USA & Britain's Armies Divorce

[muy_thaiguy]

Whose leg is the Mann flag modeled on?

Divine.

I'll let you google that one.

[notyou2]

No thanks. Probably get a virus.

[mrswdk]

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.

Dissent isn't necessarily any higher now than it was in the past. In 1989, 10% of the population of Beijing was out on the streets calling for democracy. Hard to see that happening today.

[fadedpsychosis]

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...

[notyou2]

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...

NATO has standards. For example the FN rifle. It was the US that wouldn't agree to the standard, all other NATO countries did.

[muy_thaiguy]

Since the two are getting divorced, who gets custody of of Canada? Or is it partial custody, like visits on weekends?

[mrswdk]

I heard Canada was being adopted by China.

[_sabotage_]

Just cuz China's our sugar daddy, don't mean the US and UK are going to stop their booty calls.

[iAmCaffeine]

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

[notyou2]

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

More like 20% except the Quebecois and the French don't like each other.

[Dukasaur]

Canada will be a protectorate of the Turks and Caicos, once they gain independence.

[jimboston]

Is gay marriage legal in Britain?

It's been legal since May 2010.

Is it legal to marry your twin brother?

[iAmCaffeine]

No..

[mrswdk]

I heard the new laws in the UK make it legal for fathers to marry their sons.

[BigBallinStalin]

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).

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).

[AndyDufresne]

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).

I thought Sweden specialized in meatballs.


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

They specialize in boarballs.