Europe under extreme duress

[Mirage]

A USAF tanker guy told me once, that they have a saying: "If you haven't figured out who the [jerk] is on the crew after the third day of the trip, then it's you."

Hey man, I want to really apologize for asking questions and providing an opinion that you didn't agree with. That was really mean of me to trigger your delicate sensibilities like that.

Anyone on here up for a debate on the topic at hand, or you just want to criticize people for disagreeing with you?

 

[sevenhelmet]

So you believe NK is building up it's forces to attack SK? What do you think they're waiting on? I agree with you that NK would love to be able to do that, but do you really think they are going to? Is there some reason why SK, whose economy absolutely dwarfs NK's, and has the backing of our military, can't defend itself if we aren't permanently based there?

I know plenty of people here can think critically, but I've been told in this thread that Russia would conquer all of Europe in a flash if the US wasn't there, that Russia is our biggest threat because they are the only country to violate our ADIZ, that Germany shouldn't have a big military because they would start invading other countries and seek to cleanse the gene pool again, that it's insane to think our European NATO allies can defend themselves from Russia if necessary, that NK isn't scared of us, etc. So yeah, I was seeking understanding of what I was missing, and I havent been impressed with the critical thinking taking place behind the answers I've received thus far.

Why is it that the super mods get to make posts that do nothing but criticize my critical thinking, but if I make a hint of that in the middle of my post then you get your panties in a bunch and act like I'm the asshole?

Wow. Straw man much?

I think we’ve touched a nerve here.

Hey man, I want to really apologize for asking questions and providing an opinion that you didn't agree with. That was really mean of me to trigger your delicate sensibilities like that.

Anyone on here up for a debate on the topic at hand, or you just want to criticize people for disagreeing with you?

We have been debating the topic at hand. For several pages. Perhaps you’re upset for some other reason?

 

[Hotdogs]

If that's a "fact" to you, then you need to go back to school.

Everyone on here is telling me how we need to spend so much because Russia scares the Europeans, and we need to help them. But I guess spending on having a strong military that we then use to deter Russia to help out Europe doesn't count as spending to defend Europe. Weird logic. I also guess sending $100 billion to UKR doesn't count, because that's spending a lot, I'd say.

Direct U.S. investments in European defense expenditures are roughly under $10B a year. European defense spending in total is just under $300B a year (Obligated to defend the U.S. by treaty)… and that’s before we’ve started to convince them to increase their share of the burden. Seems like a good investment. We can debate appropriate European defense policy, but on pure dollar amounts - it’s a stupid argument.

You have yet to post, cite, or expound on any empirical data or information from credible peer-reviewed sources on any of your assertions or claims on effective defense policy so far.

 

[Mirage]

Direct U.S. investments in European defense expenditures are roughly under $10B a year. European defense spending in total is just under $300B a year (Obligated to defend the U.S. by treaty)… and that’s before we’ve started to convince them to increase their share of the burden. Seems like a good investment. We can debate appropriate European defense policy, but on pure dollar amounts - it’s a stupid argument.

You have yet to post, cite, or expound on any empirical data or information from credible peer-reviewed sources on any of your assertions or claims on effective defense policy so far.

You and I have been the only 2 to post any data at all supporting our claims. Guess you don't remember mine, but it was the numbers and graphs I've posted throughout from such sources as the Congressional Budget Office. What empirical data has anyone else posted, save a few nuggets from you? I've asked for some several times, then those people never reply until they chime in with personal digs that contribute nothing meaningful to the discussion.

If you want some more insight to my thinking, read this: https://www.businessinsider.com/rus...erattacks-china-us-intel-director-says-2023-3

I agree with the members of the Pentagon and Intel community quoted there. Russia is not currently a conventional military threat, and won't be until they rebuild, which will at a minimum take years. Years we could use to save money and avert a debt disaster that would cripple our military and country as a whole no matter what we do. Years out European allies could use to bolster their militaries and stop relying on us spending 3+% of our GDP on our collective defense, while they spend much less.

Wow. Straw man much?

I think we’ve touched a nerve here.



We have been debating the topic at hand. For several pages. Perhaps you’re upset for some other reason?

Gotta say, I'm disappointed to see you joining the group that are trying to attack me personally instead of my arguments. I typically have read your posts with interest and respect on here. I expect that crap from Brett, but not you. You're better than that.

 

[nittany03]

Gotta say, I'm disappointed to see you joining the group that are trying to attack me personally instead of my arguments. I typically have read your posts with interest and respect on here. I expect that crap from Brett, but not you. You're better than that.

Dude, you can write all the 10-paragraph posts in the world, and it won't change that your arguments are so far in left field that they've stopped playing baseball and are now serving beer to the spectators.

 

[Mirage]

Dude, you can write all the 10-paragraph posts in the world, and it won't change that your arguments are so far in left field that they've stopped playing baseball and are now serving beer to the spectators.

Well, I'd love to hear specifics on why you think so. I'm open minded and would love to hear a convincing argument, ideally supported with facts, why I'm wrong.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Gotta say, I'm disappointed to see you joining the group that are trying to attack me personally instead of my arguments. I typically have read your posts with interest and respect on here. I expect that crap from Brett, but not you. You're better than that.

My post you quoted was hardly a personal attack. It reads objectively as more of an observation- one similar to an observation you made about one of my responses several pages ago, referring to my argument as a “straw man” argument (I might add, somewhat correctly).

My intent was to point out that same tendency in your arguments, perhaps inviting you to adopt a more objective tack.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Dude, you can write all the 10-paragraph posts in the world, and it won't change that your arguments are so far in left field that they've stopped playing baseball and are now serving beer to the spectators.

No, its not. Walter Russell Mead described the 4 competing themes of American foreign policy as being based on Hamilton, Wilson, Jefferson and Jackson. Mirage appears to be in the Jeffersonian camp, while most of the others vocal here are either in the Hamilton or Wilson camps.

To move to a different subject, I am surprised no one mentioned the NYT article on new leads on the Nordstream pipelines. Ian Bremmer provides some analysis here:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633240861420183554

Regardless of who destroyed the pipeline, the ramifications for the German and Central European economies is severe. Germany was reliant upon cheap Russian natural gas for heat, for relatively cheap electricity and for the feedstocks for its petrochemical industries- all of which are now in serious danger.

 

[Brett327]

If you want some more insight to my thinking,

Business insider? LOL. Irony... dead.

 

[vxc961]

“German investigators said on Wednesday they had searched a ship in January which was suspected of transporting the explosives used to sabotage the two gas pipelines. There was at this stage no evidence to suggest a foreign state was involved, they said.”

Ukraine denies involvement in Nord Stream pipeline blasts - BBC News

A New York Times report says US officials believe a pro-Ukrainian group was behind last year's blasts.

www.bbc.com

I applaud Randy for trying to get this thread back on track.

It looks like the “it had to be state actors!” theory is now “a couple dudes and a dame in a rented yacht”????

 

[Random8145]

The idea that Russia will, in the near future, rebuild it's military, secretly position them for a massive surprise attack, and defeat the EU nations so fast that we can't help if we aren't prepositioned there, is absolutely ridiculous. If you really believe that would happen, there is no point in discussing this with you.

I think that the level of draw down you want would make it difficult to respond to a gradually rebuilding and increasing Russian threat. It is better to maintain training and readiness. It can be scaled down or scaled up, but should be maintained. It we will take Russia years to rebuild, yes, but those years can go by in the blink of an eye.

We are already spending more than the current finances of the country! That is precisely my point. I don't want to cut our budget just for kicks. I wish we could spend $10 trillion per year on the military, but we can't. Our children will be repaying every dime we spend for their entire lives at this rate, with interest. We cannot afford to keep spending what we are. If you think cutting $400 billion per year from the budget (25% of the discretionary budget) won't make a difference, then again, there's no point in discussing it.

What difference is $400 billion going to make given the size of the deficit and debt? Also the federal debt isn't something that needs to be repaid, it just needs to be kept at a reasonable size in proportion to the economy.

Oh, so it's no problem because the Fed can just print our way out of it... Which would cause hyperinflation and ruin our credit. Or perhaps you think the Fed can just say "nevermind, you don't need to pay us back", and that debt just disappears like some magic trick?

We have had a larger debt-to-GDP ratio in the past and not had any economic blowups. We had larger interest payments as a percentage of federal revenue during the 1980s for example. So the debt is not the ticking time bomb you think it is.

So the DOD gets $800B, Medicare $800B, Medicaid $613B, SS $560B... but you think the only way is to leave the DOD alone and make "large reductions" to the other 3? Why not make smaller reductions from all of them? Don't you think that all the stakeholders will find that more palatable? How would you justify reducing the other 3 so dramatically but not touching the DOD? How do you figure cutting $400B from the DOD is insignificant?

$400B is insignificant if the only major cut. Also I do not believe it is politically palatable to cut the other three, just that that is what would be needed.

But isn't that what you're afraid Russia will do? You think they can build back a credible military (that they haven't had since the cold war apparently) faster than we could if we mothballed our superior technology and maintained a budget that dwarfs every other country on earth?

It isn't that they could rebuild quickly, it is that they could do so gradually where no one realizes how much they've grown until it's too late, at which point trying to scale up to match them would take time.

It's interesting how humans, on a personal level, are so quick to forgive themselves, or not even realize their shortcomings, while amplifying the same actions of others. We clearly do the same with our national identities.

We have been the most aggressive major country on earth in recent decades. From North Korea's perspective, we invaded Iraq twice, invaded Afghanistan, fought North Vietnam, have taken military actions in numerous countries from Kosovo to South America to Africa, and we are off their coast conducting mock war with them, who we also fought fairly recently. After all, as you said, we are the only ones with a power projection capability... do you suppose that capability is more offensive or defensive in nature? Who do you think they see as the aggressive and violent ones? Why do you think he is trying to scare us, as you admitted? Could it be to deter us from attacking him? Are we the only ones who get to act provocatively in order to deter? Why do you think he is spending so much on his military if not to deter us and defend against a possible assault? Do you think he actually wants war with us?

We get to act provocatively in order to deter because we are not aggressors. He on the other hand is. He does not maintain a military strictly for defensive purposes, but for purposes of aggression. You make it sound like he wants peace. No he doesn't want war with US, but that doesn't mean he isn't a tyrant and won't immediately increase his aggression if we start showing weakness. It's a Mafia-style regime with a history of aggression and violence. Reducing our military presence WILL NOT get him to become more friendly.

And how can you possibly claim those U.S. military actions were aggression? We fought North Vietnam because of Communism and the threat all of SE Asia might fall. We fought Iraq due to Saddam Hussein's aggression. We invaded Afghanistan due to terrorism. We invaded Iraq again due to a perceived threat from Saddam Hussein, but look what we did. We didn't slaughter the Iraqi people, we just fought the terrorists. So to claim we've been an aggressor nation is absurd.

 

[sevenhelmet]

It looks like the “it had to be state actors!” theory is now “a couple dudes and a dame in a rented yacht”????

I found it interesting how quickly the respective governments were drawing conclusions (“this could only have been a state actor!”) and blaming each other. The pipeline was as shallow as 80m in at least one place, based on what I’ve read. That’s doable for a non-state actor if you have the right equipment. Not sure about the deeper parts of the pipeline.

A pro-Ukrainian group trying to hurt Russia seems plausible. I have doubts about the Ukrainian government being involved though- it would sour Western support for them if it ever came out.

 

[number9]

And how can you possibly claim those U.S. military actions were aggression? We fought North Vietnam because of Communism and the threat all of SE Asia might fall. We fought Iraq due to Saddam Hussein's aggression. We invaded Afghanistan due to terrorism. We invaded Iraq again due to a perceived threat from Saddam Hussein, but look what we did. We didn't slaughter the Iraqi people, we just fought the terrorists. So to claim we've been an aggressor nation is absurd.

I don't have a dog in this fight overall, but: with the benefit of hindsight, the failures of these conflicts make it easy to cast us as the aggressors. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the perception of us as the aggressors; it is more common than you'd think when viewed outside the shores of the U.S.

 

[Mirage]

We get to act provocatively in order to deter because we are not aggressors. He on the other hand is. He does not maintain a military strictly for defensive purposes, but for purposes of aggression. You make it sound like he wants peace. No he doesn't want war with US, but that doesn't mean he isn't a tyrant and won't immediately increase his aggression if we start showing weakness. It's a Mafia-style regime with a history of aggression and violence. Reducing our military presence WILL NOT get him to become more friendly.

Many prominent US leaders argued in Kim's lifetime that we should have invaded NK to stop them from getting nukes. Put that together with our continued drills on their coast and our history of using our military offensively (that is, not defending US territory directly), I find it hard to believe that NK would agree with your assessment of their opinion that we only use our military for defense and they have nothing to fear. NK on the other hand has not, in modern history, used it's military outside the Korean peninsula. So what facts are you using to come to your conclusion? Could you be succumbing to the typical American bias that our shit don't stink and the rules are different for us? What facts convince you that SK, supplied with our technology and allied with us, cannot deter and defend itself?

And how can you possibly claim those U.S. military actions were aggression? We fought North Vietnam because of Communism and the threat all of SE Asia might fall. We fought Iraq due to Saddam Hussein's aggression. We invaded Afghanistan due to terrorism. We invaded Iraq again due to a perceived threat from Saddam Hussein, but look what we did. We didn't slaughter the Iraqi people, we just fought the terrorists. So to claim we've been an aggressor nation is absurd.

I didn't claim those were aggression, I said they're aggression from the NK perspective. That said, many of them were aggression, such as our 2nd invasion of Iraq. Kim doesn't give us bonus points for not slaughtering the Iraqi people. He does dock us points for slaughtering Sadaams regime. Whatever our reasons have been, no country has used it's military to destroy it's perceived threats more than us.. not even close. And Kim knows we perceive him as a threat.

That said, people want to move on from this debate, and I don't blame them. If you or anyone wants to talk more, pm me.

 

[vxc961]

Yeah, I kind of bought the premise “it must be a state actor”; I still feel finding the pipeline and diving deeper than 250ft to blow it up requires some skill and equipment, but I agree it would be a dumb move for the UKR govt to do it (and I don’t think they’ve made many bad political decisions in this war).