Stop beating around the bush - you know you want back in.

Russia examines 1991 recognition of Baltic independence

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33325842

The Russian chief prosecutor's office is to examine whether the Soviet Union acted legally when it recognised the Baltic states' independence in 1991.
The investigation was described as an "absurd provocation" by Lithuania's Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius.
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were occupied by Soviet communist forces in 1940. The USSR broke up in 1991.
Last week Russia's chief prosecutor declared illegal the transfer of Crimea from Russia to Ukraine in 1954.
At the time Russia and Ukraine were republics of the USSR, under communist leader Nikita Khrushchev.
Russia's annexation of Crimea in March 2014 was condemned internationally. Ethnic Russians there voted to rejoin Russia, in a highly controversial referendum.
There are large ethnic Russian minorities in Estonia and Latvia, while Lithuania has a smaller ethnic Russian minority.
Baltic tensions
A source at the prosecutor's office, quoted by Russia's Interfax news agency, said the investigation into the Baltic states' independence followed a request from two parliamentary deputies.
null
In their letter, MPs Yevgeny Fyodorov and Anton Romanov, of President Vladimir Putin's United Russia party, said the 1991 decision to recognise Baltic independence had been taken "by an unconstitutional body".
The source added that there would not be "legal consequences" if the 1991 recognition of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania was deemed to be illegal.
The three Baltic states joined the EU and Nato in 2004. In recent years Russia has viewed that as a hostile challenge to its security interests.
Russian-Baltic tensions have been rising since the Crimea annexation and the outbreak of fighting in eastern Ukraine in April 2014. Heavily armed pro-Russian separatists there are clashing daily with Ukrainian government troops.
Nato has stepped up its presence in the Baltic states, responding to massive Russian military exercises, including heightened Russian air force activity in the Baltic.
Reacting to the Russian prosecutor's move, Lithuania's foreign minister called it "a provocation to say the least" and "legally, morally and politically absurd".

According to the international law the Baltic states have seen de facto nation states since 1921. The annexation by the Soviet Union as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, interrupted, rather than forfeit this status.

The Baltic States were never a legal part of the Soviet Union.

And they're now trying to charge Mikhail Khodorkovsky with the murder of Vladimir Petukhov.

Mikhail once owned Yukos Oil and was once the richest man in Russia. He was a critic of Putin and was wrongfully convicted of theft and tax evasion and imprisoned for 10 years.

At the same time Putin seized and nationalised Yukos Oil.

The Hague ruled that Russia must compensate Yukos shareholders who lost out $50 billion.

Now "new evidence" has been found by Russia linking Mikhail to a murder of Petukhov who was leading a campaign against Yukos over alleged tax arrears.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/r-kremlin-critic-khodorkovsky-named-as-murder-suspect-in-russia-2015-6?r=US

 Orlanth wrote:
According to the international law the Baltic states have seen de facto nation states since 1921. The annexation by the Soviet Union as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, interrupted, rather than forfeit this status.

The Baltic States were never a legal part of the Soviet Union.

Implying Russia cares about any law, let alone human rights.

We've been posting military equipment throughout these countries recently. Putin is going to have to tread MUCH more carefully this time.

 djones520 wrote:
We've been posting military equipment throughout these countries recently. Putin is going to have to tread MUCH more carefully this time.

Where did my post go?
To restate. Its my understanding these are actual NATO countries. Further, the US has announced placement of heavy combat units in several of them. If Putin wants to watch his hole country burn in atomic fire, then he can start some crap.

In the words of Fats Domino: Suck it!

 Orlanth wrote:
According to the international law the Baltic states have seen de facto nation states since 1921. The annexation by the Soviet Union as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, interrupted, rather than forfeit this status.

The Baltic States were never a legal part of the Soviet Union.

Legality is decided by tanks, not by laws. Sad, but it is true.
Nonetheless, I highly doubt Russia plans on actually retaking the Baltic region. It is a provocation, to intimidate Estonia and Latvia and a show of support for ethnic Russians trapped there. Nothing more.

 obsidianaura wrote:
And they're now trying to charge Mikhail Khodorkovsky with the murder of Vladimir Petukhov.

Mikhail once owned Yukos Oil and was once the richest man in Russia. He was a critic of Putin and was wrongfully convicted of theft and tax evasion and imprisoned for 10 years.

At the same time Putin seized and nationalised Yukos Oil.

The Hague ruled that Russia must compensate Yukos shareholders who lost out $50 billion.

Now "new evidence" has been found by Russia linking Mikhail to a murder of Petukhov who was leading a campaign against Yukos over alleged tax arrears.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/r-kremlin-critic-khodorkovsky-named-as-murder-suspect-in-russia-2015-6?r=US

Because a murder charge overrules having to pay compensation back to the guy? Sure Russia, that's how the law works. ...Ah wait, no that's apparently how the law works in that country actually.

Aye this is presumably just Putin's government trying to scare the locals. NATO's been building up the region, so Russia's pushing back the other way. I doubt Russia will be dumb enough to invade another country this soon, as they're already attempting to manage what land they grabbed in Ukraine and the war there. ...Plus the umpteen other smaller wars that they're fighting with the other states which they've stolen land from in the past two decades. You never though of course, I mean clearly the Russians operate on a whole other level given their handling of Ukraine. Meh, Putin needs to appease all his amped up Nationalists somehow, and a wee bit of war goes a long way for that (...sorry can I Godwin this thread now or should we wait a few pages).

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
We've been posting military equipment throughout these countries recently. Putin is going to have to tread MUCH more carefully this time.

Where did my post go?
To restate. Its my understanding these are actual NATO countries. Further, the US has announced placement of heavy combat units in several of them. If Putin wants to watch his hole country burn in atomic fire, then he can start some crap.

In the words of Fats Domino: Suck it!

We should be very careful not to underestimate our enemies. "'MERICA!!!!!!" doesn't really cut it anymore, and at some point we have to recognize that we aren't an island of capability in a sea of ineptitude - other countries have some bite to their bark as well.

Russia's GDP is less than Brazil.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
We've been posting military equipment throughout these countries recently. Putin is going to have to tread MUCH more carefully this time.

Where did my post go?
To restate. Its my understanding these are actual NATO countries. Further, the US has announced placement of heavy combat units in several of them. If Putin wants to watch his hole country burn in atomic fire, then he can start some crap.

In the words of Fats Domino: Suck it!

We should be very careful not to underestimate our enemies. "'MERICA!!!!!!" doesn't really cut it anymore, and at some point we have to recognize that we aren't an island of capability in a sea of ineptitude - other countries have some bite to their bark as well.

But its not just "Murica", those countries are actually part of the EU and of Nato and have both European and NATO forces stationed in them so any Russian invasion would instantly come in direct confrontation with these international forces.

Heck, even my crappy country has F-16's stationed in Estonia covering their air space.

 Frazzled wrote:
Russia's GDP is less than Brazil.

Brazil doesn't have a ton of nuclear-equipped ICBMs aimed at us.

Aye and the UK would have trouble fighting a country larger than the Vatican these days with the amount of budget cuts. That's the thing if one country's been bankrolling their army, they're going to be in a better situation than a lot of NATO countries who have been cutting theirs for years. Politicians can be all bluster, but the joke will be on them if they try and start a war only for them to discover that they've cut the military to the bone. If Russia did invade somewhere more than a few countries would have to go into the fight undermanned and just hope that they'd have enough support from the other cut down armies to hold long enough to rebuild. =P

PhantomViper wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
We've been posting military equipment throughout these countries recently. Putin is going to have to tread MUCH more carefully this time.

Where did my post go?
To restate. Its my understanding these are actual NATO countries. Further, the US has announced placement of heavy combat units in several of them. If Putin wants to watch his hole country burn in atomic fire, then he can start some crap.

In the words of Fats Domino: Suck it!

We should be very careful not to underestimate our enemies. "'MERICA!!!!!!" doesn't really cut it anymore, and at some point we have to recognize that we aren't an island of capability in a sea of ineptitude - other countries have some bite to their bark as well.

But its not just "Murica", those countries are actually part of the EU and of Nato and have both European and NATO forces stationed in them so any Russian invasion would instantly come in direct confrontation with these international forces.

Heck, even my crappy country has F-16's stationed in Estonia covering their air space.

Granted, but the whole "It's OK, we will just nuke them" outlook isn't very productive. I don't know any active duty US personnel who are really looking forward to a war with Russia.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Aye and the UK would have trouble fighting a country larger than the Vatican these days with the amount of budget cuts. That's the thing if one country's been bankrolling their army, they're going to be in a better situation than a lot of NATO countries who have been cutting theirs for years. Politicians can be all bluster, but the joke will be on them if they try and start a war only for them to discover that they've cut the military to the bone. If Russia did invade somewhere more than a few countries would have to go into the fight undermanned and just hope that they'd have enough support from the other cut down armies to hold long enough to rebuild. =P

Hold against what exactly?

We are talking about the same country that has suffered so many casualties fighting in a limited border war against an almost failed state like Ukraine that they decided to make those casualty numbers classified, aren't we?

Germany made moves to start getting its tanks out of mothballs and buying new tanks, a few months ago.

Britain on the same side as Germany, against Russia...feels weird

On a more serious note, who uses tanks these days anyway? I thought Apache helicopters had made tanks redundant?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

But its not just "Murica", those countries are actually part of the EU and of Nato and have both European and NATO forces stationed in them so any Russian invasion would instantly come in direct confrontation with these international forces.

Heck, even my crappy country has F-16's stationed in Estonia covering their air space.

Granted, but the whole "It's OK, we will just nuke them" outlook isn't very productive. I don't know any active duty US personnel who are really looking forward to a war with Russia.

Nobody is going to nuke anyone, that is just internet bluster.

PhantomViper wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

But its not just "Murica", those countries are actually part of the EU and of Nato and have both European and NATO forces stationed in them so any Russian invasion would instantly come in direct confrontation with these international forces.

Heck, even my crappy country has F-16's stationed in Estonia covering their air space.

Granted, but the whole "It's OK, we will just nuke them" outlook isn't very productive. I don't know any active duty US personnel who are really looking forward to a war with Russia.

Nobody is going to nuke anyone, that is just internet bluster.

Agreed, which is why certain posters saying so amounts to "'MERICA!!!!"

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

But its not just "Murica", those countries are actually part of the EU and of Nato and have both European and NATO forces stationed in them so any Russian invasion would instantly come in direct confrontation with these international forces.

Heck, even my crappy country has F-16's stationed in Estonia covering their air space.

Granted, but the whole "It's OK, we will just nuke them" outlook isn't very productive. I don't know any active duty US personnel who are really looking forward to a war with Russia.

Nobody is going to nuke anyone, that is just internet bluster.

Agreed, which is why certain posters saying so amounts to "'MERICA!!!!"

Agree to a certain extent with this, but in reality, America does have a lot to shout about.

For starters, they wouldn't be fighting Russia alone, if it all kicked off. They have Europe backing them up = multiple fronts invading USS...I mean Russia

America could invade Russia via Alaska. and NATO would be attacking from Turkey, Scandinavia, the Baltics, and of course, from Central Europe, driving straight for Moscow.

And this time, there would be a pause for the Russian winter!

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Russia's GDP is less than Brazil.

Brazil doesn't have a ton of nuclear-equipped ICBMs aimed at us.

or we at them. These are NATO countries. Touching them is global nuclear war time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

But its not just "Murica", those countries are actually part of the EU and of Nato and have both European and NATO forces stationed in them so any Russian invasion would instantly come in direct confrontation with these international forces.

Heck, even my crappy country has F-16's stationed in Estonia covering their air space.

Granted, but the whole "It's OK, we will just nuke them" outlook isn't very productive. I don't know any active duty US personnel who are really looking forward to a war with Russia.

Nobody is going to nuke anyone, that is just internet bluster.

Agreed, which is why certain posters saying so amounts to "'MERICA!!!!"

Agree to a certain extent with this, but in reality, America does have a lot to shout about.

For starters, they wouldn't be fighting Russia alone, if it all kicked off. They have Europe backing them up = multiple fronts invading USS...I mean Russia

America could invade Russia via Alaska. and NATO would be attacking from Turkey, Scandinavia, the Baltics, and of course, from Central Europe, driving straight for Moscow.

And this time, there would be a pause for the Russian winter!

No. It would be nuclear war.

Because it would be a war against Russia alone, or would Russia's foreign allies not hop on too? Hmn, though that situation has me reminded of Germany asking Mexico to invade the US...

But aye, Russia's fine to invade former satellite states with no nuclear weapons, but a war against nuclear states is just asking for one party to use them in a tactical capacity at some point. Nukes these days aren't the Tsar Bomba things, but yes, anyone using one is just asking for trouble, though eventually, someday, someone's going to have the bright idea of setting one off. =P

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Because it would be a war against Russia alone, or would Russia's foreign allies not hop on too? Hmn, though that situation has me reminded of Germany asking Mexico to invade the US...

But aye, Russia's fine to invade former satellite states with no nuclear weapons, but a war against nuclear states is just asking for one party to use them in a tactical capacity at some point. Nukes these days aren't the Tsar Bomba things, but yes, anyone using one is just asking for trouble, though eventually, someday, someone's going to have the bright idea of setting one off. =P

Russia is never going to invade a NATO country. The whole premise of NATO is to create a tripwire to discourage precisely that kind of aggression. Russia invades Estonia and it guarantees that the other 27 NATO nations declare war on Russia. Once Russia instigates a war against 28 other countries, nobody else is going to jump in to help Russia. Russia doesn't have enough conventional forces to fight NATO alone and it would serve no purpose for Russia to start a nuclear war against the only countries capable of nuking Russia into extinction in retaliation.

Plus, in today's world of interconnected global trade nobody is going to commit national economic suicide by starting another world war.

Frazz, you're forgetting NATO's good luck charm: CANADA

The Canadians have never lost a war, and certainly not to those damn Yankees

As noted, I salute our maple drinking brethren on their Canada Day. Gimme some bacon!

 Wyrmalla wrote:
[Sure Russia, that's how the law works. ...Ah wait, no that's apparently how the law works in that country actually.

Sadly for our nice peaceful neighbors that is actually how law works in Russia. Do you recall ever seeing those YouTube videos with crazy traffic accidents from Russia? There wouldn't be that many unless there was reason to have a camera in your car, and when the difference between innocence and guilt in an accident otherwise is who bribes the police more you really want picture evidence. And top interest cases like the murder of politicians? It would seem someone tells the police who is guilty, then they collect evidence supporting that scenario.

It's really a shame that a country filled with mostly generous, kind and polite people is still ruled by the worst sort of bandits. :-(

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
We've been posting military equipment throughout these countries recently. Putin is going to have to tread MUCH more carefully this time.

Where did my post go?
To restate. Its my understanding these are actual NATO countries. Further, the US has announced placement of heavy combat units in several of them. If Putin wants to watch his hole country burn in atomic fire, then he can start some crap.

In the words of Fats Domino: Suck it!

We should be very careful not to underestimate our enemies. "'MERICA!!!!!!" doesn't really cut it anymore, and at some point we have to recognize that we aren't an island of capability in a sea of ineptitude - other countries have some bite to their bark as well.

But its not just "Murica", those countries are actually part of the EU and of Nato and have both European and NATO forces stationed in them so any Russian invasion would instantly come in direct confrontation with these international forces.

Heck, even my crappy country has F-16's stationed in Estonia covering their air space.

Granted, but the whole "It's OK, we will just nuke them" outlook isn't very productive. I don't know any active duty US personnel who are really looking forward to a war with Russia.

I'd much prefer it to China or even N. Korea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:


Plus, in today's world of interconnected global trade nobody is going to commit national economic suicide by starting another world war.

Everyone said this before WW1... just sayin.

The world was also more economically globalized prior to WW1 than it is today (especially Europe). I.E.-The "but they're a major trading partner" argument is invalid.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
[Sure Russia, that's how the law works. ...Ah wait, no that's apparently how the law works in that country actually.

Sadly for our nice peaceful neighbors that is actually how law works in Russia. Do you recall ever seeing those YouTube videos with crazy traffic accidents from Russia? There wouldn't be that many unless there was reason to have a camera in your car, and when the difference between innocence and guilt in an accident otherwise is who bribes the police more you really want picture evidence. And top interest cases like the murder of politicians? It would seem someone tells the police who is guilty, then they collect evidence supporting that scenario.

It's really a shame that a country filled with mostly generous, kind and polite people is still ruled by the worst sort of bandits. :-(

Actually, the primary reason for the dashcams in Russian cars is that they are demanded by insurance companies and courts. They need solid proof. That makes them almost mandatory in a car.
Of course, that does not take away that the police can be very corrupt (though this varies between departments and individual officers), but the scenario you describe above is pretty extreme (the one with the accident, the one about the politicians is entirely accurate, altough that is more the hand of the FSB). More common is that police officers will try to fine you for offenses you did not commit, so they can earn some extra money. Corruption has also decreased noticeably after the most recent reforms (which raised police salaries etc.). But regardless, dashcams come in handy in corrupt police scenarios too, altough that is not their primary purpose.

It is great to see a Finn saying something positive about Russians for a change though. Finland is pretty popular with Russians, but from my experience that feeling is usually not mutual.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I thought Apache helicopters had made tanks redundant?

And AAA can make a mess of helicopters. There is no 'Smith & Wesson beats four aces", everything has it's advantages and disadvantages.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I thought Apache helicopters had made tanks redundant?

And AAA can make a mess of helicopters. There is no 'Smith & Wesson beats four aces", everything has it's advantages and disadvantages.

Yep, ask the 11th AHR how their attack against the Iraqi Medina division in Karbala went.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

On a more serious note, who uses tanks these days anyway? I thought Apache helicopters had made tanks redundant?

Not in the slightest. People are used to asymmetric power in modern conflict. Iraqi tanks were prey to air power, however when the technology is more even helicopters are in trouble. They are VERY vulnerable. Besides deserts tend to offer fewer paces to hide against air power than temperate rural landscape, which evens things out also.

Air power is the decisive arm, but the EW is the deciding factor in air power, and in a European war that is far more even than when fighting an Arab state. Helicopters especially have a very short survival expectation in a modern war.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


The Baltic States were never a legal part of the Soviet Union.

Legality is decided by tanks, not by laws. Sad, but it is true.

However the legality means when the west bankrolls and arms freedom fighters (note they would'nt be terrorists) and Russians start getting shot or blown up they might find the Baltic states are not worth having. Also the Baltic states don't like Russians much and are motivated to stay free. Give them enough hand held anti-whatever missiles, while sanctions are crippling whats left of the Russian economy. Saying that importing arms will be considerably difficult than during the 80's Afghan war, possibly why its being done now.
Legality is a big deal, tanks or no tanks.
Putin handled Crimea well, and that might still not turn out for the best. An adventure into the Baltic states is simply not viable, I could see Russia's sea trade bing blocked, NATO would almost certainly close the Bosphorus and the Baltic. Russia would only be able to effectively trade with Iran and China, Iran doesn't have much and China will make Russia pay extra for the privilege, and would be encouraged in this.
k
However there would be no nuclear war, Washington would eventually consider it not worth it, and the UK and France wont be directly threatened either.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

On a more serious note, who uses tanks these days anyway? I thought Apache helicopters had made tanks redundant?

Not in the slightest. People are used to asymmetric power in modern conflict. Iraqi tanks were prey to air power, however when the technology is more even helicopters are in trouble. They are VERY vulnerable. Besides deserts tend to offer fewer paces to hide against air power than temperate rural landscape, which evens things out also.

Air power is the decisive arm, but the EW is the deciding factor in air power, and in a European war that is far more even than when fighting an Arab state. Helicopters especially have a very short survival expectation in a modern war.

Yeah, if you have ever tried to fly a helicopter in Arma II you know that

 Orlanth wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


The Baltic States were never a legal part of the Soviet Union.

Legality is decided by tanks, not by laws. Sad, but it is true.

However the legality means when the west bankrolls and arms freedom fighters (note they would'nt be terrorists) and Russians start getting shot or blown up they might find the Baltic states are not worth having. Also the Baltic states don't like Russians much and are motivated to stay free. Give them enough hand held anti-whatever missiles, while sanctions are crippling whats left of the Russian economy. Saying that importing arms will be considerably difficult than during the 80's Afghan war, possibly why its being done now.
Legality is a big deal, tanks or no tanks.
Putin handled Crimea well, and that might still not turn out for the best. An adventure into the Baltic states is simply not viable, I could see Russia's sea trade bing blocked, NATO would almost certainly close the Bosphorus and the Baltic. Russia would only be able to effectively trade with Iran and China, Iran doesn't have much and China will make Russia pay extra for the privilege, and would be encouraged in this.
k
However there would be no nuclear war, Washington would eventually consider it not worth it, and the UK and France wont be directly threatened either.

Legality is not important when you have tanks (or aircraft). Just look at the actions of the US over the past 200 years. The reality is that the most powerful are above the law because no one can call them out on it and make them pay.
Terrorist is a matter of perspective. Every terrorist is someone else's freedom fighter and vice versa. Russia has occupied the Baltic states for centuries and been highly effective at putting down rebellions. Don't see that changing anytime soon. In fact, it is easier now that a large part of the population is ethnic Russian. The Baltic states are no Afghanistan. Its small population and size, mostly open terrain and closeness to the Russian center of power make it hard for terrorists to hide and pull of succesful operations.
I don't see NATO blocking the Bosporus. Ships are very vulnerable in modern warfare, and that is within range of all Russian anti-ship missiles, strike craft and Black Sea Fleet. If they are smart, they blockade the strait of Gibraltar and Red Sea instead.
I agree that under current circumstances, an invasion of the Baltics would not be smart. It is better to wait until the Russian economy is less vulnerable and dependent on the West, and NATO is put to sleep again and distracted by another issue.

Implying russia's economy will be anything more than an energy exporter.

 Ustrello wrote:
Implying russia's economy will be anything more than an energy exporter.

That always surprises me...

Russia is big enough, such that, they SHOULD be leaders in all things in:
Energy Export
Farming Exports
Mineral/Lumber Exports

They should simply be dominating... what gives?

Not enough capitalism/foreign investments?

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Implying russia's economy will be anything more than an energy exporter.

That always surprises me...

Russia is big enough, such that, they SHOULD be leaders in all things in:
Energy Export
Farming Exports
Mineral/Lumber Exports

They should simply be dominating... what gives?

Not enough capitalism/foreign investments?

Corruption at the highest levels hurts a lot. I am honestly surprised that putin hasn't been sacked yet due to angry oligarchs losing lots of money.

Tanks are still the kings of the battle field. The problem is that they only work in a combined arms environment. You don't send Tanks in unsupported by Infantry and some kind of anti air.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Germany made moves to start getting its tanks out of mothballs and buying new tanks, a few months ago.

Britain on the same side as Germany, against Russia...feels weird

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_%26_Conquer:_Red_Alert

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Aye and the UK would have trouble fighting a country larger than the Vatican these days with the amount of budget cuts.

The UK and the Soviets are more or less on par in military spending, it's about 60 billion each.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
On a more serious note, who uses tanks these days anyway? I thought Apache helicopters had made tanks redundant?

Ultimately in war you need something to do the job that tanks do, a big gun with strong protection that can provide mobile hardpoint, either as support for an offensive or as part of a mobile defence... well there's plenty of stuff that can kill tanks but nothing that can perform its role.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Agree to a certain extent with this, but in reality, America does have a lot to shout about.

For starters, they wouldn't be fighting Russia alone, if it all kicked off. They have Europe backing them up = multiple fronts invading USS...I mean Russia

America could invade Russia via Alaska. and NATO would be attacking from Turkey, Scandinavia, the Baltics, and of course, from Central Europe, driving straight for Moscow.

No, the idea of formal war between Russia and NATO is pretty far fetched as it is, especially over the Balkans. But if it did happen no-one would be escalating it outside of the region.

And this time, there would be a pause for the Russian winter!

There would be a pause for the nuclear winter...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Plus, in today's world of interconnected global trade nobody is going to commit national economic suicide by starting another world war.

I used to think that as well, but then I learned about how vast global trade was in 1914. We often stumble in to war despite our best economic interests.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Legality is not important when you have tanks (or aircraft). Just look at the actions of the US over the past 200 years. The reality is that the most powerful are above the law because no one can call them out on it and make them pay.

There is no doubt that Russia could drive in, there ae doubts they could stay.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Terrorist is a matter of perspective. Every terrorist is someone else's freedom fighter and vice versa.

Which is why the legality is an issue, Moscow will consider them terrorists, thats a given, but nobody else will.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Russia has occupied the Baltic states for centuries and been highly effective at putting down rebellions.

Even the Russians will baulk at a return of Stalinism.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Don't see that changing anytime soon. In fact, it is easier now that a large part of the population is ethnic Russian. The Baltic states are no Afghanistan. Its small population and size, mostly open terrain and closeness to the Russian center of power make it hard for terrorists to hide and pull of successful operations.

Sure if you level the cities, if you police them on the other hand expect trouble.
I would put money down that they are digging caches in the woods in Baltic states right now, for the partisan.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I don't see NATO blocking the Bosporus. Ships are very vulnerable in modern warfare, and that is within range of all Russian anti-ship missiles, strike craft and Black Sea Fleet. If they are smart, they blockade the strait of Gibraltar and Red Sea instead.

Look at a map, find out where the Bosporus is and guess again. You could only make he above comment if you had a mistaken memory of what the Bosporus is.
It's Istanbul, the capital of a NATO member state that doesn't like Russians very much. Russian shipping has to go right past the city. You don't need ships to close it, though a few patrol boats to confiscate hipping making passage to Russia would be required, that is all.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I agree that under current circumstances, an invasion of the Baltics would not be smart. It is better to wait until the Russian economy is less vulnerable and dependent on the West, and NATO is put to sleep again and distracted by another issue.

Our politicians are far more short sighted than yours, but a Baltics states adventure would wake everyne up, if by any chance anyone is still asleep after the Ukraine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Aye and the UK would have trouble fighting a country larger than the Vatican these days with the amount of budget cuts.

The UK and the Soviets are more or less on par in military spending, it's about 60 billion each.

Russ spends that on its military, we spend that on our civil service and buy substandard equipment at inflated prices.

When cuts happen, whole regiments disappear, but not a single suit in the MoD gets early retirement. The numbers are the same as before the defence review at the end f the cold war. No politician has the balls to cut the civil service. It's a corrupt little gravy train thats stays out of press attention, and passes all blame to the elected politicians.

The UK defence budget is big enough to have teeth, but to have those teeth we need to take a mega-axe to the MoD. That requires a mega-axe to fall on Whitehall in general, and no politician has the guts to even put that down as a policy let alone do it.

This is why soldiers are cut when saving are needed, they dont complain and make waves for the politicians, and the MoD doesn't care so long as they get to keep their overpaid jobs.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
[Sure Russia, that's how the law works. ...Ah wait, no that's apparently how the law works in that country actually.

Sadly for our nice peaceful neighbors that is actually how law works in Russia. Do you recall ever seeing those YouTube videos with crazy traffic accidents from Russia? There wouldn't be that many unless there was reason to have a camera in your car, and when the difference between innocence and guilt in an accident otherwise is who bribes the police more you really want picture evidence. And top interest cases like the murder of politicians? It would seem someone tells the police who is guilty, then they collect evidence supporting that scenario.

It's really a shame that a country filled with mostly generous, kind and polite people is still ruled by the worst sort of bandits. :-(

Actually, the primary reason for the dashcams in Russian cars is that they are demanded by insurance companies and courts. They need solid proof. That makes them almost mandatory in a car.
Of course, that does not take away that the police can be very corrupt (though this varies between departments and individual officers), but the scenario you describe above is pretty extreme (the one with the accident, the one about the politicians is entirely accurate, altough that is more the hand of the FSB). More common is that police officers will try to fine you for offenses you did not commit, so they can earn some extra money. Corruption has also decreased noticeably after the most recent reforms (which raised police salaries etc.). But regardless, dashcams come in handy in corrupt police scenarios too, altough that is not their primary purpose.

It is great to see a Finn saying something positive about Russians for a change though. Finland is pretty popular with Russians, but from my experience that feeling is usually not mutual.

I used to think that Russians must be terrible at driving, then the obvious hit me that they're the ones you see because they recorded it.

It's said that the end of the world will be recorded on a Russian dashboard camera. There's that great video of the meteorite coming down and the guy driving just pulls down his sunvisor

Thanks for the replies about my query over Apache helicopters.

I can't believe I fell for the propaganda. One flew over my house once, I was intimidated

Anyway, I need reassurance that my tax money has been well spent.

Yes, helicopters are vulnerable to AA

but can an Apache still take out a modern tank? Yes or no.

Oh yes, an Apache can still take out a modern tank.

The newest models are upgraded to give the crew control of a UAV that will help locate and ID targets, allowing the Apache to better pick where to engage from. That will help some too.

The 'deep strike' mission disaster against the Medina division I mentioned (early 2003) pointed out some errors in doctrine and mission planning (SEAD was all flucked up and they were not properly trained for urban combat in a complex environment). A lot of that has been sorted out.

Of course, the Talibs have been pretty good at ambushing rotary wing air craft too.

 sebster wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Aye and the UK would have trouble fighting a country larger than the Vatican these days with the amount of budget cuts.

The UK and the Soviets are more or less on par in military spending, it's about 60 billion each.

What's a Soviet? Some sort of pastry?

 Orlanth wrote:


Look at a map, find out where the Bosporus is and guess again. You could only make he above comment if you had a mistaken memory of what the Bosporus is.
It's Istanbul, the capital of a NATO member state that doesn't like Russians very much. Russian shipping has to go right past the city. You don't need ships to close it, though a few patrol boats to confiscate hipping making passage to Russia would be required, that is all.

Ankara is the capital of Turkey, not Istanbul.

 CptJake wrote:
Oh yes, an Apache can still take out a modern tank.

The newest models are upgraded to give the crew control of a UAV that will help locate and ID targets, allowing the Apache to better pick where to engage from. That will help some too.

The 'deep strike' mission disaster against the Medina division I mentioned (early 2003) pointed out some errors in doctrine and mission planning (SEAD was all flucked up and they were not properly trained for urban combat in a complex environment). A lot of that has been sorted out.

Of course, the Talibs have been pretty good at ambushing rotary wing air craft too.

Thanks for the info. Slightly OT, but could you answer this question, as well. I've appointed you my military advisor

Whenever I read books about US troops in Iraq, or see footage of American Humvees driving through Iraq towns (from 5-6 years ago)

They always seem to drive through narrow streets in tightly packed convoys.

Now, it strikes me that this is a perfect scenario for an ambush. All it takes is for somebody to pop out a house and fire a RPG or something and block the convoy.

Now, the US military wouldn't be so stupid to expose themselves like this. Are there troops securing the houses on the route or other measures?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Oh yes, an Apache can still take out a modern tank.

The newest models are upgraded to give the crew control of a UAV that will help locate and ID targets, allowing the Apache to better pick where to engage from. That will help some too.

The 'deep strike' mission disaster against the Medina division I mentioned (early 2003) pointed out some errors in doctrine and mission planning (SEAD was all flucked up and they were not properly trained for urban combat in a complex environment). A lot of that has been sorted out.

Of course, the Talibs have been pretty good at ambushing rotary wing air craft too.

Thanks for the info. Slightly OT, but could you answer this question, as well. I've appointed you my military advisor

Whenever I read books about US troops in Iraq, or see footage of American Humvees driving through Iraq towns (from 5-6 years ago)

They always seem to drive through narrow streets in tightly packed convoys.

Now, it strikes me that this is a perfect scenario for an ambush. All it takes is for somebody to pop out a house and fire a RPG or something and block the convoy.

Now, the US military wouldn't be so stupid to expose themselves like this. Are there troops securing the houses on the route or other measures?

Reminds me of German ww2 tank tactics.

When tanks were all traveling in a convoy they'd aim to destroy the front and rear tanks first to block guys in the middle.

I suppose it comes down to needing to go somewhere and that being the only suitable road. Or maybe just Hollywood getting it wrong?

 sebster wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Aye and the UK would have trouble fighting a country larger than the Vatican these days with the amount of budget cuts.

The UK and the Soviets are more or less on par in military spending, it's about 60 billion each.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
On a more serious note, who uses tanks these days anyway? I thought Apache helicopters had made tanks redundant?

Ultimately in war you need something to do the job that tanks do, a big gun with strong protection that can provide mobile hardpoint, either as support for an offensive or as part of a mobile defence... well there's plenty of stuff that can kill tanks but nothing that can perform its role.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Agree to a certain extent with this, but in reality, America does have a lot to shout about.

For starters, they wouldn't be fighting Russia alone, if it all kicked off. They have Europe backing them up = multiple fronts invading USS...I mean Russia

America could invade Russia via Alaska. and NATO would be attacking from Turkey, Scandinavia, the Baltics, and of course, from Central Europe, driving straight for Moscow.

No, the idea of formal war between Russia and NATO is pretty far fetched as it is, especially over the Balkans. But if it did happen no-one would be escalating it outside of the region.

And this time, there would be a pause for the Russian winter!

There would be a pause for the nuclear winter...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Plus, in today's world of interconnected global trade nobody is going to commit national economic suicide by starting another world war.

I used to think that as well, but then I learned about how vast global trade was in 1914. We often stumble in to war despite our best economic interests.

Forget the Balkans, we're discussing the Baltics. Although I don't think Putin would be daft enough to provoke a showdown with NATO. This is sabre rattling.

No, the idea of formal war between Russia and NATO is pretty far fetched as it is, especially over the Balkans. But if it did happen no-one would be escalating it outside of the region.

Thats cute. You must have been asleep during the Cold War. People think playing finger puppy war between nuclear powers means anything but eventual escalation into fusion bomb jamboree are out of their fething minds.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Oh yes, an Apache can still take out a modern tank.

The newest models are upgraded to give the crew control of a UAV that will help locate and ID targets, allowing the Apache to better pick where to engage from. That will help some too.

The 'deep strike' mission disaster against the Medina division I mentioned (early 2003) pointed out some errors in doctrine and mission planning (SEAD was all flucked up and they were not properly trained for urban combat in a complex environment). A lot of that has been sorted out.

Of course, the Talibs have been pretty good at ambushing rotary wing air craft too.

Thanks for the info. Slightly OT, but could you answer this question, as well. I've appointed you my military advisor

Whenever I read books about US troops in Iraq, or see footage of American Humvees driving through Iraq towns (from 5-6 years ago)

They always seem to drive through narrow streets in tightly packed convoys.

Now, it strikes me that this is a perfect scenario for an ambush. All it takes is for somebody to pop out a house and fire a RPG or something and block the convoy.

Now, the US military wouldn't be so stupid to expose themselves like this. Are there troops securing the houses on the route or other measures?

Any video's you saw were either Hollywood or just idiots. In convoys the #1 think preached beyond anything else is DISPERSION. With that said sometimes you have to bunch up for traffic jams and such. but usually when that happened we would all dismount and search our local area for insurgents, IED's or just to buy some local produce from the people to make them think of us as heavily armed and armored police We had a lot of success with our AO, in fact by the end of my Deployment we had several incidents where Taliban came to lay IED's and the Townspeople beat the hell out of them.

But anyway, your tactical analysis is dead on, that is how you are supposed to stop a convoy and turn it into a turkey shoot. Its just not common (maybe in the army....I don't know there SOPs)

There won't be anymore tank battles like Kursk but tanks are still very useful in a combined arms war.

ChrisRR wrote:
There won't be anymore tank battles like Kursk but tanks are still very useful in a combined arms war.

I don't know. We saw tank battles in Iraq (lots of close range engagements during the two 'thunder runs' in 2003 for example), the Russians saw them in Georgia and the Ukraine. If India and Pakistan ever go at it there will likely be tank battles.

They will have evolved since the days of Kursk (which was still very much a combined arms battle with infantry, supporting artillery and air and so on), as has warfare over all, but mechanized forces clashing (and the associated tank battles) at some level is bound to happen even in the near future.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Aye and the UK would have trouble fighting a country larger than the Vatican these days with the amount of budget cuts. That's the thing if one country's been bankrolling their army, they're going to be in a better situation than a lot of NATO countries who have been cutting theirs for years. Politicians can be all bluster, but the joke will be on them if they try and start a war only for them to discover that they've cut the military to the bone. If Russia did invade somewhere more than a few countries would have to go into the fight undermanned and just hope that they'd have enough support from the other cut down armies to hold long enough to rebuild. =P

Aye. And we are getting to a point were most US officers want OUT of NATO. What the hell do we gain from it? It's just a liability. I was hoping when Stavridis was wearing the pants over there he would shake things up a bit, but alas, we wasted a good Admiral on nothing. NATO serves zero useful purpose for America any longer now that rest of the signatories have Gucci, photo-op only militaries.

 Silverthorne wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Aye and the UK would have trouble fighting a country larger than the Vatican these days with the amount of budget cuts. That's the thing if one country's been bankrolling their army, they're going to be in a better situation than a lot of NATO countries who have been cutting theirs for years. Politicians can be all bluster, but the joke will be on them if they try and start a war only for them to discover that they've cut the military to the bone. If Russia did invade somewhere more than a few countries would have to go into the fight undermanned and just hope that they'd have enough support from the other cut down armies to hold long enough to rebuild. =P

Aye. And we are getting to a point were most US officers want OUT of NATO. What the hell do we gain from it?

Military bases and an easy way to contain Russia?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Silverthorne wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Aye and the UK would have trouble fighting a country larger than the Vatican these days with the amount of budget cuts. That's the thing if one country's been bankrolling their army, they're going to be in a better situation than a lot of NATO countries who have been cutting theirs for years. Politicians can be all bluster, but the joke will be on them if they try and start a war only for them to discover that they've cut the military to the bone. If Russia did invade somewhere more than a few countries would have to go into the fight undermanned and just hope that they'd have enough support from the other cut down armies to hold long enough to rebuild. =P

Aye. And we are getting to a point were most US officers want OUT of NATO. What the hell do we gain from it?

Military bases and an easy way to contain Russia?

If we're not in NATO, which the hell would we care if Russia is contained? We should do business with them, sell them Canadian maple syrup, and Mexican ponchos.
Us should pull out of all these things before we trip into another great war with China, Russia, or heaven forbid the awesome military power that is...Belgium.

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Silverthorne wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Aye and the UK would have trouble fighting a country larger than the Vatican these days with the amount of budget cuts. That's the thing if one country's been bankrolling their army, they're going to be in a better situation than a lot of NATO countries who have been cutting theirs for years. Politicians can be all bluster, but the joke will be on them if they try and start a war only for them to discover that they've cut the military to the bone. If Russia did invade somewhere more than a few countries would have to go into the fight undermanned and just hope that they'd have enough support from the other cut down armies to hold long enough to rebuild. =P

Aye. And we are getting to a point were most US officers want OUT of NATO. What the hell do we gain from it?

Military bases and an easy way to contain Russia?

If we're not in NATO, which the hell would we care if Russia is contained?

Because your entire economy is built around being the world hegemon?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Silverthorne wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Aye and the UK would have trouble fighting a country larger than the Vatican these days with the amount of budget cuts. That's the thing if one country's been bankrolling their army, they're going to be in a better situation than a lot of NATO countries who have been cutting theirs for years. Politicians can be all bluster, but the joke will be on them if they try and start a war only for them to discover that they've cut the military to the bone. If Russia did invade somewhere more than a few countries would have to go into the fight undermanned and just hope that they'd have enough support from the other cut down armies to hold long enough to rebuild. =P

Aye. And we are getting to a point were most US officers want OUT of NATO. What the hell do we gain from it?

Military bases and an easy way to contain Russia?

If we're not in NATO, which the hell would we care if Russia is contained?

Because your entire economy is built around being the world hegemon?

Why would we want to die to defend your land, AGAIN? The idea of one drop of American blood being shed on yet another idiotic European power struggle is too tragic to contemplate. There is zero incentive for us to risk nuclear war to contain Russia. And our economy is not built around military hegemony as much as being the massive consumer everyone sells too. With a trade deficit the size of ours, it doesn't really matter who owns Europe sense in any case we will import far, far more than we export.

 Silverthorne wrote:
Why would we want to die to defend your land, AGAIN? The idea of one drop of American blood being shed on yet another idiotic European power struggle is too tragic to contemplate. There is zero incentive for us to risk nuclear war to contain Russia. And our economy is not built around military hegemony as much as being the massive consumer everyone sells too. With a trade deficit the size of ours, it doesn't really matter who owns Europe sense in any case we will import far, far more than we export.

What's wrong with shedding a bit of blood for your allies, whom you share the same values with? Your country seem perfectly willing to spill gallons of american blood on some god forsaken desert, so why not do same for us?

Our allies? Countries that have allowed their militaries to wither away to a couple of guys and an armed hang glider have ALREADY abandoned us. They have already foresaken their responsibility as allies to pull their weight in a conflict. You're just rent-seekers. Free Loaders. Dead Weight. Pass.

 Silverthorne wrote:

Why would we want to die to defend your land, AGAIN? The idea of one drop of American blood being shed on yet another idiotic European power struggle is too tragic to contemplate.

I love the way that helping to eliminate the Nazi's (responsible for the concentration camps) and the Japanese Empire (who tested chemical weapons on civilians, the Bantam death march, and more) is painted as an 'idiotic European power struggle'.

I like to think that should the horrors of such industrial level atrocities arise again, America would help to do something about it, regardless of how 'tragic' you might consider it.

Not to mention the fact that America did exceedingly well out of both wars financially. And takes on the defence burden it does because it's terrified of the idea of militaristic European powers rising to the fore again.

No, no. Just you guys helping out of generosity. Right?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Silverthorne wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Aye and the UK would have trouble fighting a country larger than the Vatican these days with the amount of budget cuts. That's the thing if one country's been bankrolling their army, they're going to be in a better situation than a lot of NATO countries who have been cutting theirs for years. Politicians can be all bluster, but the joke will be on them if they try and start a war only for them to discover that they've cut the military to the bone. If Russia did invade somewhere more than a few countries would have to go into the fight undermanned and just hope that they'd have enough support from the other cut down armies to hold long enough to rebuild. =P

Aye. And we are getting to a point were most US officers want OUT of NATO. What the hell do we gain from it?

Military bases and an easy way to contain Russia?

If we're not in NATO, which the hell would we care if Russia is contained?

Because your entire economy is built around being the world hegemon?

We did just fine before you guys dragged us into the wars.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Redcruisair wrote:

 Silverthorne wrote:
Why would we want to die to defend your land, AGAIN? The idea of one drop of American blood being shed on yet another idiotic European power struggle is too tragic to contemplate. There is zero incentive for us to risk nuclear war to contain Russia. And our economy is not built around military hegemony as much as being the massive consumer everyone sells too. With a trade deficit the size of ours, it doesn't really matter who owns Europe sense in any case we will import far, far more than we export.

What's wrong with shedding a bit of blood for your allies, whom you share the same values with? Your country seem perfectly willing to spill gallons of american blood on some god forsaken desert, so why not do same for us?

We don't share the same values. Not a one of you turkeys has ever tasted quality TexMex.

 Ketara wrote:

 Silverthorne wrote:

Why would we want to die to defend your land, AGAIN? The idea of one drop of American blood being shed on yet another idiotic European power struggle is too tragic to contemplate.

I love the way that helping to eliminate the Nazi's (responsible for the concentration camps) and the Japanese Empire (who tested chemical weapons on civilians, the Bantam death march, and more) is painted as an 'idiotic European power struggle'.

I like to think that should the horrors of such industrial level atrocities arise again, America would help to do something about it, regardless of how 'tragic' you might consider it.

Not to mention the fact that America did exceedingly well out of both wars financially. And takes on the defence burden it does because it's terrified of the idea of militaristic European powers rising to the fore again.

No, no. Just you guys helping out of generosity. Right?

You're missing the point. You are delinquent in meeting even a fraction of your obligations as a NATO member in terms of maintaining military force. In WW2, the British military was, materially, almost a match for Germany by itself. Now you're just a massive, floating vulnerability. We gain nothing from a treaty with weaklings who beg for our protection but are too decadent to spend their own money and sons on defense. If you really want to not speak Russian this time two years from now, I'd recommend rebuilding your military, because the chance that America is going to come bail out your recent string of bad decision making against the nuclear armed Russian military is slim to none.

Hey...

<-- this guy want's NATO/US to flex a bit.

I'd tell Putin to suck it as we re-build missile defense shield networks move assets a bit closer.

 Ketara wrote:

 Silverthorne wrote:

Why would we want to die to defend your land, AGAIN? The idea of one drop of American blood being shed on yet another idiotic European power struggle is too tragic to contemplate.

I love the way that helping to eliminate the Nazi's (responsible for the concentration camps) and the Japanese Empire (who tested chemical weapons on civilians, the Bantam death march, and more) is painted as an 'idiotic European power struggle'.

I like to think that should the horrors of such industrial level atrocities arise again, America would help to do something about it, regardless of how 'tragic' you might consider it.

Not to mention the fact that America did exceedingly well out of both wars financially. And takes on the defence burden it does because it's terrified of the idea of militaristic European powers rising to the fore again.

No, no. Just you guys helping out of generosity. Right?

yes actually. It took the Japanese to bomb the crap out of before we started.
WWI truly just a European fracas.
Baltics-who gives a gak?

Tallying the butcher's bill since 1913, and I'd call it a loss.

 Silverthorne wrote:
Our allies? Countries that have allowed their militaries to wither away to a couple of guys and an armed hang glider have ALREADY abandoned us. They have already foresaken their responsibility as allies to pull their weight in a conflict. You're just rent-seekers. Free Loaders. Dead Weight. Pass.

Man do you actually for just one moment believe this utter nonsense you’re spewing right now? So no one of us helped you out in the countless wars US itself has started?
Did none of us send our bombers to the civil war in Libya? Did none of us send our boys down in that dark pit of a country called Afghanistan? Are we currently not assisting you in combating ISIS?

I can’t speak for the other EU countries, but each and every time US called its allies to arms, we were there to help you out. So don’t come here and spew this ignorant bullgak about how we “are good for nothing dead weights”.

 Silverthorne wrote:


You're missing the point. You are delinquent in meeting even a fraction of your obligations as a NATO member in terms of maintaining military force. In WW2, the British military was, materially, almost a match for Germany by itself. Now you're just a massive, floating vulnerability.

Oh dear. It sounds to me like someone hasn't studied realpolitik or conventional military statistics.

Firstly, my particular nation lives on an island. Bar nuclear weaponry, the only power in existence who can hope to hurt us in any significant way us is America. Nobody else has the necessary airpower or seapower to do more than scratch us in conventional terms (relatively speaking). And what we retain in terms of ships and planes is more than sufficient for home defence.

With regards to nukes, we currently have an independent deterrent. Whilst we couldn't quite crack the face of the earth the way Russia and America can, we can still vaporise most major Russian (or American, if it came to it) cities and leave the country in shambles.

We're also the only power in the world bar America capable of moving an army around the world. So actually, we're not doing too badly for ourselves. Far from the 'floating vulnerability' you paint us as.

We gain nothing from a treaty with weaklings who beg for our protection but are too decadent to spend their own money and sons on defense. If you really want to not speak Russian this time two years from now, I'd recommend rebuilding your military, because the chance that America is going to come bail out your recent string of bad decision making against the nuclear armed Russian military is slim to none.

Yes. Because all of those nuclear bazooka armed infantry...waitaminute..., I mean, all of those nuclear shell armed tanks.....I mean, those nuclear guns carried by their aircraft...hmmm...you know it's almost as if nuclear weaponry has no real place in a conventional battlefield!

I don't think I'll need to learn Russian any time soon.

Silverthorne, that has just to be some of the most offensive drivel I've ever had the misfortune of reading, here on dakka.

Hundreds of British men and women died supporting your nation's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I would say more, but I won't, because I quite like most of the American dakka members, and if I replied, I would inadvertently offended them, and I don't want to do that.

 Frazzled wrote:

Tallying the butcher's bill since 1913, and I'd call it a loss.

I don't know. Pax Americana has served your country reasonably well. It's possible (even likely) that its time is beginning to draw to a close, but it's helped the US to become the behemoth it is today.

 Redcruisair wrote:

 Silverthorne wrote:
Our allies? Countries that have allowed their militaries to wither away to a couple of guys and an armed hang glider have ALREADY abandoned us. They have already foresaken their responsibility as allies to pull their weight in a conflict. You're just rent-seekers. Free Loaders. Dead Weight. Pass.

Man do you actually for just one moment believe this utter nonsense you’re spewing right now? So no one of us helped you out in the countless wars US itself has started?
Did none of us send our bombers to the civil war in Libya? Did none of us send our boys down in that dark pit of a country called Afghanistan? Are we currently not assisting you in combating ISIS?

I can’t speak for the other EU countries, but each and every time US called its allies to arms, we were there to help you out. So don’t come here and spew this ignorant bullgak about how we “are good for nothing dead weights”.

UK did. I'll back their play, at least until Scotland secedes, then the oil is ours muahaha
Denmark didn't send bombers to Libya. Further, Libya wasn't started by us, but by Europe. Try harder.

Yeah, and I've been part of a British command before, on a joint tour. Doesn't change the fact that you are not a military player any longer. Iraq, do you really want to kick that can open? Basra? Want to talk about what happened there? Helmand province? Want to talk about that? We can talk frankly about the British Military failures in these areas without denigrating the British soldier or royal marine. You're mistaking my contempt for the overall status of the British military (which is exclusively a function of your elected politicians refusing to adequately arm and equip your forces) with my respect for British troops as individuals. Sadly, random infantry with zero combat support and like, 24 attack helicopters in the entire force does not an effective military make. You can choose to get as butt-hurt about the facts as you want, and to deliberately misread meif you please, but that's your decision.

And the idea that the Royal Navy could penetrate into enemy waters and deliver troops has been a fantasy since at least 1944, and probably earlier. No way with the pitiful amphibious lift capability left in the RN and the complete, total lack of any fixed wing navy aviation could you effect any type of amphibous operation solo. Sorry.


"Our War" What a load of horsegak. Nobody put a gun to your head and told you that you had to come. Your boy Blair was thick as thieves with Bush. It's yours as much as ours.

 Ketara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Tallying the butcher's bill since 1913, and I'd call it a loss.

I don't know. Pax Americana has served your country reasonably well. It's possible (even likely) that its time is beginning to draw to a close, but it's helped the US to become the behemoth it is today.

Unemployment is worse than before 1913.
No manufacturing. Its all in China.
Lots of coffins though.
No more. We shouldn't even have advisors in the ME or Europe at this point.

Oh, and check the sortie numbers for US vs. Everyone else in the Libya and Syria campaigns. You guys burned enough gas to say you showed up.... and that's about it. We've dropped well over 95% of the tonnage over there.

Libya should not have been started at all. So the countries who did not help should be the ones you must thank.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Libya should not have been started at all. So the countries who did not help should be the ones you must thank.

Couldn't agree more. Have an exalt. Now the blast effects from Libya are starting to take out Italy and Spain.

 Silverthorne wrote:
Yeah, and I've been part of a British command before, on a joint tour. Doesn't change the fact that you are not a military player any longer. Iraq, do you really want to kick that can open? Basra? Want to talk about what happened there? Helmand province? Want to talk about that? We can talk frankly about the British Military failures in these areas without denigrating the British soldier or royal marine.

America made plenty of mistakes in that war as well. I wouldn't open that can of worms.

You're mistaking my contempt for the overall status of the British military (which is exclusively a function of your elected politicians refusing to adequately arm and equip your forces) with my respect for British troops as individuals.

No, I was actually picking you up on your clear lack of knowledge of history, modern force capability, and general manners. Sorry about that.

Sadly, random infantry with zero combat support and like, 24 attack helicopters in the entire force does not an effective military make. You can choose to get as butt-hurt about the facts as you want, and to deliberately mislead you if you please, but that's your decision.

butt-hurt?



You're great. Do you do stand-up anywhere?

And the idea that the Royal Navy could penetrate into enemy waters and deliver troops has been a fantasy since at least 1944, and probably earlier. No way with the pitiful amphibious lift capability left in the RN and the complete, total lack of any fixed wing navy aviation could you effect any type of amphibous operation solo. Sorry.

You actually have no idea, do you? Go do a little research into what the Royal Navy and it's various components/subsidiaries is capable of carrying, and then match it up against the militaries of most of the world. I'll wait.

I'll admit we're a little short on the carrier front by now, and think it was a bit daft decision wise. A bit of a gamble. But that's a temporary thing, and will cease to be the case shortly.

PhantomViper wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

But its not just "Murica", those countries are actually part of the EU and of Nato and have both European and NATO forces stationed in them so any Russian invasion would instantly come in direct confrontation with these international forces.

Heck, even my crappy country has F-16's stationed in Estonia covering their air space.

Granted, but the whole "It's OK, we will just nuke them" outlook isn't very productive. I don't know any active duty US personnel who are really looking forward to a war with Russia.

Nobody is going to nuke anyone, that is just internet bluster.

which is the scariest thought of all I think.


Without nukes MAD as a deterrent, war is much more possible.

Either way there is really nothing to gain from a fight, some fights just get you bloody and nothing else, even if you win.

Look, if actual no-gak PRINCES make up a measurable, integer percentage of your attack helicopter pilots.... you probably don't have enough attack helicopter pilots.

LOL-- I've freaking deployed on a UK vessel before dude. Forcible entry leading up to Amphibious Assault is no joke. The Pentagon is skeptical about whether even the USN could pull one off. You don't even have a landing dock ship. Like, not one.

What fixed wing assets can you deploy to supress enemy ASCMs as you approach the coast? How are you going to bring down SU-27 and MiG-29 with TBJ and Moskits? How are you going to punch through the diesel submarine pickets? What anti-ship weapons are you going to bring against the Sovremnys and how are you going to employ them? Harpoons? Are you for real? You guys don't even have enhanced SM missiles and those are only so so kinematically.

 Silverthorne wrote:
Look, if actual no-gak PRINCES make up a measurable, integer percentage of your attack helicopter pilots.... you probably don't have enough attack helicopter pilots.

LOL-- I've freaking deployed on a UK vessel before dude. Forcible entry leading up to Amphibious Assault is no joke. The Pentagon is skeptical about whether the USN could pull one off.

What fixed wing assets can you deploy to supress enemy ASCMs as you approach the coast? How are you going to bring down SU-27 and MiG-29 with TBJ and Moskits? How are you going to punch through the diesel submarine pickets? What anti-ship weapons are you going to bring against the Sovremnys and how are you going to employ them? Harpoons? Are you for real? You guys don't even have enhanced SM missiles and those are only so so kinematically.

Oh dear. You seem to be mixing together two things I've said. Allow me to set you straight.

I said that Russia was no threat to us due to not possessing the necessary seapower/airpower to do any serious conventional damage to the British mainland (due to the comment about us being a 'floating vulnerability'). I also said later on, that we maintain an amphibious assault capability (because you slated our general capabilities).

At no point did I make any crazy statements about us launching an amphibious invasion of Russia. Because that would be stupid.

Do try to keep up.

 Silverthorne wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Libya should not have been started at all. So the countries who did not help should be the ones you must thank.

Couldn't agree more. Have an exalt. Now the blast effects from Libya are starting to take out Italy and Spain.

Agreed.

From where I'm standing, it sounds as though one American in particular is spitting on the graves of dead British servicemen and women...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
From where I'm standing, it sounds as though one American in particular is spitting on the graves of dead British servicemen and women...

AS I said I have Britain's back until Scotland secedes, then the Texas puts to sea baby. Mmm smell that oil.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
From where I'm standing, it sounds as though one American in particular is spitting on the graves of dead British servicemen and women...

AS I said I have Britain's back until Scotland secedes, then the Texas puts to sea baby. Mmm smell that oil.

I'm not having a go at you, Frazz.

I will say one thing, though. I have been a vocal critic of American foreign policy for years, but I would never dance on the graves of dead American service men and women.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
From where I'm standing, it sounds as though one American in particular is spitting on the graves of dead British servicemen and women...

Think I'll step in acknowledge that the British service member has shouldered a very large burden in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I fought alongside British units in Misa Q'aleh in 2009 and I must attest that they are as capable and competent as the best of them. I'm not sure where we are going with trying to suggest otherwise.

 Strombones wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
From where I'm standing, it sounds as though one American in particular is spitting on the graves of dead British servicemen and women...

Think I'll step in acknowledge that the British service member has shouldered a very large burden in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I fought alongside British units in Misa Q'aleh in 2009 and I must attest that they are as capable and competent as the best of them. I'm not sure where we are going with trying to suggest otherwise.

Thanks for that, Strombones. Could a MOD come in and lock this thread before somebody says something they regret. On a scale of 1 too 10, with 10 being massively OT, I fear this thread is sitting around the 29 mark!

 Strombones wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
From where I'm standing, it sounds as though one American in particular is spitting on the graves of dead British servicemen and women...

Think I'll step in acknowledge that the British service member has shouldered a very large burden in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I fought alongside British units in Misa Q'aleh in 2009 and I must attest that they are as capable and competent as the best of them. I'm not sure where we are going with trying to suggest otherwise.

I think the point he was trying to make was that they're underequipped. Which is and isn't true. They weren't equipped well for Iraq. Some of the shortages they had then were absolutely ludicrous, and much of their equipment performed poorly in the heat. On the flip side, this does not mean that they're underequipped generally. You can be badly equipped to fight a desert war, and be exceedingly well-equipped to fight a war somewhere else.

He also is trying to state that compared to America, we don't have much in the way of forces. Which is true. He says we're poorly equipped to launch an invasion of Russia. This is also true. But this is primarily because America spend ten times what we do, and we have no plans to invade Russia (and have structured our forces accordingly as a result).

What our forces ARE well equipped to do, is overawe/fight a war against the majority of the rest of the nations on the planet (who are terribly equipped compared to Russia/America). We could launch a successful amphibious strike on Guatemala in defence of Belize, for example. Or Argentina. Or any one of the dozens of african/south american/middle-eastern/asian countries who don't even begin to compare to us militarily.

We're not the US. That doesn't mean we're incompetent, or ill-equipped, or useless.

 Ketara wrote:

 Strombones wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
From where I'm standing, it sounds as though one American in particular is spitting on the graves of dead British servicemen and women...

Think I'll step in acknowledge that the British service member has shouldered a very large burden in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I fought alongside British units in Misa Q'aleh in 2009 and I must attest that they are as capable and competent as the best of them. I'm not sure where we are going with trying to suggest otherwise.

I think the point he was trying to make was that they're underequipped. Which is and isn't true. They weren't equipped well for Iraq. Some of the shortages they had then were absolutely ludicrous, and much of their equipment performed poorly in the heat. On the flip side, this does not mean that they're underequipped generally. You can be badly equipped to fight a desert war, and be exceedingly well-equipped to fight a war somewhere else.

He also is trying to state that compared to America, we don't have much in the way of forces. Which is true. He says we're poorly equipped to launch an invasion of Russia. This is also true. But this is primarily because America spend ten times what we do, and we have no plans to invade Russia (and have structured our forces accordingly as a result).

What our forces ARE well equipped to do, is overawe/fight a war against the majority of the rest of the nations on the planet (who are terribly equipped compared to Russia/America). We could launch a successful amphibious strike on Guatemala in defence of Belize, for example. Or Argentina. Or any one of thin Iraq. e dozens of african/south american/middle-eastern/asian countries who don't even begin to compare to us militarily.

We're not the US. That doesn't mean we're incompetent, or ill-equipped, or useless.

Fair points Ketara, but he undermines his own argument. I'm sitting next to my bookshelf, and reaching over, I have in my hands, a book about the 101st Airborne in Iraq. They well equipped, highly trained, and as hard a bunch of men as you're ever likely too see, but they were hampered in their operational area because they didn't have enough men...

It wasn't just a British problem.

 Silverthorne wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Silverthorne wrote:

Why would we want to die to defend your land, AGAIN? The idea of one drop of American blood being shed on yet another idiotic European power struggle is too tragic to contemplate.

I love the way that helping to eliminate the Nazi's (responsible for the concentration camps) and the Japanese Empire (who tested chemical weapons on civilians, the Bantam death march, and more) is painted as an 'idiotic European power struggle'.

I like to think that should the horrors of such industrial level atrocities arise again, America would help to do something about it, regardless of how 'tragic' you might consider it.

Not to mention the fact that America did exceedingly well out of both wars financially. And takes on the defence burden it does because it's terrified of the idea of militaristic European powers rising to the fore again.

No, no. Just you guys helping out of generosity. Right?

You're missing the point. You are delinquent in meeting even a fraction of your obligations as a NATO member in terms of maintaining military force. In WW2, the British military was, materially, almost a match for Germany by itself. Now you're just a massive, floating vulnerability. We gain nothing from a treaty with weaklings who beg for our protection but are too decadent to spend their own money and sons on defense. If you really want to not speak Russian this time two years from now, I'd recommend rebuilding your military, because the chance that America is going to come bail out your recent string of bad decision making against the nuclear armed Russian military is slim to none.

Tell you what: if you start regulating your banking sector so it doesn't blow the world economy up, we'll have more money to spend on, among other things, defense.

Then again, considering that in 2009 10 out of 20 of the biggest spenders in the world on military per capita were European countries,I think it's safe to assume that you're never going to be pleased.

Rule 1 is important, don't break it again.

It's also worth pointing out that the British Armed forces were able to invade and retake a group of islands thousands of miles away from the UK with arguably less well-equipped and prepared forces than we have now...

 Frazzled wrote:
Denmark didn't send bombers to Libya.

Incorrect, we sent six F-16 over there. Maybe this type of plane doesn't fit your definition of "bombers"? Whatever, you have now been informed about our commitment to America, so don't spread anymore misinformation about us.

Thank you.

 Frazzled wrote:
Further, Libya wasn't started by us, but by Europe. Try harder.

We had your back in Afghanistan and now too in Iraq. Don't play games with me Frazz I don't like games.

 Albatross wrote:
It's also worth pointing out that the British Armed forces were able to invade and retake a group of islands thousands of miles away from the UK with arguably less well-equipped and prepared forces than we have now...

You did have a carrier though, but as mentioned that's about to get fixed.

 Ketara wrote:
we have no plans to invade Russia

You do. You are just hiding them very well. Everyone wants to invade Russia.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
we have no plans to invade Russia

You do. You are just hiding them very well. Everyone wants to invade Russia.

I'd better go and let the Boss know that those cunning Russkis are onto Operation Borscht and Torch............

*quickly aborts plan to drop massive quantities of krokodil over russia before the invasion*

 Albatross wrote:
It's also worth pointing out that the British Armed forces were able to invade and retake a group of islands thousands of miles away from the UK with arguably less well-equipped and prepared forces than we have now...

I think that's very arguable, primarily due to the previously noted lack of a carrier that can launch fixed-wing aircraft. We know that that is being corrected, but it hasn't been corrected yet. I'm not saying that it definitively couldn't be done, but I think there would be some significant challenges now that would be different than the challenges faced the first time.

Note that this isn't a dig against the British military as a whole or their individual service members either. Just an observation of their current power projection capabilities.

 Orlanth wrote:
Russ spends that on its military, we spend that on our civil service and buy substandard equipment at inflated prices.

Sure, there’s a lot of waste and bureaucracy in the UK military. But then you assume that Russia spends it’s budget on the military, which to be blunt is either a politically chosen position, or complete ignorance, because the corruption and waste in Russian defence spending is staggering. Whole regiments of drafted troops are used as manual labour, sold by their commanding officers for their personal profit.

All militaries have problems, but what goes on in Russia is unthinkable in the rest of the developed world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Anyway, I need reassurance that my tax money has been well spent.

Yes, helicopters are vulnerable to AA

but can an Apache still take out a modern tank? Yes or no.

Of course, but whether they’ll be efficient in the role is situational, based on what support each unit has in the area, what intel each has and so on.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
What's a Soviet? Some sort of pastry?

Heh, too much WWII reading lately. I’ve typed Soviet every single, and had to edit back to ‘Russian’… seems one got through


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Forget the Balkans, we're discussing the Baltics. Although I don't think Putin would be daft enough to provoke a showdown with NATO. This is sabre rattling.

Russia/Soviets and now Balkans/Baltics… I was a shambles yesterday. But yeah, this is sabre rattling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats cute. You must have been asleep during the Cold War. People think playing finger puppy war between nuclear powers means anything but eventual escalation into fusion bomb jamboree are out of their fething minds.

Umm, limited war is a thing. Escalation is a risk, your statement that it’s a certainty is nuts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
They will have evolved since the days of Kursk (which was still very much a combined arms battle with infantry, supporting artillery and air and so on), as has warfare over all, but mechanized forces clashing (and the associated tank battles) at some level is bound to happen even in the near future.

I believe Kursk was also the largest single air engagement in history.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silverthorne wrote:
Why would we want to die to defend your land, AGAIN? The idea of one drop of American blood being shed on yet another idiotic European power struggle is too tragic to contemplate. There is zero incentive for us to risk nuclear war to contain Russia. And our economy is not built around military hegemony as much as being the massive consumer everyone sells too. With a trade deficit the size of ours, it doesn't really matter who owns Europe sense in any case we will import far, far more than we export.

Okay, look, that just makes no sense on any level. Having a trade deficit doesn’t mean you don’t export, that’s like assuming a company that made a loss last year must have made no money.

The US actually exports about 2.2 trillion a year, it’s about 13% of GDP (which is actually quite low compared to other developed countries, but it’s still a really big thing).

And there’s the importance of imports. People like to think that exports are good and imports are bad, but that isn’t how it works. There’s a straight hit to consumers, who lose their preferred products. And then there’s the issue that those goods are sold in stores, loss of trade with major European brands will means millions of failed retail outlets, costing US jobs.

And lastly, wars like this hypothetical Europe vs Russia thing doesn’t ever stop with one conquering the other. Strength early to prevent the war, or win it while your allies are still strong, to prevent being dragged in later when your enemy might have the ascendancy is a really basic thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silverthorne wrote:
In WW2, the British military was, materially, almost a match for Germany by itself. Now you're just a massive, floating vulnerability.

See, I'm actually on board with your general argument that Europe needs to increase its military commitments (especially Germany). But you build this argument around saying things that aren't true. UK military capability in 1939 wasn't a fraction of German capability.

 Ketara wrote:

 Strombones wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
From where I'm standing, it sounds as though one American in particular is spitting on the graves of dead British servicemen and women...

Think I'll step in acknowledge that the British service member has shouldered a very large burden in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I fought alongside British units in Misa Q'aleh in 2009 and I must attest that they are as capable and competent as the best of them. I'm not sure where we are going with trying to suggest otherwise.

I think the point he was trying to make was that they're underequipped. Which is and isn't true. They weren't equipped well for Iraq. Some of the shortages they had then were absolutely ludicrous, and much of their equipment performed poorly in the heat. On the flip side, this does not mean that they're underequipped generally. You can be badly equipped to fight a desert war, and be exceedingly well-equipped to fight a war somewhere else.

He also is trying to state that compared to America, we don't have much in the way of forces. Which is true. He says we're poorly equipped to launch an invasion of Russia. This is also true. But this is primarily because America spend ten times what we do, and we have no plans to invade Russia (and have structured our forces accordingly as a result).

What our forces ARE well equipped to do, is overawe/fight a war against the majority of the rest of the nations on the planet (who are terribly equipped compared to Russia/America). We could launch a successful amphibious strike on Guatemala in defence of Belize, for example. Or Argentina. Or any one of the dozens of african/south american/middle-eastern/asian countries who don't even begin to compare to us militarily.

We're not the US. That doesn't mean we're incompetent, or ill-equipped, or useless.

I think NATO countries are supposed to commit to spending 2% of their GDP per year on defense. The UK generally exceeds that by a bit, but I think they may come up a bit short next year (based on current projections).

Of course some NATO countries consistently come up very short of the 2% goal.

Thursday’s report suggests that some countries in particular have gotten off to a slow start in meeting those commitments. Britain’s defense spending, the report says, is set to fall from 2.07% to 1.88% of GDP.

A spokesman for the British Ministry of Defence took issue with that conclusion. “With the second largest defense budget in NATO and the largest in Europe, the government is committed to spending 2% of GDP on defense,” the spokesman said, adding that spending decisions for 2015-16 will be determined in the next spending review.

http://blogs.wsj.com/brussels/2015/02/26/nato-countries-said-theyd-boost-military-spending-but-will-they-really/

One problem is that GDPs have have been growing slowly (if at all) and the US GDP has gone up slightly more (percentage wise) recently than the other NATO countries.

This site has a pretty decent write up of how some of the spending works out: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_67655.htm

One thing I noticed about a year ago while looking at this stuff for a paper was that not just the amount, but what capabilities are bought makes a big difference. There are NATO countries that spend defense dollars in a way that may make sense to the individual country, but leaves the alliance short of some critical capabilities (such as ISR and air-to-air refueling for example). So sometimes the % of GDP may meet or come close to the 2% goal, but the country may not be purchasing capability sets which they agreed to fund, leaving NATO short (and over relying on the US in many cases).

You know, I've never understood the "there are parts that don't work very well, tear the whole thing up!" mindset. If parts aren't working, surely it would be better to work to fix those than to just harrumph and go home with a disapproving look on your face and give up?

 Redcruisair wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Denmark didn't send bombers to Libya.

Incorrect, we sent six F-16 over there. Maybe this type of plane doesn't fit your definition of "bombers"? Whatever, you have now been informed about our commitment to America, so don't spread anymore misinformation about us.

Thank you.

 Frazzled wrote:
Further, Libya wasn't started by us, but by Europe. Try harder.

We had your back in Afghanistan and now too in Iraq. Don't play games with me Frazz I don't like games.

6 F 16s? HAHAHAHA
Who refueled them -US
Who ran the command and control?

Denmark had how many guys in Afghanistan and and Iraq? Don't expect to save you from the Russian bear because you sent a platoon or two. Big fething deal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
we have no plans to invade Russia

You do. You are just hiding them very well. Everyone wants to invade Russia.

In Stalinist Russia even Russia has plans to invade Russia!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You know, I've never understood the "there are parts that don't work very well, tear the whole thing up!" mindset. If parts aren't working, surely it would be better to work to fix those than to just harrumph and go home with a disapproving look on your face and give up?

First you have to justify the need for the existence of NATO. The USSR is dead.

 Frazzled wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You know, I've never understood the "there are parts that don't work very well, tear the whole thing up!" mindset. If parts aren't working, surely it would be better to work to fix those than to just harrumph and go home with a disapproving look on your face and give up?

First you have to justify the need for the existence of NATO. The USSR is dead.

You may have noticed that Russia's been a bit trigger-happy of late. The USSR was always Russia and Friends, removing the "Friends" part doesn't mean that Russia isn't still a very powerful country with a persecution complex.

 Frazzled wrote:


6 F 16s? HAHAHAHA
Who refueled them -US
Who ran the command and control?

Denmark had how many guys in Afghanistan and and Iraq? Don't expect to save you from the Russian bear because you sent a platoon or two. Big fething deal.

Fine. Let us have nukes then. Problem solved.

You may have noticed that Russia's been a bit trigger-happy of late. The USSR was always Russia and Friends, removing the "Friends" part doesn't mean that Russia isn't still a very powerful country with a persecution complex.

And how is this a concern for the US?

Also you want nukes? Fine make them. No one is stopping you.

 Frazzled wrote:

You may have noticed that Russia's been a bit trigger-happy of late. The USSR was always Russia and Friends, removing the "Friends" part doesn't mean that Russia isn't still a very powerful country with a persecution complex.

And how is this a concern for the US?

You're seriously wondering why it would be bad for the US if the EU, with a combined economy bigger than the US, would be invaded by Russia?

 Frazzled wrote:

You may have noticed that Russia's been a bit trigger-happy of late. The USSR was always Russia and Friends, removing the "Friends" part doesn't mean that Russia isn't still a very powerful country with a persecution complex.

Also you want nukes? Fine make them. No one is stopping you.

And now you're firmly into silly territory.

1. We could sell stuff to the European military and make bank.
2. Why do you think RUssia is going to invade Europe? Because Europe is weak? Because Europe won't pay for its own defense? Inquiring minds want to know.
3. If you're worried about Russia, why are you giving them lots of money via the gas pipelines?
4. Why is it nuts. You said you want nukes. Get them. The technology is almost a century old. ing Pakistan has the Bomb.

 Frazzled wrote:
1. We could sell stuff to the European military and make bank.
2. Why do you think RUssia is going to invade Europe? Because Europe is weak? Because Europe won't pay for its own defense? Inquiring minds want to know.
3. If you're worried about Russia, why are you giving them lots of money via the gas pipelines?
4. Why is it nuts. You said you want nukes. Get them. The technology is almost a century old. ing Pakistan has the Bomb.

LOL @ #4. If you realized exactly how bass ackwards Pakistan really is it would even be more hilarious.

 Frazzled wrote:

You may have noticed that Russia's been a bit trigger-happy of late. The USSR was always Russia and Friends, removing the "Friends" part doesn't mean that Russia isn't still a very powerful country with a persecution complex.

And how is this a concern for the US?

Also you want nukes? Fine make them. No one is stopping you.

Frazz a Russian invasion of Europe is a major concern for the US as your government signed a treaty to protect its fellow NATO members in event of an attack.

 Frazzled wrote:
1. We could sell stuff to the European military and make bank.

Aren't you already doing that?

 Frazzled wrote:

2. Why do you think RUssia is going to invade Europe? Because Europe is weak? Because Europe won't pay for its own defense? Inquiring minds want to know.

The issue isn't with European weakness, it's with internal division. Further, Europe IS paying quite a bit for defence (c.f. the link I posted earlier), we're just not paying to be able to fight everyone else in the world at the same time. I'd be completely aboard with a decrease in the US military budget and more repsponsibility taken bu us over in Europe, but trying to pretend that the US doesn't benefit from being world hegemon is so detached from reality that I don't really know where to start my argument.

 Frazzled wrote:

3. If you're worried about Russia, why are you giving them lots of money via the gas pipelines?

For the same reason you're still backing the Saudis: lack of options.

 Frazzled wrote:
4. Why is it nuts. You said you want nukes. Get them. The technology is almost a century old. ing Pakistan has the Bomb.

For some reason nations that break the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty that aren't Israel tend to have some rather nasty sanctions levied against them.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

You may have noticed that Russia's been a bit trigger-happy of late. The USSR was always Russia and Friends, removing the "Friends" part doesn't mean that Russia isn't still a very powerful country with a persecution complex.

And how is this a concern for the US?

Also you want nukes? Fine make them. No one is stopping you.

Frazz a Russian invasion of Europe is a major concern for the US as your government signed a treaty to protect its fellow NATO members in event of an attack.

That's a circular argument though. "Europe is important because we say it is" doesn't really work.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

You may have noticed that Russia's been a bit trigger-happy of late. The USSR was always Russia and Friends, removing the "Friends" part doesn't mean that Russia isn't still a very powerful country with a persecution complex.

And how is this a concern for the US?

Also you want nukes? Fine make them. No one is stopping you.

Frazz a Russian invasion of Europe is a major concern for the US as your government signed a treaty to protect its fellow NATO members in event of an attack.

Was a major concern when the USSR was cool moustache twirling badguys. Now they're like the Boris from Rocky and Bullwinkle.
(note flying squirrels are a wiener dog nightmare. Its just...unnatural)

 Frazzled wrote:
6 F 16s? HAHAHAHA

6 F16 dosn't seem like much, but then what do you think is the appropiate number of fighter aircrafts for a country of 5 million people?

 Frazzled wrote:
Who refueled them -US

HAHAHAHA no

We had Sicily for stuff like that

 Frazzled wrote:
Denmark had how many guys in Afghanistan and and Iraq? Don't expect to save you from the Russian bear because you sent a platoon or two. Big fething deal.

I fully expect you to come and help us out, and do you know why? Beacuase you're a part of NATO, that's why. So deal with it

And if you don't want our help in Iraq and Afghanistan then STOP FETHING ASKING US TO HELP YOU!

Thats what I am saying we should no longer be part of NATO. We're not Europe. There's no need for NATO now.

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats what I am saying we should no longer be part of NATO. We're not Europe. There's no need for NATO now.

Wrong Frazz, America is part of Europe. If you knew your geology, then you'd know that around 200 million years ago, a chunk of North America broke off, and fused with some other continental material. That chunk of North America makes up half of Scotland. Scotland is in Europe, that chunks belongs to America IMO, and therefore, America is in Europe.

You're not wriggling out of this one

But South America was connected to Africa. Africa is bigger, so we're really just part of Africa. In your face!

I am totally up for spending more money and creating a really effective European armed forces. The Brits have got the navy, the Germans can do tanks, the French flair for aeronautics takes care of aircraft, Italy can design uniforms, the Scots can do the ration packs, we take the best from each country and put together a world beating force!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am totally up for spending more money and creating a really effective European armed forces. The Brits have got the navy, the Germans can do tanks, the French flair for aeronautics takes care of aircraft, Italy can design uniforms, the Scots can do the ration packs, we take the best from each country and put together a world beating force!

I've been arguing this for a while. A combination of the UK, France, and Germany, should be more than enough to keep Russia out of Europe, if the Germans start psending, of course. Historically, I understand the reasons, but they need to start pulling their weight.

America could then focus its attention on Asia. Everybody would be happy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
But South America was connected to Africa. Africa is bigger, so we're really just part of Africa. In your face!

And Africa is connected to the Middle East, which is connected to Russia, so you've still got a Middle East problem AND a Russian problem

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am totally up for spending more money and creating a really effective European armed forces. The Brits have got the navy, the Germans can do tanks, the French flair for aeronautics takes care of aircraft, Italy can design uniforms, the Scots can do the ration packs, we take the best from each country and put together a world beating force!

Wo wo wo! You want the Scots to handle the food? Seriously? sheep's intestines 24/7?
No Belgium should be in charge of eats.
*Belgium beer
*Belgium chocolate

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I've been arguing this for a while. A combination of the UK, France, and Germany, should be more than enough to keep Russia out of Europe, if the Germans start psending, of course. Historically, I understand the reasons, but they need to start pulling their weight.

If Germany started re-arming itself the rest of the world would throw an issy fit of epic proportions. (and can they even do it? don't they have laws in place to prevent their re-armament like Japan has?)

With that being said, I think we are way past the time to have an unified European military.

Germany started to rearm itself in 1956. If anything they have been backing down a bit recently, by suspending conscription.

Japan has a clause in its constitution forbidding the use of force outside the country or as a means of resolving international disputes.

Frazzled wrote:Thats what I am saying we should no longer be part of NATO. We're not Europe. There's no need for NATO now.

I think that would actually be quite smart. The US and EU have a very different way of looking at things and handling problems (read: Europeans are smarter). NATO just drags Europe down into American warmongering. IMO, NATO should be dissolved and replaced by an independent pan-European defense force

Kilkrazy wrote:I am totally up for spending more money and creating a really effective European armed forces. The Brits have got the navy, the Germans can do tanks, the French flair for aeronautics takes care of aircraft, Italy can design uniforms, the Scots can do the ration packs, we take the best from each country and put together a world beating force!

That is an epic idea. Where do I sign up for this army?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

You may have noticed that Russia's been a bit trigger-happy of late. The USSR was always Russia and Friends, removing the "Friends" part doesn't mean that Russia isn't still a very powerful country with a persecution complex.

And how is this a concern for the US?

Also you want nukes? Fine make them. No one is stopping you.

Frazz a Russian invasion of Europe is a major concern for the US as your government signed a treaty to protect its fellow NATO members in event of an attack.

Not if Russia invades during Obama's Presidency...

He won't green light it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I am totally up for spending more money and creating a really effective European armed forces. The Brits have got the navy, the Germans can do tanks, the French flair for aeronautics takes care of aircraft, Italy can design uniforms, the Scots can do the ration packs, we take the best from each country and put together a world beating force!

That is an epic idea. Where do I sign up for this army?

I thought that was the UN army???!?!

:ducks, and runs:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
we have no plans to invade Russia

You do. You are just hiding them very well. Everyone wants to invade Russia.

I knew those Cubans were up to something, they wanted to invade Russia!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

You may have noticed that Russia's been a bit trigger-happy of late. The USSR was always Russia and Friends, removing the "Friends" part doesn't mean that Russia isn't still a very powerful country with a persecution complex.

And how is this a concern for the US?

Also you want nukes? Fine make them. No one is stopping you.

Frazz a Russian invasion of Europe is a major concern for the US as your government signed a treaty to protect its fellow NATO members in event of an attack.

Not if Russia invades during Obama's Presidency...

He won't green light it.

Your joking right? I know you don't think too highly of Obama, but he's not that bad.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats what I am saying we should no longer be part of NATO. We're not Europe. There's no need for NATO now.

I think that would actually be quite smart. The US and EU have a very different way of looking at things and handling problems (read: Europeans are smarter). NATO just drags Europe down into American warmongering. IMO, NATO should be dissolved and replaced by an independent pan-European defense force

Kilkrazy wrote:I am totally up for spending more money and creating a really effective European armed forces. The Brits have got the navy, the Germans can do tanks, the French flair for aeronautics takes care of aircraft, Italy can design uniforms, the Scots can do the ration packs, we take the best from each country and put together a world beating force!

That is an epic idea. Where do I sign up for this army?

Claiming Europeans are smarter is kind of like claiming Europeans smell better. hard to prove and nobody really cares

I like to think about it this way, we (the US) are like orks. Were not dumb, per say, we just prefer a more... direct approach to resolving conflicts.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I like to think about it this way, we (the US) are like orks. Were not dumb, per say, we just prefer a more direct approach to resolving conflicts.

Spoiler:

Exalted