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.

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

Oh, there are more than that; notably in Central Asia and the Middle East. Its just that the examples listed weren't the best choices given the point being made.

Though its notable that the majority of our foreign deployments are connected to NATO, and located in Europe. A fact that also calls into question the notion that we pay NATO dues simply because of a few bases in England and the Mediterranean.

Oh yes, I was just joining in with mocking that statement.

I would like to point out that bases such as Rammstein and other such things are very important logistical stepping stones for our transports ferrying troops to and from the combat zone... I agree that we're far too overdeployed in Europe, against a threat that no longer exists, but I'd think dissolving NATO/pulling out is taking it too far.

...which ties in nicely with my point that the relative benefits and downsides to NATO membership shouldn't really be simplified down to 'goddam Europeans!! Pay for your OWN defence!!!'

It's childish, facile,and doesn't really reflect the reality, which is a great deal more nuanced than that.

FWIW, I support the UK pulling 20,000 troops out of Germany, and I think the US should probably reduce it's overseas commitments a little more. That doesn't have to be the same thing as 'WE NEED TO GET OUT OF NATO HURRRR!!!'.

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

No it doesn't. It protects Europe. Nukes coming from Asia, the Americas, and the land of the Czars won't come that way. I don't know if an ICBM from Iran would, but again, thats your problem, not ours.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

It wouldn't be pretty.

Which European country did we go through to get to Afghanistan?

Surprisingly?

Russia is the biggest one right now.

Here's why I could care less about a European shield.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/23/skorea-nkorea-fires-artillery-island/
http://www.statesman.com/news/world/bullet-riddled-mexican-city-now-a-ghost-town-1068138.html

Okay dude, seriously? Don't use faux news.

Melissia wrote:Okay dude, seriously? Don't use faux news.

Fox news had cool pics
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-11-23-korea-artillery_N.htm

Thank you.

@Frazzled - So... what, exactly?

You'd prefer an Asian Artillery Shield? A Mexican Bullet Shield?

I'm not following you, sorry.

Albatross wrote:@Frazzled - So... what, exactly?

You'd prefer an Asian Artillery Shield? A Mexican Bullet Shield?

I'm not following you, sorry.

I'd prefer a shield that protects the US from all threats, not just ones coming from Western Europe. I'd prefer forces that protect the US from all threats, and not in forward positions that immediately put us into a war on another continent.

I seriously can't see a threat arising that will only be a threat to Europe without being a threat to the US as well.

I mean....who are we gonna get in a war with because of Europe? The Russians? The our entire military machine is slowly rusting away Russia?

If we were living in a pre-WWI world, you'd be totally right, but right now any enemy strong enough to threaten Europe will be strong enough to threaten the US as well...if we're gonna fight a war, why don't we just fight it on their territory instead of our own?

ChrisWWII wrote:I seriously can't see a threat arising that will only be a threat to Europe without being a threat to the US as well.

I mean....who are we gonna get in a war with because of Europe? The Russians? The our entire military machine is slowly rusting away Russia?

If we were living in a pre-WWI world, you'd be totally right, but right now any enemy strong enough to threaten Europe will be strong enough to threaten the US as well...if we're gonna fight a war, why don't we just fight it on their territory instead of our own?

Name a European country ever strong enough to threaten the US that had the intent to do so, other than the USSR?

Indeed the last ones to get uppity are members of NATO themselves...

The U.S. view
American President Abraham Lincoln had supported the republicans under Juárez, but was unable to intervene due to the American Civil War. Immediately after the end of the war, in 1865, United States Army General Philip Sheridan, under the supervision of President Andrew Johnson and General Ulysses S. Grant, assembled 50,000 troops, and dispatched them to the border between Mexico and the United States. There, his corps ran patrols to visibly threaten intervention against the French, and also supplied weapons to Juárez's forces.[10] The US Congress had unanimously passed a resolution which opposed the establishment of the Mexican monarchy on 4 April 1864. On 12 February 1866, the US demanded the French withdraw their forces from Mexico, moved soldiers to positions along the Rio Grande, and set up a naval blockade to prevent French reinforcements from landing. The US officially protested to Austria about the Austrian volunteers in Mexico on 6 May.

Rather late to this one but the UK has Troops in Canada, Belieze and the Falklands.

Don't worry US we'll keep an eye on Chevez for you so long as you keep over watch on Lichtenstein for us.

Deal or no deal?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also is Iran could develop a Nuclear arsenal I would suggest that they would also be capable of developing much longer ranged missiles than they currently possess [in time].

Re the shield, if I was in the US I would much rather that the ICBM's are being intercepted over Europe than the East Coast!

Wait the UK has troops in Canada? Do the Canadians know about this threat to Tim Hortons?

They have to stay there to make sure they salute the Queen properly when she pops over to hunt for bears.

ChrisWWII wrote:The Russians? The our entire military machine is slowly rusting away Russia?

Fallacy. Russia is better equipped then they were ten years ago. This isn't to say they're at Soviet levels of armaments and force yet, but they're far more of a threat then they were in say, '95. They've been on the way back up militarily and financially for some time now.

Ketara wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:The Russians? The our entire military machine is slowly rusting away Russia?

Fallacy. Russia is better equipped then they were ten years ago. This isn't to say they're at Soviet levels of armaments and force yet, but they're far more of a threat then they were in say, '95. They've been on the way back up militarily and financially for some time now.

Indeed. I'd be worried if I were the Ukraine. USA, not so much.

Melissia wrote:

Which European country did we go through to get to Afghanistan?

Surprisingly? Russia is the biggest one right now.

And Russia joined NATO... when exactly? That just highlights the uselessness of NATO to the US, and destroys the 'bases for Afghanistan' argument. Not only is Russia not in NATO, but it's the successor to the country NATO was originally created to oppose!

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

No, I don't think that your side can get away with 'the justification for NATO is that we get some bases that we maybe need 1 of', and that only by implication and after multiple posts dragging it out, but at the same time demand that I do detailed accounting of costs. You've got some guy sneering that NATO is full of big benefits to the US and showing contempt at the idea of someone daring to even ask what those benefits are, but when pressed to list those benefits the response is basically 'some military bases, PROVIDE A DETAILED ACCOUNTING OF COSTS OR I WIN'.

And you guys wonder how anyone can be skeptical of your 'argument' that consists of some sneering and talking about vast benefits, eventually vaguely sort of listing a benefit, then demanding a detailed cost accounting from the other guy.

After all, the financial contributions made to NATO itself are really quite small.

They're enormous actually, the missile defense shield under discussion alone is estimated to cost $1.5 billion dollars, maintaining troops in position to defend Germany and other European countries that should really be able to take care of themselves is not cheap, as is maintaining the huge force levels required. US military expenditures as a percent of GDP are massively higher than those of any other NATO member, and pretending that none of those expenditures have to do with NATO is a bit rich.

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

They're non-NATO countries where we have bases, they demonstrate that NATO is not needed to acquire military bases. If you think that South Korea only agrees to have a US base because of the threat of US force, you've apparently never heard of North Korea or China. If you object to defensive use of US force, isn't that also an objection to NATO? You guys need to keep your stories straight.

They're enormous actually, the missile defense shield under discussion alone is estimated to cost $1.5 billion dollars, maintaining troops in position to defend Germany and other European countries that should really be able to take care of themselves is not cheap, as is maintaining the huge force levels required. US military expenditures as a percent of GDP are massively higher than those of any other NATO member, and pretending that none of those expenditures have to do with NATO is a bit rich.

I would have thought 1.5 billion a big figure if I hadn't read the fact that the UK alone was bailing out the the Irish economy to the tune of 7 billion pounds. If that's in dollars, that means it's only about a billion quid. Heck, our cuts are expected to save several billion a year right now.

Therefore if that's all this shield is gonna cost, that's peanuts when talking about the security of so many allied nations. We could build it on our own, sharing the cost will make it cheap as chips.

Therefore this must be a non-issue.

Ketara: I wasn't saying that Russia HAS no military, or that their military is in anyway just piles of rust. A lot of their Soviet era resources are, but that's to be expected. They don't have the budget to support that level of military power anymore.
My point was that Russia is not a sufficient threat to Europe to justify the amount of troops on the ground we have there. I mean, air and naval bases I can understand. Those make sense. The resources for a ground army? Not so much. Who are they there to defend against?

Frazzled wrote:Name a European country ever strong enough to threaten the US that had the intent to do so, other than the USSR?

England and her Empire during the Revolution and the War of 1812. People were scared of the Spanish Navy raiding the Eastern Seaboard during the Spanish-American War. Thankfully due to horrible training and supply on Spain's behalf they were never able to pull that off, but it was a possibility.

ChrisWWII wrote:Ketara: I wasn't saying that Russia HAS no military, or that their military is in anyway just piles of rust. A lot of their Soviet era resources are, but that's to be expected. They don't have the budget to support that level of military power anymore.
My point was that Russia is not a sufficient threat to Europe to justify the amount of troops on the ground we have there. I mean, air and naval bases I can understand. Those make sense. The resources for a ground army? Not so much. Who are they there to defend against?

Frazzled wrote:Name a European country ever strong enough to threaten the US that had the intent to do so, other than the USSR?

England and her Empire during the Revolution and the War of 1812. People were scared of the Spanish Navy raiding the Eastern Seaboard during the Spanish-American War. Thankfully due to horrible training and supply on Spain's behalf they were never able to pull that off, but it was a possibility.

I'm not especially worried about UK at the moment. They warned off appropriately during the Civil War and haven't been that stupid since.
If I recollect we annihilated the Spanish...

We did. When our navy UTTERLY ANNHILATED theirs with one casualty on our side (one old sailor died of a hear attack during the battle....) I think it officially counts as 'curbstomp'

Frazzled wrote:
No it doesn't. It protects Europe. Nukes coming from Asia, the Americas, and the land of the Czars won't come that way. I don't know if an ICBM from Iran would, but again, thats your problem, not ours.

It absolutely protects America. This isn't something that's only being installed in Europe. Just about everyone acknowledges that this is the blueprint for the agreement, and it features cooperative deployment of interceptors in Alaska and California.

To the extent that Iran wants to control the Middle East they are everyone's problem. We may not get our oil from the ME, but the Europeans do, and it isn't a significant stretch to figure out where they'll be getting their oil from in the event that it isn't the Levant. And it will cost us a ton of money if that ever becomes true.

Frazzled wrote:
It beats thousands or hundreds of thousands of US troops and civilians that would be dead in the inevitable counterstrike. I'll take a bad economy vs. that.

Any nuclear attack on a European city has the potential to kill thousands of American citizen, because at any given time there are thousands of American citizens in any given major European city.

But what counter strike? Are you implying that the US would necessarily respond with nuclear force following a nuclear strike on a NATO nation? Why would that be the case?

Your reasoning isn't particularly sound here; particularly given that you're assuming that, following a US nuclear response, there would be anything left to actually respond. There have been hundreds of studies that indicate otherwise.

Frazzled wrote:
Besides the Europeans* will kow tow to anyone with power.

Exactly what evidence do you have to support this notion? What nation has gone out of its way to coerce Europe, and come away successful for the attempt?

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
No, I don't think that your side can get away with 'the justification for NATO is that we get some bases that we maybe need 1 of', and that only by implication and after multiple posts dragging it out, but at the same time demand that I do detailed accounting of costs.

Why are you making this a matter of sides? I'm not accountable for whatever anyone else has tried to argue. If you aren't going to approach this sensibly, then its a waste of my time.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
You've got some guy sneering that NATO is full of big benefits to the US and showing contempt at the idea of someone daring to even ask what those benefits are, but when pressed to list those benefits the response is basically 'some military bases, PROVIDE A DETAILED ACCOUNTING OF COSTS OR I WIN'.

No, that's not what I argue. Please try to avoid conflating my position with those of others, it shows an inability to consider a topic dispassionately.

What I actually argued is that the cost of basing in Europe under NATO is not materially distinct from basing in any other location that is not under NATO. As such, the real question is "What does NATO membership cost us that it over and above the nominal cost of basing?" If the answer is "Very little.", then the real issue is our overall presence in Europe, which is not necessarily connected to NATO membership. We can be members of NATO, and reduce our presence in Europe.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
And you guys wonder how anyone can be skeptical of your 'argument' that consists of some sneering and talking about vast benefits, eventually vaguely sort of listing a benefit, then demanding a detailed cost accounting from the other guy.

I don't think I did any sneering. I'm doing my best to be civil, though you aren't making this easy. My point is that there are tangible benefits to NATO membership that extend beyond basing, though basing is also a significant perk. Organizational integration with European military commands reduces operational stress during joint operations. Collective defense reduces the burden on US deployments during defensive engagements, even if European troops are engaged only in supporting action. Just to name the most significant two.

The reason those who are against NATO are asked for detailed cost estimates is that the arguments against membership almost always bring up cost, and simply saying "it costs a lot" is not a good argument unless you can show that it actually does.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
They're enormous actually, the missile defense shield under discussion alone is estimated to cost $1.5 billion dollars, maintaining troops in position to defend Germany and other European countries that should really be able to take care of themselves is not cheap, as is maintaining the huge force levels required. US military expenditures as a percent of GDP are massively higher than those of any other NATO member, and pretending that none of those expenditures have to do with NATO is a bit rich.

As I said, in order to claim that NATO is the primary driving factor of those costs you have to make an argument that the US receives no (or very little) strategic benefit from having its assets deployed in NATO countries. Otherwise you're not really criticizing NATO membership, but the US deployment to Europe; which has very little to do with defending the continent, and a whole lot to do with force projection. In fact, as I recall, the cost to the US for NATO membership, ignoring all assets that remain under US control, is ~.4% of the overall US military budget. The diplomatic outlay is a trivial component of the State Department's budget.

Moreover, the actual cost of basing soldiers in Europe isn't all that much higher than basing them in the United States. This is due in large part to the structural advantages provided by the NATO chain of command, but also because of the highly develop infrastructure present in all European countries.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
They're non-NATO countries where we have bases, they demonstrate that NATO is not needed to acquire military bases. If you think that South Korea only agrees to have a US base because of the threat of US force, you've apparently never heard of North Korea or China. If you object to defensive use of US force, isn't that also an objection to NATO? You guys need to keep your stories straight.

No, I only need to keep my own story straight. You're having problems with my argument because you're processing it as "their" argument, instead of merely engaging with what I'm writing.

As for the motivations behind the Korean permission of basing: it is relevant that the initial US display of force was the basis for establishing a permanent presence in order to dissuade North Korean aggression, which once included the tacit support of China, though that is no longer the case. Either way, it was the initial use of US force which permitted the establishment of the base, which serves my point that coming to agreement regarding basing isn't as easy as you seem to believe. You would have been better served citing places like Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and Israel.

Frazzled wrote:

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

No it doesn't. It protects Europe. Nukes coming from Asia, the Americas, and the land of the Czars won't come that way. I don't know if an ICBM from Iran would, but again, thats your problem, not ours.

You haven't even read the article have you? This is the first line.

The shield would cover all Nato members in Europe and North America.

From nukes coming over Europe. Again, it does nothing for missiles from Asia, and coming over the arctic.

Frazzled wrote:From nukes coming over Europe. Again, it does nothing for missiles from Asia, and coming over the arctic.

What are you basing this off? The missile does not have to physically travel over another NATO country for it to be detected.

From what I'm able to tell, the system isn't so much based on local countries as much as it is a collaborative centralization of antimissile C&C into one streamlined chain of command.

As far as I can tell, this is the process. We already have the technology to shoot down ICBMs. Ships with the Aegis system and SM-3s are more than capable of bringing down an ICBM if they're in the right place, and they know the flight path of the missile.

That's what this system is meant to do. Give us a stream lined command and control so we can get assets to the right place. The interceptors will no doubt be varied....from the afore mentioned AEGIS ships to ground based interceptors in Alaska and Europe.

It won't JUST protect Europe....It'll protect us as well.

I wonder how Frazzled feels about the Dutch sea-based defenses and German battery sytems that are crucial to the operation of this shield?