Good News and Bad News

The good is that a small majority of Europeans believe military action is an option in stopping the Mullahs’ nukes. The bad is they want someone else to do the dirty work.

The survey:

A survey commissioned by the pro-business think tank, Open Europe, found that a majority of those surveyed in 18 EU member states including France and Britain, backed military action as an option in dealing with the threat of Iranian nuclear proliferation, while majorities in 9 nations including Germany and Spain were opposed.

However, the April 4 survey of more than 17,000 Europeans in March conducted by the French polling firm TNS-Sofres found little support for increasing military expenditures to counter or contain the threat.

That’s a shame, because keeping the Mullahs at bay requires a BMD system, and taking them out will needs lots of cruise missiles and ballistic missiles with kinetic warheads. The Euros have none of the above, because their % defense spend is half that of the US.

So I guess they expect either the hated Amis or Jews to do it.

There’s a small ray of hope for the Brits – they recognize they have a problem:

Questioned as to the threat their countries faced from “Islamic fundamentalism”, European opinion was more diverse. While 58 percent over all agreed militant Islam was a serious threat, the national responses ranged from 71 percent in Britain, 66 percent in Germany, 64 percent in France, to 24 percent in Latvia…

But, as we’ve seen, they’re quite weak militarily:

Between 2000 and 2006 real military expenditures grew by more than 40 percent in the US, not including supplemental appropriations for the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. According to NATO figures, during the same period defense spending declined in Germany and Italy, and grew by only five percent in France and six percent in Britain.


7 Responses to Good News and Bad News

  1. Jay says:

    And even if they want us (or the Israelis) to do it, if we do they’ll bitch to no end.

    Ref the low level of fear in Latvia, I wonder what kind of Muslim population they have there.

  2. TomTom says:

    at bay requires a BMD system,

    and without base stations in Czech Republic, Poland or Great Britain the USA will not have such a system either.

    Without RAF Fylingdales or RAF Menwith Hill in Great Britain the USA can forget any missile shield or warning system of ballistic missile launches.

    In fact without Germany the USA has no main USAF hub in Europe nor medical facilities

    It would be better to be informed before running round the schoolyard boasting that your daddy has a penis and others don’t

  3. gandalf says:



    On Latvia, CIA Factbook says population is:

    Latvian 57.7%, Russian 29.6%, Belarusian 4.1%, Ukrainian 2.7%, Polish 2.5%, Lithuanian 1.4%, other 2% (2002)

    They have religions:

    Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Russian Orthodox

    Hence, no Muslims, so I guess the 24% are worried about external Muslim threat.

  4. gandalf says:


    Ignoring the ad hominem…

    Europeans providing bases to the US has no bearing on their defense spend, so what’s your point?

    And if the EU and Russia stop NMD deployment in the UK, Czech Republic & Poland, that’ll just leave Europe open to Iranian nuclear blackmail. But with 350 millions hostages, not 15.

    Still, that’s their choice.

    In that case the US will put an Aegis screen to the west of Europe – three Ticonderoga class cruisers should do the trick.

    Not quite as good as NMD, but enough to protect the US East Coast against the current Shahab 3b for 5 years or so, and then the Standard 4 will be available.

    Plus the US might add a boost-phase layer if it keeps a base in Iraq, as advocated here:

  5. TomTom says:

    “And if the EU and Russia stop NMD deployment in the UK, Czech Republic & Poland, that’ll just leave Europe open to Iranian nuclear blackmail. But with 350 millions hostages, not 15.”

    Not true…the system offers no protection to Western Europe but simply to the USA at the expense of the Russians threatening to station nuclear submarines at the North Pole and stationing new ICBMs to take out US systems

    The farce is that the US thinks it can unilaterally defend itself and co-opt other sovereign states as colonies. The Iranian missiles are a farce and you know it….it is Russia that is the concern. Iran cannot blackmail Europe simply because it has nothing but unrefined oil to live on. Threaten Europe with a Shahab and you threaten Russia and India

  6. TomTom says:

    “Europeans providing bases to the US has no bearing on their defense spend, so what’s your point?”

    Go through The Pentagon Procurement List as I have done and look at the contractors. What the US Defence Budget goes on would stun taxpayers, and encompasses some very civilian recreational pursuits. It is pork-barrel at its worst. All that spend and yet a mere 500.000 men in the Army for a nation of 300 million backed up by a National Guard out of its depth in Iraq.

    The US needs men under arms and a standing army of at least 800.000 with a reserve of fully-trained soldiers of at least another million.

    I do recall that when American Colonists were invited to defray the costs of their defence they tossed tea into Boston Harbour while disguised as Red Indians and revolted rather than pay the Stamp Duty preferring to ally themselves with Britain’s primary foe, France.

  7. gandalf says:


    Seems I need to do a more detailed post on BMD, but in the meantime:-

    The Russian Topol-M (in development for decades, now deployed) can easily overcome NMD – it has a modern maneuverable warhead that dodges in the mid course phase the NMD defends.

    It’s fired over the pole – shortest distance to US targets.

    NMD interceptors in CR and Poland do defend Europe – they shoot forwards, not backwards!

    Assuming that an Iranian threat to Europe will bring in Russia and India is wishful thinking.

    The Shahab-3 is a very competent MRBM (actually from China via NoKo). It’s accurate, has some mid course agility, a modern triconic warhead, and the D variant is believed to have a range of 4000 km. Probably not deployed yet, but I’d expect it ot be there in 2 years.

    I’ve built weapons systems for both the MoD and DoD, and found the DoD the more efficient. Of course they’re both state enterprises, so wasteful – look at Eurofighter.

    American see their military quite differently to the way European view theirs. That’s another post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: