apologies for any slurs from my side regarding individual and national character.
And yes, I do recall seeing some stuff about rail guns on the future us navy destroyers. mad stuff.
My argument has more to do with the tone of yours. Reading through your responses to me and your comments vis a vis Europe and its armed forces, I would suggest you dont have things in perspective.
The US is an economic powerhouse. Therefore as a single nation, it has more to spend on equipment for forces. If we combine the top three or four European nations and their militaries, the stats look more impressive.
Take note that the flood that hit New Orleans and Louisiana (my geography might be off...) would have covered the entire of the UK. Certainly, in the UK’s case, we have spent more than any other nation in the world on equipment (aside from the US and probably China). Don’t forget in 2014 the new Queen Elizabeth Class carriers will come into European navies; 2 for the UK, one for France.
I ‘spose as an aside I could say that no NATO nation would ever have to go to war without the backing of every member of the alliance. Aside from 1982 of course...
A good measure is percentage of GDP. Throughout the Cold-War a sore point for the United States was that we were spending far more of our GDP defending Western Europe, than the Western Europeans were willing to spend themselves as a percentage of their GDP. The 2006 percentages were:
USA 4.06%
France 2.6%
UK 2.4%
Australia 2.4%
Norway 1.9%
Italy 1.8%
Netherlands 1.6%
Denmark 1.5%
Germany 1.5%
Spain 1.2%
Canada 1.1%
Now its always great to have allies, the UK has been a wonderful ally, but it is not always helpful militarily. When countries like Norway or Denmark pony-up fifty people for medical support, the United States must provide all of the logistical support. We fly them and their equipment there, feed them, provide security, etc. It is not uncommon for the cost to us be higher than the cost to the contributing country.
Now I have no need to thump my chest by belittling other countries. My comments concerning France were straight forward. France does not have a conventional capability to deal with Iran on its own. The implication being that other countries would have to help. Either Arab countries in the region or the US Navy. Without Arab countries hosting, it will have to be primarily a US Navy show.
Now despite past problems with France, I would love to have them AND their carrier stacked up against Iran.
I ‘spose as an aside I could say that no NATO nation would ever have to go to war without the backing of every member of the alliance. Aside from 1982 of course...
1982 is an excellent example of how extraordinary a threat must be to invoke the charter. Had the charter been invoked, Argentina would have simply retreated without a fight. Instead, the UK found itself alone, except for the United States, which provided a logistical ladder down the Atlantic and topped off UK magazines from its own. And I might say, of all the NATO countries, we had the most to lose diplomatically.
Speaking of tone, being an American often feels like being the rich friend who is always expected to cover the bill. We don't mind paying more, but we appreciate reciprocity just like everyone else does, and at some point it just feels like we're being used.