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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
we have no plans to invade Russia

You do. You are just hiding them very well. Everyone wants to invade Russia.

I'd better go and let the Boss know that those cunning Russkis are onto Operation Borscht and Torch............

*quickly aborts plan to drop massive quantities of krokodil over russia before the invasion*

 Albatross wrote:
It's also worth pointing out that the British Armed forces were able to invade and retake a group of islands thousands of miles away from the UK with arguably less well-equipped and prepared forces than we have now...

I think that's very arguable, primarily due to the previously noted lack of a carrier that can launch fixed-wing aircraft. We know that that is being corrected, but it hasn't been corrected yet. I'm not saying that it definitively couldn't be done, but I think there would be some significant challenges now that would be different than the challenges faced the first time.

Note that this isn't a dig against the British military as a whole or their individual service members either. Just an observation of their current power projection capabilities.

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

Sure, there’s a lot of waste and bureaucracy in the UK military. But then you assume that Russia spends it’s budget on the military, which to be blunt is either a politically chosen position, or complete ignorance, because the corruption and waste in Russian defence spending is staggering. Whole regiments of drafted troops are used as manual labour, sold by their commanding officers for their personal profit.

All militaries have problems, but what goes on in Russia is unthinkable in the rest of the developed world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
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.

Of course, but whether they’ll be efficient in the role is situational, based on what support each unit has in the area, what intel each has and so on.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
What's a Soviet? Some sort of pastry?

Heh, too much WWII reading lately. I’ve typed Soviet every single, and had to edit back to ‘Russian’… seems one got through


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
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.

Russia/Soviets and now Balkans/Baltics… I was a shambles yesterday. But yeah, this is sabre rattling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
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.

Umm, limited war is a thing. Escalation is a risk, your statement that it’s a certainty is nuts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
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.

I believe Kursk was also the largest single air engagement in history.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

Okay, look, that just makes no sense on any level. Having a trade deficit doesn’t mean you don’t export, that’s like assuming a company that made a loss last year must have made no money.

The US actually exports about 2.2 trillion a year, it’s about 13% of GDP (which is actually quite low compared to other developed countries, but it’s still a really big thing).

And there’s the importance of imports. People like to think that exports are good and imports are bad, but that isn’t how it works. There’s a straight hit to consumers, who lose their preferred products. And then there’s the issue that those goods are sold in stores, loss of trade with major European brands will means millions of failed retail outlets, costing US jobs.

And lastly, wars like this hypothetical Europe vs Russia thing doesn’t ever stop with one conquering the other. Strength early to prevent the war, or win it while your allies are still strong, to prevent being dragged in later when your enemy might have the ascendancy is a really basic thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silverthorne wrote:
In WW2, the British military was, materially, almost a match for Germany by itself. Now you're just a massive, floating vulnerability.

See, I'm actually on board with your general argument that Europe needs to increase its military commitments (especially Germany). But you build this argument around saying things that aren't true. UK military capability in 1939 wasn't a fraction of German capability.

 Ketara wrote:

 Strombones wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
From where I'm standing, it sounds as though one American in particular is spitting on the graves of dead British servicemen and women...

Think I'll step in acknowledge that the British service member has shouldered a very large burden in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I fought alongside British units in Misa Q'aleh in 2009 and I must attest that they are as capable and competent as the best of them. I'm not sure where we are going with trying to suggest otherwise.

I think the point he was trying to make was that they're underequipped. Which is and isn't true. They weren't equipped well for Iraq. Some of the shortages they had then were absolutely ludicrous, and much of their equipment performed poorly in the heat. On the flip side, this does not mean that they're underequipped generally. You can be badly equipped to fight a desert war, and be exceedingly well-equipped to fight a war somewhere else.

He also is trying to state that compared to America, we don't have much in the way of forces. Which is true. He says we're poorly equipped to launch an invasion of Russia. This is also true. But this is primarily because America spend ten times what we do, and we have no plans to invade Russia (and have structured our forces accordingly as a result).

What our forces ARE well equipped to do, is overawe/fight a war against the majority of the rest of the nations on the planet (who are terribly equipped compared to Russia/America). We could launch a successful amphibious strike on Guatemala in defence of Belize, for example. Or Argentina. Or any one of the dozens of african/south american/middle-eastern/asian countries who don't even begin to compare to us militarily.

We're not the US. That doesn't mean we're incompetent, or ill-equipped, or useless.

I think NATO countries are supposed to commit to spending 2% of their GDP per year on defense. The UK generally exceeds that by a bit, but I think they may come up a bit short next year (based on current projections).

Of course some NATO countries consistently come up very short of the 2% goal.

Thursday’s report suggests that some countries in particular have gotten off to a slow start in meeting those commitments. Britain’s defense spending, the report says, is set to fall from 2.07% to 1.88% of GDP.

A spokesman for the British Ministry of Defence took issue with that conclusion. “With the second largest defense budget in NATO and the largest in Europe, the government is committed to spending 2% of GDP on defense,” the spokesman said, adding that spending decisions for 2015-16 will be determined in the next spending review.

http://blogs.wsj.com/brussels/2015/02/26/nato-countries-said-theyd-boost-military-spending-but-will-they-really/

One problem is that GDPs have have been growing slowly (if at all) and the US GDP has gone up slightly more (percentage wise) recently than the other NATO countries.

This site has a pretty decent write up of how some of the spending works out: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_67655.htm

One thing I noticed about a year ago while looking at this stuff for a paper was that not just the amount, but what capabilities are bought makes a big difference. There are NATO countries that spend defense dollars in a way that may make sense to the individual country, but leaves the alliance short of some critical capabilities (such as ISR and air-to-air refueling for example). So sometimes the % of GDP may meet or come close to the 2% goal, but the country may not be purchasing capability sets which they agreed to fund, leaving NATO short (and over relying on the US in many cases).

You know, I've never understood the "there are parts that don't work very well, tear the whole thing up!" mindset. If parts aren't working, surely it would be better to work to fix those than to just harrumph and go home with a disapproving look on your face and give up?

 Redcruisair wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Denmark didn't send bombers to Libya.

Incorrect, we sent six F-16 over there. Maybe this type of plane doesn't fit your definition of "bombers"? Whatever, you have now been informed about our commitment to America, so don't spread anymore misinformation about us.

Thank you.

 Frazzled wrote:
Further, Libya wasn't started by us, but by Europe. Try harder.

We had your back in Afghanistan and now too in Iraq. Don't play games with me Frazz I don't like games.

6 F 16s? HAHAHAHA
Who refueled them -US
Who ran the command and control?

Denmark had how many guys in Afghanistan and and Iraq? Don't expect to save you from the Russian bear because you sent a platoon or two. Big fething deal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
we have no plans to invade Russia

You do. You are just hiding them very well. Everyone wants to invade Russia.

In Stalinist Russia even Russia has plans to invade Russia!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You know, I've never understood the "there are parts that don't work very well, tear the whole thing up!" mindset. If parts aren't working, surely it would be better to work to fix those than to just harrumph and go home with a disapproving look on your face and give up?

First you have to justify the need for the existence of NATO. The USSR is dead.

 Frazzled wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You know, I've never understood the "there are parts that don't work very well, tear the whole thing up!" mindset. If parts aren't working, surely it would be better to work to fix those than to just harrumph and go home with a disapproving look on your face and give up?

First you have to justify the need for the existence of NATO. The USSR is dead.

You may have noticed that Russia's been a bit trigger-happy of late. The USSR was always Russia and Friends, removing the "Friends" part doesn't mean that Russia isn't still a very powerful country with a persecution complex.

 Frazzled wrote:


6 F 16s? HAHAHAHA
Who refueled them -US
Who ran the command and control?

Denmark had how many guys in Afghanistan and and Iraq? Don't expect to save you from the Russian bear because you sent a platoon or two. Big fething deal.

Fine. Let us have nukes then. Problem solved.

You may have noticed that Russia's been a bit trigger-happy of late. The USSR was always Russia and Friends, removing the "Friends" part doesn't mean that Russia isn't still a very powerful country with a persecution complex.

And how is this a concern for the US?

Also you want nukes? Fine make them. No one is stopping you.

 Frazzled wrote:

You may have noticed that Russia's been a bit trigger-happy of late. The USSR was always Russia and Friends, removing the "Friends" part doesn't mean that Russia isn't still a very powerful country with a persecution complex.

And how is this a concern for the US?

You're seriously wondering why it would be bad for the US if the EU, with a combined economy bigger than the US, would be invaded by Russia?

 Frazzled wrote:

You may have noticed that Russia's been a bit trigger-happy of late. The USSR was always Russia and Friends, removing the "Friends" part doesn't mean that Russia isn't still a very powerful country with a persecution complex.

Also you want nukes? Fine make them. No one is stopping you.

And now you're firmly into silly territory.

1. We could sell stuff to the European military and make bank.
2. Why do you think RUssia is going to invade Europe? Because Europe is weak? Because Europe won't pay for its own defense? Inquiring minds want to know.
3. If you're worried about Russia, why are you giving them lots of money via the gas pipelines?
4. Why is it nuts. You said you want nukes. Get them. The technology is almost a century old. ing Pakistan has the Bomb.

 Frazzled wrote:
1. We could sell stuff to the European military and make bank.
2. Why do you think RUssia is going to invade Europe? Because Europe is weak? Because Europe won't pay for its own defense? Inquiring minds want to know.
3. If you're worried about Russia, why are you giving them lots of money via the gas pipelines?
4. Why is it nuts. You said you want nukes. Get them. The technology is almost a century old. ing Pakistan has the Bomb.

LOL @ #4. If you realized exactly how bass ackwards Pakistan really is it would even be more hilarious.

 Frazzled wrote:

You may have noticed that Russia's been a bit trigger-happy of late. The USSR was always Russia and Friends, removing the "Friends" part doesn't mean that Russia isn't still a very powerful country with a persecution complex.

And how is this a concern for the US?

Also you want nukes? Fine make them. No one is stopping you.

Frazz a Russian invasion of Europe is a major concern for the US as your government signed a treaty to protect its fellow NATO members in event of an attack.

 Frazzled wrote:
1. We could sell stuff to the European military and make bank.

Aren't you already doing that?

 Frazzled wrote:

2. Why do you think RUssia is going to invade Europe? Because Europe is weak? Because Europe won't pay for its own defense? Inquiring minds want to know.

The issue isn't with European weakness, it's with internal division. Further, Europe IS paying quite a bit for defence (c.f. the link I posted earlier), we're just not paying to be able to fight everyone else in the world at the same time. I'd be completely aboard with a decrease in the US military budget and more repsponsibility taken bu us over in Europe, but trying to pretend that the US doesn't benefit from being world hegemon is so detached from reality that I don't really know where to start my argument.

 Frazzled wrote:

3. If you're worried about Russia, why are you giving them lots of money via the gas pipelines?

For the same reason you're still backing the Saudis: lack of options.

 Frazzled wrote:
4. Why is it nuts. You said you want nukes. Get them. The technology is almost a century old. ing Pakistan has the Bomb.

For some reason nations that break the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty that aren't Israel tend to have some rather nasty sanctions levied against them.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

You may have noticed that Russia's been a bit trigger-happy of late. The USSR was always Russia and Friends, removing the "Friends" part doesn't mean that Russia isn't still a very powerful country with a persecution complex.

And how is this a concern for the US?

Also you want nukes? Fine make them. No one is stopping you.

Frazz a Russian invasion of Europe is a major concern for the US as your government signed a treaty to protect its fellow NATO members in event of an attack.

That's a circular argument though. "Europe is important because we say it is" doesn't really work.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

You may have noticed that Russia's been a bit trigger-happy of late. The USSR was always Russia and Friends, removing the "Friends" part doesn't mean that Russia isn't still a very powerful country with a persecution complex.

And how is this a concern for the US?

Also you want nukes? Fine make them. No one is stopping you.

Frazz a Russian invasion of Europe is a major concern for the US as your government signed a treaty to protect its fellow NATO members in event of an attack.

Was a major concern when the USSR was cool moustache twirling badguys. Now they're like the Boris from Rocky and Bullwinkle.
(note flying squirrels are a wiener dog nightmare. Its just...unnatural)

 Frazzled wrote:
6 F 16s? HAHAHAHA

6 F16 dosn't seem like much, but then what do you think is the appropiate number of fighter aircrafts for a country of 5 million people?

 Frazzled wrote:
Who refueled them -US

HAHAHAHA no

We had Sicily for stuff like that

 Frazzled wrote:
Denmark had how many guys in Afghanistan and and Iraq? Don't expect to save you from the Russian bear because you sent a platoon or two. Big fething deal.

I fully expect you to come and help us out, and do you know why? Beacuase you're a part of NATO, that's why. So deal with it

And if you don't want our help in Iraq and Afghanistan then STOP FETHING ASKING US TO HELP YOU!

Thats what I am saying we should no longer be part of NATO. We're not Europe. There's no need for NATO now.

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats what I am saying we should no longer be part of NATO. We're not Europe. There's no need for NATO now.

Wrong Frazz, America is part of Europe. If you knew your geology, then you'd know that around 200 million years ago, a chunk of North America broke off, and fused with some other continental material. That chunk of North America makes up half of Scotland. Scotland is in Europe, that chunks belongs to America IMO, and therefore, America is in Europe.

You're not wriggling out of this one

But South America was connected to Africa. Africa is bigger, so we're really just part of Africa. In your face!

I am totally up for spending more money and creating a really effective European armed forces. The Brits have got the navy, the Germans can do tanks, the French flair for aeronautics takes care of aircraft, Italy can design uniforms, the Scots can do the ration packs, we take the best from each country and put together a world beating force!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am totally up for spending more money and creating a really effective European armed forces. The Brits have got the navy, the Germans can do tanks, the French flair for aeronautics takes care of aircraft, Italy can design uniforms, the Scots can do the ration packs, we take the best from each country and put together a world beating force!

I've been arguing this for a while. A combination of the UK, France, and Germany, should be more than enough to keep Russia out of Europe, if the Germans start psending, of course. Historically, I understand the reasons, but they need to start pulling their weight.

America could then focus its attention on Asia. Everybody would be happy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
But South America was connected to Africa. Africa is bigger, so we're really just part of Africa. In your face!

And Africa is connected to the Middle East, which is connected to Russia, so you've still got a Middle East problem AND a Russian problem

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am totally up for spending more money and creating a really effective European armed forces. The Brits have got the navy, the Germans can do tanks, the French flair for aeronautics takes care of aircraft, Italy can design uniforms, the Scots can do the ration packs, we take the best from each country and put together a world beating force!

Wo wo wo! You want the Scots to handle the food? Seriously? sheep's intestines 24/7?
No Belgium should be in charge of eats.
*Belgium beer
*Belgium chocolate

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I've been arguing this for a while. A combination of the UK, France, and Germany, should be more than enough to keep Russia out of Europe, if the Germans start psending, of course. Historically, I understand the reasons, but they need to start pulling their weight.

If Germany started re-arming itself the rest of the world would throw an issy fit of epic proportions. (and can they even do it? don't they have laws in place to prevent their re-armament like Japan has?)

With that being said, I think we are way past the time to have an unified European military.

Germany started to rearm itself in 1956. If anything they have been backing down a bit recently, by suspending conscription.

Japan has a clause in its constitution forbidding the use of force outside the country or as a means of resolving international disputes.

Frazzled wrote:Thats what I am saying we should no longer be part of NATO. We're not Europe. There's no need for NATO now.

I think that would actually be quite smart. The US and EU have a very different way of looking at things and handling problems (read: Europeans are smarter). NATO just drags Europe down into American warmongering. IMO, NATO should be dissolved and replaced by an independent pan-European defense force

Kilkrazy wrote:I am totally up for spending more money and creating a really effective European armed forces. The Brits have got the navy, the Germans can do tanks, the French flair for aeronautics takes care of aircraft, Italy can design uniforms, the Scots can do the ration packs, we take the best from each country and put together a world beating force!

That is an epic idea. Where do I sign up for this army?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

You may have noticed that Russia's been a bit trigger-happy of late. The USSR was always Russia and Friends, removing the "Friends" part doesn't mean that Russia isn't still a very powerful country with a persecution complex.

And how is this a concern for the US?

Also you want nukes? Fine make them. No one is stopping you.

Frazz a Russian invasion of Europe is a major concern for the US as your government signed a treaty to protect its fellow NATO members in event of an attack.

Not if Russia invades during Obama's Presidency...

He won't green light it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I am totally up for spending more money and creating a really effective European armed forces. The Brits have got the navy, the Germans can do tanks, the French flair for aeronautics takes care of aircraft, Italy can design uniforms, the Scots can do the ration packs, we take the best from each country and put together a world beating force!

That is an epic idea. Where do I sign up for this army?

I thought that was the UN army???!?!

:ducks, and runs:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
we have no plans to invade Russia

You do. You are just hiding them very well. Everyone wants to invade Russia.

I knew those Cubans were up to something, they wanted to invade Russia!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

You may have noticed that Russia's been a bit trigger-happy of late. The USSR was always Russia and Friends, removing the "Friends" part doesn't mean that Russia isn't still a very powerful country with a persecution complex.

And how is this a concern for the US?

Also you want nukes? Fine make them. No one is stopping you.

Frazz a Russian invasion of Europe is a major concern for the US as your government signed a treaty to protect its fellow NATO members in event of an attack.

Not if Russia invades during Obama's Presidency...

He won't green light it.

Your joking right? I know you don't think too highly of Obama, but he's not that bad.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats what I am saying we should no longer be part of NATO. We're not Europe. There's no need for NATO now.

I think that would actually be quite smart. The US and EU have a very different way of looking at things and handling problems (read: Europeans are smarter). NATO just drags Europe down into American warmongering. IMO, NATO should be dissolved and replaced by an independent pan-European defense force

Kilkrazy wrote:I am totally up for spending more money and creating a really effective European armed forces. The Brits have got the navy, the Germans can do tanks, the French flair for aeronautics takes care of aircraft, Italy can design uniforms, the Scots can do the ration packs, we take the best from each country and put together a world beating force!

That is an epic idea. Where do I sign up for this army?

Claiming Europeans are smarter is kind of like claiming Europeans smell better. hard to prove and nobody really cares

I like to think about it this way, we (the US) are like orks. Were not dumb, per say, we just prefer a more... direct approach to resolving conflicts.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I like to think about it this way, we (the US) are like orks. Were not dumb, per say, we just prefer a more direct approach to resolving conflicts.

Spoiler:

Exalted