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.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


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

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

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

 Orlanth wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

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

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

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

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

 Orlanth wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

That always surprises me...

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

They should simply be dominating... what gives?

Not enough capitalism/foreign investments?

 whembly wrote:

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

That always surprises me...

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

They should simply be dominating... what gives?

Not enough capitalism/foreign investments?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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

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

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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

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

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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

Even the Russians will baulk at a return of Stalinism.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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

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

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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

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

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the replies about my query over Apache helicopters.

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

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

Yes, helicopters are vulnerable to AA

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

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

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

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

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

 sebster wrote:

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

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

What's a Soviet? Some sort of pastry?

 Orlanth wrote:


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

Ankara is the capital of Turkey, not Istanbul.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reminds me of German ww2 tank tactics.

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

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

 sebster wrote:

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Silverthorne wrote:

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

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

Military bases and an easy way to contain Russia?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Silverthorne wrote:

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

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

Military bases and an easy way to contain Russia?

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

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Silverthorne wrote:

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

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

Military bases and an easy way to contain Russia?

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

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

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Silverthorne wrote:

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

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

Military bases and an easy way to contain Russia?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Silverthorne wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Silverthorne wrote:

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

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

Military bases and an easy way to contain Russia?

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Redcruisair wrote:

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

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

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

 Ketara wrote:

 Silverthorne wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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