Last one to post wins

[Meliva]

You wanna know the funny part? Maybe if Nato and other European countries weren't so lax on defense, and didn't put all their eggs in one basket for security relying on the US, they'd be able to actually deter any invasion. Weakness invites challenge. For so long European countries have gotten more and more laxed in their defense, their military spending and relying more and more on exports-exports for energy, exports for workers with immigrations, and exporting security by having US bases and less of their own military. I don't believe there was any actual plans to invade Canada or Greenland-because at the end of the day, everyone knew if a fight DID break out-Europe would not be able to hold Greenland-not likely-so by threatening to just take it- pressures them to negotiate-which they ended up doing JUST that-not to mention this also may have served as a catalyst to put a fire under their asses to start spending more on military-which helps the US also. Because once the Europeans think they can't FULLY rely on the US to cater to their security, that tends to be a good motivator for them to step up their own spending. I can't pretend to know all the hows and whys of Trump and his plans or if it's all just off a whim-but I can say this-it's getting results and bringing about change. Where it leads to? Dunno-but I'm liking it for the most part so far.

[Dmanwuzhere]

Australia absolutely could jump its defense spending up today. Politics is stopping it from happening, not poverty.
Blah blah blah Putin this and that.
Ukraine might not have been attacked so soundly if idiots hadn't threatened to put them in NATO.
I mean, you have to attack before they join if you are against them joining.
Kinda dumb to do it after.

I would have attacked them if I could, we already support their broke azzes why would we make it mandatory?
Zelensky also would have taunted until he got smacked then demand defense... fook zelensky

Ukraine ended the treaty that was in place for the Crimea action from Putin, as NATO membership was being tossed out there.
Russia as a whole never agreed to the 1954 decision by Nikita Khrushchev taking Crimea from them and giving it to Ukraine. Also, 96 percent of Crimeans wanted to be with Russia. The handling of Crimea residents before Zelensky was bad. I see no reason to see that changing had Putin not annexed it.

As for stealth drone fighters, Lockheed Martin has them coming soon, ours will pair with US and allied fighters easily.
https://warwingsdaily.com/lockheed-pres ... -fighters/

Your subs are coming on a layaway program, which I certainly do not approve of. 30 years of payments is like welfare. Y'all have wasted plenty of dough, and if you can't pay for 1 every couple years fook ya, but my government is nicer than I am, so it is what it is.

6 good subs and 11 cheap frigates not even hunter class in 2040 ... yay you. Big help you will be. Of course, it doesn't matter as big poppa USA is expected to handle anything you can't.

Oh, and I will always bring up China, as when you mention Russia, you have to mention China, as they are best buds for now.

[Lachlan]

You wanna know the funny part? Maybe if Nato and other European countries weren't so lax on defense, and didn't put all their eggs in one basket for security relying on the US, they'd be able to actually deter any invasion. Weakness invites challenge. For so long European countries have gotten more and more laxed in their defense, their military spending and relying more and more on exports-exports for energy, exports for workers with immigrations, and exporting security by having US bases and less of their own military. I don't believe there was any actual plans to invade Canada or Greenland-because at the end of the day, everyone knew if a fight DID break out-Europe would not be able to hold Greenland-not likely-so by threatening to just take it- pressures them to negotiate-which they ended up doing JUST that-not to mention this also may have served as a catalyst to put a fire under their asses to start spending more on military-which helps the US also. Because once the Europeans think they can't FULLY rely on the US to cater to their security, that tends to be a good motivator for them to step up their own spending. I can't pretend to know all the hows and whys of Trump and his plans or if it's all just off a whim-but I can say this-it's getting results and bringing about change. Where it leads to? Dunno-but I'm liking it for the most part so far.

Most of that rise in defense spending happened before Trump took office and before America started acting hostile towards everyone. You are attributing that rise in defense spending as due to weakening ties between America and Europe which only really started happening last year. Regarding your point about exporting security yes that is basically true. Immigration however is a different and far more complex issue so I will not get into that.
Exporting energy however well they sort of have to. They cannot magically manifest more domestic oil and gas production. Yes they should have switched from Russia to the middle east far sooner but I think everyone thought that Russia would not escalate its invasion of Ukraine or at the very least the odds of that were unlikely.
Invading Canada would be easy for the US. Greenland not so much. I would say the Europeans have more artic trained troops, winterized armoured forces, ice breakers, planes designed for artic conditions etc. Would you guys be able to invade greenland? Absolutely but holding it especially during winter would be a challenge.

[Lachlan]

Australia absolutely could jump its defense spending up today. Politics is stopping it from happening, not poverty.
Blah blah blah Putin this and that.
Ukraine might not have been attacked so soundly if idiots hadn't threatened to put them in NATO.
I mean, you have to attack before they join if you are against them joining.
Kinda dumb to do it after.

I would have attacked them if I could, we already support their broke azzes why would we make it mandatory?
Zelensky also would have taunted until he got smacked then demand defense... fook zelensky

Ukraine ended the treaty that was in place for the Crimea action from Putin, as NATO membership was being tossed out there.
Russia as a whole never agreed to the 1954 decision by Nikita Khrushchev taking Crimea from them and giving it to Ukraine. Also, 96 percent of Crimeans wanted to be with Russia. The handling of Crimea residents before Zelensky was bad. I see no reason to see that changing had Putin not annexed it.

As for stealth drone fighters, Lockheed Martin has them coming soon, ours will pair with US and allied fighters easily.
https://warwingsdaily.com/lockheed-pres ... -fighters/

Your subs are coming on a layaway program, which I certainly do not approve of. 30 years of payments is like welfare. Y'all have wasted plenty of dough, and if you can't pay for 1 every couple years fook ya, but my government is nicer than I am, so it is what it is.

6 good subs and 11 cheap frigates not even hunter class in 2040 ... yay you. Big help you will be. Of course, it doesn't matter as big poppa USA is expected to handle anything you can't.

Oh, and I will always bring up China, as when you mention Russia, you have to mention China, as they are best buds for now.

Money is 100% a problem. We do not have the money to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on defense. We are in the top 15 countries in defense spending and only a little bit behind countries with much larger populations to draw from.
Which brings me to my second point. An increase in defense spending is useless without the manpower to staff our vessels and crew our bases. We simply do not have the population base to support it. Maintaining high enough recruitment rates is becoming an increasingly challenging problem for many countries. Thankfully that downward trend of recruitment in Australia has stopped. To be honest though I think it is that standards in recruitment are too high especially if you are running short of people. Like if someone is a little bit unfit I think instead of rejecting them you should accept them, train them up and once they finish training they will meet your standards. Like between 2024 and 2025 a little over 7000 people were recruited to the ADF which is up about 15% I believe. But then they were saying they were still 1000 short of their recruitment target. 75,000 people applied during that time and I'm thinking surely there were 1000 more people in the 60,000+ other applicants you could have recruited? Sure some would be completely ineligible due to eyesight, hearing or mental stability issues but I am sure some of those 60,000+ applicants could have been recruited.
As for our ships I think it is due to mismanagement. After the collins subs were built, Australia should have had another project in the works like building the destroyers sooner, then the new frigates, then new subs and kept demand consistent and steady but instead the government delayed and revised and then all those skilled shipbuilders were not getting worked and went of to other countries.
But again like I say it isn't like we have the resources or the manpower to magic up a huge navy with people to crew it.
We have helped in other ways such as our rare earths mineral deal which will cut your dependency on china down. In my view it is not really our military which is our main help to you guys but our natural resources and bases which you guys use that are far enough away from china to be safe from anything except long range missiles.
Where is this 30 years of payments stuff for the drone subs? I do not see anything about that anywhere as far as my quick google search is concerned.

[Dmanwuzhere]

You wanna know the funny part? Maybe if Nato and other European countries weren't so lax on defense, and didn't put all their eggs in one basket for security relying on the US, they'd be able to actually deter any invasion. Weakness invites challenge. For so long European countries have gotten more and more laxed in their defense, their military spending and relying more and more on exports-exports for energy, exports for workers with immigrations, and exporting security by having US bases and less of their own military. I don't believe there was any actual plans to invade Canada or Greenland-because at the end of the day, everyone knew if a fight DID break out-Europe would not be able to hold Greenland-not likely-so by threatening to just take it- pressures them to negotiate-which they ended up doing JUST that-not to mention this also may have served as a catalyst to put a fire under their asses to start spending more on military-which helps the US also. Because once the Europeans think they can't FULLY rely on the US to cater to their security, that tends to be a good motivator for them to step up their own spending. I can't pretend to know all the hows and whys of Trump and his plans or if it's all just off a whim-but I can say this-it's getting results and bringing about change. Where it leads to? Dunno-but I'm liking it for the most part so far.

Most of that rise in defense spending happened before Trump took office and before America started acting hostile towards everyone. You are attributing that rise in defense spending as due to weakening ties between America and Europe which only really started happening last year. Regarding your point about exporting security yes that is basically true. Immigration however is a different and far more complex issue so I will not get into that.
Exporting energy however well they sort of have to. They cannot magically manifest more domestic oil and gas production. Yes they should have switched from Russia to the middle east far sooner but I think everyone thought that Russia would not escalate its invasion of Ukraine or at the very least the odds of that were unlikely.
Invading Canada would be easy for the US. Greenland not so much. I would say the Europeans have more artic trained troops, winterized armoured forces, ice breakers, planes designed for artic conditions etc. Would you guys be able to invade greenland? Absolutely but holding it especially during winter would be a challenge.

You sure have a spotty memory for timelines.
What you mean to say is no one took it seriously until he was re-elected.

2018 NATO Summit
Date: July 11, 2018
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Action: Trump urged NATO allies to double their military spending target from 2% to 4% of their GDP. He specifically criticized Germany for its defense spending, claiming it was "totally controlled by Russia."

2019 Demands
Date: March 8, 2019
Proposal: Trump suggested that countries hosting U.S. troops should pay the full cost of American military presence plus an additional 50%. This proposal aimed to increase financial contributions from allies like Germany and Japan.

2025 NATO Agreement
Date: June 26, 2025
Outcome: Following Trump's re-election, NATO members agreed to significantly increase their defense spending, with some countries committing to a target of 5% of GDP. This marked a notable shift in defense contributions among NATO allies.

I won't bore you with the long list of answers reported by the press to questions repeatedly asking DJT if he would ignore an ally that needed help but was delinquent on payments.
As they occurred, I laughed every time.

I take it your knowledge of WW2 is spotty or bankrupt.
I would put the 10th Mountain Division up against any nation's winterized infantrymen.
Our Rangers, Seals, and various special forces units are no joke in any weather.

[Dmanwuzhere]

Australia absolutely could jump its defense spending up today. Politics is stopping it from happening, not poverty.
Blah blah blah Putin this and that.
Ukraine might not have been attacked so soundly if idiots hadn't threatened to put them in NATO.
I mean, you have to attack before they join if you are against them joining.
Kinda dumb to do it after.

I would have attacked them if I could, we already support their broke azzes why would we make it mandatory?
Zelensky also would have taunted until he got smacked then demand defense... fook zelensky

Ukraine ended the treaty that was in place for the Crimea action from Putin, as NATO membership was being tossed out there.
Russia as a whole never agreed to the 1954 decision by Nikita Khrushchev taking Crimea from them and giving it to Ukraine. Also, 96 percent of Crimeans wanted to be with Russia. The handling of Crimea residents before Zelensky was bad. I see no reason to see that changing had Putin not annexed it.

As for stealth drone fighters, Lockheed Martin has them coming soon, ours will pair with US and allied fighters easily.
https://warwingsdaily.com/lockheed-pres ... -fighters/

Your subs are coming on a layaway program, which I certainly do not approve of. 30 years of payments is like welfare. Y'all have wasted plenty of dough, and if you can't pay for 1 every couple years fook ya, but my government is nicer than I am, so it is what it is.

6 good subs and 11 cheap frigates not even hunter class in 2040 ... yay you. Big help you will be. Of course, it doesn't matter as big poppa USA is expected to handle anything you can't.

Oh, and I will always bring up China, as when you mention Russia, you have to mention China, as they are best buds for now.

Money is 100% a problem. We do not have the money to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on defense. We are in the top 15 countries in defense spending and only a little bit behind countries with much larger populations to draw from.
Which brings me to my second point. An increase in defense spending is useless without the manpower to staff our vessels and crew our bases. We simply do not have the population base to support it. Maintaining high enough recruitment rates is becoming an increasingly challenging problem for many countries. Thankfully that downward trend of recruitment in Australia has stopped. To be honest though I think it is that standards in recruitment are too high especially if you are running short of people. Like if someone is a little bit unfit I think instead of rejecting them you should accept them, train them up and once they finish training they will meet your standards. Like between 2024 and 2025 a little over 7000 people were recruited to the ADF which is up about 15% I believe. But then they were saying they were still 1000 short of their recruitment target. 75,000 people applied during that time and I'm thinking surely there were 1000 more people in the 60,000+ other applicants you could have recruited? Sure some would be completely ineligible due to eyesight, hearing or mental stability issues but I am sure some of those 60,000+ applicants could have been recruited.
As for our ships I think it is due to mismanagement. After the collins subs were built, Australia should have had another project in the works like building the destroyers sooner, then the new frigates, then new subs and kept demand consistent and steady but instead the government delayed and revised and then all those skilled shipbuilders were not getting worked and went of to other countries.
But again like I say it isn't like we have the resources or the manpower to magic up a huge navy with people to crew it.
We have helped in other ways such as our rare earths mineral deal which will cut your dependency on china down. In my view it is not really our military which is our main help to you guys but our natural resources and bases which you guys use that are far enough away from china to be safe from anything except long range missiles.
Where is this 30 years of payments stuff for the drone subs? I do not see anything about that anywhere as far as my quick google search is concerned.

I don't do quick Google searches; you kinda have to have a network of military deep divers that research some of the craziest chit. I'm sure if I went looking long enough, I could tell you the percentage of your military that picks its nose on Thursdays.

I could give you a short list of links, but I don't encourage laziness, and honestly, each link isn't the magic news site I may visit 20 to find an answer or even 50 before I give up for the day, as I don't have the time for drawn-out searches, but I refuse to use google as its a left leaning source. I use Duck Duck Go, if I google at all as they rarely disappoint and remove or edit commentary based on political views.

[Meliva]

Most of that rise in defense spending happened before Trump took office and before America started acting hostile towards everyone. You are attributing that rise in defense spending as due to weakening ties between America and Europe which only really started happening last year. Regarding your point about exporting security yes that is basically true. Immigration however is a different and far more complex issue so I will not get into that.
Exporting energy however well they sort of have to. They cannot magically manifest more domestic oil and gas production. Yes they should have switched from Russia to the middle east far sooner but I think everyone thought that Russia would not escalate its invasion of Ukraine or at the very least the odds of that were unlikely.
Invading Canada would be easy for the US. Greenland not so much. I would say the Europeans have more artic trained troops, winterized armoured forces, ice breakers, planes designed for artic conditions etc. Would you guys be able to invade greenland? Absolutely but holding it especially during winter would be a challenge.

You're assuming it would even REACH the Arctic in the first place. Greenland is an island. One that is closer to the US then it is to Europe-which means to get troops ON it, you need ships and or planes. The US has the largest navy and Airforce by far-Hell, the US could even do a sneaky and rather nasty little trick-and just ALLOW tons and tons of European troops to be stationed on Greenland-and then instead of taking it with boots on the ground-just blockade it-starve the whole Island out-it's the Arctic after all-it won't be able to sustain a large force without exports of food.

As for Exporting Energy and 'having to' that is also a load of crap. Yes, they DO need other countries for oil and gas-but if they weren't so opposed to Nuclear, they'd be a lot less reliant. 2nd-it is counterproductive to rely on a nation that you are on BAD terms with, for a key resource-most of Europe does not Like Russia-Hell Nato was made to combat them-and yet, so many rely on Russia for a KEY resource? This isn't something like trading luxuries good you can do without-this is a vital and key resource your nation NEEDS you relied on them for-so when Russia cut it off-it had nasty damage and they had to scramble to get it from the Middle East.

[Lachlan]

Most of that rise in defense spending happened before Trump took office and before America started acting hostile towards everyone. You are attributing that rise in defense spending as due to weakening ties between America and Europe which only really started happening last year. Regarding your point about exporting security yes that is basically true. Immigration however is a different and far more complex issue so I will not get into that.
Exporting energy however well they sort of have to. They cannot magically manifest more domestic oil and gas production. Yes they should have switched from Russia to the middle east far sooner but I think everyone thought that Russia would not escalate its invasion of Ukraine or at the very least the odds of that were unlikely.
Invading Canada would be easy for the US. Greenland not so much. I would say the Europeans have more artic trained troops, winterized armoured forces, ice breakers, planes designed for artic conditions etc. Would you guys be able to invade greenland? Absolutely but holding it especially during winter would be a challenge.

You're assuming it would even REACH the Arctic in the first place. Greenland is an island. One that is closer to the US then it is to Europe-which means to get troops ON it, you need ships and or planes. The US has the largest navy and Airforce by far-Hell, the US could even do a sneaky and rather nasty little trick-and just ALLOW tons and tons of European troops to be stationed on Greenland-and then instead of taking it with boots on the ground-just blockade it-starve the whole Island out-it's the Arctic after all-it won't be able to sustain a large force without exports of food.

As for Exporting Energy and 'having to' that is also a load of crap. Yes, they DO need other countries for oil and gas-but if they weren't so opposed to Nuclear, they'd be a lot less reliant. 2nd-it is counterproductive to rely on a nation that you are on BAD terms with, for a key resource-most of Europe does not Like Russia-Hell Nato was made to combat them-and yet, so many rely on Russia for a KEY resource? This isn't something like trading luxuries good you can do without-this is a vital and key resource your nation NEEDS you relied on them for-so when Russia cut it off-it had nasty damage and they had to scramble to get it from the Middle East.

US planes are not designed to take off or land from most of the runways that Greenland has. Your ships are not designed to operate in artic waters in the winter. Same with the equipment your army uses.
Europe has more artic troops and planes which can land on rough runways. Of course as you say overall in terms of planes, ships and overall striking capability you have the advantage. Logistics would be horrendous for both sides. Honestly if Greenland was invaded I don't think Europe or America would be able to take and hold greenland from the other side in this hypothetical scenario.

Also yes like I have said repeatedly Europe was stupid to rely on Russia for it's energy needs but that problem is now solved. As defense spending has largely been solved. You are complaining about problems that have already been largely fixed. You are basically saying because of these problems in the past we should not support Europe. Now that they are listening to us and doing what we want we should not support them anymore because of past transgressions and it is okay to threaten countries with tariffs, invasion, political and economic pressure. That way of thinking makes you no better than those dictatorial countries like Iran, North Korea, China and Russia. How can you be leaders of the free world if you threaten your allies? China threatens other countries but they are at best neutral towards them and at worse hostile towards them so in my opinion you are basically supporting actions worse than what china does to other countries.

[Meliva]

Lachlan-you realize that the US navy could just, go to the Coast of Europe, and make sure their ships and planes just, never get CLOSE to Arctic waters right? That is my argument-Greenland is also close enough to the US that we could probably use our own bases on the East Coast for some of our planes-and not NEED their runways. Not to mention we got more Aircraft carriers then the rest of the World combined if I remember correctly. The US won't NEED to fight in the Arctic if we didn't want too-what is the UK going to do if we blockade their island and starve them out? Logistics wouldn't be anywhere NEAR as bad for the US-Greenland is LITERALLY in our hemisphere-it's our neighbor's neighbor. We could just have our navy stationed in the Atlantic stop most ships from even REACHING the Arctic waters. Hell even if I were to GRANT you that, Winter time in the Arctic would be too dangerous for our ships-and we HAD to fight there-why not just, wait 6 months for Summer, then come in and crush them then and pull out before Winter comes back?

Europe is also NOT listening to us-we keep having to browbeat them and use soft power to get them to listen, and only when they feel they have no choice have they finally began to do what needs to be done-they have tariffs on our goods-they don't always put OUR interests first-why the Hell should we cater to them in any lopsided deals? All while being mocked at the same time for it? Also-I VERY much disagree with that insulting comparison that doing what we're doing makes use worse then those dictatorships. The main purpose of a Government, and it's first DUTY is too IT'S citizens and people-not foreign powers-and while the US isn't perfect in that regard-it's leagues better than any of those dictatorships-and better then the UK where you can get arrested for bloody tweets. The US should pressure it's allies if needed-if they won't comply willingly, then why not use soft power to force their hand if it benefits the US? Every country will put itself FIRST-before others-allied or not-and again-alliances change-I think it's about time for the US to pull back from some of our allies and maybe revaluate relations-something that Trump is doing.

[Dmanwuzhere]

The UK is a conquered nation at this point.
I mean, a butcher who refused to sell Halal meat was arrested for not doing so.
Despite his workers and patrons being assaulted.
Fook the UK.

Try that in a small town.

On a positive note, the guy who carried out orders to kill 35k of Iranian citizens recently went to the devil today.
You can't cheer, as you might get arrested for hate speech.
You wear the similarities you mentioned well.