Well at least you'll find out if that one works. :hmm:

I will throw one heck of a party when the EU goes up in smoke. :D

So because Europe doesnt spend as much as it did on weapons, we're unable to defend ourselves? I'll be interested to see this article you promised :hmm:

First nuke the USA and then the EU. :p
All problems solved. :rotfl:

So I am. :hmm:

Here, I have another theory. We Europeans dont need to spend money to our defences, because the US is going around the world spreading their freedom & democracy which costs thousands of lives whereever they go, so if somebody would plan to attack somewhere, I bet the #1 target on their list would be US.

Right! Because the last two major terrorist attacks outside the middle east were in the US... Oh wait.... :roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_...ondon_bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings

Not us here in the UK we're spending £10 Trillion on the Trident update. :ping:

Why didnt you include middle east? Arent the hundreds of US soldiers casualties of terrorism too?

'Cause it isn't germane to a discussion regarding Europes military defense spending?

Possibly wasting £10 Trillion on a Trident update? :hmm:

Not if we drop them on the EU. :D ;)

Eh, the bottom line here is that any nation which depends on another nation to defend it from attack is building it's future on shifting sands.

Personally, with the exception of the British, I like to see militarily impotent european nations. It seems to cause less trouble that way...

Did some reading on Wiki and apparently were part of it :yep: , so we'd be bombing ourselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea...#Member_states

Shades of Catch 22? :hmm:

Actually Britains nucear deterant depends upon the US as, IIRC, Trident relies upon USAF satelites for its targetting data. If the US refused to release this data our nuclear deterant would be pretty useless.

But neither, really, are the examples of terror in Europe. Defence spending is not a magical indicator of how likely you are to be attacked by terrorists. I think the fact that the U.S. spends more on defence than the rest of the world combined yet was struck by the worst terror attack in history is proof of that. Defence spending is also not a great indicator because militaries in democratic states are (and should be) often forbidden from exercising enforcement powers in domestic territory, see for example the Posse Comitatus Act.

So then you could try argue that how you use your military is more important than how big it is (giggidy ;)) but really, globalization has given us such a widespread, decentralized, and effective brand of terror. Going after country X to take out terror cell Y is effective in so far that it would destroy some leadership and training elements. But there are 'terrorists' in some form or another in probably 80% of the countries in the world. We cannot invade them all.

Homeland security is a good start to measuring how well fortified a state is against terror, but throwing money at HS does not make it better. The Canadian PSEPC and American DHS are both effective organizations on paper but suffer from bureaucratic bloat and 'stovepiping' i.e. legal and egoistic fences preventing sharing of information. I don't know enough about INTERPOL and Europe's security agencies to comment about how they stack up against the U.S., so maybe someone else can comment.

Even still, there are other indirect approaches like aid and development projects to nip terror in the bud. Didn't the U.N. identify poverty and famine as the top security challenges? A poor and starving person makes a terrific jihadist. The logic follows that if you can alleviate the awful conditions in the world's underdeveloped states, you can keep people in workplaces and away from conflict. I have my personal doubts about this approach and again, I don't know enough about Europe's approaches on development to comment.

So, the point is that defence spending is a poor indicator of how well a state is defended against terror, and there are many other facets you must take into account. And terror is what it's all about, right? No countries are going to invade Europe unless they want to deal with two atomic powers (and a third, if NATO article 5 was invoked). Europe and the EU by themselves are still formidable collective security arrangements; the defence spending of the EU represents 22% of the world. When it comes to traditional vital interests like trade and national resources, you can bet on them to stand up when they are challenged. Unilateral unsanctioned conflicts? Depends a lot more on who's involved, and what the diplomatic weather is like with them.