German Military

Burnsy2023 · 12 Mar 2009 at 10:45

uber soldat said:
No they have a limited army.

Source?

Biohazard said:
Active is a bit pathetic when you look at what they are achieving.

Nothing.

They are active in more places then Afghanistan

Burnsy2023 · 12 Mar 2009 at 10:49

Evangelion said:
But they do have a proper army, and it is in active service around the world. It is not restricted to defending Germany's borders.

Wiki said:
The role of the Bundeswehr is described in the German Basic Law (Art. 87a) as defensive only. Its only active role before 1990 was the Katastropheneinsatz (disaster control operation), where the Bundeswehr helped after natural disasters. After 1990, the international situation changed from East-West confrontation to one of general uncertainty and instability. Today, after a ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court in 1994 the term "defense" has been defined to not only include protection of the borders of Germany, but also crisis reaction and conflict prevention, or more broadly as guarding the security of Germany anywhere in the world. According to the definition given by former Defense Minister Struck, it may be necessary to defend Germany even at the Hindu Kush. This requires the Bundeswehr to take part in operations outside of the borders of Germany, as part of NATO or the European Union and mandated by the UN.

So a similar mission to every other country then.

Biohazard · 12 Mar 2009 at 10:53

Burnsy2023 said:
Source?

They are active in more places then Afghanistan

Source on what, peoples opinions?

Like where, and what exactly are they doing? Because I would be suprised if any German soldier is out shooting off live ammo anywhere.

Burnsy2023 · 12 Mar 2009 at 10:57

Biohazard said:
Source on what, peoples opinions?

Source om how they are limited.

Biohazard · 12 Mar 2009 at 11:02

Burnsy2023 said:
Source om how they are limited.

In mentality, and the political will behind them. As a force it could be a lot stronger, and actually put into use.

But it isn't, so its quite pointless.

uber soldat · 12 Mar 2009 at 11:03

Burnsy2023 said:
Source om how they are limited.

They are allowed to defend only, not be an attacking force per se, am just looking for a source online, which is difficult when at work

.

uber soldat · 12 Mar 2009 at 11:13

OK here is a start i will keep looking.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Germany_allowed_an_Army

Edit: Bingo, here is said treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_With_Respect_to_Germany

Burnsy2023 · 12 Mar 2009 at 11:18

Biohazard said:
In mentality, and the political will behind them. As a force it could be a lot stronger, and actually put into use.

But it isn't, so its quite pointless.

But then you have the question whether that's a good thing or not. Just because we get involved at every given opportunity doens't make us right to do it

uber soldat · 12 Mar 2009 at 11:21

You have your sauce now Burnsy, i will now claim you for doubting me

Burnsy2023 · 12 Mar 2009 at 11:23

uber soldat said:
OK here is a start i will keep looking.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Germany_allowed_an_Army

Edit: Bingo, here is said treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_With_Respect_to_Germany

The only real restriction is the size of the army, which whilst limited is a reasonable number. The British military doesn't have that many personnel enlisted.

As for it being a defensive force, the mission I quoted above states that it has been interpreted to mean anything that affects German interests, so that kinda goes out of the window.

TaKeN · 12 Mar 2009 at 11:24

not realy 'German Military' but I read somewhere that the country in general.. was banned from producing firearms

Which is why german air rifles are so good today!

Sankari · 12 Mar 2009 at 11:27

Biohazard said:
In mentality, and the political will behind them. As a force it could be a lot stronger, and actually put into use.

But it isn't, so its quite pointless.

You could say the same about the British armed forces, and it would still be a meaningless, throwaway line.

Sankari · 12 Mar 2009 at 11:27

TaKeN said:
not realy 'German Military' but I read somewhere that the country in general.. was banned from producing firearms

And when was this, exactly?

uber soldat · 12 Mar 2009 at 11:28

Burnsy2023 said:
The only real restriction is the size of the army, which whilst limited is a reasonable number. The British military doesn't have that many personnel enlisted.

As for it being a defensive force, the mission I quoted above states that it has been interpreted to mean anything that affects German interests, so that kinda goes out of the window.

I accept it has been widened on a geographical level, but it is still defensive ie NATO duties it carries out = Peacekeeping

Biohazard · 12 Mar 2009 at 11:28

Burnsy2023 said:
But then you have the question whether that's a good thing or not. Just because we get involved at every given opportunity doens't make us right to do it

I agree with you somewhat.

However they do not patrol regularly, even when they do they will not provide support of covering fire for coalition forces unless THEY are directly attacked as a sovereign unit.

That is why they sit in their tents nitting all day, because they don't want action.

So what is the point of them being deployed to the east? None, it is just lip service.

You have to wonder how effective Germany would be in helping repel a land attack on Europe. It would probably be the same case there too.

I'm not wanting the outwardly aggressive Germany back (and I don't think it could come back), however it would be nice to know that the heart of European industry could make a difference should our backs be against the wall.

Burnsy2023 · 12 Mar 2009 at 11:29

TaKeN said:
not realy 'German Military' but I read somewhere that the country in general.. was banned from producing firearms

Which is why german air rifles are so good today!

Tell that to Heckler and Koch or Walther

Biohazard · 12 Mar 2009 at 11:29

Evangelion said:
Blah blah blah

Blah blah blah blah blah blah.

thats all I seem to take in when I see your username these days.

You could not compare my statement to British forces, no. Imo, in the manner I meant it. Deffinately not.

Burnsy2023 · 12 Mar 2009 at 11:33

Biohazard said:
I agree with you someone what.

Biohazard said:
In mentality, and the political will behind them. As a force it could be a lot stronger, and actually put into use.

But it isn't, so its quite pointless.

Well I suppose I agree that the Bundeswehr could be stronger if they had the political will, but I'm not sure that's necessarily a totally good thing in all aspects and I disagree that they're pointless.

a1ex2001 · 12 Mar 2009 at 11:33

Biohazard said:
You have to wonder how effective Germany would be in helping repel a land attack on Europe. It would probably be the same case there too.

I see a lot of sense in what you've said in this thread but the above is total nonsense, were Germany directly threatened you would see a very different response from the German armed forces. The same goes for every other army in the world and there home nation.

Redmelo · 12 Mar 2009 at 11:39

Biohazard said:
You have to wonder how effective Germany would be in helping repel a land attack on Europe. It would probably be the same case there too.

I'm not wanting the outwardly aggressive Germany back (and I don't think it could come back), however it would be nice to know that the heart of European industry could make a difference should our backs be against the wall.

What century do you live in?
Land attack on Europe? o dear god....

It seems like Burnsy2023 is the only one here who is somehow sensible.