Aren't we already a peacetime military?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Europe under extreme duress
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
You can call it what you like, but downsizing of any sort with China threatening would be boneheaded. Or will we have a thread split where you argue we let the Australian's come to Tiawan's aid and insist Japan help the South Koreans in a dust up.
1. Who cares
2. That's silly. They would have way more to lose by trying to "conquer Europe", and we would still be able to maintain the peace and deter that without having 65,000 troops stationed there permanently.
3. Because it costs too much money and provides too little benefit given how incredibly unlikely it is. What if a war breaks out in Argentina? Should we preposition troops there just in case?
You wouldn't know it by our budget, which only goes up. That's the point.
Does downsizing in Europe and sending some of those troops to Asia hurt our readiness regarding China?
Last edited:
Yes! And this would be the equivalent of finding a vaccine for a deadly disease. The world would be better off.
However, part of me understands Russians are Russian. People who rise to the top of the hierarchy in Russian society have always been amoral, ruthless, demonic and savage.
Is there hope for Russia if Putin meets his doom?
Personally, Id like to see the United States engage in a kinetic war with Russia. I get frustrated with active duty types that show trepidation towards this idea. In my heart I feel that Russia as a US adversary in a kinetic conflict would fold up like a cheap tent. And the change in political structure would be a renaissance in Europe. true renaissance that would change the course of human history and lead to a rise in quality of life for millions and bring peace for decades.
Last edited:
Conquering the world on horseback is easy; it is dismounting and governing that is hard.
- Genghis Khan
The most terrible of all my battles was the one before Moscow. The French showed themselves to be worthy of victory, but the Russians showed themselves worthy of being invincible.
- Napoleon
Hitler wanted to destroy Russia- everyone needs to remember how that ended.
- Putin
What is your definition of pre-Ukrainian thinking? My definition is - Russia pre-2014 was scary but wouldn’t do anything offensive.
How do you believe it would be no contest of Germany and France against Russia?
I am a serious person and will argue that 215k European soldiers would struggle against a force 4-5 times greater even if said forces were operating with old equipment. Old equipment has won the day in plenty of other conflicts.
I will answer your question directly and ignore your tone, but you won’t like the answer based upon your past responses. My answer: you have over simplified the issue to the most extreme Attacking the national debt cannot be solved by bringing a bunch of soldiers home and abandon one of our strongest alliances. Getting after the debt requires increasing revenue (taxes, building more things here, closing loopholes) and decreasing all costs (entitlements, discretionary, defense). However, if you do too much of one or the other, you drive the system out of balance and create a recession which then drives up the debt. If it were that easy, someone witch a PHD would have solved it and won the Nobel Prize, and we wouldn’t have these arguments in the same forum where we admire Moonwatches.
It was remarkable in 2011 how quickly Europe was tapped out militarily- against Libya.
Sure, they can handle Russia on their own. And we’ll be over there in a decade or two, mopping up the mess.
Sure, they can handle Russia on their own. And we’ll be over there in a decade or two, mopping up the mess.
Holy war hawk Batman!
Yeah I bet that renaissance would be just as good as the one Iraq experienced in 2003 ?.
HUH?? Are we passing around a crack pipe tonight?
Pre-Ukraine thinking was Russia had a huge, scary military that it would use offensively. Now we know they have a weak and incompetent military that could not be realistically used to challenge NATO, if they are ever even able to take and hold a 4th of Ukraine.
If you don't see it, then it's not worth me pointing out. Modern weapons playing defense against hordes of Russian conscripts and ancient tech... Come on.
That wasn't Europe tapped out.. that was a lack of will. If they are somehow fighting for their homeland against Russia, they will not get tapped out so easily.
I can't believe there are folks here that are still so scared of Russia's conventional military. Say it isn't so... Even a cursory knowledge of WWII is proof enough that Russia is no match for a combined Europe, let alone given the current balance of power.
But alas, I'm sure we won't agree. Interesting discussion all the same.
If they can't decide and get attacked eventually, that will be a major problem.
The leadership of them might decide they have much to gain, not lose, especially if they view it that the other Europe countries will fold easily. And our deterring that would be more difficult without having the troops there.
Argentina is not a historical threat like Russia is. Also, why does keeping the troops in Europe cost more than keeping them at home?
I'd say it goes up due to inflation, same as the cost of everything else.
Some light-hearted poking:
Aside from the nuclear issue, that would likely be worse than Iraq. The Russian people WOULD NOT LIKE IT and would view it as their suspicions about the West justified. You think they are paranoid now, just try that!
I doubt the Russians could mobilize a defense like in WWII, but they would try a guerilla warfare resistance, which we would have to defeat by killing them, and thus by killing the very people we claim we are there to help.
Also, successfully invading Russia is a wee bit difficult. The climate and terrain are among the most severe in the world.
Last edited:
“A paper published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (iiss), a think-tank in London, concludes that the number of combat battalions in some of nato’s largest armies barely changed between 2015 and 2023, despite the growing threat from Russia. France and Germany have each added one battalion’s worth of forces, a piddling amount, and even Poland has added only two. Britain has lost five over that period. “Most…nations now can only field one full-strength brigade,” laments a senior nato general—a number that would dismay any cold-war general transplanted to the present”
NATO is drafting new plans to Defend Europe
I know land warfare is not your expertise despite your tone, but our ability to project land power via the sea is rapidly diminishing. We are not capable of REFORGER sized exercises or operations on short notice by any stretch of the imagination now.
In terms of manpower we have less than 75k permanently stationed service-members in Europe. During the Cold War that number was over half a million. The vast majority of these personnel are attributed to staffs for command and control, sustainment, training, and associated garrisons. The primary US maneuver brigades are the remnants of V Corps and SETAF. Further, our presence there also provides deterrence and reassures allies to the multitude of threats from the east and North Africa.
Lastly, even if we transferred those personnel to deter China - the Asian treaty allies are not as amenable to US troops on their soil as NATO countries. Nor is putting more material and equipment inside the 1IC smart given the current threats.
You need to start providing peer reviewed data and analysis to support your claims. Removing forward presence almost always invites adversarial encroachment.
You have zero experience in land warfare. Frankly, your hubris in the subject is noxious (Borderline Rumsfeld-esque). Russia defeated multiple invading European armies in the last couple hundred years. They have royally fucked away the initial invasion, however they are learning and gaining valuable experience that no major NATO ally has in the last 70 years. They will reconstitute their forces and continue to threaten US and allied interests for the foreseeable future. Less posting, More reading.
Meatgrinder: Russian Tactics in the Second Year of Its Invasion of Ukraine
Europe did get tapped out. They ran out of munitions I believe and the French aircraft carrier had to be withdrawn because it couldn't maintain the op tempo (hope that is right term)
Russia proved itself a match for the Axis.
Last edited: