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.

Albatross wrote:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Albatross wrote:If you can't see the benefits of a first line of defence for the USA in continental Europe, then I can't really help you I'm afraid. You seem to think about complex issues in childishly simplistic terms.

So what are the benefits exactly? Or is this one of those trick answers, where rather than say any benefits you just declare anyone who disagrees with you an idiot?

There are a number of threats to the US which could arise closer to continental Europe than mainland USA. A strategic presence in Europe is important to the USAs defence, or else it wouldn't be there. Don't get me wrong - I understand that populist press of the sort typically swallowed hook-line-and-sinker by American neo-cons likes to paint complex geo-political situations in crudely jingoistic broadbrush terms, and that the natural end-result of that is opinion along the lines of 'why do we have to defend europe? They should pay for their own damn defence!!1!!one!'. Doesn't stop it being frustrating for the rest of us to have to listen to that - and I'll repeat the term once again - facile nonsense.

NATO isn't altruism. Don't let yourself be manipulated. Anymore.

I see, you can't think of one. So in other words there isn't a threat to the US.
I noticed you didn't answer the question put to you. Should the UK spend tens of billions in a nuclear shield over the US and Mexico? After all there are a number of threats that could arise closer to the continental USA than Europe.

EDIT: How about instead, if Europe is nuked, we promise to immediately put forth a resolution before the UN, comdemning such action. We can also send food aid and sell machinery and capital goods to them at a discount in compassion for their difficulty.

Sounds a bit like the second world war if you ask me.

Oh snap.

Frazzled wrote:I see, you can't think of one. So in other words there isn't a threat to the US.
I noticed you didn't answer the question put to you. Should the UK spend tens of billions in a nuclear shield over the US and Mexico? After all there are a number of threats that could arise closer to the continental USA than Europe.

The UK should indeed build such a shield if it had a similar number of people in prime targets in the US/Mexico (250K Americans live in London alone IIRC), had a number of core military assets under the shield such as a number of airbases used in current conflicts, and was able to prevent the international economy being devastated by shooting things down. South America would also need something more aggressive and with better weapons programs than Venezuela too. Most importantly it would need the US/mexican people to tolerate an external power having military assets in the country which seems like the much bigger issue.

The UK still has lots of military assets outside of mainland britain just like the US, but on a much smaller scale due to being about 1/5th the size in terms of people and economy.

Mr Mystery wrote:Sounds a bit like the second world war if you ask me.

You mean other than the hundreds of thousands of troops and airment right?

But it makes my point. If we hadn't been engaged in the quasi war with Nazi Germany in 1940 and 1941 its not likely they would have declared war on us. How many US citizens died for Europe?

If we hadn't pledeged to wipe ourselves out as a people if the USSR attacked Europe. We lived under the shadow of the Bomb for you and still do while Europe made fun of us uncouth redneck Americans.

And its still happening. Its a shield to protect Europe from Iran, when Europe refuses to do anything about Iran. There is no benefit to the US for this.
Let Europe take care of itself.

Albatross wrote:There are a number of threats to the US which could arise closer to continental Europe than mainland USA. A strategic presence in Europe is important to the USAs defence, or else it wouldn't be there.

So the evidence that we need a strategic presence in Europe is that we have a strategic presence in Europe? That's a circular argument, it's like if I say 'why do we keep buying a new TV every month, it doesn't do us any good' and you respond 'A new TV is important to the house's defense, otherwise it wouldn't be there'.

Doesn't stop it being frustrating for the rest of us to have to listen to that - and I'll repeat the term once again - facile nonsense.

You failed to actually list any benefits to the US from NATO, you just offered bluster, condensation, and a circular argument. I think your response is what qualifies as facile nonsense. If it's so hard to list any benefits to the US from NATO that you have to resort to misdirection, that's a pretty severe condemnation of the whole idea.

NATO isn't altruism. Don't let yourself be manipulated. Anymore.

Yeah, it's easier to just accuse the persona asking you a question of being manipulated or foolish or whatever instead of posting any actual argument. Though I think that actually qualifies as facile nonsense also.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

legoburner wrote:The UK should indeed build such a shield if it had a similar number of people in prime targets in the US/Mexico (250K Americans live in London alone IIRC), had a number of core military assets under the shield such as a number of airbases used in current conflicts,

The circular justifications would be amusing if they didn't mean billions of dollars of American money being wasted. You're saying that the justification for spending on more assets in Europe is that we have assets in Europe!

Frazzled wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Sounds a bit like the second world war if you ask me.

You mean other than the hundreds of thousands of troops and airment right?

But it makes my point. If we hadn't been engaged in the quasi war with Nazi Germany in 1940 and 1941 its not likely they would have declared war on us. How many US citizens died for Europe?

If we hadn't pledeged to wipe ourselves out as a people if the USSR attacked Europe. We lived under the shadow of the Bomb for you and still do while Europe made fun of us uncouth redneck Americans.

And its still happening. Its a shield to protect Europe from Iran, when Europe refuses to do anything about Iran. There is no benefit to the US for this.
Let Europe take care of itself.

To be fair though, it wasn't us that pissed off the Russians with habitual glee

Mr Mystery wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Sounds a bit like the second world war if you ask me.

You mean other than the hundreds of thousands of troops and airment right?

But it makes my point. If we hadn't been engaged in the quasi war with Nazi Germany in 1940 and 1941 its not likely they would have declared war on us. How many US citizens died for Europe?

If we hadn't pledeged to wipe ourselves out as a people if the USSR attacked Europe. We lived under the shadow of the Bomb for you and still do while Europe made fun of us uncouth redneck Americans.

And its still happening. Its a shield to protect Europe from Iran, when Europe refuses to do anything about Iran. There is no benefit to the US for this.
Let Europe take care of itself.

To be fair though, it wasn't us that pissed off the Russians with habitual glee

Actually it was. They were worried that one day you would use Haggis against them, and they felt they had to premptively attack. As Borsht is nothing next to the demonic aura of Haggis, they felt their only hope was massed T-72s through the Fulda Gap.

Haggis, starting wars since 1223.

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I have a better idea. Disband NATO. The time of the American Empire is over. Let Europe take care of itself.

What on earth are you on about now? Are you sitting there pretending that NATO is a completely altruistic organisation set up to protect Europe from Evil Red Invaders? Where do you get your opinions from?

America has (well, had) a large amount of interest in having a significant European buffer against Russia.

Not any more. The Russian Bear isn't going to invade Europe. If it did, you should be able to defend yourselves now.
Hell the Warsaw Pact is gone. The USSR is a memory.

That was implied in what I posted, If you'll only just read it a little more thoroughly. My point is that you seem to think that it was all about defending Europe, which is facile nonsense.

Yea...it really was.
regardless, there's no need for the US to be involved in any capacity with a nuclear shield for Europe. Let the Europeans build it and pay for it if they want. I have no problem with them doing it, but I'm sick of paying for Europe. We're broke. Time to pull back and act like we did before you guys dragged us into two wars.

Okay, WWI I'll grant you, but the last time I checked the reason the US got properly involved with WWII was because of Japan. Japan is not in Europe.
Unless, of course, my life has been one huge elaborate practical joke so far.

Pshwah! Haggis is not a weapon. They merely feared the Devils In Skirts, neatly shown here in this entirely factual documentary footage of the Brits giving the Indians What-Five and indeed Six-Nowt

@Frazzled - You've already proven yourself unworthy of my attention. I'm tuning you out at this point.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Albatross wrote:There are a number of threats to the US which could arise closer to continental Europe than mainland USA. A strategic presence in Europe is important to the USAs defence, or else it wouldn't be there.

So the evidence that we need a strategic presence in Europe is that we have a strategic presence in Europe? That's a circular argument, it's like if I say 'why do we keep buying a new TV every month, it doesn't do us any good' and you respond 'A new TV is important to the house's defense, otherwise it wouldn't be there'.

You are very bad at this. That's not what I'm saying at all.

Quick question: Which is closer to Afghanistan? Europe or the USA? Take as long as you need.

That's an example of a threat to the USA which is closer to Europe than mainland America - how would the USA invade any middle-eastern country without a strategic presence in Europe?
That's not to mention the benefits of intelligence co-operation which prevented aeroplanes exploding over American cities a few weeks ago.

And that's just in recent times - who knows what the future holds?


I really thought that this would have been obvious. Apologies if I over-estimated anyone...

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Okay, WWI I'll grant you, but the last time I checked the reason the US got properly involved with WWII was because of Japan. Japan is not in Europe.
Unless, of course, my life has been one huge elaborate practical joke so far.

Germany declared war on the US. One of the reasons of course was the fact we were sinking U boats in the Atlantic and lend leasing vast quantities of material to the UK.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Mystery wrote:Pshwah! Haggis is not a weapon. They merely feared the Devils In Skirts, neatly shown here in this entirely factual documentary footage of the Brits giving the Indians What-Five and indeed Six-Nowt

I respect the devils in skirts, but your clever attempts to hide the secret weapon that is Haggis are for nought!

Frazzled wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Okay, WWI I'll grant you, but the last time I checked the reason the US got properly involved with WWII was because of Japan. Japan is not in Europe.
Unless, of course, my life has been one huge elaborate practical joke so far.

Germany declared war on the US. One of the reasons of course was the fact we were sinking U boats in the Atlantic and lend leasing vast quantities of material to the UK.

Ah yes, but that was to support their Japanese allies, who had committed an act of war on the US first. Kinda stupid of the Jerries, really, when you consider they already had the Russians to deal with.
Also, wasn't that "sinking U-Boats" more a case of convoys defending themselves rather than an active attempt to cripple the wolf-packs?
The aid was much appreciated, though.

Albatross wrote:@Frazzled - You've already proven yourself unworthy of my attention. I'm tuning you out at this point.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Albatross wrote:There are a number of threats to the US which could arise closer to continental Europe than mainland USA. A strategic presence in Europe is important to the USAs defence, or else it wouldn't be there.

So the evidence that we need a strategic presence in Europe is that we have a strategic presence in Europe? That's a circular argument, it's like if I say 'why do we keep buying a new TV every month, it doesn't do us any good' and you respond 'A new TV is important to the house's defense, otherwise it wouldn't be there'.

You are very bad at this. That's not what I'm saying at all.

Quick question: Which is closer to Afghanistan? Europe or the USA? Take as long as you need.

That's an example of a threat to the USA which is closer to Europe than mainland America - how would the USA invade any middle-eastern country without a strategic presence in Europe?
That's not to mention the benefits of intelligence co-operation which prevented aeroplanes exploding over American cities a few weeks ago.

And that's just in recent times - who knows what the future holds?


I really thought that this would have been obvious. Apologies if I over-estimated anyone...

Wow, ok. And the missile shield would have protected us-how?
I see the insults continue.

Question. Is Iran closer to London/Berlin or Washington? Thats a threat to you. Respectively we shouldn't give a gak. NK and China are much closer and much more of a real threat to the US. Mexico is a substantially greater threat. Why do we have bases in Europe but not on the border with Mexico?


Build it yourself and quick sucking off the US.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Okay, WWI I'll grant you, but the last time I checked the reason the US got properly involved with WWII was because of Japan. Japan is not in Europe.
Unless, of course, my life has been one huge elaborate practical joke so far.

Germany declared war on the US. One of the reasons of course was the fact we were sinking U boats in the Atlantic and lend leasing vast quantities of material to the UK.

Ah yes, but that was to support their Japanese allies, who had committed an act of war on the US first. Kinda stupid of the Jerries, really, when you consider they already had the Russians to deal with.
Also, wasn't that "sinking U-Boats" more a case of convoys defending themselves rather than an active attempt to cripple the wolf-packs?
The aid was much appreciated, though.

US naval ships set up a protected area around half the Atlantic. UBoats, by policy were vioewed as pirates and sunk on sight. Unfotrunately for Granddad (a couple of times) they weren't sunk on sight enough.

Haggis is merely a euphenism for what lies beneath

Mr Mystery wrote:Haggis is merely a euphenism for what lies beneath

We don't talk about that to outsiders, comrade.

HA! BEHOLD MY MIGHTY PUDDING! *lifts Kilt, women swoon, men feel intensely jealous*

Lad I don't know where ya been but I see you won first prize!

Albatross wrote:You are very bad at this. That's not what I'm saying at all.

You mean it's not what you wish you said, it is what you said.

Quick question: Which is closer to Afghanistan? Europe or the USA? Take as long as you need.

Quick question: Which European country did we go through to get to Afghanistan? I don't think Pakistan is part of NATO, so I don't see how that's a benefit of NATO.

Also, which is closer to Afghanistan, Japan or the USA? Take as long as you need, then remember that Japan also doesn't have anything to do with NATO.

That's an example of a threat to the USA which is closer to Europe than mainland America - how would the USA invade any middle-eastern country without a strategic presence in Europe?

Good point, so it sounds like removing the strategic presence in Europe would save us from expensive, useless wars that we shouldn't have engaged in in the first place. That's an argument AGAINST NATO.

I really thought that this would have been obvious. Apologies if I over-estimated anyone...

You still haven't listed any benefits, just insults and a lack of geographical knowledge.

In addition, this thread is vastly under reporting the threat that is Brazil:

....May God have mercy on us all.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:....May God have mercy on us all.

Only if we are permitted to complete our quest to visit the Sambadrome!

Wait Frazzled, the shield covers ALL NATO members, including North America. Do you have a problem with this?

Frazzled wrote:
I see, you can't think of one. So in other words there isn't a threat to the US.

Do you know what would happen to the US economy if someone successfully attacked a European city via a nuclear launch?

It wouldn't be pretty.

Frazzled wrote:
I noticed you didn't answer the question put to you. Should the UK spend tens of billions in a nuclear shield over the US and Mexico?

Two things:

1) There are no South American nuclear programs. Plus most South American countries are party to non-development treaties, and all of them are party to the NPT.

2) The UK is paying, via NATO, to put a nuclear missile shield in the US per this treaty. The US is a member of NATO, and this shield covers all NATO members.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Build it yourself and quick sucking off the US.

Ah, I see this is just another thread of your usual "The US does everything everywhere!" argument. Always a real winner.

Its particularly bad in this case given that we know nothing about the financial realities of the treaty.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Albatross wrote:You are very bad at this. That's not what I'm saying at all.

You mean it's not what you wish you said, it is what you said.

Erm, no. What I said was that there there a number of potential threats to the USA that could arise closer to continental Europe than to mainland USA. I suffixed that by saying that the American strategic presence in Europe isn't just there for the fun of it.

Quick question: Which is closer to Afghanistan? Europe or the USA? Take as long as you need.

Quick question: Which European country did we go through to get to Afghanistan? I don't think Pakistan is part of NATO, so I don't see how that's a benefit of NATO.

I would be very surprised if RAF bases in the Mediterranean weren't involved to some degree. They were in the Second Iraq War.

Also, which is closer to Afghanistan, Japan or the USA? Take as long as you need, then remember that Japan also doesn't have anything to do with NATO.

..or this 'conversation'.

That's an example of a threat to the USA which is closer to Europe than mainland America - how would the USA invade any middle-eastern country without a strategic presence in Europe?

Good point, so it sounds like removing the strategic presence in Europe would save us from expensive, useless wars that we shouldn't have engaged in in the first place. That's an argument AGAINST NATO.

Yes, I'm sure the Taliban would have just handed over Al Qaida if you'd only been more patient....

Albatross wrote:Erm, no. What I said was that

A strategic presence in Europe is important to the USAs defence, or else it wouldn't be there.

In other words, if we put troops somewhere, then that justifies having them there as having troops in a place makes it important to the USA's defence.

Yes, I'm sure the Taliban would have just handed over Al Qaida if you'd only been more patient....

You said 'middle east', which doesn't include Afghanistan in normal usage. Typically you would say 'Greater Middle east' to include Afghanistan. Your deliberate use of confusing language is an indication that you lack a real point and are just trying to play word games.

After sorting through your replies, it's clear that you've steadfastly refused to provide a direct answer. The only benefit you've chosen to indirectly name is 'military bases for launching operations', but acquiring a military base in the mediterranian and another in the UK is paltry reward for the huge amount of money spent on NATO, and NATO is not neccessary for getting military basing rights. Korea, Japan, and Cuba are not part of NATO, but we somehow manage to sort out agreements with those countries.

So there is no significant benefit to the US from NATO, at least that you've been able to tell us. We just get more military bases than we'd conceivably need, and we could easily negotiate with individual countries for the few bases we actually need. Hardly worth the effort if you ask me.

BearersOfSalvation wrote: Korea, Japan, and Cuba are not part of NATO, but we somehow manage to sort out agreements with those countries.

I lol'd.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
The only benefit you've chosen to indirectly name is 'military bases for launching operations', but acquiring a military base in the mediterranian and another in the UK is paltry reward for the huge amount of money spent on NATO, and NATO is not neccessary for getting military basing rights. Korea, Japan, and Cuba are not part of NATO, but we somehow manage to sort out agreements with those countries.

Yes, but generally we do that by paying them lots of money, which is one of your objections to NATO.

At this point you have to show that NATO membership is significantly more expensive than the alternative means of obtaining bases, while also accounting for the value of military support in defensive combat operations. This is going to be difficult considering you will have to get at what portion the spending on NATO is tied only to the organization, and not the improvement of US forces for the purposes of operating with other NATO states (interoperability). After all, the financial contributions made to NATO itself are really quite small.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
So there is no significant benefit to the US from NATO, at least that you've been able to tell us. We just get more military bases than we'd conceivably need, and we could easily negotiate with individual countries for the few bases we actually need. Hardly worth the effort if you ask me.

Well, first off, negotiating military agreements is rarely easy, and would be particularly difficult to do with European nations if the US dropped out of NATO.

Second, what effort? Sure, the US pays dues to NATO like every other member, but NATO itself is an independent organization. If you're talking about US participation in NATO action, then I'm not sure I can think of NATO actions that the US hasn't supported; implying that NATO itself was not the primary impetus for engaging in the use of force.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

BearersOfSalvation wrote: Korea, Japan, and Cuba are not part of NATO, but we somehow manage to sort out agreements with those countries.

I lol'd.

Yeah, I don't know if there was intentional irony there, or if Bearers unconsciously listed countries that agreed to US bases due to the use of US force.

dogma wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

BearersOfSalvation wrote: Korea, Japan, and Cuba are not part of NATO, but we somehow manage to sort out agreements with those countries.

I lol'd.

Yeah, I don't know if there was intentional irony there, or if Bearers unconsciously listed countries that agreed to US bases due to the use of US force.

Well which is worse? If unintentional it suggests a profound ignorance of historical events in the past century. If intentional, it could be taken to mean a show of support for more 'forthright' US foreign policies.

Yeah....let's see. We have bases in Japan because we were occupying them for a good few years. We have a (as in one. Single) base in Cuba that we basically said was ours at the end of the Spanish-American War.

So it seems that the only nation we have bases in without the use of force is Korea, and we have bases in Korea because Korea wanted protection against North Korea.....which is arguably the same reason we have bases in Europe. Just replace North Korea with 'Soviet Union'.

And as for supporting operations...we have to remember. Turkey is part of NATO. The Turkish airbases were/are no doubt VITAL to our logistical support in Iraq. Not to mention, Turkish presence in NATO allows them a quick line of dialogue back to us for resolving their issues with Iraqi Kurds.