The Problem with Collective Security

Collective Security is great on paper. However, it comes with a drawback.
Okay, it works like this. Let's say that the fictional nations Botislavia, Zyrgnistria, and Lishenka form a collective security pact. If one is attacked, the other two will come to its aid. However, let's just say that Botislavia wants to lower its military budget so that it can spend more on other things. There's no rule saying that Botislavia has to spend a large amount of money on its military or that it has to donate a minimum number of troops to help defend another nation in an emergency. It simply has to donate troops from its existing military, and it might be a very weak and underfunded military. Eventually, Botislavia is spending pretty much nothing on its military. Meanwhile, the other two are pulling their own weight.

You get the idea?

Dassault Papillon: NATO is pushing its members to spend at least 3% of their GDP on military. Do you think collective security would fail if you force equal participation?

Blackflag: In fairness this is because NATO is dominated by the USA, who also happen to be the world's most high-value exporter of military technology.

admin: US definitely has hegemony over NATO, but the real spearhead of any NATO offensive would be France and Germany. A lot of people don't realize the logistics of coordinating the movement of forces overseas. They act like the moment a war starts the US will have deployed the entire army before fighting progressed past the initial front lines,

Blackflag: I don't disagree with that, but ultimately the point remains that the 3% incentive is driven almost entirely by the US military-industrial system.

Blackflag: Forcing equal participation would be more fair, though it'd probably cause some members to leave.

admin: The reason why we want other NATO nations to boost their defense spending to 3% is so we can lower our own expenses considerably.

It isn't just the United States though. The UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Norway have also been very vocal about the defense spending increase as well. In fact, Germany has been pushing its neighbors of Poland, Denmark, and the Low Countries harder than anyone else in NATO to increase their defense spending, and the debate on increasing defense spending to 3% of the GDP was primarily concentrated on Poland.

I am not saying the US doesn't have a strong incentive to have other NATO nations increase their defense spending, but NATO countries have spheres of influences they are meant to maintain security in. The US isn't louder than any of the other voices in NATO calling for the Eastern members to increase their defense spending.

Dassault Papillon: NATO membership is more valued than ever. The increased tensions in 2014 that resulted from Russian naval exercises off the Baltic coast and nuclear testing near Leningrad are what finally pushed Poland into increasing their defense spending. I actually think they are going up from 1.5% of their GDP to 4% of their GDP following the Kalingrad based naval exercises.

Blackflag: Tell that to England; I heard that they literally cut their armed forces down to 50,000 troops!

Dassault Papillon: I didn't know England had an armed forces, but the British Armed Forces has over 150,000 active personnel. You could count on the Royal Marines, Royal Airforce, and the Royal Navy early into any NATO conflict.

I actually wish we had modelled our military more after the British and French Armed forces. Everything about their Armed Forces is designed for rapid deployment around the globe. We need a strong marine force, not a huge militia sized army always waiting in reserve. We should strip our armed forces by 100,000's while keeping our Airborne and MAB divisions strong. Every war the US fought was full of logistical and tactical disasters, only outweighed by the sheer size of our army and war production facilities.

I think the US army needs to cut at least 8-9 infantry divisions from our armed forces and cut down on the navy considerably. The remaining soldiers in the army should become national guardsmen, with one infantry unit designated in reserve for overseas combat. For the navy, I would keep one aircraft carrier and a couple of large frigates/cruisers stationed in every continent, that is it. The remains should be scuttled with a good portion of our remaining fleet being turned over to the US coast guard.

These reforms are more aligned with modern day military expectations. The fact that the US and China are mobilized for World War III is ridiculous. Our economy will be so shit ridden by the time a war actually comes that we will have no means of producing newer and more advanced equipment.

Also our airforce is a mess. We need dozens of different aircraft models to perform a 100 functions we rarely ever need. I hate how we have five different fighter jets when other nations produce one model for each aircraft class, which is a hell of a lot more productive. We already have complete dominance over the skies for the next three centuries. If you are not going to slash the airforce in half than at least make it more efficient.

Blackflag: *then

Blackflag: Actually, we're already losing control over the skies. According to multiple reports, the Russian T-50 and the Chinese J-20 are superior to the F-35, even in regards to stealth capabilities.

Dassault Papillon: That is partially my point. Instead of dividing responsibility among multiple models from the same aerial class, we should work on producing one model of superior bombers and fighters. Still, the planes you mentioned are in prototype phase, and it isn't like we do not have prototypes of our own.

Blackflag: BS. The USA will probably never lower their military spending at the rate you're going.

Germany is a puppet of the USA in all military affairs, and has been since WW2. They've pretty much always sided with the US, purchased weapons from the US, and that's why the US maintained a base there, too.

Frankly NATO's delusional if they think anything like this is for peace. Having more arms tends to lead to conflict being more devastating.

admin: BS. The USA will probably never lower their military spending at the rate you're going.
Not true, we've already done it consistently each year since 2008.

Germany is a puppet of the USA in all military affairs, and has been since WW2. They've pretty much always sided with the US, purchased weapons from the US, and that's why the US maintained a base there, too.
This is BS. Germany deployed in all NATO engagements, but also European Union engagements and is a member of Eurocorps.
As someone with a background in international military logistics, I can tell you with absolute assurance that Germany manufactures its own weapons, tanks, aircraft, and materials.

Germany is one of the worlds largest weapons exporters, with more nations using the German Heckler and Koch Battle Rifle than the US M16 or M1A2

Frankly NATO's delusional if they think anything like this is for peace. Having more arms tends to lead to conflict being more devastating.
Rejected. Collective security has successfully prevented conflict for decades.

Blackflag: Not true, we've already done it consistently each year since 2008.
Only as a relative proportion of your budget. Your year to year spending has steadily increased.

Germany deployed in all NATO engagements, but also European Union engagements and is a member of Eurocorps.
That doesn't make it NOT a puppet of the US in international military affairs.

I can tell you with absolute assurance that Germany manufactures its own weapons, tanks, aircraft, and materials.
An industry that Germany's government is currently trying to shut down: http://www.dw.de/german-arms-industry-faces-winds-of-change/a-17902896
It's unprofitable and Germany sees little value from it anyway. I say this as somebody who knows little about international military logistics, but much about Germany.

Collective security has successfully prevented conflict for decades.
Prove it. Prove that global conflict would be greater if there were less weapons.

I don't even accept your premise that NATO is dominated by the US. The majority of Supreme Commanders have been French, and if you look at all of NATO's interventions, the US wasn't even the largest military contributor in most of them.

BTW, if you actually take the time to look up the 3% military budget push instead of just making things up like you had prior knowledge of this, you would of discovered that every major nation in NATO has made statements advocating for the increase.