Canada will never meet their commitment either. Carney, like Trudeau, is a liar. He is chasing the net zero fairy tale and businesses and capital are fleeing. Canada is broke and the house of cards is teetering.
Never going to happen. We control European countries by our troops. Germany is virtually occupied by US troops. If Germany had any sense, they would give all US troops one year to leave, period, but the occupation keeps them in line.
This was such an insulting and wrong headed piece that I am unsubscribing. NATO will increase defence spending and you bring up nonsense like the so-called Deep State. Goodbye.
Actually, potential military recruits are voting with their feet. Many services are not making their recruitment numbers. The Navy wants many more ships over time but haven't explained how they are going to get the sailors to man them. The draft won't happen, as there would be mass resistance. A draft isn't a constitutionally allowed practice because it implies individuals are owned by the state.
For many years now, the Great Lakes Training Center in Illinois has been training as many foreigners as American citizens. Much of our navy personnel is now made up of non-citizens. I have no doubt that this is also true of other branches of out military. Add to that the number of mercenaries in use in our various military adventures and, I believe, we have intrusted much of our fighting forces to hirelings. That is one of the reasons so many of our military-aged youth are reluctant to enlist.
So what is your point here? War is a racket to enrich the deep state that kills and maims Americans for no good reason and those pansy Euros better pay into the scam?
..."War is the best racket since Central Banking"...I would add the vaccine empire in there also. Keep spending more on war so that peace is always just around the corner. Governments hate peace. They have proved it for the last 5,000 years.
Who exactly is threatening Spain? Spain even managed to stay out of WWII. Japan isn't threatened except by our "China is a threat!" mantra. Which country just bombed another country which did nothing to it and without proper Constitutional authority? Who has started most of the recent wars, killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, and acts like an Evil Empire, a name previously reserved for the USSR?
Let's not call it "defense spending" when most of what ours is used for is offensive war. We do not even have the capability of stopping cruise missiles or hypersonic missiles from hitting US soil, but yet we continue to produce even more offensive weapons.
Gauging military spending by GDP makes zero sense. A country should determine what it needs to defend itself and spend that amount and no more. Pretending that is a nice, neat percentage of GDP is a political calculation, not a military one.
What ally bullies another ally and demands they do this or that? This isn't Wall Street, Trump. NATO should have been shut down at the end of the Cold War. Instead, the military alliance marched eastward toward Russia in violation of the agreement with Gorbachev. Pretending there is a threat to Europe outside Ukraine is just so much warmongering talk. Let's face it; the US started the whole Ukraine Proxy War by overthrowing a legitimately elected government. Now, Ukraine is run by an unelected President and unelected Parliament because they declared martial law to keep the Ukrainian people from throwing them out of office. So long as more Ukrainian men keep getting thrown into the meat grinder for our Empire aspirations, we simply do not care about them or their families. And we claim China is evil; pot meet kettle.
Because, in Section 8, the power to declare war is left to Congress alone. Bombing a country which has not attacked the United States is clearly an act of war. There is no provision for a President to unilaterally attack another country.
This is a lot of money. They need to make the case for it. What was the original 2% based on? NATO current average spend is 2.6% of GDP. At this rate NATO military outspends Russia by a ratio of 10 to 1 and has an active duty personnel advantage of about 2.5 to 1. How will increasing military spending make us any safer? It will make defence industry shareholders richer, but will we be that much safer?
In order to achieve comparable battlefield impact, America needs to spend $2-$3 at a bare minimum per Russian equivalent to the dollar.
Labour: 2-3x cost differentials for engineers and other vital personnel, partially mitigated by higher productivity due to machine processes, depending on the tech.
Precision Weapons: America spends more on precision/guided systems, because Western powers care more about civilian collateral damage. Russia's greater tendency to use unguided systems still gets the job done, but at a higher cost to civilians.
Materials: Russia enjoys a 1.5-2 cost differential due to cheaper inputs. America's insanely high standards on mining and extraction means that America pays more for materials, as well as the costs for longer supply chains.
A more rational approach, lowering environmental standards to around the levels of Australia- a country not known for its pollution, tainted water or air, or toxic waste dumps- would provide somewhat cheaper inputs to the military, as well as being a huge boon for the broader economy, particularly the manufacturing sector, which tends to realise a huge premium in profits from more integrated supply systems. An exploration on AI a while back showed that with regulatory changes and a modest investment of $10-$15 billion (total) over 10-15 years, an expansion of American non-fossil fuel extraction and mining would achieve a $200 billion American GDP increase, raising average American real wages by $250 a year, and create roughly one million well-paying jobs for mainly blue collar Americans.
Energy Foundation China is known to spend roughly $10-$20 million per year on universities and fields hostile to American mining and extraction, and organisations like the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Rocky Mountain Institute. This likely only represents the tip of the iceberg, but even at a significantly higher rate of funding it's an investment with an incredibly high ROI. China controls over 50% of global lithium, cobalt, and graphite processing, essential for EV batteries and renewables. Blocking U.S. mining projects ensures China’s market leverage.
It also ensures that the armaments side of the American Defence Industry pays more for critical inputs, and lacks strategic supply in-depth for lengthier conflicts. Generally, manufacturers multiply rather than add at each stage of the supply and production process, so higher input costs during the raw and early stages of the supply chain can add up to quite substantial differences in price to the end user.
Finally, there is battlefield superiority issue. In a direct conflict using conventional force, the American military would want to have at least a 3:1 advantage at a bare minimum. Depending upon the type of operation, and the preparedness of the enemy, the ratio requirements can rise to as high as 10:1. Lower ratios either result in defeat, stalemate and/or mass casualties.
Not only that, Russia will not invade Europe. Russia actually tried to get the US to ensure Ukrainian stayed as a neutral country but the US blew them off and said if Ukraine wanted to join NATO, it is none of your business. Look at a map and see how Ukraine juts into Russia. Because of our arrogance, Russia had no other option than to attack Ukraine to keep them out of NATO. NATO should be shut down; Trump once said so but he changes like the wind.
I'd be pissed off too if I was Russia. If Ukraine joins NATO then that's most of the European border of Russia as members of NATO...an organization created to fight the spread of communism in Europe.
We will eventually be like the UK. They built two aircraft carriers to prove they were Great Britain ruling the seas, but they have had a lot of problems with them, had to put US planes on them, and do not have enough other ships to provide an adequate carrier task force. One day, if we keep spending, we will be there, with a possible economic collapse as well.
I'm not so sure most of American wars and expenditure have been about protecting anybody. Furthermore, the original deal with all of America's "allies" was that the US would provide for their "defense" if they would cede independence in many areas--including foreign policy. Now they are accused of being welfare queens for having no real independence AND being forced to pay for US efforts at global hegemony?
All recent wars have been started by the US or its proxies, why ask others to pay for that? NATO is nothing more than a captive market for the MIC. The only external security threat to Europe countries is the uncontrolled immigration flows.
I agree all should take more responsibility and increase their defense spending
But getting into and supporting stupid wars based in lies and destroying other countries:
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Ukraine with millions off victims on bitte sides, veterans unable to integrate back into society and you wonder why many across the globe detest the U.S.?
Just for the sake of keeping the unproductive military complex alive…
Canada will never meet their commitment either. Carney, like Trudeau, is a liar. He is chasing the net zero fairy tale and businesses and capital are fleeing. Canada is broke and the house of cards is teetering.
Leave Nato return all troops for deportation duty
Never going to happen. We control European countries by our troops. Germany is virtually occupied by US troops. If Germany had any sense, they would give all US troops one year to leave, period, but the occupation keeps them in line.
This was such an insulting and wrong headed piece that I am unsubscribing. NATO will increase defence spending and you bring up nonsense like the so-called Deep State. Goodbye.
Hahaha!!!
How much of our trillion dollar "defense" budget is for propaganda to keep Americans from rebelling against the military?
Actually, potential military recruits are voting with their feet. Many services are not making their recruitment numbers. The Navy wants many more ships over time but haven't explained how they are going to get the sailors to man them. The draft won't happen, as there would be mass resistance. A draft isn't a constitutionally allowed practice because it implies individuals are owned by the state.
For many years now, the Great Lakes Training Center in Illinois has been training as many foreigners as American citizens. Much of our navy personnel is now made up of non-citizens. I have no doubt that this is also true of other branches of out military. Add to that the number of mercenaries in use in our various military adventures and, I believe, we have intrusted much of our fighting forces to hirelings. That is one of the reasons so many of our military-aged youth are reluctant to enlist.
So what is your point here? War is a racket to enrich the deep state that kills and maims Americans for no good reason and those pansy Euros better pay into the scam?
Probably, Islam will do it without guns.
..."War is the best racket since Central Banking"...I would add the vaccine empire in there also. Keep spending more on war so that peace is always just around the corner. Governments hate peace. They have proved it for the last 5,000 years.
So true! Central banks need war and economic chaos in order to exist. How else can they pull off their huge transfers of wealth.
"All to protect other countries"
You mean like Vietnam, Afghanistan ($3 Trillion to replace The Taliban with The Taliban), Iraq, Libya etc?
Who exactly is threatening Spain? Spain even managed to stay out of WWII. Japan isn't threatened except by our "China is a threat!" mantra. Which country just bombed another country which did nothing to it and without proper Constitutional authority? Who has started most of the recent wars, killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, and acts like an Evil Empire, a name previously reserved for the USSR?
Let's not call it "defense spending" when most of what ours is used for is offensive war. We do not even have the capability of stopping cruise missiles or hypersonic missiles from hitting US soil, but yet we continue to produce even more offensive weapons.
Gauging military spending by GDP makes zero sense. A country should determine what it needs to defend itself and spend that amount and no more. Pretending that is a nice, neat percentage of GDP is a political calculation, not a military one.
What ally bullies another ally and demands they do this or that? This isn't Wall Street, Trump. NATO should have been shut down at the end of the Cold War. Instead, the military alliance marched eastward toward Russia in violation of the agreement with Gorbachev. Pretending there is a threat to Europe outside Ukraine is just so much warmongering talk. Let's face it; the US started the whole Ukraine Proxy War by overthrowing a legitimately elected government. Now, Ukraine is run by an unelected President and unelected Parliament because they declared martial law to keep the Ukrainian people from throwing them out of office. So long as more Ukrainian men keep getting thrown into the meat grinder for our Empire aspirations, we simply do not care about them or their families. And we claim China is evil; pot meet kettle.
Spain would be better off with effective border control than being under the NATO umbrella.
How was the bombing not Constitutional?
Because, in Section 8, the power to declare war is left to Congress alone. Bombing a country which has not attacked the United States is clearly an act of war. There is no provision for a President to unilaterally attack another country.
This is a lot of money. They need to make the case for it. What was the original 2% based on? NATO current average spend is 2.6% of GDP. At this rate NATO military outspends Russia by a ratio of 10 to 1 and has an active duty personnel advantage of about 2.5 to 1. How will increasing military spending make us any safer? It will make defence industry shareholders richer, but will we be that much safer?
In order to achieve comparable battlefield impact, America needs to spend $2-$3 at a bare minimum per Russian equivalent to the dollar.
Labour: 2-3x cost differentials for engineers and other vital personnel, partially mitigated by higher productivity due to machine processes, depending on the tech.
Precision Weapons: America spends more on precision/guided systems, because Western powers care more about civilian collateral damage. Russia's greater tendency to use unguided systems still gets the job done, but at a higher cost to civilians.
Materials: Russia enjoys a 1.5-2 cost differential due to cheaper inputs. America's insanely high standards on mining and extraction means that America pays more for materials, as well as the costs for longer supply chains.
A more rational approach, lowering environmental standards to around the levels of Australia- a country not known for its pollution, tainted water or air, or toxic waste dumps- would provide somewhat cheaper inputs to the military, as well as being a huge boon for the broader economy, particularly the manufacturing sector, which tends to realise a huge premium in profits from more integrated supply systems. An exploration on AI a while back showed that with regulatory changes and a modest investment of $10-$15 billion (total) over 10-15 years, an expansion of American non-fossil fuel extraction and mining would achieve a $200 billion American GDP increase, raising average American real wages by $250 a year, and create roughly one million well-paying jobs for mainly blue collar Americans.
Energy Foundation China is known to spend roughly $10-$20 million per year on universities and fields hostile to American mining and extraction, and organisations like the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Rocky Mountain Institute. This likely only represents the tip of the iceberg, but even at a significantly higher rate of funding it's an investment with an incredibly high ROI. China controls over 50% of global lithium, cobalt, and graphite processing, essential for EV batteries and renewables. Blocking U.S. mining projects ensures China’s market leverage.
It also ensures that the armaments side of the American Defence Industry pays more for critical inputs, and lacks strategic supply in-depth for lengthier conflicts. Generally, manufacturers multiply rather than add at each stage of the supply and production process, so higher input costs during the raw and early stages of the supply chain can add up to quite substantial differences in price to the end user.
Finally, there is battlefield superiority issue. In a direct conflict using conventional force, the American military would want to have at least a 3:1 advantage at a bare minimum. Depending upon the type of operation, and the preparedness of the enemy, the ratio requirements can rise to as high as 10:1. Lower ratios either result in defeat, stalemate and/or mass casualties.
Not only that, Russia will not invade Europe. Russia actually tried to get the US to ensure Ukrainian stayed as a neutral country but the US blew them off and said if Ukraine wanted to join NATO, it is none of your business. Look at a map and see how Ukraine juts into Russia. Because of our arrogance, Russia had no other option than to attack Ukraine to keep them out of NATO. NATO should be shut down; Trump once said so but he changes like the wind.
I'd be pissed off too if I was Russia. If Ukraine joins NATO then that's most of the European border of Russia as members of NATO...an organization created to fight the spread of communism in Europe.
in other news, on average American OWES $130,000 of Federal Debt...a family of 4 $520,000!!!
We are screwed!
We will eventually be like the UK. They built two aircraft carriers to prove they were Great Britain ruling the seas, but they have had a lot of problems with them, had to put US planes on them, and do not have enough other ships to provide an adequate carrier task force. One day, if we keep spending, we will be there, with a possible economic collapse as well.
Fine we turn Ukraine over to Putin... will he stop there? To say he requires a buffer is ridiculous. who is the buffer if he takes over Ukraine.
I'm not so sure most of American wars and expenditure have been about protecting anybody. Furthermore, the original deal with all of America's "allies" was that the US would provide for their "defense" if they would cede independence in many areas--including foreign policy. Now they are accused of being welfare queens for having no real independence AND being forced to pay for US efforts at global hegemony?
"Oceania had always been at war with" (fill in the blank).
- George Orwell, 1984
All recent wars have been started by the US or its proxies, why ask others to pay for that? NATO is nothing more than a captive market for the MIC. The only external security threat to Europe countries is the uncontrolled immigration flows.
I agree all should take more responsibility and increase their defense spending
But getting into and supporting stupid wars based in lies and destroying other countries:
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Ukraine with millions off victims on bitte sides, veterans unable to integrate back into society and you wonder why many across the globe detest the U.S.?
Just for the sake of keeping the unproductive military complex alive…