“Drastically”

Common, everyone cried at all the demons when Trump asked Europe to reach 2% of GDP on military spending in 2018. Had we done it, we’d have DOUBLED our spending.

Russia is at 6.3%, USA at 3.4% (7x Russia’s in absolute spending), Europe at 1.3%.

Culture-wise, it’s unthinkable for Europe to come around and revive the military-industrial complex. We’re basically trying to win this war by crossing our fingers, like the French did in 1936 (the famous Congés Payés were offered in 1936, with beautiful photos of parisians going to the beach, while our German cousins were in factories manufacturing guns. Guess who won the war).

I know what you meant to say, but it's important for me to just emphasize that it wasn't the Germans who won that war.

Well it certainly wasn't the French

> everyone cried at all the demons when Trump asked Europe to reach 2% of GDP on military spending in 2018.

No, that's not what people had a problem with, and it's barely even what Trump said.

Trump claimed (again) that the less-spending-than-recommended nations somehow owed payments to the US, and threatened that the US would violate the treaty if they somehow didn't keep him satisfied!

That's the stuff that was new and controversial, and for damn good reasons.

> the US would violate the treaty

Other parties were already violating the treaty by not spending 2%. It's simple Tit for tat.

> Trump claimed (again) that the less-spending-than-recommended nations somehow owed payments to the US

The US was shouldering the cost of international security (being a hegemon) You take European stability and welfare for granted, we can't know what the world would look like without pax Americana but I'm certain it would be worse. The 'rules based international community' You couldn't even stop a genocide on the EUs front door.

> for damn good reasons

Hopefully I've demonstrated otherwise

The 2pc spending thing is not in the treaty.

I'm as frustrated as anyone about Europe not pulling their weight, but it's not in violation of the treaty. The 2% guideline has nothing to do with the treaty itself. It's precisely that, a non-binding guideline.

> Other parties were already violating the treaty by not spending 2%.

That is not a requirement in the treaty, merely a recommendation. Stop making things up to sanewash Trump.

> Other parties were already violating the treaty by not spending 2%. It's simple Tit for tat.

I'd ask you to share an official document outlining this requirement of the treaty. I will be sitting though.

>Culture-wise, it’s unthinkable for Europe to come around and revive the military-industrial complex

I'm not sure that means what you think it means. Eisenhower wasn't being complementary when he coined that term.

He also wasn't exactly disparaging it. He said we need it, but we must not let it become too powerful or influential. The truth of that hasn't really changed.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

He absolutely disparaged it, in fact he considered it a fundamental threat to democracy.

"Military industrial complex" isn't about maintaining a large, dominant military. It's about industry becoming so entwined with the military that they start calling the shots, and military decisions begin to be made for the benefit of corporations rather than the nation.

Europe isn't a homogeneous block in this question, though. Some parts do what GP said, IMO.

For example, Germany also increased its military spending, true - but from a low starting point, with an army even sometimes lacking basic supplies like dumb ammunition due to massive underfunding since the end of the cold war.

The (possible, maybe!) reintroduction of drafting will be agonizingly slow, as the military doesn't have the capacity anymore (and will lack it for years to come!) to even examine even a small percentage of each year, let alone equip and train them. There are no KWEAs (Kreiswehrersatzämter, drafting centers) anymore, and the new "Career Centers" have abysmal throughput.

We sold a very very significant chunk of our military bases and heavy equipment. Those are gone, the federal government often doesn't even own the land anymore. We have almost no working bunkers anymore, both military and public. Etc, etc.

Those are things which we would have to start to change immediately, as it takes ages until we see results. We do sorta, but on a tiny scale - it's not the massive investment you would expect for a country readying itself for conflict.

German politics / state departments are, IMO, in no way readying the public for the real prospect of military conflict. Pistorius, the German defence minister, basically screams into the void. Yes, many agree in talk, but the walk is quite underwhelming.

The defence ministry says we have to be ready for war until 2029. Most projects which are started now will, based on information by the same ministry, never ever be finished until before the 2030s. And yet, there is no hurry visible. We still have time.

A friend of mine visited Germany and talked to Germans about the threat of nuclear war and what they may or may not be doing. She said there was a very bizarre "it will never happen" vibe wherever she asked. Germans basically laughed at her for taking it as a serious concern worth discussing, even smart Germans with solid academic backgrounds. In the US it is a very different story. Whether a Stanford alumni or a rando at a bar Americans are much less likely to laugh you off for taking the prospect of nuclear war seriously.

So everything you say seems to fit to me.

Well, how does the answer change for an American? I mean we don't have the same thousands of megaton scale nukes anymore but still enough to fuck uf the world enough via one actor.

> how does the answer change for an American?

We're more realistic. We hope it will never happen. But we fear it might. Strategic nuclear bombardment is something that should be feared, not pooh-poohed.

And how exactly would that change the military strategy of a non-nuclear armed European strategy (save for NBC protection in armored vehicles I suppose...) or even individual people?

For me it just makes zero sense to lose much sleep about it, except for voting I can't do nothing about it

You can also ask germans directly here. I would tell you, many people take it serious, judging from HN comments, way more than americans, some just like to remain in their safe space bubble.

lol we get those pamphlets sent out every now and then. Of course it's related to the increase tension, but it's not the huge call sign you make it out to be. "be ready for war" means "be ready in case something happens", not "be ready for what's about to happen."