Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Witzkatz wrote:

I'm a little worried that maybe the plan is to build up the overall NATO military until they can take out Russia with such overwhelming force that they hope to pre-empt the nukes?

I think we can be sure that there's no secret long-term master-plan of actually invading Russia in such a lightning strike that they are not able to fire their nukes. That stuff is just not happening. NATO has no interest in occupying Russia either, I'm rather sure of that.

Good point.

Also, given the things that have been in the news over the past 3-4 months... Trump planning to attack Russia doesn't seem likely.

But, this is what I like coming here for. You guys explain to me why the stuff I think might happen because I'm too ignorant to know better just isn't the case. And then I'm not scared anymore. : D

It's good to know that Dakka OT has a positive effect on people's lives. Even with the vitriol being thrown around sometimes, I always enjoy coming here for discussions like this, even if I'm mostly reading, not posting.

Nobody has the means to initiate a large scale land war on either side in eastern europe, nor any real interest in such. Mobilizing to that level would be obvious, requiring millions of troops, massive fleet equipment overhauls, vast amounts of supplies, and gigantic logistical preparations, and all of that would be insanely obvious, and expensive. Probably too expensive for anyone to reasonably afford, and losses could not be replaced in timely manners (e.g. if the US lost 100 F22's, thats half the fleet, and it would take a decade to restart manufacture and produce replacements). What we have is low level skirmishes intended to keep places just unstable enough to be in permanent limbo, which NATO membership thu far has proven to be an effective deterrent against.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Nobody has the means to initiate a large scale land war on either side in eastern europe, nor any real interest in such. Mobilizing to that level would be obvious, requiring millions of troops, massive fleet equipment overhauls, vast amounts of supplies, and gigantic logistical preparations, and all of that would be insanely obvious, and expensive. Probably too expensive for anyone to reasonably afford, and losses could not be replaced in timely manners (e.g. if the US lost 100 F22's, thats half the fleet, and it would take a decade to restart manufacture and produce replacements). What we have is low level skirmishes intended to keep places just unstable enough to be in permanent limbo, which NATO membership thu far has proven to be an effective deterrent against.

Thanks for the extra info! : D

The US won't back out of NATO, however, kicking a country out of NATO for not meeting commitments is a possibility. And as we saw in Ukraine, just because the UN is a thing doesn't mean that the Russians won't invade a country.

Furthermore, the US doesn't even need to pull out of NATO to reduce our impact on the safety/readiness of other countries. Simply closing our massively expensive overseas bases and pulling US troops back to the US would be more then enough.

SemperMortis wrote:
The US won't back out of NATO, however, kicking a country out of NATO for not meeting commitments is a possibility. And as we saw in Ukraine, just because the UN is a thing doesn't mean that the Russians won't invade a country.

Furthermore, the US doesn't even need to pull out of NATO to reduce our impact on the safety/readiness of other countries. Simply closing our massively expensive overseas bases and pulling US troops back to the US would be more then enough.

What member of congress is going to run on a platform of "I reduced the size of our military and reduced defense contractor jobs by reducing the need for helicopters, tanks, and trucks"?

 d-usa wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
The US won't back out of NATO, however, kicking a country out of NATO for not meeting commitments is a possibility. And as we saw in Ukraine, just because the UN is a thing doesn't mean that the Russians won't invade a country.

Furthermore, the US doesn't even need to pull out of NATO to reduce our impact on the safety/readiness of other countries. Simply closing our massively expensive overseas bases and pulling US troops back to the US would be more then enough.

What member of congress is going to run on a platform of "I reduced the size of our military and reduced defense contractor jobs by reducing the need for helicopters, tanks, and trucks"?

What part in my original post says "reduce the military"?? you sir are inventing things

One would think that would inherently be oart of pulling out of such bases and locations. You dont need the personnel to man those installations, or the logistics backbone to supply them. Weapons and systems inherently designed and intended to be used from such forward bases have less utility, tank divisions intended to sally forth to defend the Fulda gap in case Ivan comes thundering through wont be necessary if there is no longer any intention of defending the Fulda hap, etc.

Have you taken a stroll around the US recently? We have empty bases everywhere and we have communities that used to rely on the military to function.

I was on Homestead AFB recently and they even said only about 30% of the base is being used, the rest they didn't bother to fix after Andrew because they didn't have the personnel/planes.

Just because they aren't overseas doesn't mean we couldn't easily keep them on active duty here in the US. And the best part? It would be significantly cheaper. No more OCONUS pay, separation pay and no more spending money to ship supplies to those bases overseas. Win win for the US if they chose to do this.

SemperMortis wrote:
Have you taken a stroll around the US recently? We have empty bases everywhere and we have communities that used to rely on the military to function.

I was on Homestead AFB recently and they even said only about 30% of the base is being used, the rest they didn't bother to fix after Andrew because they didn't have the personnel/planes.

Just because they aren't overseas doesn't mean we couldn't easily keep them on active duty here in the US. And the best part? It would be significantly cheaper. No more OCONUS pay, separation pay and no more spending money to ship supplies to those bases overseas. Win win for the US if they chose to do this.

Well, not really a win as now you are paying slightly less but also have basically zero force projection.

So there would be no point in filling the bases in the US as you will never need those things in the US.

SemperMortis wrote:
The US won't back out of NATO, however, kicking a country out of NATO for not meeting commitments is a possibility. And as we saw in Ukraine, just because the UN is a thing doesn't mean that the Russians won't invade a country.

Furthermore, the US doesn't even need to pull out of NATO to reduce our impact on the safety/readiness of other countries. Simply closing our massively expensive overseas bases and pulling US troops back to the US would be more then enough.

Erm... if it's not too much trouble, could you please keep those overseas bases in other countries running and keep filling them with US troops?

Simply replacing them with local forces isn't going to be as effective. They really do have to be Americans.

For the plain and simple reason that those American bases being there means anyone who attacks there has to take on the Americans too, and no one's willing to do that.

You may not realize it, but American troops just going to other parts of the world and sitting there doing nothing much of all is very often the only thing required to stop a war from happening.

If America starts shutting down all her overseas bases and brings all her troops home... the world will become a much, much more violent place very quickly.

Remember that time when the US in Reagan's era was deliberating whether or not to get involved in something, and then Reagan just sailed a US fleet near to there? That alone stopped a war breaking out. I've spoken with a resident of the country that was about to be invaded before that US fleet showed up. He or she loved Reagan for doing that, because that fleet saved his/her country from a war just by sailing nearby.

The idea of America having an enormously powerful military was not an accident.

America was the natural choice. High population. One of the richest countries on the planet. Democratic government that values freedom. It all added up to the choice of America to be the world police because the world could trust them to have a hugely powerful military, and then not use it to invade people and take their stuff.

And this meant that everyone else on the planet could have weaker militaries, because America's military can stop wars from happening just by showing up.

If you want to support local communities in the US, there are better and cheaper ways of doing that than simply using military bases.

SemperMortis wrote:
Have you taken a stroll around the US recently? We have empty bases everywhere and we have communities that used to rely on the military to function.

I was on Homestead AFB recently and they even said only about 30% of the base is being used, the rest they didn't bother to fix after Andrew because they didn't have the personnel/planes.

Just because they aren't overseas doesn't mean we couldn't easily keep them on active duty here in the US.

to what point and purpose other than "just because"? What are all those tanks going to do sitting in depots in Kansas? What are the supply specialists who were there in Germany to help facilitate logistical operations for mechanized warfare in Europe going to do rotated back to Arizona? What about the flight crews for bases in the UK? Are they gonna sit idle in Wyoming just to keep them around for their own sake? All those things. All those fighters intended to achieve air superiority over Europe are going to do...what sitting around in California except be a constant maintenance cost? Just because we could house them elsewhere doesnt necessarily do or mean anything if those assets are no longer required or in a position to be employed as intended, hence why they'd get the axe in many cases.

And the best part? It would be significantly cheaper. No more OCONUS pay, separation pay and no more spending money to ship supplies to those bases overseas. Win win for the US if they chose to do this.

If we're willing to give up the trappings of empire and worldwide power projection and the like, sure, but thats a very real downside that must be accepted and understood. Some peoplr dont mid that, some people will welcome that, many will not. There are also way more cost effective ways to help these communities than maintaining expensive military capabilities that no longer serve purposes.

Erm...

I... just want to state something.

If the US military had not withdrawn from Iraq and had stayed there...

ISIS might never have been a thing.

Just consider how much stability your military brings to a place simply by being there. And consider the potential consequences of shutting down your bases in other countries very, very carefully.

 Pouncey wrote:
Erm...

I... just want to state something.

If the US military had not withdrawn from Iraq and had stayed there...

ISIS might never have been a thing.

To be fair, it was born under the US occupation. What gave it the ability to grow was a power vacuum in Syria and the Iraqi government's alienation of Sunni's. A US presence may have prevented ISIS from seizing large areas of Iraq, but not Syria or from existing.

Just consider how much stability your military brings to a place simply by being there. And consider the potential consequences of shutting down your bases in other countries very, very carefully.

I think this is a solid point, but is much more valid for Europe, where the US military has also acted as an excuse for European nations to curb their internal militarism and collective friction. France doesnt have to worry about invasion from Germany because the German military no longer has that capability even if the desire existed for example

LMAO you guys literally wrote my points for me. If NATO doesn't want to meet its commitments, instead of the US pulling out of NATO completely we could simply threaten to close bases and watch the resulting mayhem.

Europe NEEDS American military might. But on the flip side of that, we don't NEED our troops stationed overseas. We still have force projection, just not at nearly the same level. At the end of the day the WORLD has a grand total of 40 Aircraft carriers of various types on active service. 19 of those are US, the world has 2 aircraft carriers in reserve, 1 is US, and finally the world has a grand total of 11 carriers under construction with 27 more planned, 3 under construction are US and 16 planned are US. Adding to that, the US has the worlds BIGGEST fleet so we still have force projection.

So if NATO countries continue to not meet the minimums then the US might have to take action or at least threaten action that they would rather not see happen.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Erm...

I... just want to state something.

If the US military had not withdrawn from Iraq and had stayed there...

ISIS might never have been a thing.

To be fair, it was born under the US occupation. What gave it the ability to grow was a power vacuum in Syria and the Iraqi government's alienation of Sunni's. A US presence may have prevented ISIS from seizing large areas of Iraq, but not Syria or from existing.

Just consider how much stability your military brings to a place simply by being there. And consider the potential consequences of shutting down your bases in other countries very, very carefully.

I think this is a solid point, but is much more valid for Europe, where the US military has also acted as an excuse for European nations to curb their internal militarism and collective friction. France doesnt have to worry about invasion from Germany because the German military no longer has that capability even if the desire existed for example

I think after WW2, Europe's not going to be starting any wars any time soon.

You should look up some historical footage of what European cities looked like after WW2 if you want to know why.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:
LMAO you guys literally wrote my points for me. If NATO doesn't want to meet its commitments, instead of the US pulling out of NATO completely we could simply threaten to close bases and watch the resulting mayhem.

Europe NEEDS American military might. But on the flip side of that, we don't NEED our troops stationed overseas. We still have force projection, just not at nearly the same level. At the end of the day the WORLD has a grand total of 40 Aircraft carriers of various types on active service. 19 of those are US, the world has 2 aircraft carriers in reserve, 1 is US, and finally the world has a grand total of 11 carriers under construction with 27 more planned, 3 under construction are US and 16 planned are US. Adding to that, the US has the worlds BIGGEST fleet so we still have force projection.

So if NATO countries continue to not meet the minimums then the US might have to take action or at least threaten action that they would rather not see happen.

I agree that other NATO countries should meet the minimums, but threatening to intiiate World War 3 isn't the way to go about it.

Let's just see if other NATO countries follow through before we go threatening to do things we'll all regret.

Looks like we might be seeing boots on the ground in Syria soon:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/pentagon-considering-recommending-combat-troops-in-syria/

 d-usa wrote:
Looks like we might be seeing boots on the ground in Syria soon:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/pentagon-considering-recommending-combat-troops-in-syria/

Damnit, and here I am sitting with my DD-214 Blanket. I could go earn another Campaign ribbon :( LOL


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:
LMAO you guys literally wrote my points for me. If NATO doesn't want to meet its commitments, instead of the US pulling out of NATO completely we could simply threaten to close bases and watch the resulting mayhem.

Europe NEEDS American military might. But on the flip side of that, we don't NEED our troops stationed overseas. We still have force projection, just not at nearly the same level. At the end of the day the WORLD has a grand total of 40 Aircraft carriers of various types on active service. 19 of those are US, the world has 2 aircraft carriers in reserve, 1 is US, and finally the world has a grand total of 11 carriers under construction with 27 more planned, 3 under construction are US and 16 planned are US. Adding to that, the US has the worlds BIGGEST fleet so we still have force projection.

So if NATO countries continue to not meet the minimums then the US might have to take action or at least threaten action that they would rather not see happen.

I agree that other NATO countries should meet the minimums, but threatening to intiiate World War 3 isn't the way to go about it.

Let's just see if other NATO countries follow through before we go threatening to do things we'll all regret.

Well I don't think it would start WW3 but even if that was a possibility wouldn't it make even more sense then for NATO countries to agree instead of dragging their heels?

SemperMortis wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Looks like we might be seeing boots on the ground in Syria soon:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/pentagon-considering-recommending-combat-troops-in-syria/

Damnit, and here I am sitting with my DD-214 Blanket. I could go earn another Campaign ribbon :( LOL

Gotta Catch 'Em All!

Also, don't know if this has made it to the Dakka OT yet. Some clever person noticed the "president's" tweets were basically MCR lyrics.

 Pouncey wrote:


I think after WW2, Europe's not going to be starting any wars any time soon.

You should look up some historical footage of what European cities looked like after WW2 if you want to know why.

To some degree I would agree, but at the same time it didn't stop them after WW1, or the Spanish Civil War, the Hungarian revolution, the Greek civil war, (EDIT: How could I have forgotten the Balkan wars here?), and fighting going on in Ukraine now is happening in areas that were thoroughly obliterated in some of the most brutal and heinous combat during WW2.

SemperMortis wrote:
LMAO you guys literally wrote my points for me. If NATO doesn't want to meet its commitments, instead of the US pulling out of NATO completely we could simply threaten to close bases and watch the resulting mayhem.

I never disputed that the US military has in many ways been a good stabilizing force for Europe, only that a withdrawal would in fact inherently entail a reduction in US military size and capabilities.

Europe NEEDS American military might.

The Europeans are big people, if they chose to, they could get by without the US, it would however require changes to how they do and view things.

But on the flip side of that, we don't NEED our troops stationed overseas. We still have force projection, just not at nearly the same level.

At nowhere near the same level, this would be a dramatic and painful reduction in such capabilities.

At the end of the day the WORLD has a grand total of 40 Aircraft carriers of various types on active service. 19 of those are US, the world has 2 aircraft carriers in reserve, 1 is US, and finally the world has a grand total of 11 carriers under construction with 27 more planned, 3 under construction are US and 16 planned are US. Adding to that, the US has the worlds BIGGEST fleet so we still have force projection.

Carriers are great and a very powerful capability. They are not however the sum total of force projection by any means. Carriers cannot deploy thousands of ground troops, hold a city, cut a supply line that cannot be destroyed by bombing, nor provide many specialist air roles to the same degree or extent that land based aircraft can, and many other things. Having all those overseas bases and access to European ports and airspace also makes operating those carrier battle groups a lot easier and more effective.

So if NATO countries continue to not meet the minimums then the US might have to take action or at least threaten action that they would rather not see happen.

This I would agree with, Europe needs to get its cards in order, and some cajoling from us, if done with that intent in mind, could help.

SemperMortis wrote:
Well I don't think it would start WW3 but even if that was a possibility wouldn't it make even more sense then for NATO countries to agree instead of dragging their heels?

Erm, yes.

If the US is planning to isolate themselves even more and leave the world to its own devices, it will absolutely make more sense to spend way the hell more money than they are now on their militaries, since they can't rely on the US for anything.

And then every military on the planet starts building up, because now that the US is out of the scene, they either feel threats they didn't before, or want to become threats to people they couldn't before.

So now we have the entire planet arming up for war.

With 21st century military technology and bigger military budgets than any of these countries have seen in decades.

And then of course, the people who want to attack others will do that, since the US isn't going to step in. The attacked people fight back, allies get involved, this happens in all sorts of places.

And the reality is that the world is at war. Which is what a world war is.

...And this one has 21st century technology.

I guess if you wanted, you could view the USA pulling its entire military back to the continental USA as creating an enormous military power vacuum.

 d-usa wrote:
Looks like we might be seeing boots on the ground in Syria soon:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/pentagon-considering-recommending-combat-troops-in-syria/

As long as there are clear & concise mission goals, I'd be okay with it...

Knowing Mattis... I'm sure if he approves, we'd be in good hands.

SemperMortis wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Looks like we might be seeing boots on the ground in Syria soon:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/pentagon-considering-recommending-combat-troops-in-syria/

Damnit, and here I am sitting with my DD-214 Blanket. I could go earn another Campaign ribbon :( LOL


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:
LMAO you guys literally wrote my points for me. If NATO doesn't want to meet its commitments, instead of the US pulling out of NATO completely we could simply threaten to close bases and watch the resulting mayhem.

Europe NEEDS American military might. But on the flip side of that, we don't NEED our troops stationed overseas. We still have force projection, just not at nearly the same level. At the end of the day the WORLD has a grand total of 40 Aircraft carriers of various types on active service. 19 of those are US, the world has 2 aircraft carriers in reserve, 1 is US, and finally the world has a grand total of 11 carriers under construction with 27 more planned, 3 under construction are US and 16 planned are US. Adding to that, the US has the worlds BIGGEST fleet so we still have force projection.

So if NATO countries continue to not meet the minimums then the US might have to take action or at least threaten action that they would rather not see happen.

I agree that other NATO countries should meet the minimums, but threatening to intiiate World War 3 isn't the way to go about it.

Let's just see if other NATO countries follow through before we go threatening to do things we'll all regret.

Well I don't think it would start WW3 but even if that was a possibility wouldn't it make even more sense then for NATO countries to agree instead of dragging their heels?

That may be my chance to get a CIB

 sebster wrote:

Yeah, see you're making more stuff up. There's is nothing anywhere that says the only response to an enemy is seeking their defeat and accepting any escalation that comes with that. That assumption of yours is particularly ridiculous when you consider that there is an existing containment strategy in place.

When the containment strategy is outmanoeuvred or otherwise fails, new plans have to be devised. Eventually they will be more drastic than the previous set. Do you think that Russia wouldn't do anything in response to expanded and increased sanctions? You want to pressure them but can't imagine that they would do something other than cave in and you get indignant at the suggestion that things might not go 100% the way you want them to. What should the US do if the sanctions fail to achieve the desired result? What will be the consequences of the sanctions and how is Russia handling those? What does the Russian leadership think?

Rosebuddy wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Yeah, see you're making more stuff up. There's is nothing anywhere that says the only response to an enemy is seeking their defeat and accepting any escalation that comes with that. That assumption of yours is particularly ridiculous when you consider that there is an existing containment strategy in place.

When the containment strategy is outmanoeuvred or otherwise fails, new plans have to be devised. Eventually they will be more drastic than the previous set. Do you think that Russia wouldn't do anything in response to expanded and increased sanctions? You want to pressure them but can't imagine that they would do something other than cave in and you get indignant at the suggestion that things might not go 100% the way you want them to. What should the US do if the sanctions fail to achieve the desired result? What will be the consequences of the sanctions and how is Russia handling those? What does the Russian leadership think?

The US is willing to sanction Russia as a result of her actions in Ukraine. The US is not willing to nuke Russia over her actions in Ukraine. Russia will not nuke the US because of sanctions.

Nuclear holocaust is the one thing that the world's moneyed elite cannot buy their way out of, therefore, it is the one thing that will not happen.

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Whoa...the politics thread has turned into a forum on teachers. OK...

Teachers are one of, if not the most, important assets in this country (or any country for that matter).

Whembly, I agree. I taught during my PhD (college level) and afterward I worked for a few month as a substitute math teacher in middle school. I'd really love to teach in college again, but damn I have nothing but a deep seated respect for those brave souls that teach in middle school .

 whembly wrote:

“Americans cannot care more for your children’s security than you do. Disregard for military readiness demonstrates a lack of respect for ourselves, for the alliance and for the freedoms we inherited, which are now clearly threatened.”

Sure, buddy, sure. Or maybe military attacks are not the primary threat to our children, and we give them way better healthcare than the US, especially after the repeal of the ACA that the government that you are a part of has promised, because we do care about them .
Frankly I love definitely love for France to just answer “No, we won't do that, feth off”, and keep as is, or diminish our military spending. Maybe we'll get thrown out of OTAN, and then we will just laugh at the US perplexed look when they see no country decide to suddenly launch an armed invasion against us .
Expel us from NATO. We double-dare you.

Less than a month and we have our first "this is Obama's fault" from Trump.

Fun lines from his conference today:

"This administration is running like a fine-tuned machine."

"I'm not ranting and raving, I'm just telling you you're dishonest people."

"We had a very smooth rollout of the travel ban, we had a bad court."

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Whoa...the politics thread has turned into a forum on teachers. OK...

Teachers are one of, if not the most, important assets in this country (or any country for that matter).

Whembly, I agree. I taught during my PhD (college level) and afterward I worked for a few month as a substitute math teacher in middle school. I'd really love to teach in college again, but damn I have nothing but a deep seated respect for those brave souls that teach in middle school .

 whembly wrote:

“Americans cannot care more for your children’s security than you do. Disregard for military readiness demonstrates a lack of respect for ourselves, for the alliance and for the freedoms we inherited, which are now clearly threatened.”

Sure, buddy, sure. Or maybe military attacks are not the primary threat to our children, and we give them way better healthcare than the US, especially after the repeal of the ACA that the government that you are a part of has promised, because we do care about them .
Frankly I love definitely love for France to just answer “No, we won't do that, feth off”, and keep as is, or diminish our military spending. Maybe we'll get thrown out of OTAN, and then we will just laugh at the US perplexed look when they see no country decide to suddenly launch an armed invasion against us .
Expel us from NATO. We double-dare you.

Besides, France has a military budget at 2.1% of their GDP, and has the 7th largest military by budget in the world. It's not like you guys aren't putting up your fair share.

Because the best way to protect children is with tanks and fighter jets?

You know they might not need all that "protection" if we stopped sending our tanks and fighter jets to feth with other people's countries.

I for one fully support defending our children with tanks and fighter jets now so that we can send them to die in tanks and fighter jets 18 years from now.

Yeah. This strategy has totally been working for us