Makes me wonder if this is a step closer to a possible 'sod it, just nuke them' solution to Extremism? I know, dirty thought for a liberal! But sometimes I wonder if Ripley had a point.
Yeah, interesting. If you think about it it kind of makes sense to include Russia in this - they will feel that they are protected from attack by NATO, and it will protect all NATO members from attack by them. Its a way of protecting ourselves without alienating them by adopting what ostensibly looks like a defensive posture towards them.
I think that this could actually be a major step towards lasting peace with Russia, which can only be a good thing.
Including Russia is definitely key, if they're kept out, then it looks like we're aiming it at them as much as at Iran. As far as who holds the big red button, I'd say that no one would. The satellite would broadcast its: " missiles inbound!" to Moscow, Washington, London, Berlin, etc. etc. at the same time, with no one in the way to say 'let's not tell country X.' And the individual nations would respond with their interceptors on a case by case basis.
Fair enough. Sounds like a bit of a plan then, assuming it works.
And it's certainly an improvement on the proposed US version under Bush of 'yeah, we put the Radar here in your country yeah, and then yeah, we don't protect you under the shield yeah'
Wonder if this will get beyond the 'sound principal' idea and become a reality?
Seeing as it covers more than just the US, I doubt they would. After all, if the US says no, what stops other countires proceeding, thus leaving the US very much trousers down?
Anyone know the story line of Tom Clancy's End War? Hopefully this'll be far more successful.
Of course, lets hope we don't "they tried to nuke us, it didn't work, but hey, we'll nuke'em back" situations. It is kinda unethical if you put it like that.
Also, I couldn't see this but, does the system protect NATO and others from Nukes leaving the protected countries, I mean, surely if you have access to the system you can input an override in it.
EndWar is not exactly the height of accuracy......saying that terrorists hacking it could start WWII is the same as saying that Russia could bring down the entire US satellite defense system with one stolen component.
It makes for a good story, and fun battles, but it won't happen in the real world.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Why do I get the feeling that the Republicans will try to stop this just because they can?
They might process it as an erosion of sovereignty, and oppose it on that ground, but it will be a hard sell given the amount of criticism they laid at Obama's feet for canceling the Bush plan.
Yeah Americans will hate this and chalk it down to "Big brother" or Obama selling us out out the socialists. I mean these are the same people who threw a fit about putting flouride in tap water. And blame the FBI and CIA for our issues.
they opposed tax cuts, and the same bills they brought up. They opposed their own bail outs, vaccines and clean drinking water. they oppose the same full body scanners they loved during the patriot act. I think opposing things is their mutant power. Democrats mutant ability is to just not have a backbone.
sexiest_hero wrote:they opposed tax cuts, and the same bills they brought up. They opposed their own bail outs, vaccines and clean drinking water. they oppose the same full body scanners they loved during the patriot act. I think opposing things is their mutant power. Democrats mutant ability is to just not have a backbone.
Come on man.
Don't be such a homer. Do you really think, if you looked, that you wouldn't find something the Dems agree with that you don't?
there are tons of things i don't agree with dems on. Check out my anti Obama threads. I've called him all kinds of things. It's hard to nail dems because they don't stand for anything. Sept losing.
sexiest_hero wrote:they opposed tax cuts, and the same bills they brought up. They opposed their own bail outs, vaccines and clean drinking water. they oppose the same full body scanners they loved during the patriot act. I think opposing things is their mutant power. Democrats mutant ability is to just not have a backbone.
Come on man.
Don't be such a homer. Do you really think, if you looked, that you wouldn't find something the Dems agree with that you don't?
He does have a point. There has been a tendency for the GOP to block legislation once the White House comes around to support it.
Frazzled wrote:I have a better idea. Disband NATO. The time of the American Empire is over. Let Europe take care of itself.
Washington had it right. no foreign entanglements.
No way, the US military base that is nearish me has a US supermarket nearby. If we disbanded NATO where the hell would I get root beer and almond M&Ms? I'm sure there are some other political arguments to be made, but mine is clearly the most important, so keep paying a huge slice of your taxes to keep NATO functioning as I eat these twizzlers.
legoburner wrote:No way, the US military base that is nearish me has a US supermarket nearby. If we disbanded NATO where the hell would I get root beer and almond M&Ms? I'm sure there are some other political arguments to be made, but mine is clearly the most important, so keep paying a huge slice of your taxes to keep NATO functioning as I eat these twizzlers.
If this is the case, the US should increase overseas operations - I too want to eat this "Candy" stuff from my new local US supermarket.
Frazzled wrote:I have a better idea. Disband NATO. The time of the American Empire is over. Let Europe take care of itself.
Washington had it right. no foreign entanglements.
No way, the US military base that is nearish me has a US supermarket nearby. If we disbanded NATO where the hell would I get root beer and almond M&Ms? I'm sure there are some other political arguments to be made, but mine is clearly the most important, so keep paying a huge slice of your taxes to keep NATO functioning as I eat these twizzlers.
Frazzled wrote:I have a better idea. Disband NATO. The time of the American Empire is over. Let Europe take care of itself.
What on earth are you on about now? Are you sitting there pretending that NATO is a completely altruistic organisation set up to protect Europe from Evil Red Invaders? Where do you get your opinions from?
America has (well, had) a large amount of interest in having a significant European buffer against Russia.
Frazzled wrote:I have a better idea. Disband NATO. The time of the American Empire is over. Let Europe take care of itself.
What on earth are you on about now? Are you sitting there pretending that NATO is a completely altruistic organisation set up to protect Europe from Evil Red Invaders? Where do you get your opinions from?
America has (well, had) a large amount of interest in having a significant European buffer against Russia.
Not any more. The Russian Bear isn't going to invade Europe. If it did, you should be able to defend yourselves now.
Hell the Warsaw Pact is gone. The USSR is a memory.
Frazzled wrote:I have a better idea. Disband NATO. The time of the American Empire is over. Let Europe take care of itself.
What on earth are you on about now? Are you sitting there pretending that NATO is a completely altruistic organisation set up to protect Europe from Evil Red Invaders? Where do you get your opinions from?
America has (well, had) a large amount of interest in having a significant European buffer against Russia.
Not any more. The Russian Bear isn't going to invade Europe. If it did, you should be able to defend yourselves now.
Hell the Warsaw Pact is gone. The USSR is a memory.
That was implied in what I posted, If you'll only just read it a little more thoroughly. My point is that you seem to think that it was all about defending Europe, which is facile nonsense.
Frazzled wrote:I have a better idea. Disband NATO. The time of the American Empire is over. Let Europe take care of itself.
What on earth are you on about now? Are you sitting there pretending that NATO is a completely altruistic organisation set up to protect Europe from Evil Red Invaders? Where do you get your opinions from?
America has (well, had) a large amount of interest in having a significant European buffer against Russia.
Not any more. The Russian Bear isn't going to invade Europe. If it did, you should be able to defend yourselves now.
Hell the Warsaw Pact is gone. The USSR is a memory.
That was implied in what I posted, If you'll only just read it a little more thoroughly. My point is that you seem to think that it was all about defending Europe, which is facile nonsense.
Yea...it really was.
regardless, there's no need for the US to be involved in any capacity with a nuclear shield for Europe. Let the Europeans build it and pay for it if they want. I have no problem with them doing it, but I'm sick of paying for Europe. We're broke. Time to pull back and act like we did before you guys dragged us into two wars.
Albatross wrote:You don't know anything about this, or any other topic.
Mmmm, yea.
Please point where in the US Constitution it says the US has to jeopardize its cities and spend vast amounts of treasure to defend Europe from an empire that no longer exists. The very thought lacks sanity.
Albatross wrote:You don't know anything about this, or any other topic.
Mmmm, yea.
Please point where in the US Constitution it says the US has to jeopardize its cities and spend vast amounts of treasure to defend Europe from an empire that no longer exists. The very thought lacks sanity.
Ah, yeah - I forgot you were a scriptural constitutionalist. You can go ahead and disregard the parts of my posts that assume that you are rational and emotionally secure.
If you can't see the benefits of a first line of defence for the USA in continental Europe, then I can't really help you I'm afraid. You seem to think about complex issues in childishly simplistic terms.
Albatross wrote:You don't know anything about this, or any other topic.
Mmmm, yea.
Please point where in the US Constitution it says the US has to jeopardize its cities and spend vast amounts of treasure to defend Europe from an empire that no longer exists. The very thought lacks sanity.
Ah, yeah - I forgot you were a scriptural constitutionalist. You can go ahead and disregard the parts of my posts that assume that you are rational and emotionally secure.
If you can't see the benefits of a first line of defence for the USA in continental Europe, then I can't really help you I'm afraid. You seem to think about complex issues in childishly simplistic terms.
Really? Ok, lets have the UK pay tens of billiions to put a nuclear shield over the US and Mexico then. If you can't see the benefits of a first line of defence for Europe in the continental US, then I can't really help you I am afraid.
EDIT: I like the personal insults, but thats generally what I've come to expect.
Albatross wrote:If you can't see the benefits of a first line of defence for the USA in continental Europe, then I can't really help you I'm afraid. You seem to think about complex issues in childishly simplistic terms.
So what are the benefits exactly? Or is this one of those trick answers, where rather than say any benefits you just declare anyone who disagrees with you an idiot?
Melissia wrote:There's very little threat of actual invasion right now... it's mostly threats of insurgents and terrorists.
Fixed that for you.
To think that its not ever going to be an issue in the future is myopic at best.
That indeed may be the case.
1. Again how in any way does that benefit the US?
2. The same argument can be made about, well, anything. By that logic our only prudent course is to nuke the world from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.
Melissia wrote:There's very little threat of actual invasion right now... it's mostly threats of insurgents and terrorists.
Fixed that for you.
To think that its not ever going to be an issue in the future is myopic at best.
That indeed may be the case.
1. Again how in any way does that benefit the US?
What, the missile shield?
Ah, yes, to be clear, the missile shield.
1. It costs a lot of money.
2. It puts the US in jeopardy. If a nuke exchange occurs, it would be utterly irresistable for there to be a nuclear or non nuclear counterstrike. We would get involved and be part of that counterstrike.
3. None of that protects US terroritories. We've done this so long, we've forgotten what our focus is, the US. Unfortunately the debt siotuation is about to correct that, whether we like it or not.
No, what I said was relevant to today's political environment and the political environment of the foreseeable future.
It was not non-sensical because, even though it is theoretically true that invasion possibly a may be threat that might potentially occur sometime in the distant future if something dramatic changes in the political situation, maintaining an obsessively/excessively paranoid outlook on every country with even an ounce of military strength due to imagined future threats from them doesn't exactly speak much of mental health.
Meanwhile, working with other nations on mutually beneficial projects lends us assistance in removing REAL threats that are occurring RIGHT NOW. You may consider this myopic, but if you're looking too far in the distance you might end up tripping over the rock that's right in front of you-- Hyperopia instead of myopia. Thus why working with Russia is better than antagonizing them-- their leaders are actually helping us fight terrorists in Afghanistan, despite outcries from some of their more extreme political elements.
Melissia wrote:There's very little threat of actual invasion right now... it's mostly threats of insurgents and terrorists.
Fixed that for you.
To think that its not ever going to be an issue in the future is myopic at best.
That indeed may be the case.
1. Again how in any way does that benefit the US?
What, the missile shield?
Ah, yes, to be clear, the missile shield.
1. It costs a lot of money.
2. It puts the US in jeopardy. If a nuke exchange occurs, it would be utterly irresistable for there to be a nuclear or non nuclear counterstrike. We would get involved and be part of that counterstrike.
3. None of that protects US terroritories. We've done this so long, we've forgotten what our focus is, the US. Unfortunately the debt siotuation is about to correct that, whether we like it or not.
Well I frankly don't see why we need to put up shields and reduce our nuclear stockpile at the same time.
Wouldn't just doing one of those things work?
Either way, I think this is more about diplomacy than actual missiles. Everybody gets together and feels good about teamwork.
Melissia wrote:Meanwhile, working with other nations on mutually beneficial projects lends us assistance in removing REAL threats that are occurring RIGHT NOW.
I don't see why there isn't room for both strategies, that's all.
Melissia wrote:No, what I said was relevant to today's political environment and the political environment of the foreseeable future.
It was not non-sensical because, even though it is theoretically true that invasion possibly a may be threat that might potentially occur sometime in the distant future if something dramatic changes in the political situation, maintaining an obsessively/excessively paranoid outlook on every country with even an ounce of military strength due to imagined future threats from them doesn't exactly speak much of mental health.
Meanwhile, working with other nations on mutually beneficial projects lends us assistance in removing REAL threats that are occurring RIGHT NOW. You may consider this myopic, but if you're looking too far in the distance you might end up tripping over the rock that's right in front of you-- Hyperopia instead of myopia.
Further, if we work under that assumption, that threats can arise anywhere over time, it is prudent to address that directly. Have systems in place that can defend the US. This doesn't do that, only ensares us in something costly now, and something utterly lethal later.
Monster Rain wrote:I don't think Frazz is a Republican though.
Not by my voting record, unless you mean French Republican. Death to the Monarchy!
What is your voting record?
Its on record.
What is your voting record?
I vote. Whats your question?
The question is who do you vote for if your voting record shows that you're not a republican?
It depends on the election. I don't vote party line. How about you Shuma? Ever vote for a Republican?
Once for a local position, but not generally. Republicans are bad at finance. Besides, I'm not the one stating that I'm "not republican because of my voting record". You ever voted for a democrat? Or are you counting tea party votes as "non republican".
Melissia wrote:There's very little threat of actual invasion right now... it's mostly threats of insurgents and terrorists.
Fixed that for you.
To think that its not ever going to be an issue in the future is myopic at best.
That indeed may be the case.
1. Again how in any way does that benefit the US?
What, the missile shield?
Ah, yes, to be clear, the missile shield.
1. It costs a lot of money.
2. It puts the US in jeopardy. If a nuke exchange occurs, it would be utterly irresistable for there to be a nuclear or non nuclear counterstrike. We would get involved and be part of that counterstrike.
3. None of that protects US terroritories. We've done this so long, we've forgotten what our focus is, the US. Unfortunately the debt siotuation is about to correct that, whether we like it or not.
Well I frankly don't see why we need to put up shields and reduce our nuclear stockpile at the same time.
Wouldn't just doing one of those things work?
Either way, I think this is more about diplomacy than actual missiles. Everybody gets together and feels good about teamwork.
Melissia wrote:Meanwhile, working with other nations on mutually beneficial projects lends us assistance in removing REAL threats that are occurring RIGHT NOW.
I don't see why there isn't room for both strategies, that's all.
I would argue that the shield itself is reason enough to de-stock on the Nukes. Only reason you need so many (way in excess of anything vaguely reasonable forcesque) is to engender Mutually Assured Destruction. The shield takes care of a large part of that, seeing as you can (in theory) wait for your opponent to blow his wad, then tactically gakker whatever you want to.
And I still say we flatten certain parts of the middle east. Evil I know, but seems like there is no other way sometimes.
Monster Rain wrote:I don't think Frazz is a Republican though.
Not by my voting record, unless you mean French Republican. Death to the Monarchy!
What is your voting record?
Its on record.
What is your voting record?
I vote. Whats your question?
The question is who do you vote for if your voting record shows that you're not a republican?
It depends on the election. I don't vote party line. How about you Shuma? Ever vote for a Republican?
Once for a local position, but not generally. Republicans are bad at finance. Besides, I'm not the one stating that I'm "not republican because of my voting record". You ever voted for a democrat? Or are you counting tea party votes as "non republican".
I've voted Green Party, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, and for Nader/Perot at different times. At heart I am a Bull Moose!
Mr Mystery wrote:I would argue that the shield itself is reason enough to de-stock on the Nukes. Only reason you need so many (way in excess of anything vaguely reasonable forcesque) is to engender Mutually Assured Destruction. The shield takes care of a large part of that, seeing as you can (in theory) wait for your opponent to blow his wad, then tactically gakker whatever you want to.
And I still say we flatten certain parts of the middle east. Evil I know, but seems like there is no other way sometimes.
There's a lot of good reasons to slow down on the nukes. I don't know if the shield itself is such a good reason though. All that is predicated on it actually working.
And yeah, some parts of the world sure could use a good smack.
Mr Mystery wrote:I would argue that the shield itself is reason enough to de-stock on the Nukes. Only reason you need so many (way in excess of anything vaguely reasonable forcesque) is to engender Mutually Assured Destruction. The shield takes care of a large part of that, seeing as you can (in theory) wait for your opponent to blow his wad, then tactically gakker whatever you want to.
And I still say we flatten certain parts of the middle east. Evil I know, but seems like there is no other way sometimes.
There's a lot of good reasons to slow down on the nukes. I don't know if the shield itself is such a good reason though. All that is predicated on it actually working.
And yeah, some parts of the world sure could use a good smack.
I don't think they'd go to all that trouble if the system was a bit ropey.
Mind you, hell of an enticer to get certain countries to belt up. Not the threat of retaliation free nukings by us, but the offer of a little shield space. After all, if everyone has a nuke shield, what's the blood point? We'll see how hard certain countries rattle their sabre once it comes to a good old fashioned slug fest!
Albatross wrote:If you can't see the benefits of a first line of defence for the USA in continental Europe, then I can't really help you I'm afraid. You seem to think about complex issues in childishly simplistic terms.
So what are the benefits exactly? Or is this one of those trick answers, where rather than say any benefits you just declare anyone who disagrees with you an idiot?
There are a number of threats to the US which could arise closer to continental Europe than mainland USA. A strategic presence in Europe is important to the USAs defence, or else it wouldn't be there. Don't get me wrong - I understand that populist press of the sort typically swallowed hook-line-and-sinker by American neo-cons likes to paint complex geo-political situations in crudely jingoistic broadbrush terms, and that the natural end-result of that is opinion along the lines of 'why do we have to defend europe? They should pay for their own damn defence!!1!!one!'. Doesn't stop it being frustrating for the rest of us to have to listen to that - and I'll repeat the term once again - facile nonsense.
NATO isn't altruism. Don't let yourself be manipulated. Anymore.
Albatross wrote:If you can't see the benefits of a first line of defence for the USA in continental Europe, then I can't really help you I'm afraid. You seem to think about complex issues in childishly simplistic terms.
So what are the benefits exactly? Or is this one of those trick answers, where rather than say any benefits you just declare anyone who disagrees with you an idiot?
There are a number of threats to the US which could arise closer to continental Europe than mainland USA. A strategic presence in Europe is important to the USAs defence, or else it wouldn't be there. Don't get me wrong - I understand that populist press of the sort typically swallowed hook-line-and-sinker by American neo-cons likes to paint complex geo-political situations in crudely jingoistic broadbrush terms, and that the natural end-result of that is opinion along the lines of 'why do we have to defend europe? They should pay for their own damn defence!!1!!one!'. Doesn't stop it being frustrating for the rest of us to have to listen to that - and I'll repeat the term once again - facile nonsense.
NATO isn't altruism. Don't let yourself be manipulated. Anymore.
I see, you can't think of one. So in other words there isn't a threat to the US.
I noticed you didn't answer the question put to you. Should the UK spend tens of billions in a nuclear shield over the US and Mexico? After all there are a number of threats that could arise closer to the continental USA than Europe.
EDIT: How about instead, if Europe is nuked, we promise to immediately put forth a resolution before the UN, comdemning such action. We can also send food aid and sell machinery and capital goods to them at a discount in compassion for their difficulty.
Frazzled wrote:I see, you can't think of one. So in other words there isn't a threat to the US.
I noticed you didn't answer the question put to you. Should the UK spend tens of billions in a nuclear shield over the US and Mexico? After all there are a number of threats that could arise closer to the continental USA than Europe.
The UK should indeed build such a shield if it had a similar number of people in prime targets in the US/Mexico (250K Americans live in London alone IIRC), had a number of core military assets under the shield such as a number of airbases used in current conflicts, and was able to prevent the international economy being devastated by shooting things down. South America would also need something more aggressive and with better weapons programs than Venezuela too. Most importantly it would need the US/mexican people to tolerate an external power having military assets in the country which seems like the much bigger issue.
The UK still has lots of military assets outside of mainland britain just like the US, but on a much smaller scale due to being about 1/5th the size in terms of people and economy.
Mr Mystery wrote:Sounds a bit like the second world war if you ask me.
You mean other than the hundreds of thousands of troops and airment right?
But it makes my point. If we hadn't been engaged in the quasi war with Nazi Germany in 1940 and 1941 its not likely they would have declared war on us. How many US citizens died for Europe?
If we hadn't pledeged to wipe ourselves out as a people if the USSR attacked Europe. We lived under the shadow of the Bomb for you and still do while Europe made fun of us uncouth redneck Americans.
And its still happening. Its a shield to protect Europe from Iran, when Europe refuses to do anything about Iran. There is no benefit to the US for this.
Let Europe take care of itself.
Albatross wrote:There are a number of threats to the US which could arise closer to continental Europe than mainland USA. A strategic presence in Europe is important to the USAs defence, or else it wouldn't be there.
So the evidence that we need a strategic presence in Europe is that we have a strategic presence in Europe? That's a circular argument, it's like if I say 'why do we keep buying a new TV every month, it doesn't do us any good' and you respond 'A new TV is important to the house's defense, otherwise it wouldn't be there'.
Doesn't stop it being frustrating for the rest of us to have to listen to that - and I'll repeat the term once again - facile nonsense.
You failed to actually list any benefits to the US from NATO, you just offered bluster, condensation, and a circular argument. I think your response is what qualifies as facile nonsense. If it's so hard to list any benefits to the US from NATO that you have to resort to misdirection, that's a pretty severe condemnation of the whole idea.
NATO isn't altruism. Don't let yourself be manipulated. Anymore.
Yeah, it's easier to just accuse the persona asking you a question of being manipulated or foolish or whatever instead of posting any actual argument. Though I think that actually qualifies as facile nonsense also.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
legoburner wrote:The UK should indeed build such a shield if it had a similar number of people in prime targets in the US/Mexico (250K Americans live in London alone IIRC), had a number of core military assets under the shield such as a number of airbases used in current conflicts,
The circular justifications would be amusing if they didn't mean billions of dollars of American money being wasted. You're saying that the justification for spending on more assets in Europe is that we have assets in Europe!
Mr Mystery wrote:Sounds a bit like the second world war if you ask me.
You mean other than the hundreds of thousands of troops and airment right?
But it makes my point. If we hadn't been engaged in the quasi war with Nazi Germany in 1940 and 1941 its not likely they would have declared war on us. How many US citizens died for Europe?
If we hadn't pledeged to wipe ourselves out as a people if the USSR attacked Europe. We lived under the shadow of the Bomb for you and still do while Europe made fun of us uncouth redneck Americans.
And its still happening. Its a shield to protect Europe from Iran, when Europe refuses to do anything about Iran. There is no benefit to the US for this.
Let Europe take care of itself.
To be fair though, it wasn't us that pissed off the Russians with habitual glee
Mr Mystery wrote:Sounds a bit like the second world war if you ask me.
You mean other than the hundreds of thousands of troops and airment right?
But it makes my point. If we hadn't been engaged in the quasi war with Nazi Germany in 1940 and 1941 its not likely they would have declared war on us. How many US citizens died for Europe?
If we hadn't pledeged to wipe ourselves out as a people if the USSR attacked Europe. We lived under the shadow of the Bomb for you and still do while Europe made fun of us uncouth redneck Americans.
And its still happening. Its a shield to protect Europe from Iran, when Europe refuses to do anything about Iran. There is no benefit to the US for this.
Let Europe take care of itself.
To be fair though, it wasn't us that pissed off the Russians with habitual glee
Actually it was. They were worried that one day you would use Haggis against them, and they felt they had to premptively attack. As Borsht is nothing next to the demonic aura of Haggis, they felt their only hope was massed T-72s through the Fulda Gap.
Frazzled wrote:I have a better idea. Disband NATO. The time of the American Empire is over. Let Europe take care of itself.
What on earth are you on about now? Are you sitting there pretending that NATO is a completely altruistic organisation set up to protect Europe from Evil Red Invaders? Where do you get your opinions from?
America has (well, had) a large amount of interest in having a significant European buffer against Russia.
Not any more. The Russian Bear isn't going to invade Europe. If it did, you should be able to defend yourselves now.
Hell the Warsaw Pact is gone. The USSR is a memory.
That was implied in what I posted, If you'll only just read it a little more thoroughly. My point is that you seem to think that it was all about defending Europe, which is facile nonsense.
Yea...it really was.
regardless, there's no need for the US to be involved in any capacity with a nuclear shield for Europe. Let the Europeans build it and pay for it if they want. I have no problem with them doing it, but I'm sick of paying for Europe. We're broke. Time to pull back and act like we did before you guys dragged us into two wars.
Okay, WWI I'll grant you, but the last time I checked the reason the US got properly involved with WWII was because of Japan. Japan is not in Europe.
Unless, of course, my life has been one huge elaborate practical joke so far.
Pshwah! Haggis is not a weapon. They merely feared the Devils In Skirts, neatly shown here in this entirely factual documentary footage of the Brits giving the Indians What-Five and indeed Six-Nowt
@Frazzled - You've already proven yourself unworthy of my attention. I'm tuning you out at this point.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:
Albatross wrote:There are a number of threats to the US which could arise closer to continental Europe than mainland USA. A strategic presence in Europe is important to the USAs defence, or else it wouldn't be there.
So the evidence that we need a strategic presence in Europe is that we have a strategic presence in Europe? That's a circular argument, it's like if I say 'why do we keep buying a new TV every month, it doesn't do us any good' and you respond 'A new TV is important to the house's defense, otherwise it wouldn't be there'.
You are very bad at this. That's not what I'm saying at all.
Quick question: Which is closer to Afghanistan? Europe or the USA? Take as long as you need.
That's an example of a threat to the USA which is closer to Europe than mainland America - how would the USA invade any middle-eastern country without a strategic presence in Europe?
That's not to mention the benefits of intelligence co-operation which prevented aeroplanes exploding over American cities a few weeks ago.
And that's just in recent times - who knows what the future holds?
I really thought that this would have been obvious. Apologies if I over-estimated anyone...
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Okay, WWI I'll grant you, but the last time I checked the reason the US got properly involved with WWII was because of Japan. Japan is not in Europe.
Unless, of course, my life has been one huge elaborate practical joke so far.
Germany declared war on the US. One of the reasons of course was the fact we were sinking U boats in the Atlantic and lend leasing vast quantities of material to the UK.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Mystery wrote:Pshwah! Haggis is not a weapon. They merely feared the Devils In Skirts, neatly shown here in this entirely factual documentary footage of the Brits giving the Indians What-Five and indeed Six-Nowt
I respect the devils in skirts, but your clever attempts to hide the secret weapon that is Haggis are for nought!
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Okay, WWI I'll grant you, but the last time I checked the reason the US got properly involved with WWII was because of Japan. Japan is not in Europe.
Unless, of course, my life has been one huge elaborate practical joke so far.
Germany declared war on the US. One of the reasons of course was the fact we were sinking U boats in the Atlantic and lend leasing vast quantities of material to the UK.
Ah yes, but that was to support their Japanese allies, who had committed an act of war on the US first. Kinda stupid of the Jerries, really, when you consider they already had the Russians to deal with.
Also, wasn't that "sinking U-Boats" more a case of convoys defending themselves rather than an active attempt to cripple the wolf-packs?
The aid was much appreciated, though.
Albatross wrote:@Frazzled - You've already proven yourself unworthy of my attention. I'm tuning you out at this point.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:
Albatross wrote:There are a number of threats to the US which could arise closer to continental Europe than mainland USA. A strategic presence in Europe is important to the USAs defence, or else it wouldn't be there.
So the evidence that we need a strategic presence in Europe is that we have a strategic presence in Europe? That's a circular argument, it's like if I say 'why do we keep buying a new TV every month, it doesn't do us any good' and you respond 'A new TV is important to the house's defense, otherwise it wouldn't be there'.
You are very bad at this. That's not what I'm saying at all.
Quick question: Which is closer to Afghanistan? Europe or the USA? Take as long as you need.
That's an example of a threat to the USA which is closer to Europe than mainland America - how would the USA invade any middle-eastern country without a strategic presence in Europe?
That's not to mention the benefits of intelligence co-operation which prevented aeroplanes exploding over American cities a few weeks ago.
And that's just in recent times - who knows what the future holds?
I really thought that this would have been obvious. Apologies if I over-estimated anyone...
Wow, ok. And the missile shield would have protected us-how?
I see the insults continue.
Question. Is Iran closer to London/Berlin or Washington? Thats a threat to you. Respectively we shouldn't give a gak. NK and China are much closer and much more of a real threat to the US. Mexico is a substantially greater threat. Why do we have bases in Europe but not on the border with Mexico?
Build it yourself and quick sucking off the US.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Okay, WWI I'll grant you, but the last time I checked the reason the US got properly involved with WWII was because of Japan. Japan is not in Europe.
Unless, of course, my life has been one huge elaborate practical joke so far.
Germany declared war on the US. One of the reasons of course was the fact we were sinking U boats in the Atlantic and lend leasing vast quantities of material to the UK.
Ah yes, but that was to support their Japanese allies, who had committed an act of war on the US first. Kinda stupid of the Jerries, really, when you consider they already had the Russians to deal with.
Also, wasn't that "sinking U-Boats" more a case of convoys defending themselves rather than an active attempt to cripple the wolf-packs?
The aid was much appreciated, though.
US naval ships set up a protected area around half the Atlantic. UBoats, by policy were vioewed as pirates and sunk on sight. Unfotrunately for Granddad (a couple of times) they weren't sunk on sight enough.
Albatross wrote:You are very bad at this. That's not what I'm saying at all.
You mean it's not what you wish you said, it is what you said.
Quick question: Which is closer to Afghanistan? Europe or the USA? Take as long as you need.
Quick question: Which European country did we go through to get to Afghanistan? I don't think Pakistan is part of NATO, so I don't see how that's a benefit of NATO.
Also, which is closer to Afghanistan, Japan or the USA? Take as long as you need, then remember that Japan also doesn't have anything to do with NATO.
That's an example of a threat to the USA which is closer to Europe than mainland America - how would the USA invade any middle-eastern country without a strategic presence in Europe?
Good point, so it sounds like removing the strategic presence in Europe would save us from expensive, useless wars that we shouldn't have engaged in in the first place. That's an argument AGAINST NATO.
I really thought that this would have been obvious. Apologies if I over-estimated anyone...
You still haven't listed any benefits, just insults and a lack of geographical knowledge.
Frazzled wrote:
I see, you can't think of one. So in other words there isn't a threat to the US.
Do you know what would happen to the US economy if someone successfully attacked a European city via a nuclear launch?
It wouldn't be pretty.
Frazzled wrote:
I noticed you didn't answer the question put to you. Should the UK spend tens of billions in a nuclear shield over the US and Mexico?
Two things:
1) There are no South American nuclear programs. Plus most South American countries are party to non-development treaties, and all of them are party to the NPT.
2) The UK is paying, via NATO, to put a nuclear missile shield in the US per this treaty. The US is a member of NATO, and this shield covers all NATO members.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Build it yourself and quick sucking off the US.
Ah, I see this is just another thread of your usual "The US does everything everywhere!" argument. Always a real winner.
Its particularly bad in this case given that we know nothing about the financial realities of the treaty.
Albatross wrote:You are very bad at this. That's not what I'm saying at all.
You mean it's not what you wish you said, it is what you said.
Erm, no. What I said was that there there a number of potential threats to the USA that could arise closer to continental Europe than to mainland USA. I suffixed that by saying that the American strategic presence in Europe isn't just there for the fun of it.
Quick question: Which is closer to Afghanistan? Europe or the USA? Take as long as you need.
Quick question: Which European country did we go through to get to Afghanistan? I don't think Pakistan is part of NATO, so I don't see how that's a benefit of NATO.
I would be very surprised if RAF bases in the Mediterranean weren't involved to some degree. They were in the Second Iraq War.
Also, which is closer to Afghanistan, Japan or the USA? Take as long as you need, then remember that Japan also doesn't have anything to do with NATO.
..or this 'conversation'.
That's an example of a threat to the USA which is closer to Europe than mainland America - how would the USA invade any middle-eastern country without a strategic presence in Europe?
Good point, so it sounds like removing the strategic presence in Europe would save us from expensive, useless wars that we shouldn't have engaged in in the first place. That's an argument AGAINST NATO.
Yes, I'm sure the Taliban would have just handed over Al Qaida if you'd only been more patient....
A strategic presence in Europe is important to the USAs defence, or else it wouldn't be there.
In other words, if we put troops somewhere, then that justifies having them there as having troops in a place makes it important to the USA's defence.
Yes, I'm sure the Taliban would have just handed over Al Qaida if you'd only been more patient....
You said 'middle east', which doesn't include Afghanistan in normal usage. Typically you would say 'Greater Middle east' to include Afghanistan. Your deliberate use of confusing language is an indication that you lack a real point and are just trying to play word games.
After sorting through your replies, it's clear that you've steadfastly refused to provide a direct answer. The only benefit you've chosen to indirectly name is 'military bases for launching operations', but acquiring a military base in the mediterranian and another in the UK is paltry reward for the huge amount of money spent on NATO, and NATO is not neccessary for getting military basing rights. Korea, Japan, and Cuba are not part of NATO, but we somehow manage to sort out agreements with those countries.
So there is no significant benefit to the US from NATO, at least that you've been able to tell us. We just get more military bases than we'd conceivably need, and we could easily negotiate with individual countries for the few bases we actually need. Hardly worth the effort if you ask me.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:
The only benefit you've chosen to indirectly name is 'military bases for launching operations', but acquiring a military base in the mediterranian and another in the UK is paltry reward for the huge amount of money spent on NATO, and NATO is not neccessary for getting military basing rights. Korea, Japan, and Cuba are not part of NATO, but we somehow manage to sort out agreements with those countries.
Yes, but generally we do that by paying them lots of money, which is one of your objections to NATO.
At this point you have to show that NATO membership is significantly more expensive than the alternative means of obtaining bases, while also accounting for the value of military support in defensive combat operations. This is going to be difficult considering you will have to get at what portion the spending on NATO is tied only to the organization, and not the improvement of US forces for the purposes of operating with other NATO states (interoperability). After all, the financial contributions made to NATO itself are really quite small.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:
So there is no significant benefit to the US from NATO, at least that you've been able to tell us. We just get more military bases than we'd conceivably need, and we could easily negotiate with individual countries for the few bases we actually need. Hardly worth the effort if you ask me.
Well, first off, negotiating military agreements is rarely easy, and would be particularly difficult to do with European nations if the US dropped out of NATO.
Second, what effort? Sure, the US pays dues to NATO like every other member, but NATO itself is an independent organization. If you're talking about US participation in NATO action, then I'm not sure I can think of NATO actions that the US hasn't supported; implying that NATO itself was not the primary impetus for engaging in the use of force.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
BearersOfSalvation wrote: Korea, Japan, and Cuba are not part of NATO, but we somehow manage to sort out agreements with those countries.
I lol'd.
Yeah, I don't know if there was intentional irony there, or if Bearers unconsciously listed countries that agreed to US bases due to the use of US force.
BearersOfSalvation wrote: Korea, Japan, and Cuba are not part of NATO, but we somehow manage to sort out agreements with those countries.
I lol'd.
Yeah, I don't know if there was intentional irony there, or if Bearers unconsciously listed countries that agreed to US bases due to the use of US force.
Well which is worse? If unintentional it suggests a profound ignorance of historical events in the past century. If intentional, it could be taken to mean a show of support for more 'forthright' US foreign policies.
Yeah....let's see. We have bases in Japan because we were occupying them for a good few years. We have a (as in one. Single) base in Cuba that we basically said was ours at the end of the Spanish-American War.
So it seems that the only nation we have bases in without the use of force is Korea, and we have bases in Korea because Korea wanted protection against North Korea.....which is arguably the same reason we have bases in Europe. Just replace North Korea with 'Soviet Union'.
And as for supporting operations...we have to remember. Turkey is part of NATO. The Turkish airbases were/are no doubt VITAL to our logistical support in Iraq. Not to mention, Turkish presence in NATO allows them a quick line of dialogue back to us for resolving their issues with Iraqi Kurds.
ChrisWWII wrote:
So it seems that the only nation we have bases in without the use of force is Korea, and we have bases in Korea because Korea wanted protection against North Korea.....which is arguably the same reason we have bases in Europe. Just replace North Korea with 'Soviet Union'.
Oh, there are more than that; notably in Central Asia and the Middle East. Its just that the examples listed weren't the best choices given the point being made.
Though its notable that the majority of our foreign deployments are connected to NATO, and located in Europe. A fact that also calls into question the notion that we pay NATO dues simply because of a few bases in England and the Mediterranean.
Oh yes, I was just joining in with mocking that statement.
I would like to point out that bases such as Rammstein and other such things are very important logistical stepping stones for our transports ferrying troops to and from the combat zone... I agree that we're far too overdeployed in Europe, against a threat that no longer exists, but I'd think dissolving NATO/pulling out is taking it too far.
...which ties in nicely with my point that the relative benefits and downsides to NATO membership shouldn't really be simplified down to 'goddam Europeans!! Pay for your OWN defence!!!'
It's childish, facile,and doesn't really reflect the reality, which is a great deal more nuanced than that.
FWIW, I support the UK pulling 20,000 troops out of Germany, and I think the US should probably reduce it's overseas commitments a little more. That doesn't have to be the same thing as 'WE NEED TO GET OUT OF NATO HURRRR!!!'.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Wait Frazzled, the shield covers ALL NATO members, including North America. Do you have a problem with this?
No it doesn't. It protects Europe. Nukes coming from Asia, the Americas, and the land of the Czars won't come that way. I don't know if an ICBM from Iran would, but again, thats your problem, not ours.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:I see, you can't think of one. So in other words there isn't a threat to the US.
Do you know what would happen to the US economy if someone successfully attacked a European city via a nuclear launch?
It wouldn't be pretty.
It beats thousands or hundreds of thousands of US troops and civilians that would be dead in the inevitable counterstrike. I'll take a bad economy vs. that. Besides the Europeans* will kow tow to anyone with power.
*Continental Europe, the UK is another creature entirely. Vive Le Fran, er Brittania!
You'd prefer an Asian Artillery Shield? A Mexican Bullet Shield?
I'm not following you, sorry.
I'd prefer a shield that protects the US from all threats, not just ones coming from Western Europe. I'd prefer forces that protect the US from all threats, and not in forward positions that immediately put us into a war on another continent.
I seriously can't see a threat arising that will only be a threat to Europe without being a threat to the US as well.
I mean....who are we gonna get in a war with because of Europe? The Russians? The our entire military machine is slowly rusting away Russia?
If we were living in a pre-WWI world, you'd be totally right, but right now any enemy strong enough to threaten Europe will be strong enough to threaten the US as well...if we're gonna fight a war, why don't we just fight it on their territory instead of our own?
ChrisWWII wrote:I seriously can't see a threat arising that will only be a threat to Europe without being a threat to the US as well.
I mean....who are we gonna get in a war with because of Europe? The Russians? The our entire military machine is slowly rusting away Russia?
If we were living in a pre-WWI world, you'd be totally right, but right now any enemy strong enough to threaten Europe will be strong enough to threaten the US as well...if we're gonna fight a war, why don't we just fight it on their territory instead of our own?
Name a European country ever strong enough to threaten the US that had the intent to do so, other than the USSR?
Indeed the last ones to get uppity are members of NATO themselves...
The U.S. view
American President Abraham Lincoln had supported the republicans under Juárez, but was unable to intervene due to the American Civil War. Immediately after the end of the war, in 1865, United States Army General Philip Sheridan, under the supervision of President Andrew Johnson and General Ulysses S. Grant, assembled 50,000 troops, and dispatched them to the border between Mexico and the United States. There, his corps ran patrols to visibly threaten intervention against the French, and also supplied weapons to Juárez's forces.[10] The US Congress had unanimously passed a resolution which opposed the establishment of the Mexican monarchy on 4 April 1864. On 12 February 1866, the US demanded the French withdraw their forces from Mexico, moved soldiers to positions along the Rio Grande, and set up a naval blockade to prevent French reinforcements from landing. The US officially protested to Austria about the Austrian volunteers in Mexico on 6 May.
Rather late to this one but the UK has Troops in Canada, Belieze and the Falklands.
Don't worry US we'll keep an eye on Chevez for you so long as you keep over watch on Lichtenstein for us.
Deal or no deal?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also is Iran could develop a Nuclear arsenal I would suggest that they would also be capable of developing much longer ranged missiles than they currently possess [in time].
Re the shield, if I was in the US I would much rather that the ICBM's are being intercepted over Europe than the East Coast!
ChrisWWII wrote:The Russians? The our entire military machine is slowly rusting away Russia?
Fallacy. Russia is better equipped then they were ten years ago. This isn't to say they're at Soviet levels of armaments and force yet, but they're far more of a threat then they were in say, '95. They've been on the way back up militarily and financially for some time now.
ChrisWWII wrote:The Russians? The our entire military machine is slowly rusting away Russia?
Fallacy. Russia is better equipped then they were ten years ago. This isn't to say they're at Soviet levels of armaments and force yet, but they're far more of a threat then they were in say, '95. They've been on the way back up militarily and financially for some time now.
Indeed. I'd be worried if I were the Ukraine. USA, not so much.
Which European country did we go through to get to Afghanistan?
Surprisingly? Russia is the biggest one right now.
And Russia joined NATO... when exactly? That just highlights the uselessness of NATO to the US, and destroys the 'bases for Afghanistan' argument. Not only is Russia not in NATO, but it's the successor to the country NATO was originally created to oppose!
dogma wrote:At this point you have to show that NATO membership is significantly more expensive than the alternative means of obtaining bases, while also accounting for the value of military support in defensive combat operations. This is going to be difficult considering you will have to get at what portion the spending on NATO is tied only to the organization, and not the improvement of US forces for the purposes of operating with other NATO states (interoperability).
No, I don't think that your side can get away with 'the justification for NATO is that we get some bases that we maybe need 1 of', and that only by implication and after multiple posts dragging it out, but at the same time demand that I do detailed accounting of costs. You've got some guy sneering that NATO is full of big benefits to the US and showing contempt at the idea of someone daring to even ask what those benefits are, but when pressed to list those benefits the response is basically 'some military bases, PROVIDE A DETAILED ACCOUNTING OF COSTS OR I WIN'.
And you guys wonder how anyone can be skeptical of your 'argument' that consists of some sneering and talking about vast benefits, eventually vaguely sort of listing a benefit, then demanding a detailed cost accounting from the other guy.
After all, the financial contributions made to NATO itself are really quite small.
They're enormous actually, the missile defense shield under discussion alone is estimated to cost $1.5 billion dollars, maintaining troops in position to defend Germany and other European countries that should really be able to take care of themselves is not cheap, as is maintaining the huge force levels required. US military expenditures as a percent of GDP are massively higher than those of any other NATO member, and pretending that none of those expenditures have to do with NATO is a bit rich.
Yeah, I don't know if there was intentional irony there, or if Bearers unconsciously listed countries that agreed to US bases due to the use of US force.
They're non-NATO countries where we have bases, they demonstrate that NATO is not needed to acquire military bases. If you think that South Korea only agrees to have a US base because of the threat of US force, you've apparently never heard of North Korea or China. If you object to defensive use of US force, isn't that also an objection to NATO? You guys need to keep your stories straight.
They're enormous actually, the missile defense shield under discussion alone is estimated to cost $1.5 billion dollars, maintaining troops in position to defend Germany and other European countries that should really be able to take care of themselves is not cheap, as is maintaining the huge force levels required. US military expenditures as a percent of GDP are massively higher than those of any other NATO member, and pretending that none of those expenditures have to do with NATO is a bit rich.
I would have thought 1.5 billion a big figure if I hadn't read the fact that the UK alone was bailing out the the Irish economy to the tune of 7 billion pounds. If that's in dollars, that means it's only about a billion quid. Heck, our cuts are expected to save several billion a year right now.
Therefore if that's all this shield is gonna cost, that's peanuts when talking about the security of so many allied nations. We could build it on our own, sharing the cost will make it cheap as chips.
Ketara: I wasn't saying that Russia HAS no military, or that their military is in anyway just piles of rust. A lot of their Soviet era resources are, but that's to be expected. They don't have the budget to support that level of military power anymore.
My point was that Russia is not a sufficient threat to Europe to justify the amount of troops on the ground we have there. I mean, air and naval bases I can understand. Those make sense. The resources for a ground army? Not so much. Who are they there to defend against?
Frazzled wrote:Name a European country ever strong enough to threaten the US that had the intent to do so, other than the USSR?
England and her Empire during the Revolution and the War of 1812. People were scared of the Spanish Navy raiding the Eastern Seaboard during the Spanish-American War. Thankfully due to horrible training and supply on Spain's behalf they were never able to pull that off, but it was a possibility.
ChrisWWII wrote:Ketara: I wasn't saying that Russia HAS no military, or that their military is in anyway just piles of rust. A lot of their Soviet era resources are, but that's to be expected. They don't have the budget to support that level of military power anymore.
My point was that Russia is not a sufficient threat to Europe to justify the amount of troops on the ground we have there. I mean, air and naval bases I can understand. Those make sense. The resources for a ground army? Not so much. Who are they there to defend against?
Frazzled wrote:Name a European country ever strong enough to threaten the US that had the intent to do so, other than the USSR?
England and her Empire during the Revolution and the War of 1812. People were scared of the Spanish Navy raiding the Eastern Seaboard during the Spanish-American War. Thankfully due to horrible training and supply on Spain's behalf they were never able to pull that off, but it was a possibility.
I'm not especially worried about UK at the moment. They warned off appropriately during the Civil War and haven't been that stupid since.
If I recollect we annihilated the Spanish...
We did. When our navy UTTERLY ANNHILATED theirs with one casualty on our side (one old sailor died of a hear attack during the battle....) I think it officially counts as 'curbstomp'
Frazzled wrote:
No it doesn't. It protects Europe. Nukes coming from Asia, the Americas, and the land of the Czars won't come that way. I don't know if an ICBM from Iran would, but again, thats your problem, not ours.
It absolutely protects America. This isn't something that's only being installed in Europe. Just about everyone acknowledges that this is the blueprint for the agreement, and it features cooperative deployment of interceptors in Alaska and California.
To the extent that Iran wants to control the Middle East they are everyone's problem. We may not get our oil from the ME, but the Europeans do, and it isn't a significant stretch to figure out where they'll be getting their oil from in the event that it isn't the Levant. And it will cost us a ton of money if that ever becomes true.
Frazzled wrote:
It beats thousands or hundreds of thousands of US troops and civilians that would be dead in the inevitable counterstrike. I'll take a bad economy vs. that.
Any nuclear attack on a European city has the potential to kill thousands of American citizen, because at any given time there are thousands of American citizens in any given major European city.
But what counter strike? Are you implying that the US would necessarily respond with nuclear force following a nuclear strike on a NATO nation? Why would that be the case?
Your reasoning isn't particularly sound here; particularly given that you're assuming that, following a US nuclear response, there would be anything left to actually respond. There have been hundreds of studies that indicate otherwise.
Frazzled wrote:
Besides the Europeans* will kow tow to anyone with power.
Exactly what evidence do you have to support this notion? What nation has gone out of its way to coerce Europe, and come away successful for the attempt?
BearersOfSalvation wrote:
No, I don't think that your side can get away with 'the justification for NATO is that we get some bases that we maybe need 1 of', and that only by implication and after multiple posts dragging it out, but at the same time demand that I do detailed accounting of costs.
Why are you making this a matter of sides? I'm not accountable for whatever anyone else has tried to argue. If you aren't going to approach this sensibly, then its a waste of my time.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:
You've got some guy sneering that NATO is full of big benefits to the US and showing contempt at the idea of someone daring to even ask what those benefits are, but when pressed to list those benefits the response is basically 'some military bases, PROVIDE A DETAILED ACCOUNTING OF COSTS OR I WIN'.
No, that's not what I argue. Please try to avoid conflating my position with those of others, it shows an inability to consider a topic dispassionately.
What I actually argued is that the cost of basing in Europe under NATO is not materially distinct from basing in any other location that is not under NATO. As such, the real question is "What does NATO membership cost us that it over and above the nominal cost of basing?" If the answer is "Very little.", then the real issue is our overall presence in Europe, which is not necessarily connected to NATO membership. We can be members of NATO, and reduce our presence in Europe.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:
And you guys wonder how anyone can be skeptical of your 'argument' that consists of some sneering and talking about vast benefits, eventually vaguely sort of listing a benefit, then demanding a detailed cost accounting from the other guy.
I don't think I did any sneering. I'm doing my best to be civil, though you aren't making this easy. My point is that there are tangible benefits to NATO membership that extend beyond basing, though basing is also a significant perk. Organizational integration with European military commands reduces operational stress during joint operations. Collective defense reduces the burden on US deployments during defensive engagements, even if European troops are engaged only in supporting action. Just to name the most significant two.
The reason those who are against NATO are asked for detailed cost estimates is that the arguments against membership almost always bring up cost, and simply saying "it costs a lot" is not a good argument unless you can show that it actually does.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:
They're enormous actually, the missile defense shield under discussion alone is estimated to cost $1.5 billion dollars, maintaining troops in position to defend Germany and other European countries that should really be able to take care of themselves is not cheap, as is maintaining the huge force levels required. US military expenditures as a percent of GDP are massively higher than those of any other NATO member, and pretending that none of those expenditures have to do with NATO is a bit rich.
As I said, in order to claim that NATO is the primary driving factor of those costs you have to make an argument that the US receives no (or very little) strategic benefit from having its assets deployed in NATO countries. Otherwise you're not really criticizing NATO membership, but the US deployment to Europe; which has very little to do with defending the continent, and a whole lot to do with force projection. In fact, as I recall, the cost to the US for NATO membership, ignoring all assets that remain under US control, is ~.4% of the overall US military budget. The diplomatic outlay is a trivial component of the State Department's budget.
Moreover, the actual cost of basing soldiers in Europe isn't all that much higher than basing them in the United States. This is due in large part to the structural advantages provided by the NATO chain of command, but also because of the highly develop infrastructure present in all European countries.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:
They're non-NATO countries where we have bases, they demonstrate that NATO is not needed to acquire military bases. If you think that South Korea only agrees to have a US base because of the threat of US force, you've apparently never heard of North Korea or China. If you object to defensive use of US force, isn't that also an objection to NATO? You guys need to keep your stories straight.
No, I only need to keep my own story straight. You're having problems with my argument because you're processing it as "their" argument, instead of merely engaging with what I'm writing.
As for the motivations behind the Korean permission of basing: it is relevant that the initial US display of force was the basis for establishing a permanent presence in order to dissuade North Korean aggression, which once included the tacit support of China, though that is no longer the case. Either way, it was the initial use of US force which permitted the establishment of the base, which serves my point that coming to agreement regarding basing isn't as easy as you seem to believe. You would have been better served citing places like Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and Israel.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Wait Frazzled, the shield covers ALL NATO members, including North America. Do you have a problem with this?
No it doesn't. It protects Europe. Nukes coming from Asia, the Americas, and the land of the Czars won't come that way. I don't know if an ICBM from Iran would, but again, thats your problem, not ours.
You haven't even read the article have you? This is the first line.
The shield would cover all Nato members in Europe and North America.
From what I'm able to tell, the system isn't so much based on local countries as much as it is a collaborative centralization of antimissile C&C into one streamlined chain of command.
As far as I can tell, this is the process. We already have the technology to shoot down ICBMs. Ships with the Aegis system and SM-3s are more than capable of bringing down an ICBM if they're in the right place, and they know the flight path of the missile.
That's what this system is meant to do. Give us a stream lined command and control so we can get assets to the right place. The interceptors will no doubt be varied....from the afore mentioned AEGIS ships to ground based interceptors in Alaska and Europe.
It won't JUST protect Europe....It'll protect us as well.
They're enormous actually, the missile defense shield under discussion alone is estimated to cost $1.5 billion dollars, maintaining troops in position to defend Germany and other European countries that should really be able to take care of themselves is not cheap, as is maintaining the huge force levels required. US military expenditures as a percent of GDP are massively higher than those of any other NATO member, and pretending that none of those expenditures have to do with NATO is a bit rich.
I would have thought 1.5 billion a big figure if I hadn't read the fact that the UK alone was bailing out the the Irish economy to the tune of 7 billion pounds. If that's in dollars, that means it's only about a billion quid. Heck, our cuts are expected to save several billion a year right now.
Therefore if that's all this shield is gonna cost, that's peanuts when talking about the security of so many allied nations. We could build it on our own, sharing the cost will make it cheap as chips.
Therefore this must be a non-issue.
I note no-one has commented on my point that this is all hugely inflated when looking at the sums involved compared to the actual value of the project. Therefore I must conclude you chaps are all having far too much fun arguing about various things to care about whether this entire issue is utterly meaningless or not.
I think this is a great idea. It brings nations closer together. The UN might not get anything done anymore, but its a great concept. And Nato needs to stay. Why? It unites nations. How would humanity move forward unless we could unite against a common challenge. I remember there was a CNN report about the Iranian president blaming the US for 9/11. Mid speech, the US gets up to leave. Then Great Britain, Germany, France, Turkey, soon NATO and the US allies were gone. Why should foreign nations care what goes on inside our borders? It didnt effect them much. Its because we are all together, even if we like it or not. We have to share the same planet. I hope some day to see a world where we dont fight each other. Where you can walk from one country to another. I think the missile shield brings us closer to that.
Ketara wrote:
I note no-one has commented on my point that this is all hugely inflated when looking at the sums involved compared to the actual value of the project. Therefore I must conclude you chaps are all having far too much fun arguing about various things to care about whether this entire issue is utterly meaningless or not.
America does not care for rationality, let alone math.
Albatross wrote:I like how I'm the worlds biggest bastard for basically saying '...but it's not as simple as that, stop saying it's a simple as that!'.
But sometimes I wonder if Ripley had a point.
