TW, Pakistan doesn't have any real teeth to speak of....unless you mean the Taliban living in Baluchistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. And they don't have any planes.

If Pakistan is toothless, it only says how inferior the military is in most European countries. Pakistan's Air Force is superior to what is in most European nations. Equivalent weapon systems in greater numbers.

You spending a lot of time in Pakistan tw?

You make me laugh TW, they (Pakistan), have the planes without the maintenance package, they have the pilots without the hours, they have the nukes without the expertise to use them properly, etc... It's all politics and show. They roll the F-4's out of the hanger every now and then with fresh paint to show them off. If they were all that and a bag of chips they would not routinely get their asses handed to them in the tribal territories by a bunch of rag tag under equipped yet motivated Islamist insurgent groups. They would not have to rely on our CIA drone program to do their dirty work with these same groups.

Posting wild speculation does nothing to address one glaring fact. European nations have severely diminished military capacity. Turkey even fears attacking ISIS in Iraq without US air support. And yes, Pakistan (and many other lesser nations) have more military than many European nations.

Just because the fact is mostly unknown means you can deny it? For most of the past decade, America has been trying to get the Europeans to address their diminished militaries. Even the Brits are not advocating less military due to the attitude of their current Prime Minister combined with the foolishly deployments previously by Tony Blair.

Are British voters learning in this election that their leaders now want diminished military abilities? Most all European nations are not spending what even their NATO commitments required them to spend. Why was European so toothless even during the Balkan wars? Back then, those nations had larger military abilities. One would think they see the threats demonstrated in Ukraine. They don't.

BTW, who is the world's number two spender on military? Nobody will guess. A nation that should not have an offensive ability: Japan. Or did you also not know that?

I am certainly not engaged in wild speculation.

Don't know much about the other Euro nations, but Britain has always had a quirky relationship with its army. There have been reductions and reorganisations over the last couple of years. There are always reductions to the army in peacetime.

That is a fairly typical British approach: plow in funding and resources when it becomes necessary, then reduce the regulars when the war is over and try to plug the gaps with the territorial army (weekend soldiers).

This has been the British paradigm for the last two or three hundred years.

That's how we played until we killed every heavy industry but defense...

If someone were to nuke Pakistan, I bet it would throw enough dust into the atmosphere to counteract global warming. It would also create a new heavy industry for the massive cleanup. Did I mention it would leave Iran without a convenient alternative location to develop a clandestine nuclear arms program. Pakistan has been fickle with the USA. Hmmm...

Another Israel.

That is why the wacko extremists so hated Clinton. Using shuttle diplomacy, he averted a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. And start some cordial respect between India and the US.

Wackos hate it because 1) Clinton did it. And 2), their mantra as stated by Rush Limbaugh is "We want America to fail."

Wackos love wars. And the massive deficiets that wars create. Because with Fox News, then the brainwashed Americans will blame it on the Democrats. Bad things are always good for wacko extremists. That is how extremists get into power. No wonder George Jr tried to subvert the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. And told Russia, unilaterally, we were going to restart our nuke production.

You make me laugh TW, it's so easy to get you to do an encore.

Britain previously was the exception in Europe. Brits have long taken their military obligations seriously. Unfortunately, some like Tony Blair have also done harm to the military in irresponsible deployments. But Cameron seems to have taken a 'disarmament' attitude. That an observation from distance.

Other European nations have taken an "America will defend us" attitude.

Recently a Russian submarine was lurking off the Swedish coast. Sweden had decided to eliminate all of their anti-submarine air forces. They did not have even one helicopter that could search for submarines. A critically essential weapon system for any nation with an ocean to defend. Whatever the Russian sub was doing, it got cleanly away.

Sweden is not the exception. Saudi Arabia has apparently and recently gotten the message. They have now stopped blaming Obama for not providing a robust Saudi defense. They have finally learned the primary defense of Saudi Arabia must be performed by Saudis. But other nations are still reducing their military capabilities.

A glaring fact exists. Even Pakistan has a better armed military than many European nations.

Japan understands this. They are not calling it an Aircraft Carrier. But Japan is building their first carrier since WWII. Due to obvious threats.

How many ignored warning of Sprately and Parcel Islands? How many know of the military confrontation where Chinese naval vessels trapped a Philippine naval vessel in confrontation over these islands?

Maybe so, in recent times. But the period you are talking about is very short. The 'disarmament' attitude is much older. I may be wrong - but I suspect that the half-century consensus on Britain's responsiblity to remain permanently armed to the teeth and acting as deputy to the world's sheriff, may turn out to be a blip in a much longer tradition.

sexobon is my new hero. The humor I get from some of these exchanges is priceless.
Thanks!