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.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the idea there isn't already a plan somewhere about invading and occupying Syria is a bit naive. If they didn't have one a lot of people wouldn't be doing their job for about 6 years now.
Indeed. There are people in the armed forces who's job is basically to draw up tons of plans for various wartime scenarios.
I'll bet somewhere in the bureaucratic web of the US military that there are plans for combating and invading every country on Earth, especially in the Middle East. Even before WW1, the US had plans detailing fighting Japan. War Plan Orange was drafted up in 1911, but it was being bandied about in 1906. It wasn't officially adopted till 1924, but it had been around for a while.
There's always a plan foe everything. However stupid it seems as a back up you never know when anything can happen anywhere and you need to react to it. Having a plan makes sense.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the idea there isn't already a plan somewhere about invading and occupying Syria is a bit naive. If they didn't have one a lot of people wouldn't be doing their job for about 6 years now.
Indeed. There are people in the armed forces who's job is basically to draw up tons of plans for various wartime scenarios. I'll bet somewhere in the bureaucratic web of the US military that there are plans for combating and invading every country on Earth.
That's the purpose of military theorycrafters, strategists and whatever you call them. If there's ever a need they already have at least the basics of a plan ready. Many of them are totally unlikely but you still have them because stuff can happen. So you might not want to invade, say, fellow NATO member Norway but what if there was a big showdown and Russia invaded Norway for forward radar stations and AA defense? You'd have to liberate the place to deny them the advantage. There's guaranteed to be a plan for that scenario somewhere, just as the Russians have a ready "invade Norway" plan in their emergency folders.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the idea there isn't already a plan somewhere about invading and occupying Syria is a bit naive. If they didn't have one a lot of people wouldn't be doing their job for about 6 years now.
Indeed. There are people in the armed forces who's job is basically to draw up tons of plans for various wartime scenarios. I'll bet somewhere in the bureaucratic web of the US military that there are plans for combating and invading every country on Earth.
That's the purpose of military theorycrafters, strategists and whatever you call them. If there's ever a need they already have at least the basics of a plan ready. Many of them are totally unlikely but you still have them because stuff can happen. So you might not want to invade, say, fellow NATO member Norway but what if there was a big showdown and Russia invaded Norway for forward radar stations and AA defense? You'd have to liberate the place to deny them the advantage. There's guaranteed to be a plan for that scenario somewhere, just as the Russians have a ready "invade Norway" plan in their emergency folders.
Though the plan of say trouble in North Korea, Iran, Syria related or other hot spots will be far more regularly updated than say the invade brazil or coup in Europe by comunist sepratists files.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the idea there isn't already a plan somewhere about invading and occupying Syria is a bit naive. If they didn't have one a lot of people wouldn't be doing their job for about 6 years now.
Indeed. There are people in the armed forces who's job is basically to draw up tons of plans for various wartime scenarios. I'll bet somewhere in the bureaucratic web of the US military that there are plans for combating and invading every country on Earth.
That's the purpose of military theorycrafters, strategists and whatever you call them. If there's ever a need they already have at least the basics of a plan ready. Many of them are totally unlikely but you still have them because stuff can happen. So you might not want to invade, say, fellow NATO member Norway but what if there was a big showdown and Russia invaded Norway for forward radar stations and AA defense? You'd have to liberate the place to deny them the advantage. There's guaranteed to be a plan for that scenario somewhere, just as the Russians have a ready "invade Norway" plan in their emergency folders.
But Syria needs a plan far larger than simple military theory. Invading Syria is easy, leaving a somewhat stable country afterwards is the hard part.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the idea there isn't already a plan somewhere about invading and occupying Syria is a bit naive. If they didn't have one a lot of people wouldn't be doing their job for about 6 years now.
Indeed. There are people in the armed forces who's job is basically to draw up tons of plans for various wartime scenarios. I'll bet somewhere in the bureaucratic web of the US military that there are plans for combating and invading every country on Earth.
That's the purpose of military theorycrafters, strategists and whatever you call them. If there's ever a need they already have at least the basics of a plan ready. Many of them are totally unlikely but you still have them because stuff can happen. So you might not want to invade, say, fellow NATO member Norway but what if there was a big showdown and Russia invaded Norway for forward radar stations and AA defense? You'd have to liberate the place to deny them the advantage. There's guaranteed to be a plan for that scenario somewhere, just as the Russians have a ready "invade Norway" plan in their emergency folders.
But Syria needs a plan far larger than simple military theory. Invading Syria is easy, leaving a somewhat stable country afterwards is the hard part.
It may not be a terrible idea to dismantle it. a unified Syria may not be possible or even necessarily desireable.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the idea there isn't already a plan somewhere about invading and occupying Syria is a bit naive. If they didn't have one a lot of people wouldn't be doing their job for about 6 years now.
Indeed. There are people in the armed forces who's job is basically to draw up tons of plans for various wartime scenarios. I'll bet somewhere in the bureaucratic web of the US military that there are plans for combating and invading every country on Earth.
That's the purpose of military theorycrafters, strategists and whatever you call them. If there's ever a need they already have at least the basics of a plan ready. Many of them are totally unlikely but you still have them because stuff can happen. So you might not want to invade, say, fellow NATO member Norway but what if there was a big showdown and Russia invaded Norway for forward radar stations and AA defense? You'd have to liberate the place to deny them the advantage. There's guaranteed to be a plan for that scenario somewhere, just as the Russians have a ready "invade Norway" plan in their emergency folders.
But Syria needs a plan far larger than simple military theory. Invading Syria is easy, leaving a somewhat stable country afterwards is the hard part.
It may not be a terrible idea to dismantle it. a unified Syria may not be possible or even necessarily desireable.
Honestly Iraq should be 3 nations ish.
A Sunni Iraq, thr other main sect and Kurdish.
The borders are not always accurate to the peoples.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
While I agree, there are plenty of outside factors that make that unlikely. Turkey would slaughter the Kurds before allowing anything resembling a Kurd state to exist and Iran would basically annex all the important parts of Iraq.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the idea there isn't already a plan somewhere about invading and occupying Syria is a bit naive. If they didn't have one a lot of people wouldn't be doing their job for about 6 years now.
Indeed. There are people in the armed forces who's job is basically to draw up tons of plans for various wartime scenarios. I'll bet somewhere in the bureaucratic web of the US military that there are plans for combating and invading every country on Earth.
That's the purpose of military theorycrafters, strategists and whatever you call them. If there's ever a need they already have at least the basics of a plan ready. Many of them are totally unlikely but you still have them because stuff can happen. So you might not want to invade, say, fellow NATO member Norway but what if there was a big showdown and Russia invaded Norway for forward radar stations and AA defense? You'd have to liberate the place to deny them the advantage. There's guaranteed to be a plan for that scenario somewhere, just as the Russians have a ready "invade Norway" plan in their emergency folders.
But Syria needs a plan far larger than simple military theory. Invading Syria is easy, leaving a somewhat stable country afterwards is the hard part.
It may not be a terrible idea to dismantle it. a unified Syria may not be possible or even necessarily desireable.
Honestly Iraq should be 3 nations ish.
A Sunni Iraq, thr other main sect and Kurdish.
The borders are not always accurate to the peoples.
Sadly, that's not really proven to be the answer historically. Look at how the British Empire tried to settle things. India and Pakistan. Various African countries etc. Eire and Northern Ireland (and to a thankfully lesser degree, Scotland and England. Even then, there's folk just won't let it lie)
That's the lasting price of colonialism. We went in (We as in Europe, not just pointing the figure at Britain here), set up our own arbitrary borders, and failed to really distinguish between different cultural groups etc. Then we pulled out. There's been trouble ever since.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the idea there isn't already a plan somewhere about invading and occupying Syria is a bit naive. If they didn't have one a lot of people wouldn't be doing their job for about 6 years now.
Indeed. There are people in the armed forces who's job is basically to draw up tons of plans for various wartime scenarios. I'll bet somewhere in the bureaucratic web of the US military that there are plans for combating and invading every country on Earth.
That's the purpose of military theorycrafters, strategists and whatever you call them. If there's ever a need they already have at least the basics of a plan ready. Many of them are totally unlikely but you still have them because stuff can happen. So you might not want to invade, say, fellow NATO member Norway but what if there was a big showdown and Russia invaded Norway for forward radar stations and AA defense? You'd have to liberate the place to deny them the advantage. There's guaranteed to be a plan for that scenario somewhere, just as the Russians have a ready "invade Norway" plan in their emergency folders.
But Syria needs a plan far larger than simple military theory. Invading Syria is easy, leaving a somewhat stable country afterwards is the hard part.
It may not be a terrible idea to dismantle it. a unified Syria may not be possible or even necessarily desireable.
Honestly Iraq should be 3 nations ish.
A Sunni Iraq, thr other main sect and Kurdish.
The borders are not always accurate to the peoples.
Sadly, that's not really proven to be the answer historically. Look at how the British Empire tried to settle things. India and Pakistan. Various African countries etc. Eire and Northern Ireland (and to a thankfully lesser degree, Scotland and England. Even then, there's folk just won't let it lie)
That's the lasting price of colonialism. We went in (We as in Europe, not just pointing the figure at Britain here), set up our own arbitrary borders, and failed to really distinguish between different cultural groups etc. Then we pulled out. There's been trouble ever since.
Thr French, and a few other powers had middle eastern and other territories.
Same in the East and Americas.
Everyone likes to name the UK but thr French learned little post even WW2 when UK relinquished much of them to local population, France held onto Algeria, French Indochina etc.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Yeah, a big problem with the Middle East is that everyone just hates everyone. It's hard to form coherent nation states that way. Even if we split it along the lines of Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, and Kurds, there will still be constant conflict, because they all just freaking hate each other. What's sad is that so much of this goes back to a simple play for power 1400 years ago...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/10 23:53:05
CptJake wrote: Did Trump mention he intends to dispose Assad? If so, not only did I miss that but this strike was a poor first step.
Better start attacking the guy who is the most likely to restore stability to his country. Are Yanks deliberately attempting to help ISIS? Is this why Trump wanted his travel ban, so Islamic extremists could spread everywhere but the US?
I'm curious, why is Assad the best bet to restore stability to Syria when it is his fault that it is currently in pieces?
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
The best bet who is whoever the Russians are backing. They're really good at that. In the cold war they made the West look like rank amateurs in the great "lets convert countries to our side through rifle fire" game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/11 13:07:27
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Disciple of Fate wrote: . When it became clear how horrifyingly genocidal it got some action was finally taken. Because it wasn't that interesting we let a million people get slaughtered.
Lot of people obeyed orders in Rwanda, and stood there and watched those people die in front of them. I want you to stop and think about that, having to sit there on your ass and watch thousands hacked to death in front of you because command has no balls, issuing order after order to stand back and let it happen.
To sit and do nothing is to be complicit in the act.
It's weird to break out the same image years later on this board, but it's still true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: The best bet who is whoever the Russians are backing.
Sadly, no. I don't see Assad ever ruling Syria outside Damascus ever again without massive foreign forces (Russia) being deployed there indefinitely.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/13 02:18:08
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Every time a genocide happens we swear its never again. But 10-20 years later it always gets forgotten and we get the next horrific event to remember.
I realize it is easy to speak about intervention coming from a country that is too small to act independently in this case. But I sure as hell question the use of paying billions for a military if we don't use it for situations like this. Yeah all those ads on tv about peace and security are nice, maybe actually go and send them over there to practice what they preach on tv in their recruitment ads. But nooo, we have to seriously debate about sending helicopters along with our soldiers for faster medivac, cause it might cost too much money. Mainland Europe is a disgrace and the faster an EU army is founded with the size and budget to actively intervene in these kinds of gakshows the better.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/13 02:24:11
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Disciple of Fate wrote: Every time a genocide happens we swear its never again. But 10-20 years later it always gets forgotten and we get the next horrific event to remember.
I realize it is easy to speak about intervention coming from a country that is too small to act independently in this case. But I sure as hell question the use of paying billions for a military if we don't use it for situations like this. Yeah all those ads on tv about peace and security are nice, maybe actually go and send them over there to practice what they preach on tv in their recruitment ads. But nooo, we have to seriously debate about sending helicopters along with our soldiers for faster medivac, cause it might cost too much money. Mainland Europe is a disgrace and the faster an EU army is founded with the size and budget to actively intervene in these kinds of gakshows the better.
Who's we? Unless you are the US, the UK or arguably France, you spend more on bus stop benches then you do on your military.
Sadly, no. I don't see Assad ever ruling Syria outside Damascus ever again without massive foreign forces (Russia) being deployed there indefinitely.
I don't see anyone ever ruling Syria, the nation is dead and fractured, and no one has the forces needed to bring the rest into compliance.
Bring into compliance? Your 40K is showing.
"Yes Spzz Emprah, the Mighty XIth Spazz Marinse Legion will bring Syria into compliance!"
-Last recorded words of Primarch Prim Adona, of the XI Legion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/13 15:33:22
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
"Yes Spzz Emprah, the Mighty XIth Spazz Marinse Legion will bring Syria into compliance!"
-Last recorded words of Primarch Prim Adona, of the XI Legion.
Syria is basically a small glimpse 40k in our planetary backyard.
whembly wrote: CNN cryon is stating that the US military actually dropped a MOAB on ISIS positions.
That firecracker is a bit... big.
Jeez that's overkill so glorious I cannot help but salute that commitment to ending whatever they ended.
A B52 . B2. I'm pretty sure nothing else in the fleet can drop those.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Every time a genocide happens we swear its never again. But 10-20 years later it always gets forgotten and we get the next horrific event to remember.
I realize it is easy to speak about intervention coming from a country that is too small to act independently in this case. But I sure as hell question the use of paying billions for a military if we don't use it for situations like this. Yeah all those ads on tv about peace and security are nice, maybe actually go and send them over there to practice what they preach on tv in their recruitment ads. But nooo, we have to seriously debate about sending helicopters along with our soldiers for faster medivac, cause it might cost too much money. Mainland Europe is a disgrace and the faster an EU army is founded with the size and budget to actively intervene in these kinds of gakshows the better.
Who's we? Unless you are the US, the UK or arguably France, you spend more on bus stop benches then you do on your military.
Frazzled, reread my second part cause I feel like you missed my point and the first sentence there. As the Netherlands we are too small to intervene even if we had more budget. Although like I mentioned our current defense spending of billions is beyond stupid because its waaaayyy too little to actually field a halfway decent military without throwing another 1% of total budget on top. Why I think spending billions is stupid is not because of some anti-military thinking, it comes from the fact we are spending billions on what is basically a pile of parts to attach to a US/German action instead of a basic independent military.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/13 17:15:29
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Disciple of Fate wrote: Every time a genocide happens we swear its never again. But 10-20 years later it always gets forgotten and we get the next horrific event to remember.
I realize it is easy to speak about intervention coming from a country that is too small to act independently in this case. But I sure as hell question the use of paying billions for a military if we don't use it for situations like this. Yeah all those ads on tv about peace and security are nice, maybe actually go and send them over there to practice what they preach on tv in their recruitment ads. But nooo, we have to seriously debate about sending helicopters along with our soldiers for faster medivac, cause it might cost too much money. Mainland Europe is a disgrace and the faster an EU army is founded with the size and budget to actively intervene in these kinds of gakshows the better.
Who's we? Unless you are the US, the UK or arguably France, you spend more on bus stop benches then you do on your military.
Frazzled, reread my second part cause I feel like you missed my point and the first sentence there. As the Netherlands we are too small to intervene even if we had more budget. Although like I mentioned our current defense spending of billions is beyond stupid because its waaaayyy too little to actually field a halfway decent military without throwing another 1% of total budget on top. Why I think spending billions is stupid is not because of some anti-military thinking, it comes from the fact we are spending billions on what is basically a pile of parts to attach to a US/German action instead of a basic independent military.
OK gotcha
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
whembly wrote: CNN cryon is stating that the US military actually dropped a MOAB on ISIS positions.
That firecracker is a bit... big.
Jeez that's overkill so glorious I cannot help but salute that commitment to ending whatever they ended.
A B52 . B2. I'm pretty sure nothing else in the fleet can drop those.
whembly wrote: CNN cryon is stating that the US military actually dropped a MOAB on ISIS positions.
That firecracker is a bit... big.
Jeez that's overkill so glorious I cannot help but salute that commitment to ending whatever they ended.
A B52 . B2. I'm pretty sure nothing else in the fleet can drop those.
I thought they dumped them out of the back of a C-130...
I'm sure the tunnel system targeted felt a bit of concussion...
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Every time a genocide happens we swear its never again. But 10-20 years later it always gets forgotten and we get the next horrific event to remember.
I realize it is easy to speak about intervention coming from a country that is too small to act independently in this case. But I sure as hell question the use of paying billions for a military if we don't use it for situations like this. Yeah all those ads on tv about peace and security are nice, maybe actually go and send them over there to practice what they preach on tv in their recruitment ads. But nooo, we have to seriously debate about sending helicopters along with our soldiers for faster medivac, cause it might cost too much money. Mainland Europe is a disgrace and the faster an EU army is founded with the size and budget to actively intervene in these kinds of gakshows the better.
Who's we? Unless you are the US, the UK or arguably France, you spend more on bus stop benches then you do on your military.
Frazzled, reread my second part cause I feel like you missed my point and the first sentence there. As the Netherlands we are too small to intervene even if we had more budget. Although like I mentioned our current defense spending of billions is beyond stupid because its waaaayyy too little to actually field a halfway decent military without throwing another 1% of total budget on top. Why I think spending billions is stupid is not because of some anti-military thinking, it comes from the fact we are spending billions on what is basically a pile of parts to attach to a US/German action instead of a basic independent military.
The Netherlands are not too small to be capable of military operations. It has 17 million people and a pretty big economy. There are plenty of nations out there with less people and smaller economies that are capable of independent operations. The Netherlands are not a small nation (to put it in perspective, of the 50 countries in Europe, only 11 have a larger population than the Netherlands and only 6 have a larger economy).
Now of course the Netherlands doesn't need to be able to go to war basically on its own and sustain it for several years, like the US has done in Iraq or Afghanistan. That'd be unrealistic. But being a nation that once ruled a world-spanning empire, the Netherlands can do a hell of a lot more than it does currently. It really isn't a matter of not being able to, but rather one of not being willing to. Most of the Dutch population just doesn't want to spend money on a military or get involved in fights abroad and therefore makes up excuses like "We are too small".
Disciple of Fate wrote: Every time a genocide happens we swear its never again. But 10-20 years later it always gets forgotten and we get the next horrific event to remember.
I realize it is easy to speak about intervention coming from a country that is too small to act independently in this case. But I sure as hell question the use of paying billions for a military if we don't use it for situations like this. Yeah all those ads on tv about peace and security are nice, maybe actually go and send them over there to practice what they preach on tv in their recruitment ads. But nooo, we have to seriously debate about sending helicopters along with our soldiers for faster medivac, cause it might cost too much money. Mainland Europe is a disgrace and the faster an EU army is founded with the size and budget to actively intervene in these kinds of gakshows the better.
Who's we? Unless you are the US, the UK or arguably France, you spend more on bus stop benches then you do on your military.
Frazzled, reread my second part cause I feel like you missed my point and the first sentence there. As the Netherlands we are too small to intervene even if we had more budget. Although like I mentioned our current defense spending of billions is beyond stupid because its waaaayyy too little to actually field a halfway decent military without throwing another 1% of total budget on top. Why I think spending billions is stupid is not because of some anti-military thinking, it comes from the fact we are spending billions on what is basically a pile of parts to attach to a US/German action instead of a basic independent military.
The Netherlands are not too small to be capable of military operations. It has 17 million people and a pretty big economy. There are plenty of nations out there with less people and smaller economies that are capable of independent operations. The Netherlands are not a small nation (to put it in perspective, of the 50 countries in Europe, only 11 have a larger population than the Netherlands and only 6 have a larger economy).
Now of course the Netherlands doesn't need to be able to go to war basically on its own and sustain it for several years, like the US has done in Iraq or Afghanistan. That'd be unrealistic. But being a nation that once ruled a world-spanning empire, the Netherlands can do a hell of a lot more than it does currently. It really isn't a matter of not being able to, but rather one of not being willing to. Most of the Dutch population just doesn't want to spend money on a military or get involved in fights abroad and therefore makes up excuses like "We are too small".
Not really, let me explain why. Size and economic wise we are fine to field a larger army than we currently do, but its all about budget. Sure having 10% of government budget will certainly help, but electorally speaking it has been very difficult to shift from the current 1.2% because it would require sizeable cuts elsewhere. What we currently have in capabilities could certainly take out Luxemburg or perhaps one of the Baltic States. In Afghanistan and Iraq however we were totally dependent on US capabilities to even gets us there and remain supplied, being able to field a couple of thousand troops was already putting a serious strain on what capabilities we had. Independent operations always sounds nice, but practically speaking the Netherlands could not wage a war alone unless it is against a direct neighbour of similar size. Even Syria would be a serious problem on a 2-3% budget due to home field advantage such as fortifications or SAM installations. Theoretically we could do very well, but you will never get the political support to cut into our current system so deeply as to effect at least a 2% rise in budget. Even a rise like this would bring us closer to but still not up to Cold War levels. The lack of conscripts combined with the expensive technology and the fact the military just isn't a career anymore means we just can't do it (they never attract enough young people, its why they have been running recruitment ads back to back for years).
Also saying we ruled a world-spanning empire is a bit much. We had Suriname and Indonesia because the Brits let us have it (they even gave them back to us after the Napoleonic period), not exactly massive. Even investing 2-3% would still leave us very much incapable of launching independent operations. Imagine tripling our budget, we could have like 30 F-35's flying around instead of the 10-12 we will have now (accounting for the rule of three where 2/3rd are grounded at any one time). The Dutch days of independently operating are far behind us. Even in the war in Indonesia we depended on US support to get a lot of equipment we needed to fight there and when they pulled the plug on supplying us we basically gave up on Indonesia. I know a bigger military sounds appealing, but in reality we have gotten too small to do a lot, as everything has just gotten too expensive and we don't have the skilled people for it anymore. This is why I support an EU army, because it can create an economy of scale in which a large effective military capable of independently sustainable wars can become feasible again. Besides whenever the US goes somewhere Europe usually follows, its not like were that independent in foreign policy when it comes to deploying European armies, so why not just combine.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/13 20:12:33
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Disciple of Fate wrote: Every time a genocide happens we swear its never again. But 10-20 years later it always gets forgotten and we get the next horrific event to remember.
I realize it is easy to speak about intervention coming from a country that is too small to act independently in this case. But I sure as hell question the use of paying billions for a military if we don't use it for situations like this. Yeah all those ads on tv about peace and security are nice, maybe actually go and send them over there to practice what they preach on tv in their recruitment ads. But nooo, we have to seriously debate about sending helicopters along with our soldiers for faster medivac, cause it might cost too much money. Mainland Europe is a disgrace and the faster an EU army is founded with the size and budget to actively intervene in these kinds of gakshows the better.
Who's we? Unless you are the US, the UK or arguably France, you spend more on bus stop benches then you do on your military.
Frazzled, reread my second part cause I feel like you missed my point and the first sentence there. As the Netherlands we are too small to intervene even if we had more budget. Although like I mentioned our current defense spending of billions is beyond stupid because its waaaayyy too little to actually field a halfway decent military without throwing another 1% of total budget on top. Why I think spending billions is stupid is not because of some anti-military thinking, it comes from the fact we are spending billions on what is basically a pile of parts to attach to a US/German action instead of a basic independent military.
The Netherlands are not too small to be capable of military operations. It has 17 million people and a pretty big economy. There are plenty of nations out there with less people and smaller economies that are capable of independent operations. The Netherlands are not a small nation (to put it in perspective, of the 50 countries in Europe, only 11 have a larger population than the Netherlands and only 6 have a larger economy).
Now of course the Netherlands doesn't need to be able to go to war basically on its own and sustain it for several years, like the US has done in Iraq or Afghanistan. That'd be unrealistic. But being a nation that once ruled a world-spanning empire, the Netherlands can do a hell of a lot more than it does currently. It really isn't a matter of not being able to, but rather one of not being willing to. Most of the Dutch population just doesn't want to spend money on a military or get involved in fights abroad and therefore makes up excuses like "We are too small".
Not really, let me explain why. Size and economic wise we are fine to field a larger army than we currently do, but its all about budget. Sure having 10% of government budget will certainly help, but electorally speaking it has been very difficult to shift from the current 1.2% because it would require sizeable cuts elsewhere. What we currently have in capabilities could certainly take out Luxemburg or perhaps one of the Baltic States. In Afghanistan and Iraq however we were totally dependent on US capabilities to even gets us there and remain supplied, being able to field a couple of thousand troops was already putting a serious strain on what capabilities we had. Independent operations always sounds nice, but practically speaking the Netherlands could not wage a war alone unless it is against a direct neighbour of similar size. Even Syria would be a serious problem on a 2-3% budget due to home field advantage such as fortifications or SAM installations. Theoretically we could do very well, but you will never get the political support to cut into our current system so deeply as to effect at least a 2% rise in budget. Even a rise like this would bring us closer to but still not up to Cold War levels. The lack of conscripts combined with the expensive technology and the fact the military just isn't a career anymore means we just can't do it (they never attract enough young people, its why they have been running recruitment ads back to back for years).
Also saying we ruled a world-spanning empire is a bit much. We had Suriname and Indonesia because the Brits let us have it (they even gave them back to us after the Napoleonic period), not exactly massive. Even investing 2-3% would still leave us very much incapable of launching independent operations. Imagine tripling our budget, we could have like 30 F-35's flying around instead of the 10-12 we will have now (accounting for the rule of three where 2/3rd are grounded at any one time). The Dutch days of independently operating are far behind us. Even in the war in Indonesia we depended on US support to get a lot of equipment we needed to fight there and when they pulled the plug on supplying us we basically gave up on Indonesia. I know a bigger military sounds appealing, but in reality we have gotten too small to do a lot, as everything has just gotten too expensive and we don't have the skilled people for it anymore. This is why I support an EU army, because it can create an economy of scale in which a large effective military capable of independently sustainable wars can become feasible again. Besides whenever the US goes somewhere Europe usually follows, its not like were that independent in foreign policy when it comes to deploying European armies, so why not just combine.
In the end it comes down to "Why should we make the hard budget choices, when America will protect us."
Everyone complains about being unable to make just 2.5% happen, because of how much it will impact their budget. None of you all seem to want to acknowledge the fact that the only reason you HAVE that luxury is because we spend that 10% ourselves.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Every time a genocide happens we swear its never again. But 10-20 years later it always gets forgotten and we get the next horrific event to remember.
I realize it is easy to speak about intervention coming from a country that is too small to act independently in this case. But I sure as hell question the use of paying billions for a military if we don't use it for situations like this. Yeah all those ads on tv about peace and security are nice, maybe actually go and send them over there to practice what they preach on tv in their recruitment ads. But nooo, we have to seriously debate about sending helicopters along with our soldiers for faster medivac, cause it might cost too much money. Mainland Europe is a disgrace and the faster an EU army is founded with the size and budget to actively intervene in these kinds of gakshows the better.
Who's we? Unless you are the US, the UK or arguably France, you spend more on bus stop benches then you do on your military.
Frazzled, reread my second part cause I feel like you missed my point and the first sentence there. As the Netherlands we are too small to intervene even if we had more budget. Although like I mentioned our current defense spending of billions is beyond stupid because its waaaayyy too little to actually field a halfway decent military without throwing another 1% of total budget on top. Why I think spending billions is stupid is not because of some anti-military thinking, it comes from the fact we are spending billions on what is basically a pile of parts to attach to a US/German action instead of a basic independent military.
The Netherlands are not too small to be capable of military operations. It has 17 million people and a pretty big economy. There are plenty of nations out there with less people and smaller economies that are capable of independent operations. The Netherlands are not a small nation (to put it in perspective, of the 50 countries in Europe, only 11 have a larger population than the Netherlands and only 6 have a larger economy).
Now of course the Netherlands doesn't need to be able to go to war basically on its own and sustain it for several years, like the US has done in Iraq or Afghanistan. That'd be unrealistic. But being a nation that once ruled a world-spanning empire, the Netherlands can do a hell of a lot more than it does currently. It really isn't a matter of not being able to, but rather one of not being willing to. Most of the Dutch population just doesn't want to spend money on a military or get involved in fights abroad and therefore makes up excuses like "We are too small".
Not really, let me explain why. Size and economic wise we are fine to field a larger army than we currently do, but its all about budget. Sure having 10% of government budget will certainly help, but electorally speaking it has been very difficult to shift from the current 1.2% because it would require sizeable cuts elsewhere. What we currently have in capabilities could certainly take out Luxemburg or perhaps one of the Baltic States. In Afghanistan and Iraq however we were totally dependent on US capabilities to even gets us there and remain supplied, being able to field a couple of thousand troops was already putting a serious strain on what capabilities we had. Independent operations always sounds nice, but practically speaking the Netherlands could not wage a war alone unless it is against a direct neighbour of similar size. Even Syria would be a serious problem on a 2-3% budget due to home field advantage such as fortifications or SAM installations. Theoretically we could do very well, but you will never get the political support to cut into our current system so deeply as to effect at least a 2% rise in budget. Even a rise like this would bring us closer to but still not up to Cold War levels. The lack of conscripts combined with the expensive technology and the fact the military just isn't a career anymore means we just can't do it (they never attract enough young people, its why they have been running recruitment ads back to back for years).
Also saying we ruled a world-spanning empire is a bit much. We had Suriname and Indonesia because the Brits let us have it (they even gave them back to us after the Napoleonic period), not exactly massive. Even investing 2-3% would still leave us very much incapable of launching independent operations. Imagine tripling our budget, we could have like 30 F-35's flying around instead of the 10-12 we will have now (accounting for the rule of three where 2/3rd are grounded at any one time). The Dutch days of independently operating are far behind us. Even in the war in Indonesia we depended on US support to get a lot of equipment we needed to fight there and when they pulled the plug on supplying us we basically gave up on Indonesia. I know a bigger military sounds appealing, but in reality we have gotten too small to do a lot, as everything has just gotten too expensive and we don't have the skilled people for it anymore. This is why I support an EU army, because it can create an economy of scale in which a large effective military capable of independently sustainable wars can become feasible again. Besides whenever the US goes somewhere Europe usually follows, its not like were that independent in foreign policy when it comes to deploying European armies, so why not just combine.
In the end it comes down to "Why should we make the hard budget choices, when America will protect us."
Everyone complains about being unable to make just 2.5% happen, because of how much it will impact their budget. None of you all seem to want to acknowledge the fact that the only reason you HAVE that luxury is because we spend that 10% ourselves.
Hmm. Even if 2.5% is not independent its still as part of Nato and providing a credible contribution to the combined defense organisation. As part of the larger alliance its your contribution to the combined defense pact.
Its also it's thefact if your gaining the advantages of membership. You need to pay the bill to for that protection.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Every time a genocide happens we swear its never again. But 10-20 years later it always gets forgotten and we get the next horrific event to remember.
I realize it is easy to speak about intervention coming from a country that is too small to act independently in this case. But I sure as hell question the use of paying billions for a military if we don't use it for situations like this. Yeah all those ads on tv about peace and security are nice, maybe actually go and send them over there to practice what they preach on tv in their recruitment ads. But nooo, we have to seriously debate about sending helicopters along with our soldiers for faster medivac, cause it might cost too much money. Mainland Europe is a disgrace and the faster an EU army is founded with the size and budget to actively intervene in these kinds of gakshows the better.
Who's we? Unless you are the US, the UK or arguably France, you spend more on bus stop benches then you do on your military.
Frazzled, reread my second part cause I feel like you missed my point and the first sentence there. As the Netherlands we are too small to intervene even if we had more budget. Although like I mentioned our current defense spending of billions is beyond stupid because its waaaayyy too little to actually field a halfway decent military without throwing another 1% of total budget on top. Why I think spending billions is stupid is not because of some anti-military thinking, it comes from the fact we are spending billions on what is basically a pile of parts to attach to a US/German action instead of a basic independent military.
The Netherlands are not too small to be capable of military operations. It has 17 million people and a pretty big economy. There are plenty of nations out there with less people and smaller economies that are capable of independent operations. The Netherlands are not a small nation (to put it in perspective, of the 50 countries in Europe, only 11 have a larger population than the Netherlands and only 6 have a larger economy).
Now of course the Netherlands doesn't need to be able to go to war basically on its own and sustain it for several years, like the US has done in Iraq or Afghanistan. That'd be unrealistic. But being a nation that once ruled a world-spanning empire, the Netherlands can do a hell of a lot more than it does currently. It really isn't a matter of not being able to, but rather one of not being willing to. Most of the Dutch population just doesn't want to spend money on a military or get involved in fights abroad and therefore makes up excuses like "We are too small".
Not really, let me explain why. Size and economic wise we are fine to field a larger army than we currently do, but its all about budget. Sure having 10% of government budget will certainly help, but electorally speaking it has been very difficult to shift from the current 1.2% because it would require sizeable cuts elsewhere. What we currently have in capabilities could certainly take out Luxemburg or perhaps one of the Baltic States. In Afghanistan and Iraq however we were totally dependent on US capabilities to even gets us there and remain supplied, being able to field a couple of thousand troops was already putting a serious strain on what capabilities we had. Independent operations always sounds nice, but practically speaking the Netherlands could not wage a war alone unless it is against a direct neighbour of similar size. Even Syria would be a serious problem on a 2-3% budget due to home field advantage such as fortifications or SAM installations. Theoretically we could do very well, but you will never get the political support to cut into our current system so deeply as to effect at least a 2% rise in budget. Even a rise like this would bring us closer to but still not up to Cold War levels. The lack of conscripts combined with the expensive technology and the fact the military just isn't a career anymore means we just can't do it (they never attract enough young people, its why they have been running recruitment ads back to back for years).
Also saying we ruled a world-spanning empire is a bit much. We had Suriname and Indonesia because the Brits let us have it (they even gave them back to us after the Napoleonic period), not exactly massive. Even investing 2-3% would still leave us very much incapable of launching independent operations. Imagine tripling our budget, we could have like 30 F-35's flying around instead of the 10-12 we will have now (accounting for the rule of three where 2/3rd are grounded at any one time). The Dutch days of independently operating are far behind us. Even in the war in Indonesia we depended on US support to get a lot of equipment we needed to fight there and when they pulled the plug on supplying us we basically gave up on Indonesia. I know a bigger military sounds appealing, but in reality we have gotten too small to do a lot, as everything has just gotten too expensive and we don't have the skilled people for it anymore. This is why I support an EU army, because it can create an economy of scale in which a large effective military capable of independently sustainable wars can become feasible again. Besides whenever the US goes somewhere Europe usually follows, its not like were that independent in foreign policy when it comes to deploying European armies, so why not just combine.
In the end it comes down to "Why should we make the hard budget choices, when America will protect us."
Everyone complains about being unable to make just 2.5% happen, because of how much it will impact their budget. None of you all seem to want to acknowledge the fact that the only reason you HAVE that luxury is because we spend that 10% ourselves.
In the end for the Netherlands it comes down more to "why should we make hard choices, because all we do is contribute to other countries operations anyway without being able to launch our own". I don't agree with the current 1.2% as the military doesn't have two pennies to rub together and its actually endangering lives. Part of the problem is the social programs (old age and taxation) surrounding baby boomers and their voting habits the US just doesn't face. Baby boomers gain more from the state then they put in and bitch and whine every second they have to make concessions, meanwhile their cushy social security systems were built up by there parents who didn't benefit as much and will need to be carried by their children now who will face severe cutbacks on their own social securities in the future to pay or the generation of baby boomers now. Its the richest and most active electoral group and cutting a bit on them to fund the military is just a no go. Its insane we are risking lives to ensure cushy vacations for them, but its how democracy malfunctions at times.
I of course realize why we have this luxury and I didn't want to appear to complain not to be able to make 2.5%. I hate how we are starving the military, education and a ton of other sectors just to take care of the baby boomers and than having to start paying through the nose to pay of the debts we accrued to take care of them while the rest of the country fell apart. You can't find a party in the Netherlands that said we will raise it to 2%, they all talk about gradual 0.1 or 0.2% increases. During the 90's even after the Cold War the budgets were still higher, but now that the choice is starting to fall on social security systems or army budget due to the aging population. Having the balls to turn against the majority of the electorates wishes is a good way to get a swift kick to them during elections, so they don't even try anymore. My generation, millenials, and to a lesser extent generation X are going to have to pick up the pieces in a devastated system compared to what most of our parents will have enjoyed.
Edit: Just so you know, baby boomers in a lot of European countries combined with an aging population and budget squeezes lead to the under funding of the military. Its not just limited to the Netherlands. Also the US is able to run deficits far in excess of European nations due to all kinds of other factors (primacy of the US dollar, how the international system functions, just US economic power etc etc.), which means things are even more problematic for us.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: 1.2%? What are you supposed to spend as a NATO member?
Nato has a guideline of 2%. But that would still be insignificant for a country such as the Netherlands. On 1.2% we have a fleet of 38 F-35's, these will be all our new fighter aircraft, down from 200 or so F-16's that will get retired. Even a 2% budget will have more than halved our previous capacity. This is why I'm pro EU army, we all contribute 2% budget and then we can field a significant force combined, instead of all these little countries having to pay through the nose for a dozen or so aircraft or tanks. Size matters in purchasing these things and we just don't have that regardless.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/04/13 21:41:41
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
CptJake wrote: 1.2%? What are you supposed to spend as a NATO member?
Minimum 2%
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
