For some reason i was under the impression that there were 30million people in norway. regardless, quick math lesson, 2500 > 1000, by like, A SHITLOAD.

"and for weapons productions, norway is the 7th largest weapons exporter in the world, accounting for about 3.5 % of all sold weapons in the world, all to nato countries."

LOL, how about stop making up facts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry

pretty sure youre not even on that list bro. not to mention, any list about arms exportation you find will have the U.S. RIGHT AT THE TOP. so unless you want to try to tell me that an imaginary 7th is better than a very real 1st, than you should prolly stop trying to pretend norway is better than, or even anywhere near comparable to the united states when it comes to anything military related.

Trust me, if russia decided that they actually wanted to start a war with norway, norway would be fucked. that is of course until the u.s. comes and saves your ass.

http://www.ssb.no/vis/english/magazine/art-2008-03-12-01-en.html

this is the problem with using wikipedia.

this is the norwegian statistical sentral buerau backed up by UN statistics of arms export.
in 2007 we sold 2.16 billion NOK or about 407 million USD (average 2007 exchangerate), enough to put us on 11th on that list. but on that list they counted also free military aid, that is, if anyone gives something away, the value of the item is added to that list.

the US SOLD (not given away) arms export of 2007 was about 3800 milion USD in 2007, while their total "exports" had the value of 7500 milion USD.

as from the wiki article
"Some of the differences are possibly due to deliberate over- or under-reporting by some of the sources", and Norway is certainly not underreporting, because if anything, norway is going for the image of a peace nation.

the wikis article also states
"Due to the different methodologies and definitions used different sources often provide significantly different data."

it might be because about 60% of norways exports are parts for military equipment.

so no I am NOT making shit up

Pat didn't say anything meaningful. His last point on the BP ownership structure just showed that he's even more retarded than I thought, and everyone who agrees here is just as retarded.


BP is a multinational coporation which means it's partly owned by people from the US:
some stats:
Beneficial owners as at 31 December 2009:
(Percentage of shares in issue):
- UK (40%)
- US (39% - basically JP Morgan)
- rest of Europe (10%)
- Miscellaneous (11%)

http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9010453&contentId=7019612


And I say it again: It's not BP's fault that drilling for oil in offshore deepwater regions is allowed.
It's just very convenient for some people that the company has "British" in its name.
Don't try to pretend as if America was very environmental (Kyoto is another thing we could discuss here).

and I never claimed that norway could make a long war against russia, current doctrine states that we could last 5-11 days.
being as norways army has about 26000 active personell, and fully mobilized about 84000, if a hot war started and norway had time, that number would increase to 750000-800000 norwegians with military training. while the russian kola bases has some 50 000 troops, while the leningrad military district has an army that was to be ready to fight norway, sweden and finland at the same time, making fighting norway alone an easy task.

I am cincerly trying not to get cought up in this discussion, and not trying to make claims I cannot back up. I am also not "set" in the discussion, meaning that it is possible to get me to change my mind, can you say the same Pat? if not this discussion is meaningless.

I it is difficult to compare a conscripted army to a voulentare army.

if we take the US millitary budget and divide it by active + reserve personell
we get
548 531 000 000 / (1 473 900 + 1 458 500) = 187 059 USD
while active only
548 531 000 000 / 1 473 900 = 372 162

while if we take norwegian spendings and divide by active personell

4 821 000 000 / 26 200 = 184 007 USD

it is difficult to say how to compare the military spendings, because us active + reserve could be a more accurate comparason, because the reserves can/must be said to be a part of the army.

if we go with the active personell stats;

it can quite successfully be argued that the norwegian army has different requirements that the US army, since the norwegian army is made for fighting in norwegian terrain, while the us army is made for all terrain. in that regard the norwegian army is more comparable to the us mountain core, than the us army as a whole. we have no need for the expensive aircraft carriers, or a huge number of tanks that are mainly for fighting open field battles in flat terrain. as an example of that, norway is by 2012 getting new artillery, it is called the archer, it is perfect artillery for fighting in deep woods, and mountain terrain, where you can easily hide, and be able to fire a barrage (only using 1) with the same effect as 5 heavy artillery guns, and be able to get 3 km away from where you fired, even before your shells start hitting the enemy.

same goes for the norwegian navy, we have among the best torpedo/rocket boats in the world, they are perfect for operating close to the coast, it is not a blue water navy. while the US fleet is. and a blue water navy is much less efficient (per buck) in coastal waters. it is subject to attacks from land based air crafts and land based missiles.

if we look at planes, the us has an immense bomber force, which is good for attack, but when you are fighting defence, it is all about the fighters.

the places where the US really has norway outclassed are air drones, blue water fleet, and equipment for fighting in terrain that cannot be found in norway.

this is why I would say (abit modified) that the norwegian army is as good as the us army /solider for fighting in the terrain the norwegian army is made for fighting in

Hmm. I'd just add that BMW and Porsche are for fags. Only Ferrari and Lamborghini are real great ! Italian design is the best, german is shitty.

By the way Porsche, Mercedes, VW (and Opel of c) are near of bankrupt too actually !

Biteme wins this post

Pat is a close 2nd

And what do you exactly mean by "European" ?
I am afraid "Europe" is only a blurred concept which only exists from an american point of view (or british also). Or for new german imperialists ! But german attitude is not corresponding the orginal concept of "europe", I am sorry. Do germans know something about solidarity and economical cooperation, I am afraid not there too.
Sonderweg, Sonderweg is now your only response. Then go away, go away from the EU, guys ! I will be first to wish u a good trip, you "übermenschen".
Europe like marmelade is not made for... pigs, u know !
I have got no appetite for economical suicide called deflation and german ordoliberalism of shit.
Sorry, I am very angry against german bullshits.
But anyway the crash coming soon will get you back on the earth, hard landing will hurt you first.

the US SOLD (not given away) arms export of 2007 was about 3800 milion USD in 2007, while their total "exports" had the value of 7500 milion USD.

so what your saying, is that the weapons that we give away for free shouldn't count because that was us being generous? does that somehow make sense to you? we lose points because we help people and you don't? not that weapons exports are a very good way of gauging a countries military strength. all that even tells us is that your economy depends on the u.s. to survive as almost 50% of your weapons exports come here.

Im really confused as to how it makes sense to you to continuously contest that just because Norway has an extremely specialized military that that means they are as good as the u.s. Norway being good at only one thing is fine for the purposes it serves, but its not acceptable to say that it compares to the u.s.'s military just because it MAYBE can compare if we ONLY consider the things Norway is really good at. See, you said, "it can quite successfully be argued that the norwegian army has different requirements that the US army." But that is not true. It doesn't have different requirements, it just has LESS requirements, because norway decides not to have a well rounded military. The u.s. must be ready for any war situation at any time. meaning, we have the things you have for your extremely specialized and only defense gauged, military, and then we have all the other stuff that is necessary to run a competent well rounded defensive-offensive military. FOR INSTANCE, if a third world war ever broke out, Norway would be pretty much useless except for IN NORWAY. Thats not a good thing as you keep proposing it to be, it is a bad thing. Sure, if we bring exactly as many soldiers as you have in your army, (since were doing this per soldier, which doesnt even really make sense but whatever) to Norway, then Norway would probably win, its called home court advantage. But if you basically just transplanted the u.s. into where norway is, not only would we do a better job defending it, but we would also have a capable offensive military.

"while the leningrad military district has an army that was to be ready to fight norway, sweden and finland at the same time, making fighting norway alone an easy task."

So basically what your saying is that you get to assume sweden and finlands help? no... we are talking about you vs. russia, you dont get help.

first of all, i don't agree with the way you did that math, but ill explain that in a second. assuming we accept your method, again your trying to skew facts to fit your agenda. Why do you only include the numbers with the U.S.'s reserves if you think they should be included? you said that norway has 84000 troops when fully mobilized. so that means 4821000000/84000 = 57392.86 USD. so only including active military we spend twice as much as you, and including reserves we spend 3 times as much as you. and thats using your facts and your method. so your basically admitting im right? Now as to why your method is flawed. Like you said "it is difficult to compare a conscripted army to a voulentare army." This is true, your method also ignores another fact which you pointed out, that being that the u.s. is heavily invested in drone weapons as they are safer and dont risk u.s. lives. The U.S. also invests a lot of money in creating new military technologies (which im sure we are generous enough to share with norway once they are completed). You see, it makes much more sense to compare the militaries on a spending per capita basis than it does to compare them on a spending per soldier bases as there are too many variables to calculate this accurately.

RECAP: if all you want me to admit is that Norway is comparable to the u.s. at defending norway and only at defending norway... then sure... but that absolutely does not mean your military is comparable to ours.

I'm not talking to people who don't even know that Opel belongs to GM...

Germans talking about "Europe", it's just kidding !