Conquer Club

notyou2 wrote:Whose leg is the Mann flag modeled on?

chang50 wrote:Most pundits think China and it's hard to disagree,but they have their own problems for sure.They are exerting a lot of influence over developing countries in Africa especially,ie empire building.Will be interesting to see how the party manages rising domestic expectations and dissent.

saxitoxin wrote:I think Cameron had a pretty good point in that he said the US is the world's #1 economy and has the #1 defense budget; the UK is the world's #8 economy and has the #4 defense budget.

In FP today it said the final level of the U.S. (active) army after the drawdown is finished is going to be 420,000. If the UK army is 120,000, it appears it's 20% larger than the U.S., adjusted for population. The funding difference, it seems, comes from the UK's reliance on off-the-shelf weapons while the U.S. insists on custom-everything. The U.S.' insistence on custom weapons requires a base of foreign customers to subsidize R&D which is probably the benefit of the NATO standardization process, it creates a stable of forced-customers in Europe. The U.S. has a vested interest in making sure European defense budgets are kept artificially high so that they can maintain their corner on the whole arms market, instead of having to specialize in just a few systems like other big weapons exporters (e.g. Sweden and naval artillery).

fadedpsychosis wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:I think Cameron had a pretty good point in that he said the US is the world's #1 economy and has the #1 defense budget; the UK is the world's #8 economy and has the #4 defense budget.

In FP today it said the final level of the U.S. (active) army after the drawdown is finished is going to be 420,000. If the UK army is 120,000, it appears it's 20% larger than the U.S., adjusted for population. The funding difference, it seems, comes from the UK's reliance on off-the-shelf weapons while the U.S. insists on custom-everything. The U.S.' insistence on custom weapons requires a base of foreign customers to subsidize R&D which is probably the benefit of the NATO standardization process, it creates a stable of forced-customers in Europe. The U.S. has a vested interest in making sure European defense budgets are kept artificially high so that they can maintain their corner on the whole arms market, instead of having to specialize in just a few systems like other big weapons exporters (e.g. Sweden and naval artillery).

if you think NATO is or has standard ANYTHING, try working for them...

iAmCaffeine wrote:I heard France were making a claim for about half of it.

saxitoxin wrote:

notyou2 wrote:Is gay marriage legal in Britain?

It's been legal since May 2010.

saxitoxin wrote:I think Cameron had a pretty good point in that he said the US is the world's #1 economy and has the #1 defense budget; the UK is the world's #8 economy and has the #4 defense budget.

In FP today it said the final level of the U.S. (active) army after the drawdown is finished is going to be 420,000. If the UK army is 120,000, it appears it's 20% larger than the U.S., adjusted for population. The funding difference, it seems, comes from the UK's reliance on off-the-shelf weapons while the U.S. insists on custom-everything. The U.S.' insistence on custom weapons requires a base of foreign customers to subsidize R&D which is probably the benefit of the NATO standardization process, it creates a stable of forced-customers in Europe. The U.S. has a vested interest in making sure European defense budgets are kept artificially high so that they can maintain their corner on the whole arms market, instead of having to specialize in just a few systems like other big weapons exporters (e.g. Sweden and naval artillery).

BigBallinStalin wrote:

saxitoxin wrote: instead of having to specialize in just a few systems like other big weapons exporters[/u] (e.g. Sweden and naval artillery).

Why haven't the European NATO members begun specialization--regardless of this US vested interest?

(I don't think that vested interest is strong enough to prevent specialization).