![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
European Military Might
Jan. 14th, 2010 09:47 amA common theme among American conservatives is how weak Europe is militarily. This is usually followed up with a statement to the effect of "they don't pay their fair share."
Well, the science fiction author Tobias Buckell did a detailed analysis of European military size and spending. Tobias makes a number of good points, including the fact that all the individual European countries are smaller (and thus individually less capable) then the US. It's long, but well written and accurate.
So where does the he conservative idea that "Europe is weak" come from? I think their are two data points thad support this analysis, one valid and one sorta-valid.
The valid data point is that European militaries lack "force projection" capabilities. In other words, on a per-capita basis, less of their military might can be deployed and supported at a distance from their home bases. Our NATO allies are having quite a few issues supporting their Afghanistan deployments. This is largely "by design" in that the militaries weren't designed to deploy, while the US military during and since WWII was so designed.
The sorta-valid point is that European defense spending is less efficient than in the US. I mean, most all European countries maintain a separate air force, (some, such as Lithuania do not) all the coastal ones have a separate navy, etc.
This leads to some redundancies and excess overhead that you don't have in the US or other large militaries. It also means that you don't see as many "big ticket" weapons systems (large-deck aircraft carriers, for example). These are both too expensive and more force projection than defensive in nature.
The end result is that European militaries are less likely to go gallivanting off in non-European areas, as they are just not structured to do so. This doesn't mean they don't defend themselves.
Well, the science fiction author Tobias Buckell did a detailed analysis of European military size and spending. Tobias makes a number of good points, including the fact that all the individual European countries are smaller (and thus individually less capable) then the US. It's long, but well written and accurate.
So where does the he conservative idea that "Europe is weak" come from? I think their are two data points thad support this analysis, one valid and one sorta-valid.
The valid data point is that European militaries lack "force projection" capabilities. In other words, on a per-capita basis, less of their military might can be deployed and supported at a distance from their home bases. Our NATO allies are having quite a few issues supporting their Afghanistan deployments. This is largely "by design" in that the militaries weren't designed to deploy, while the US military during and since WWII was so designed.
The sorta-valid point is that European defense spending is less efficient than in the US. I mean, most all European countries maintain a separate air force, (some, such as Lithuania do not) all the coastal ones have a separate navy, etc.
This leads to some redundancies and excess overhead that you don't have in the US or other large militaries. It also means that you don't see as many "big ticket" weapons systems (large-deck aircraft carriers, for example). These are both too expensive and more force projection than defensive in nature.
The end result is that European militaries are less likely to go gallivanting off in non-European areas, as they are just not structured to do so. This doesn't mean they don't defend themselves.