Donald Trump upset over German success and wants to rearm Germany? Watch

Realitysreflexx
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#1
1) shouldnt such an egotistical man as he understand german prominence when it runs in his bloodline
2) shouldnt the world be happy that Germany is adverse to defense spending?
POSSIBLY seeking to rearm Germany and insert a populist leader so he can start a global war, either himself or somewhere down the line?
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 8 months ago
#2
The man is undeniably a moron.
I do find his grasp of history to be hilariously troubling. After all it was America who made a point of making sure the Germans were to be pacifists going forward.
1
reply
Realitysreflexx
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#3
(Original post by Napp)
The man is undeniably a moron.
I do find his grasp of history to be hilariously troubling. After all it was America who made a point of making sure the Germans were to be pacifists going forward.
Obviously i mean im german-american so i know a bit about both histories and of course had an interest in WWII, not an expert level but more then average, so i think this is absolute blasphemy, why would an american president want Germany to rearm to a high extent. I think its good that Germany isnt overly armed or interested in conflict. We produce cars now not bombs.
0
reply
gjd800
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 8 months ago
#4
KSK and GSG9 are still ****-hot, though.
0
reply
Tempest II
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report 8 months ago
#5
There's no doubt that the current POTUS is barking to suggest that NATO nations should spend 4% of GDP on defence (even coming from a military spending advocate as I am). But I can understand the American anger towards European military spending. Germany only contributes 1.22% of GDP to defence which is ridiculous for a nation of that size.
0
reply
Realitysreflexx
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#6
(Original post by Tempest II)
There's no doubt that the current POTUS is barking to suggest that NATO nations should spend 4% of GDP on defence (even coming from a military spending advocate as I am). But I can understand the American anger towards European military spending. Germany only contributes 1.22% of GDP to defence which is ridiculous for a nation of that size.
Yes, because its financially not viable for us, what conflict are we being protected from? There is no war in Europe, and us constantly holding military parades would only put our only enemy (i guess) Russia more on edge.

I feel like this is just because the US wanted to put a flippin pipe line in the atlantic to suppy us natural gas.

Its also an insult against our environmental concerns, turning german nuclear power off after (japan) was the only smart way to go. If a nuclear reactor melts or leaks in Europe we are all in BIG trouble, the winds would hit england, france, everywhere. Germany is not only economically central but also geographically.

There is no reason for a huge defense budget unless he is planning from some coming global conflict? No one intends to go to war so WTF.
0
reply
HucktheForde
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report 8 months ago
#7
(Original post by Tempest II)
There's no doubt that the current POTUS is barking to suggest that NATO nations should spend 4% of GDP on defence (even coming from a military spending advocate as I am). But I can understand the American anger towards European military spending. Germany only contributes 1.22% of GDP to defence which is ridiculous for a nation of that size.
Germany will spend 2% of its GDP in 2030. There is a reason they want to increase it slowly, because the last time Germany expanded its military aggressively we had many years of peace and prosperity..



Also US defence spending in Europe is vastly overstated. The US spend an awful lot on defence but if you look at the breakdown, only a tiny amount is spend on Europe and the majority is spent in the pacific and wars in the middle east. It is not true that US is paying for europe's defence, it is mostly paying for bombs in the middle east which if anything , is detrimental to Europe as it contributes to the waves of refugees.
0
reply
Realitysreflexx
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#8
(Original post by HucktheForde)
Germany will spend 2% of its GDP in 2030. There is a reason they want to increase it slowly, because the last time Germany expanded its military aggressively we had many years of peace and prosperity..



Also US defence spending in Europe is vastly overstated. The US spend an awful lot on defence but if you look at the breakdown, only a tiny amount is spend on Europe and the majority is spent in the pacific and wars in the middle east. It is not true that US is paying for europe's defence, it is mostly paying for bombs in the middle east which if anything , is detrimental to Europe as it contributes to the waves of refugees.
Im not sure how anyone could ever say WE HAVE GOT TO ARM GERMANY -- ViTAL

????? -_- ????
0
reply
Izzyeviel
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 8 months ago
#9
A bunch of kids on a student forum have a better grasp of NATO, energy supplies, foreign policy then the US President. God help us.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 8 months ago
#10
(Original post by Realitysreflexx)
Obviously i mean im german-american so i know a bit about both histories and of course had an interest in WWII, not an expert level but more then average, so i think this is absolute blasphemy, why would an american president want Germany to rearm to a high extent. I think its good that Germany isnt overly armed or interested in conflict. We produce cars now not bombs.
In fairness Germany has one of the most advanced arms industries around its more they export them all than them not making them

(Original post by Tempest II)
There's no doubt that the current POTUS is barking to suggest that NATO nations should spend 4% of GDP on defence (even coming from a military spending advocate as I am). But I can understand the American anger towards European military spending. Germany only contributes 1.22% of GDP to defence which is ridiculous for a nation of that size.
It is understandable yes but he seems to be distorting a genuine issue into something else entirely. It's not like America doesnt benefit from NATO [regardless of certain countries inadequacies] if he were to damage or destroy it it would irreparably destroy and lingering impression of America as a truly global power.
0
reply
FrankoJJameson
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#11
Report 8 months ago
#11
Trump is an Ideologue who is not in the least furnished with sufficient knowledge or experience of geopolitics to qualify the things he says with any degree of confidence (that’s his ****ing ego). Trump often relies on the advice of a collective comprising narrow minded yes folk whose means to an end is shifting the world order to serve a set of narrow interests (ethnic nationalism and corporatism). It might not feel like it but we are in the process of repeating history, and Trump is both America’s Mussolini and Oswald Mosley rolled into one. God help us!
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Tempest II
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#12
Report 8 months ago
#12
(Original post by Realitysreflexx)
Yes, because its financially not viable for us, what conflict are we being protected from? There is no war in Europe, and us constantly holding military parades would only put our only enemy (i guess) Russia more on edge.

I feel like this is just because the US wanted to put a flippin pipe line in the atlantic to suppy us natural gas.

Its also an insult against our environmental concerns, turning german nuclear power off after (japan) was the only smart way to go. If a nuclear reactor melts or leaks in Europe we are all in BIG trouble, the winds would hit england, france, everywhere. Germany is not only economically central but also geographically.

There is no reason for a huge defense budget unless he is planning from some coming global conflict? No one intends to go to war so WTF.
German has the largest economy in Europe and has actually had a budget surplus since 2014. It's more financially viable to do for Germany than most of Europe. Most of Europe (well the Western part least-ways) is in denial that a new Cold War has begun with the Russians. Don't get me wrong, T-90/T-14 tanks probably aren't going to be rolling towards Berlin - but they do have nuclear capable cruise missiles based at Kaliningrad and their nuclear weapon storage sites there have been upgraded as of Jan 2018 leading many defence experts to believe there are warheads in place. And its not as though the Russians have been totally peaceful and innocent recently.

I find it staggering that Germany opted to close its nuclear reactors due to the Japan situation - the earthquake threats to Germany are minimal - the highest ever recorded was 6.5 magnitude and that was 300 years ago. The one that affected the Japanese nuclear reactors was a 9.0 magnitude quake (therefore 316 times more powerful than any that has affected Germany). Nuclear power is still one of the best ways to counter CO2 emissions.

A 2% GDP defence budget would be far from huge and would still be smaller than the budget that West Germany had during the Cold War.
0
reply
Realitysreflexx
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#13
(Original post by Tempest II)
German has the largest economy in Europe and has actually had a budget surplus since 2014. It's more financially viable to do for Germany than most of Europe. Most of Europe (well the Western part least-ways) is in denial that a new Cold War has begun with the Russians. Don't get me wrong, T-90/T-14 tanks probably aren't going to be rolling towards Berlin - but they do have nuclear capable cruise missiles based at Kaliningrad and their nuclear weapon storage sites there have been upgraded as of Jan 2018 leading many defence experts to believe there are warheads in place. And its not as though the Russians have been totally peaceful and innocent recently.

I find it staggering that Germany opted to close its nuclear reactors due to the Japan situation - the earthquake threats to Germany are minimal - the highest ever recorded was 6.5 magnitude and that was 300 years ago. The one that affected the Japanese nuclear reactors was a 9.0 magnitude quake (therefore 316 times more powerful than any that has affected Germany). Nuclear power is still one of the best ways to counter CO2 emissions.

A 2% GDP defence budget would be far from huge and would still be smaller than the budget that West Germany had during the Cold War.
The US has alot of nuclear capability in Germany, Germany itself of course isnt allowed to have nuclear weapons (self imposed in the constitution, could be changed) but imagine the uproar, which is the hypocrisy of trump, why do you think no other nation, not even the UK who could easily attack Germany over MS doesnt want them armed LOL its idiotic.

IF you think of a nuclear event, lets say in the UK, that would be bad but you could live it down the atomic cloud would likely travel out to sea.

Geographically if this occured in the middle of Germany, where basically all the plants are (near Rhine Ruhr metropolitan area with its 20 million inhibitants) they would be lost. The winds blow in all directions in germany and the contagion would be career ending for the continent.

And frankly despite earthquakes, there really is only a few nations we considered as meticulious in nature and developed as us, Japan is one of those nations, what can happen in Japan could occur in Germany, errors or mismanagement, i think because it occured in a nation Germany really respects.
0
reply
Tempest II
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#14
Report 8 months ago
#14
(Original post by HucktheForde)
Germany will spend 2% of its GDP in 2030. There is a reason they want to increase it slowly, because the last time Germany expanded its military aggressively we had many years of peace and prosperity..



Also US defence spending in Europe is vastly overstated. The US spend an awful lot on defence but if you look at the breakdown, only a tiny amount is spend on Europe and the majority is spent in the pacific and wars in the middle east. It is not true that US is paying for europe's defence, it is mostly paying for bombs in the middle east which if anything , is detrimental to Europe as it contributes to the waves of refugees.
I haven't seen any reports that suggest German will up its spending above 1.5% (that's that plan by 2025). The circumstances between the modern Germany and Weimar German are very different - unlike the 1920s when the Treaty of Versailles was seen to be holding back the nation and caused massive resentment, the current Germany is very much at the heart of the EU, is an economic power house and is a secure democracy.

https://www.ft.com/content/5b683346-...2-d6ceb45fa9d0

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ge...-idUKKCN1J41QJ

The US defence infrastructure in Europe certainly diminished after the end of the Cold War but realistically there were no threats in that theatre of the collapse of the USSR. President Obama reduced it further during his "Asian Pivot" which it appears now left Eastern Europe open to Russian aggression.
0
reply
Tempest II
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#15
Report 8 months ago
#15
(Original post by Napp)
In fairness Germany has one of the most advanced arms industries around its more they export them all than them not making them


It is understandable yes but he seems to be distorting a genuine issue into something else entirely. It's not like America doesnt benefit from NATO [regardless of certain countries inadequacies] if he were to damage or destroy it it would irreparably destroy and lingering impression of America as a truly global power.
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm sure US defence companies would like to see a European military spending increase as it'd mean more customers for them - but I'm sure they'd also complain if European based contractors got more business. NATO certainly helps the US arms industry with the required standardisations.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#16
Report 8 months ago
#16
(Original post by Tempest II)
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm sure US defence companies would like to see a European military spending increase as it'd mean more customers for them - but I'm sure they'd also complain if European based contractors got more business. NATO certainly helps the US arms industry with the required standardisations.
I wasnt actually thinking of that but you raise a valuble point. With all of Trumps 'America first' whining I imagine the MIC there would be positively salivating at the chance to bid on various contracts. After all whilst EADS et al. make some valuble kit for the European militaries theyre somewhat lacking in certain areas namely 5th gen fighters and the like. Not to mention countries like Poland have a certain penchant for buying a lot of American kit.
0
reply
HucktheForde
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#17
Report 8 months ago
#17
(Original post by Tempest II)
I haven't seen any reports that suggest German will up its spending above 1.5% (that's that plan by 2025). The circumstances between the modern Germany and Weimar German are very different - unlike the 1920s when the Treaty of Versailles was seen to be holding back the nation and caused massive resentment, the current Germany is very much at the heart of the EU, is an economic power house and is a secure democracy.

https://www.ft.com/content/5b683346-...2-d6ceb45fa9d0

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ge...-idUKKCN1J41QJ

The US defence infrastructure in Europe certainly diminished after the end of the Cold War but realistically there were no threats in that theatre of the collapse of the USSR. President Obama reduced it further during his "Asian Pivot" which it appears now left Eastern Europe open to Russian aggression.
Thats what you think, what i think and what Trump thinks.

A lot of Germany's neighbours (especially those who have lands that Prussia has a historical claim) will freak out if Germany suddenly expands its military. Germany knew this and deliberately kept their military weak.
0
reply
Tempest II
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#18
Report 8 months ago
#18
(Original post by Realitysreflexx)
The US has alot of nuclear capability in Germany, Germany itself of course isnt allowed to have nuclear weapons (self imposed in the constitution, could be changed) but imagine the uproar, which is the hypocrisy of trump, why do you think no other nation, not even the UK who could easily attack Germany over MS doesnt want them armed LOL its idiotic.

IF you think of a nuclear event, lets say in the UK, that would be bad but you could live it down the atomic cloud would likely travel out to sea.

Geographically if this occured in the middle of Germany, where basically all the plants are (near Rhine Ruhr metropolitan area with its 20 million inhibitants) they would be lost. The winds blow in all directions in germany and the contagion would be career ending for the continent.

And frankly despite earthquakes, there really is only a few nations we considered as meticulious in nature and developed as us, Japan is one of those nations, what can happen in Japan could occur in Germany, errors or mismanagement, i think because it occured in a nation Germany really respects.
You're missing the point that the earthquake threat to Germany is absolutely minimal compared to Japan. And I don't think the Rhine has to worry too much about tsunamis either. Much of Eastern Europe is progressing with nuclear power and in France it supplies 40% of their energy needs - so Germany is surrounded by nuclear reactors regardless.
0
reply
Realitysreflexx
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#19
(Original post by Tempest II)
You're missing the point that the earthquake threat to Germany is absolutely minimal compared to Japan. And I don't think the Rhine has to worry too much about tsunamis either. Much of Eastern Europe is progressing with nuclear power and in France it supplies 40% of their energy needs - so Germany is surrounded by nuclear reactors regardless.
Your missing the main point, germans felt if mistakes and mismanagement can occur in an advanced economy like japan, then we could potentially make the same mistakes. it doesnt have to be earthquakes. Germany made a humble decision.
0
reply
Tempest II
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#20
Report 8 months ago
#20
(Original post by Napp)
I wasnt actually thinking of that but you raise a valuble point. With all of Trumps 'America first' whining I imagine the MIC there would be positively salivating at the chance to bid on various contracts. After all whilst EADS et al. make some valuble kit for the European militaries theyre somewhat lacking in certain areas namely 5th gen fighters and the like. Not to mention countries like Poland have a certain penchant for buying a lot of American kit.
It's more the political will holding back Europe from indigenous 5th gen fighters - although France and Germany have recently announced collaboration plans for a 6th gen one. However, the French tend to be quiet demanding of work shares on such programmes which is why they left the original Eurofighter team. Poland have bought US F-16s, APCs and Humvees but most of their equipment is still Soviet era. The only major European procurement I know of is the German Leopard 2 MBT.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (89)
16.57%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (55)
10.24%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (96)
17.88%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (81)
15.08%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (54)
10.06%
How can I be the best version of myself? (162)
30.17%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed