up to 160 km range and 24 km altitude is hardly "medium range" and "medium altitude". Lolwut?! It's anti-missile system, not AA with capability to intercept some types missiles, like S-300.
Exactly as I thought. I said nothing about Russia's nuclear subs being worthless or the Russian millitary being "rusty". I said they were a shell of what they were in the 1980s/70s which anyone with an ounce of understanding in military or international affairs would understand.
That was sort of allegory, not a direct quote. Figuratively, you did. I am asking you again: Don't you see logical fail in these two statements?It can be "They also have a very powerful fleet of Nuclear Submarines" or "It has a lot of ships and aircraft but only a fraction of them are fully operational. A lot of European navies, while small, are very well equipped and capable of being easily integrated into allies naval fleets." No other option. Sorry, you've been caught.
The problem with Russia's Navy is that there is nowhere useful to put it . For several hundred years they haven't had the ports . It's no wonder they refuse to support sanctions against Syria---- they would lose all their recent port agreements with the monster present President . It's why they black mailed Ukraine over Gas prices to get an extended usage date for Sevastopol and why they would love to destabilise any of the Baltic States in order to get some coast line that does not freeze over. The good thing is that most of their subs don't last long --- Putin could not even be bothered to rescue his sailors when the Kursk sunk and more recently a drunken crew set a nuclear sub on fire when it was on trials out of Vladivostok .Hilarious . Carry on Sinking
Trust me, I know far more about these systems then you do. And do not confuse "maximum range" with "engagement range". Engagements generally occur in the 10-25km range, not the maximum range of 160 km. And both the S-300 and THAAD were designed to destroy short and medium range ballistic missiles, as well as cruise missiles. In fact, the newer upgrade, the S-400 is nothing but an improved S-300, and it's capabilities are almost the same as THAAD, other then maintaining more of an anti-aircraft role.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUvUmTssYcU"]Bundeswehr Werbung - Das "Baller" - Video - YouTube[/ame]
Why because Europe could out spend Russia 8-1, plus the US wants the Europeans to spend more, so you pay for what you get. I am sure there would be a few million people out of 80,000,000 that would go to war. I would. Europe has 2 million troops now, about the same as Russia. If Russia attack 6 months from now and the European knew about if for 4 of these months Russia would loose, if Russia attacked in 6 months and the European knew nothing about it Russia would loose, the front would be to be for Russia to be push everywhere and the Europeans would counter attack, we all know how hard the Russians found it to take Finland in WW2, plus there is still alot of hatred towards them in eastern Europe, so it would take them a month to reach Germany, Austria and Sweden, in that month western Europe would have sunk the Russian southern fleets, and invaded Russia in the south. The Europe factories would be 24/7 building fighter jets and tanks, that is why pilots will be the most important thing, and who controlls the sky. On that European numbers would win.
Aye right enough....when you miss the point entirely! Perhaps if you included the agreement Russia and China have regarding finance and security...you might find the army numbers are nothing like even! Roll over now while you still can! Regards Highlander
So your story changes.... I clearly stated what my position was. My statemetns were not mututally exclusive.
But we aren't including China or the USA in this war, just European nations. I hate highlanders. Hahahahaha, not.
