View Full Version : Is NATO a paper tiger?
Doc Safari
11-17-17, 10:32
I have long held the belief that NATO's main deterrent was in the form of a bluff: as long as the enemy believes the alliance can stop an Eastern Bloc invasion, then Soviet/Russian aggression is in check. But could NATO really perform?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-17/nato-dangerous-paper-tiger
The German parliamentary ombudsman charged with overseeing the Bundeswehr says "There are too many things missing". In 2008 the French Army was described as "falling apart". The British Army "can't find enough soldiers". The Italian army is ageing. Poland, one of the cheerleaders for the "Russian threat" meme, finds its army riven over accusations of politicisation. On paper, these five armies claim to have thirteen divisions and thirteen independent brigades. Call it, optimistically, a dozen divisions in all. The US Army (which has its own recruiting difficulties) adds another eleven or so to the list (although much of it is overseas entangled in the metastasising "war on terror"). Let's pretend all the other NATO countries can bring another five divisions to the fight.
So, altogether, bringing everything home from the wars NATO is fighting around the world, under the most optimistic assumptions, assuming that everything is there and working (fewer than half of France's tanks were operational, German painted broomsticks, British recruiting shortfalls), crossing your fingers and hoping, NATO could possibly cobble together two and a half dozen divisions: or one-fifth of the number Germany thought it would need. But, in truth, that number is fantasy: undermanned, under equipped, seldom exercised, no logistics tail, no munitions production backup, no time for a long logistics build up. NATO's armies aren't capable of a major war against a first class enemy. And no better is the principal member: "only five of the US Army’s 15 armoured brigade combat teams are maintained at full readiness levels". A paper tiger.
No wonder NATO prefers to bomb defenceless targets from 15,000 feet. But there too, the record is unimpressive. Consider NATO's last "successful" performance against Libya in 2011. No air defence, no opposition, complete freedom of movement and choice of action; and it took 226 days! Kosovo, a similar air action against a weak opponent, took 79 days. Meanwhile the years roll by in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Not, in short, a very efficient military alliance even when it is turned on against more-or-less helpless victims.
What is amusing is that NATO is starting to worry about what it has awoken: "aerial denial zones", British army wiped out in an afternoon, NATO loses quickly in the Baltics, unstoppable carrier-killer missile, "eye-watering" EW capabilities, "black hole" submarines, generational lead in tanks, "devastating" air defence system, "totally outmatched". Russian actions, both diplomatic and military, in Syria gave NATO a taste: the Russian military is far more capable than they imagined. And far better wielded. The phantom conjured up to justify arms sales and NATO expansion now frightens its creators. A particularly striking example comes from General Breedlove, former NATO Supreme Commander who did much to poke Russia: he now fears that a war "would leave Europe helpless, cut off from reinforcements, and at the mercy of the Russian Federation." Not as negligible as they thought.
In other words – and I never tire of quoting him on this – "We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way". NATO has been kiting cheques for years. And rather than soberly examine its bank account, it writes another, listening to the applause in the echo chamber of its mind.
"Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." We can only hope that NATO's coming destruction does not destroy us too.
My take: It appears on the surface it's been over for a long time, and now the enemy is starting to realize it. I think it's time to either overhaul the alliance or leave each country to its own defense. The US, I believe, will be okay. Western Europe not so much.
HackerF15E
11-17-17, 10:43
Based on my experience training and serving with NATO's air component: not very likely.
Short answer, NATO without the US is nothing. Even then, we are spread so thin right now they might as well be on their own. If the Ruskies came over the border it would be a sh!tshow.
I think NATO from an organizational stand point is capable of fighting the good fight. I think the question is, does it have the willingness to fight anything but an all invasion by someone.
NYH1.
BrigandTwoFour
11-17-17, 11:50
IMO, there are som individually capable nations as part of the organization, but I don’t Theo k the organization as a whole is very strong. Too much reliance on US nuclear and conventional power has led to reduced spending on military capability. So, while a country can field a select group of well trained and equipped personnel to help in a place like Afghanistan or Iraq, a full total war would be very different.
sundance435
11-17-17, 11:52
The Russian "menace" has always been overstated to a degree. I think the gap between NATO and Russia is closing, though. Fact is, the Russians have some better equipment on paper, but it's never been used in the real world and they can't equip frontline units with enough of it to make a huge difference.
The German military is a joke, France's is stretched to the breaking point just by deploying 5,000 and we have to provide refueling and transport for them, and the UK is in store for some drastic budget cuts on top of the gutting that's already taken place. The Italian military has been completely hollowed out. The only country currently upgrading their military in a meaningful way is Poland, and the Baltics, to the extent they can. The countries that would bear the brunt of the early fighting are in no position to do it.
A few observations:
- The newest Russian tanks (T-12) MAY be better - again, it's only on paper. The newest generation Leopards and M1A2s would still be more than a match for the newest Russian tanks, of which they can't even procure that many. Our tanks still outclass the late T-80s and T-90s (essentially an updated T-72), which is what most of their armor consists of. Our IFVs are superior to anything they can muster.
- Airspace - there's no real contest in terms of aircraft, but the S400, on paper, looks like a credible air denial option. Again, it's only on paper. The Russians are great at propagandizing their equipment - they claim the S400 can detect and kill the F-22, but I have my doubts. Air denial through use of SAMs is the real concern, not air-to-air combat.
- Navy - no contest, "carrier-killer" missiles and all. It's the most neglected branch of the Russian military and I doubt they could muster more than a flotilla at any one time.
- EW is one area that everyone recognizes we have fallen behind in. Many experts believe the Russians have some potentially scary EW capabilities. That's compounded by the fact that our forces are woefully underequipped for EW and counter-EW. Most of our equipment doesn't even have the most basic protection against EW. Since we haven't fought a war where EW played any meaningful role, it's anyone's guess as to what kind of force multiplier that could provide to the Russians.
As far as matching up brigade for brigade, the Russians have a distinct advantage in terms of numbers. If they tried to grab the Baltics tomorrow, they'd be in Tallinn by Wednesday. That said, I still think a full-scale conventional war is unlikely - an unconventional war like the one in Ukraine isn't out of the question, though.
I think it started out as a great idea, to be a deterrent and hopes to prevent another world war by putting many nations on the same side. There were many benefits to joining NATO, the greatest incentive was the small arms package and economic aid.
The military aspect of NATO is great, the political aspect has gotten worse over the years. Case in point, Desert Storm was a NATO operation and just about every NATO member participated in some degree, same with the GWOT. Trump compared NATO to two Giant Great White Sharks in a vast ocean and all the members of NATO were like those little fish that latch on to those great white sharks. The Great Whites were the US and UK and the little fish were countries that didn't pay into NATO. Nobody will ever mess with the little fish as long as they are latched on to the Great Whites. Politically though, I think NATO wants to be much more than NATO, they want to pick and choose leaders for countries, distribute common wealth and be more of a global government.
SomeOtherGuy
11-17-17, 12:18
As of today, yes, it's not much of a deterrent. I think it was decent through c. 1989, and then all of western Europe went "peace dividend" and abandoned their militaries.
The Russian threat has often been exaggerated and probably still is today, but they seem to be making constant progress in un-sexy but militarily important technology such as missiles of all kinds, particularly SAMs and cruise missiles. I'm not sure the US can count on air dominance today, and without air dominance I'm not sure the rest of US military doctrine works well.
There are many examples where the US seems to have a good weapon system, but it's so expensive we can't field a useful number of them: F-22, B-2, F-35, the Seawolf-class submarine (29 planned, 3 built!), the USS Zumwalt destroyer and its class (DDG-1000), the gun projectiles for DDG-1000, etc. Then you have things like the Littoral Combat Ship that appear to be a failure from the beginning. These are all symptoms of a broken, aimless procurement system with no belief in a real threat. From a civilian's perspective the procurement system is 80% corporate welfare and 20% make-work for general officers.
LOL - I did a speech on this exact topic in high school....
In 1982. :)
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-17-17, 12:37
Based on my experience training and serving with NATO's air component: not very likely.
So the air component is GTG?
Fulda Gap battle plan is dead. Take the Ukraine and extrapolate it out in that direction and that is what we face. Destabilization of countries and then the Russians come in to protect ethnic Russians.
Where exactly, is the the front line now?
If Poland doesn't have a 2 minute drill program for a Nuke, they are not paying attention.
Frankly, with out the large conscript armies of old, how exactly do you invade Western Europe? Or more precisely, how to you 'hold' it- since I don't even know what 'holding' would look like. Baltics you put in puppet regimes, that's doable. Poland? How in the hell do you 'hold' Poland if you are the Russians?
NATO won its war. It's time for something else. That Trump was ahead on this by calling on the EU to actually start spending money on defense seems lost on most people.
Averageman
11-17-17, 12:52
NATO died five minutes after the Berlin Wall fell.
European Countries wanted and still want the guaranteed protections, they just don't want to pay for it and never have.
Also consider who would be the new conscripts if there was a need for a draft? Would you arm them?
It's a bad joke at this point.
NATO died five minutes after the Berlin Wall fell.
European Countries wanted and still want the guaranteed protections, they just don't want to pay for it and never have.
This was exactly what I was going to say. As long as there was a Warsaw Pact, there needed to be a NATO. It outlived its usefulness, and while the US (and European military) strategies have changed, it's framework has remained stagnant.
sundance435
11-17-17, 14:02
NATO died five minutes after the Berlin Wall fell.
European Countries wanted and still want the guaranteed protections, they just don't want to pay for it and never have.
Also consider who would be the new conscripts if there was a need for a draft? Would you arm them?
It's a bad joke at this point.
I tend to agree. NATO is a big subsidy for European defense. Germany is the biggest offender - robust economy, huge positive trade deficits, yet 1% of GDP on military spending. Not wanting to appear militaristic because of WWII is just a convenient excuse. There's only one thing the Russians hate/fear as much or more than a U.S. presence on their border and that's a strong German military.
As is typically the case with Trump, his contentions with NATO are based on real problems, he just can't convey them in a meaningful way or offer real solutions. If he was serious, we'd begin drawing down our European commitments even further. Leave brigades in Poland and the Baltics, since they're the only ones (and Greece & the U.K.) taking their NATO membership seriously and withdraw everyone else (except Aviano, for obvious reasons). The more the Europeans think we're abandoning NATO, the better we'll be in the long run. I personally could not care less if they finally start an EU-only defense effort, which they've bandied about for 15+ years. I'm fine with showing the world what a withdrawn U.S. actually means for them - lets match our actions with their rhetoric. We can continue the "special relationship" and intelligence sharing partnerships, but let the rest of them pay for their own national defense.
As a combat veteran friend of mine says all the time, what's so bad about the U.S. military not being present in every corner of the planet?
Averageman
11-17-17, 14:26
Maybe they can form a combat regiment of guys who left Syria to immigrate to Europe?
5.56 Bonded SP
11-17-17, 16:14
I'm sure everyone is well aware of what I am about to state, and many probably disagree with me.
It all stems back to WW2 and the aftermath. We screwed up by trying so hard to help so many countries than never have, and never will help us. I believe we should cut at least 90% of our military support to other countries unless it is directly in our best interest. I think Nato is a joke, and ultimately everyone will depend on the USA to keep them safe from the boogyman, all while their governments constantly bash our way of life, and try to influence our political system.
Its a joke, I think we should just let the world burn and take care of ourselves, besides perhaps Israel, I really don't mind that we help them out due to my own personal beliefs about religion ;)
Doc Safari
11-17-17, 16:16
Don't forget that Turkey is becoming cozy with the Islamists and may have to be kicked out of NATO. That's a loose end from World War II that definitely will have to be dealt with, and soon. Turkey is on the verge of siding with NATO's enemies. What will happen if they leave the alliance? Will it turn into a "me too" free-for-all like Brexit?
5.56 Bonded SP
11-17-17, 16:31
Don't forget that Turkey is becoming cozy with the Islamists and may have to be kicked out of NATO. That's a loose end from World War II that definitely will have to be dealt with, and soon. Turkey is on the verge of siding with NATO's enemies. What will happen if they leave the alliance? Will it turn into a "me too" free-for-all like Brexit?
Turkey has always been a problem. I thought this was old news so I just googled it... WOW, even all the left wing news outlets are screaming for Turkey to be outed from nato right now... lol
I'm sure everyone is well aware of what I am about to state, and many probably disagree with me.
It all stems back to WW2 and the aftermath. We screwed up by trying so hard to help so many countries than never have, and never will help us. I believe we should cut at least 90% of our military support to other countries unless it is directly in our best interest. I think Nato is a joke, and ultimately everyone will depend on the USA to keep them safe from the boogyman, all while their governments constantly bash our way of life, and try to influence our political system.
Its a joke, I think we should just let the world burn and take care of ourselves, besides perhaps Israel, I really don't mind that we help them out due to my own personal beliefs about religion ;)
Virtually every country we helped after World War II, especially Germany and Japan, was beneficial to us and remain so. And at the time the Soviet Union was gobbling up satellites in Europe and we had to do something because we thought at the time that they were after the entirety of Europe. Of course we know now that was wrong they had no such intent, but at the time that's what we thought.
I agree we need to cut military aid to other countries. 90% I think is close to right. NATO is no longer what it needs to be, time for it to evolve.
HackerF15E
11-17-17, 18:32
So the air component is GTG?
What?
The question was, "could NATO really perform?"
My answer was, "Based on my experience training and serving with NATO's air component: not very likely."
How would you get that the air component is "good to go" based on what I wrote?
I believe we should cut at least 90% of our military support to other countries unless it is directly in our best interest.
Funny, that is one of the things that I have always disliked about our foreign policy - it has no scruples - we've crawled in bed with some pretty folks and causes over the years for 'benefits us.'
And at the same time we've ignored some pretty awful stuff, because it didn't benefit us.
If NATO was just the USA, UK, Canada, Israel, Australia, Germany and Japan and that would be enough to stop even China, Iran, N Korea and Russia from ever considering going to war against any one of us.
Averageman
11-17-17, 21:56
If NATO was just the USA, UK, Canada, Israel, Australia, Germany and Japan and that would be enough to stop even China, Iran, N Korea and Russia from ever considering going to war against any one of us.
And how many of those troops from the UK and Germany would be islamists escaping Syria?
Trust them much?
So the air component is GTG?
I would say no. Given the post Cold War draw down of USAFE and the other NATO nations shrinking their Air Forces due to cost and complexity, IMHO there isn't enough friendly aircraft in theatre to ensure air superiority. Then add in the new Russian Air Defense systems and the Allied Air Defense System and things would get real interesting, real quick.
Fulda Gap battle plan is dead. Take the Ukraine and extrapolate it out in that direction and that is what we face. Destabilization of countries and then the Russians come in to protect ethnic Russians.
Fulda might be dead but the Suwalki Gap and Kalingrad are alive and well. Interestingly, enough the 4 NATO EFP (Poland (US), Latvia (CAN) , Lithuania(DEU), Estonia (UK)) are actually clustered in that area. The US EFP element is already in place. The other elements are slated to come on line in 2018, with some forward elements in already in place.
Where exactly, is the the front line now?
If Poland doesn't have a 2 minute drill program for a Nuke, they are not paying attention.
Frankly, with out the large conscript armies of old, how exactly do you invade Western Europe? Or more precisely, how to you 'hold' it- since I don't even know what 'holding' would look like. Baltics you put in puppet regimes, that's doable. Poland? How in the hell do you 'hold' Poland if you are the Russians?
The Russians still do conscription. Their annual intake has made the news in recent years as it causes a spike in their forces. I'd also recommend looking at the Order of Battle for the Russian Western Military district. What's interesting is that Russian military readiness and their restructuring, the Russians could also be a paper tiger. But given Georgia, Syria and Ukraine I'm not sure. Unfortunately, the best assessments of the current Russian capabilities are not open source.
NATO won its war. It's time for something else. That Trump was ahead on this by calling on the EU to actually start spending money on defense seems lost on most people.
I agree with you, Trumps modified comments on European Nations (particularly the Western ones) to start investing in their defense was dead on (it's almost like he had a former NATO Commander whispering in his ear). IMHO the decreased NATO readiness level is directly tied to countries not investing in their forces.
NATO didn't win it's war. Russia is quietly rebuilding it's power in Europe and else where in the globe, the only thing besides NATO that could stop them is internal unrest, economic collapse or maybe Conflict with the Chinese. If you take NATO off the board , you'll see Russia pulling a Gerasimov Maneuver or a straight up Georgian invasion with near impunity as you will be unable to build a European Coalition with enough combat power to deter or defeat them.
However, A big issue is the veracity of information. Their is a lot of conflicting reports on Russia's capabilities and intent. For example, In 2009 the Russians started a reorganization program that shrank their military and started to rebuild it into what some called a "Garrison Model" with forces "centralized " into a smaller number of larger bases in key areas. Additionally, the Russian Military exercise program was allegedly around Counter Terrorism/Counter Insurgent (Chechnya) (Zapad 2017) whereas the US program shifted from COIN to Force on Force as early as 2011ish. Yet, as a counterpoint to the draw down and garrison model, we have reports of expanding their military foot print in the artic.
RE: air component
Does anyone recall the Libya mission? NATO components, for the most part sans the US, initiated the Air campaign. They ran out of ordinance by the end of the first week. Then the US stepped in.
I don't care how good or how many aircraft you have. Without bombs and bullets, they are useless. Like a million man army with no rifles.
Some of the references cited about NATO decline date back to 2008 time frame.
We can still argue about NATO resolve and effectiveness, but force composition and readiness has changed dramatically since then.
The US has an additional Brigade and a half there on a semi-permanent basis sent back at the tail end of Obama years. One being a heavy Brigade. This in addition to pre-positioned armor on standby.
NATO now maintains a very large number of ongoing multinational Brigade size exercises, but composed of battalion sized elements from any given country to get around treaty issues dating from the Soviet era.
Much more joint Nordic, Baltic, and Balkan countries in the exercises now.
And certain countries have significantly improved their strength and readiness. (Poland being the obvious, but not sole, example)
None of this is secret, DOD and NATO advertise this very publicly.
Could Russia still do something stupid? Sure, but they are not likely to because there's not a big Advantage for them to do so. And a lot of disadvantages.
It Russia wanted to drive to Tallinn as mentioned, NATO could not initially stop them. But they would engage US forces in the process, and then the rest of NATO, and ultimately they would lose or have to go nuclear. Which also has it's price.
They would have a hard time taking and controlling the Metro areas initially due to dug in infantry with pretty decent anti-armor capability. Which then buys time for the heavy stuff to get into play.
Is it possible and a risk? Absolutely. But it's also a mitigated one. But ultimately you have to ask what would Russia gain and what would they lose? The Baltics and Balkans are not the Crimean Peninsula. Big difference.
Russia has a huge military for being roughly half of the population of the US, but regardless, the Russian military is roughly 1,025,887 active duty with about 2,000,000 reserves and a lot are women-which doesn't make a difference but still. The US has about 1,500,000 active duty personnel and about 800,000 reserves. Russia has a little over 3 million armed soldiers, almost 1 million more than the US. However, the US has naval supremacy along with air supremacy. Russia has quite a few submarines but lacks the surface ships to engage in a naval conflict with the US or NATO. The problem with that is Russia would not really need a Navy to start a conflict in Europe or Soviet bloc countries. So if we are talking a full scale land war with Russia, Russia has the upper hand. To deter Russia or to intervene in an armed conflict with Russia would be a logistic nightmare for the US, we have bases in the region but not the man power nor the hardware necessary. Luckily the US has a missile defense system already in place in and around eastern Europe. And we know just from the war in Syria that the US has the ability to take out a air base with just 23 Tomahawk cruise missiles from a distance of 600 miles. Also, we know that Turkey was able to shoot down (2) Russian Su-22's over the Turkish border using older f-16's. And the "freedom fighters" who, I guess are on our side in Syria are able to destroy common Russian tanks using a TOW missile system from upwards of 1 mile away- at night and in limited visibility. So I'm going to say that the US made hardware is still superior to Russian hardware. In Desert Storm the US lost over 100 aircraft to SCUD missiles and I will guess that there anti aircraft missile systems are top notch. And whos to say who is on Russias side? Iran? China? N Korea? But unless the US is willing to go full WW3 in a war with Russia and pull out everything we have and go full Nagasaki on them, a war with Russia would not be a good war.
Averageman
11-18-17, 22:07
The Russians used to have a very different set of rules when it came to the use of Chemical weapons. I believe the Authority to "First Strike" with Chemical Weapons went as low as a Brigade Commander.
I have no doubt that when faced with annihilation in the Fulda Gap we would have been in a chemical weapon soup bowl inside of an hour, maybe an hour and a half. In that case I would guess the immediate retaliatory strike would have been nuclear.
That was a pretty balls out face off between the Super Powers. The Russians might well have had a shot during Carters Administration, I simply don't think he would have had the balls to retaliate and we were weak as a sick kitten militarily then.
I spent a decade within 25K's of the border during the 80's, I got forced to PCS back to the States and two weeks later the wall fell.
sundance435
11-20-17, 08:56
Some of the references cited about NATO decline date back to 2008 time frame.
We can still argue about NATO resolve and effectiveness, but force composition and readiness has changed dramatically since then.
The US has an additional Brigade and a half there on a semi-permanent basis sent back at the tail end of Obama years. One being a heavy Brigade. This in addition to pre-positioned armor on standby.
NATO now maintains a very large number of ongoing multinational Brigade size exercises, but composed of battalion sized elements from any given country to get around treaty issues dating from the Soviet era.
Much more joint Nordic, Baltic, and Balkan countries in the exercises now.
And certain countries have significantly improved their strength and readiness. (Poland being the obvious, but not sole, example)
None of this is secret, DOD and NATO advertise this very publicly.
Could Russia still do something stupid? Sure, but they are not likely to because there's not a big Advantage for them to do so. And a lot of disadvantages.
It Russia wanted to drive to Tallinn as mentioned, NATO could not initially stop them. But they would engage US forces in the process, and then the rest of NATO, and ultimately they would lose or have to go nuclear. Which also has it's price.
They would have a hard time taking and controlling the Metro areas initially due to dug in infantry with pretty decent anti-armor capability. Which then buys time for the heavy stuff to get into play.
Is it possible and a risk? Absolutely. But it's also a mitigated one. But ultimately you have to ask what would Russia gain and what would they lose? The Baltics and Balkans are not the Crimean Peninsula. Big difference.
Minor quibble, but the Russian navy would have to contest the Baltic Sea and North Sea all the way to at least Hamburg. Otherwise, resupply and troop movements would be pretty easy. Those are pretty difficult areas for submarines to be effective with the concentration of ASW capabilities that would be used. They simply don't have enough newer submarines to contest it effectively. The bulk of their attack sub fleet is made up of Oscar, Kilo, and Victor subs from the 70s and 80s.
Their air force also has only roughly 400 Gen 3+ fighters. That's hardly a match for what NATO can bring to the fight just in terms of Eurofighters, F-16s, and soon F-35s. The S400 SAM could complicate things, but no one's seen it in action. Plus, forward air bases like those in Kaliningrad would be a target-rich environment for cruise missiles.
....and the Pacific
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/366174-marine-corps-commandant-theres-a-war-coming
I can more than understand about NK but why does everyone want to flex on Russia?
Why do we keep putting bases next to them?
They aren't Communist, I doubt they really have the power to influence our elections, and we have sanctioned them so much that it is pointless and yet people still buy their guns and oil.
They have their upsets in Ukraine, Chechnya, and Georgia.
But...we kinda do the same thing.
It won't be like Stratego where peer level forces meet their match on the Fulda Gap in some grand tank battle where guys charge with fixed bayonets.
Nukes will get dropped.
We probably wont ever be friends but why do these people want another Cold War?
There are adults now who were born well after the wall fell and the red flag came down.
There was a time when a Special Report shut everybody in a room up.
Red China is Communist as hot shit on a frypan and I can go there today with no visa to eat noodles and chill
Russian Federation is sorta capitalist but requires visas and red tape.
Why do people want another global boogeyman?
We face the same threats, have the same enemies, and we get caught up in humbuggery and the Red Scare.
Like I'm genuinely curious. Are people that thirsty for a PC "bad guy" that they will manufacture one?
And these hippie college kids wear Che shirts and wave soviet flags but yet think we should got to war with Russia.
It seems like a big sham to justify presence in places that only want our money.
....and the Pacific
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/366174-marine-corps-commandant-theres-a-war-coming
I can more than understand about NK but why does everyone want to flex on Russia?
Why do we keep putting bases next to them?
They aren't Communist, I doubt they really have the power to influence our elections, and we have sanctioned them so much that it is pointless and yet people still buy their guns and oil.
They have their upsets in Ukraine, Chechnya, and Georgia.
But...we kinda do the same thing.
It won't be like Stratego where peer level forces meet their match on the Fulda Gap in some grand tank battle where guys charge with fixed bayonets.
Nukes will get dropped.
We probably wont ever be friends but why do these people want another Cold War?
There are adults now who were born well after the wall fell and the red flag came down.
There was a time when a Special Report shut everybody in a room up.
Red China is Communist as hot shit on a frypan and I can go there today with no visa to eat noodles and chill
Russian Federation is sorta capitalist but requires visas and red tape.
Why do people want another global boogeyman?
We face the same threats, have the same enemies, and we get caught up in humbuggery and the Red Scare.
Like I'm genuinely curious. Are people that thirsty for a PC "bad guy" that they will manufacture one?
And these hippie college kids wear Che shirts and wave soviet flags but yet think we should got to war with Russia.
It seems like a big sham to justify presence in places that only want our money.
If you read half the articles on Realclearpolitics.com, we are about to engage in war against either China or Russia. Those articles have been going on for 20 years now. Honestly, I just can't see it.
What would be the downside to quietly, and gradually reducing our funding, and presence in NATO? I am tired of the Germans, French, UK (to a lesser extent) etc of taking advantage of us. All the Russians care about is money, especially energy money. I doubt they will start a war with their best customers.
What would be the downside to quietly, and gradually reducing our funding, and presence in NATO? I am tired of the Germans, French, UK (to a lesser extent) etc of taking advantage of us. All the Russians care about is money, especially energy money. I doubt they will start a war with their best customers.
I can't see any..
Defund all of them.
If the Russians eat them alive or they get ROPed to death, aw shucks oh well.
America needs some 'Me' time.
Why do we gotta be the world's police and homeless shelter?
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-23-17, 19:23
Sure, try to go get some real Chinese food with out a VISA....
You want to be the world policeman like you want to be the DJ at party- if you aren’t, you are dancing to someone else’s tune.
The problem is that we aren’t the world’s police man, we are its social worker. We should have wacked Putin and kept Russia is a petro-fueled daze instead of letting them get to be an actual threat. Turn Blackwater loose on the little green men in Ukraine.
Asking why we shouldn’t put bases around Russia is like telling a battered wife to get a restraining order instead of getting gun. The Russians just ran a war game on invading the west. I’d much rather have a credible fight with them in the Baltic states than in Poland or Germany. Fighting wars and breaking stuff on other’s people’s turf is the American way, the alternative is not pretty.
I pray to God that Poland is working on nukes. They are idiots if they aren’t.
The US took a hands off approach to the world before and it F’d stuff up royally. Treaties and isolationism are just ways of putting off fights. They are still coming and bill gets due with interest tacked on.
Hong Kong is still free entry. Thats China enough.
You make some points but any war ends in a nuke fight.
I can understand Putin wanting to take back some old countries but then again, what do they have to gain trying to fight with us?
I dont care about Europe. At this point, Putin would probably be better than Merkel. The Russians handle their terries. Not promise them free housing.
I dont think Putin is the problem. Would you rather have another Gorbachev or Yeltsin?
I know there is a generation indoctrinated to hate the Russians but so far they haven't been shipping "refugees" to us wholesale.
I hoped this election would have brought us warmer ties with Russia. More ammo and that Dragunov you know sucks but still want.
A lot of Central Europe isnt anti-Russian.
Really at some point, I believe, we are going to have to choose a side.
Red China or Russian Federation.
China could stop NK today if they wanted.
I still think West Europe is just mooching off of us like the deadbeats they are.
ETA Russia voted against us on Jerusalem. Surprising.
Meh screw em all. We have two oceans keeping distance between us and other people for a reason.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-23-17, 20:36
Hong Kong is still free entry. Thats China enough.
You make some points but any war ends in a nuke fight.
Even more reason not to fight it on our territory. Don't be a schmuck and say that any war leads to global nuclear war.
I can understand Putin wanting to take back some old countries but then again, what do they have to gain trying to fight with us?
Uhm, freedom?
I dont care about Europe. At this point, Putin would probably be better than Merkel. The Russians handle their terries. Not promise them free housing.
That is the only distinction you make? You haven't been paying attention.
I dont think Putin is the problem. Would you rather have another Gorbachev or Yeltsin?
I'd take either, in a heart beat.
I know there is a generation indoctrinated to hate the Russians but so far they haven't been shipping "refugees" to us wholesale.
F-that. There are more Russians in Colorado than you can shake a stick at.
I hoped this election would have brought us warmer ties with Russia. More ammo and that Dragunov you know sucks but still want.
A lot of Central Europe isnt anti-Russian.
You mean Belarus? Are you on crack? There have been and will always be communists in EU countries, and the young may not remember what went on.
You might get not anti-russian, but pro-Russian. Comrade, Please.
Really at some point, I believe, we are going to have to choose a side.
Red China or Russian Federation.
Put those two short bus retards together.
China could stop NK today if they wanted.
All China has to do is get an NK general to take over and start the country onto the a path towards the 20th century. Either they do it, or they ensed up with war and all kinds of refugees and South Korea on a common border.
I still think West Europe is just mooching off of us like the deadbeats they are.
Not saying you are wrong. That is why Trump's NATO stance is actually pro-NATO more than any other president in the last 20 years. He wants it to actually work.
ETA Russia voted against us on Jerusalem. Surprising.
Meh screw em all. We have two oceans keeping distance between us and other people for a reason.
.....
FMCDH,
Again you make some points.
Obviously though, I dont see every war going nuclear because the ME/SWA arent glowing in the dark.
But this WWII idea of tank rushes, air to air combat, and daring airborne paratrooper missions is just that, a WWII idea.
They know they have a disadvantage and would rather die than be conquered. Thus the missiles will fly. Thats why they get nervous any time we get closer to a feasible ABM defense.
I just dont see what they have to gain aside from the same stuff we do. They wont ever go communist again.
I dont mean indoctrinated to hate the Russians as in Slavic people because look at all the toads buying up Russian women. I mean like the default is to counter Russian military doctrine. The elephant in the room is China but nobody wants to explicitly name them because it isnt PC.
I have been accused of being on acid, but not crack. Like...Central Europe dislikes Russia, but loves the Ruble and Petrodollar.
Still I loathe Merkel.
Maybe T-72s down Willy Brandt Strasse might learn em a lesson or two.
My main thesis is not to boycrush Putin (I dont) or think Russia is an ally (they arent) but that these countries take our money and soldiers and give us nothing back but sassmouth.
We have our own problems.
We have all the stuff we need here. Drill here, Drill now. Put America back to work. Get back to space.
Besides most Mercedes and VWs are made in Alabama or Tennessee now anyways.
Everyone else can starve. Nobody is worried about us.
I think as a nation we have listened to and believed that we had to protect from the communist hoards all of many of our lives. After the wall fell, hmm, Cuba opening, hmm, Vietnam for vacation anyone? Is Russia really a threat to us? China? I know they can be but are they objectively?
The Russians have been resurgent and are slowly taking back some areas that were either traditionally Russian or that they wished they hadn't jettisoned. They will challenge us when feasible for regional stroke.
The Chinese have never really been imperialistic. Historically they have been about money. I know our history in reference to Korea, Vietnam, etc. How would we react if the Chinese were in Canada or Mexico?
The big WWII wars are just that. Proxy wars, fights for regional dominance will be and is the current threats. How many countries do we have a military presence in? How many for Russia and China? We can't afford to be the global Sheriff forever. We can see it coming, financial ruin from overspending to the point that we have a small, capable force like England. Look what happened to the USSR.
I know we live in a global economy but in our case as a country that's by choice, not necessity. We don't need most of the countries we protect. Is Russia the new Nazi Germany? I just don't see it. Who cares if the Russkies move into Afghanistan? There's nothing there worth Americans dying for.
We're so used to being the worlds Sheriff that we accept it all and don't seem to ever question why. Let the rest succeed or fail on thier own merits.
Dist. Expert 26
12-24-17, 13:36
But this WWII idea of tank rushes, air to air combat, and daring airborne paratrooper missions is just that, a WWII idea.
The military as a whole operates under a sort of institutional delusion that we're going to square off for WWII-redux someday.
Example- during the workup for my 2nd deployment, a MEU, we spent a significant amount of time training to seize airfields as a company+ sized asset. Ignoring the fact that such a mission would undoubtedly go to Rangers or the like, the entire premise was based around a war that will never happen.
Maybe after a solid century of "unconventional warfare" it won't be so unconventional.
The Chinese have never really been imperialistic. Historically they have been about money. I know our history in reference to Korea, Vietnam, etc. How would we react if the Chinese were in Canada or Mexico?
Currently reading a lot about China. They've been invaded enough that defending what they have is their most significant concern. Hell, from 1644 to 1912 the ruling dynasty was not ethnic Chinese (The Han Chinese represent 92% of the Chinese population and having been recently enough, they still give a shit about race. China is not the ethnic equality rainbow that any progressives would think that a communist country should be.), but Manchurian people. Almost two hundred and seventy years gave them a lot of perspective. Their concern is growing their ability to export Chinese culture and brands. While monetary gain is a relevant piece of this, it really about the cultural exportation. China wants the US's economic and social position in the world, and they feel that we won the culture war by exporting our brands around the world.
The easiest way to explain this is: Name an item made in China in your home, that you identify with an American brand. It's easy to point out your athletic shoes, or your iPad, etc...
Now name an item made in China that you identify with a Chinese brand. Almost impossible for most people because Chinese brands are not really exported. There are Chinese fashion labels, Chinese cars, Chinese appliances, etc... Nobody here in the US has heard of many or even any of them.
Now name an item made in China that you identify with a Chinese brand. Almost impossible for most people because Chinese brands are not really exported. There are Chinese fashion labels, Chinese cars, Chinese appliances, etc... Nobody here in the US has heard of many or even any of them.
Asus? Lenovo? Baofeng? (OK, that last one is a stretch to all but amateur radio ops)
Your point is still valid. Most of Chiner's military is focused on defense.
Asus?
Taiwan, and while you consider that China, and so does China, Taiwan does not consider themselves to be part of China.
Lenovo?
Fair, but they had to buy IBMs PC business to get into the US market, so I wouldn't give this one credit as a home grown brand.
Baofeng? (OK, that last one is a stretch to all but amateur radio ops)
Indeed it is...
And yes, they do spend quite a bit on their military, but again, they want to supplant the US and much of our role around the world is in military action.
Currently reading a lot about China. They've been invaded enough that defending what they have is their most significant concern. Hell, from 1644 to 1912 the ruling dynasty was not ethnic Chinese. While monetary gain is a relevant piece of this, it really about the cultural exportation. China wants the US's economic and social position in the world, and they feel that we won the culture war by exporting our brands around the world..
I agree, I think everyone knows this, we did. Nobody wants to immigrate to China, buy a Chinese car, or extol the virtues of thier totalitarian form of communism. But there's always the next century.............they're patient.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.