You can add him to the list of 70-somethings getting whupped by an addled octogenarian.
-
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
Sure pal, the logic and data I provided is nothing because you didn't read it in a link, and only 1 side of a debate has to defend their view. It seems you aren't able or willing to have a respectable debate with me like everyone before you was, so please just watch on the sidelines. I won't be replying to you anymore.
The main thing I was hoping to hear from someone a little more reasonable was specifics on why folks here feel as though our European partners combined would be less successful than Ukraine alone has been in fighting Russia. As I've pointed out, there is strong historical evidence (data) that suggests France and Germany could manage, especially in defense and united, and especially against the currently weakened Russian military using old WW2 era T-54's (more data). So, where is the fault in my reasoning? Several folks have hand waived this, but I want to get down to the deeper reasoning behind this assertion.
Last edited:
Random8145
Registered User
I don't think Biden is the one actually calling the shots. He strikes me as being our Brezhnev.
Remember that "peacetime" is a relative term. We're not really at "peace". We just don't have regular line infantry units engaged in ground combat operations in Iraq or Afghanistan anymore.
And as far as Defense spending goes, we need to reconstitute the force. 20+ years of constant deployments (with no end to them in sight) has really done a number on our vehicles and boats and airplanes and stuff.
We also need to reconstitute our strategic and operational outlook. The Navy seems addicted to CVN’s above all other ship forms, the Army is lost without a daily dose of Ranger/SF stories, and the Air Force still seems intent on fighting a 1960’s style war (but on the cheap). The Marines do get a little credit for their restructuring - even if you don’t like it - because at least they are trying.
I really agree with you here.
I also think we need to repair and rebuild our Guard and Reserve forces. I really think we could have a big cost savings in a long term, part time, scalable and medium to short term mobilizable force.
Keep the AGRs, the TARs, the AD presence to keep the lights on, but I think for what we've contracted out, for what most of the force can do, we can do it with a smaller cadre of full timers and a larger cadre of part timers. There are some USAF units that are seeing a lot of success with that model- mainly in low density/high demand communities. An AD unit will have a Guard or Reserve associate unit much like the SAU of the VTs but at much larger scale (the VA ANG F-22 unit assigned to the 1st Fighter Wing at Langley has 2-3 times the pilots and maintainers that an AD unit has, and fills out their deployment and exercise schedule pretty well).
But I've also drank the ANG Kool Aid, so there's that.
Smartest post of the year right here . . . .
You do understand that NATO requires unanimous voting to move forward? This is extremely difficult to achieve (as mentioned in many previous posts), and you cannot simply hand wave that Germany and France who have fought each other a number of times over the last two centuries would agree on a command structure that would defeat a country w/ 5 x times larger military by personnel. This is the fault in your reasoning, if you decide to accept it.
And that unanimous vote usually comes at the expense of support to the Kurds. NATO has been great for a lot of things, but NATO (and really Turkey's vote) has royally fucked over the Kurds. I suppose they're used to it by now. But still.
I'm sorry, but I don't follow your post. It seems maybe you aren't replying to the thing I'm saying. What I'm saying is this.. several people on here have said that if the US withdraws our troops from Europe, our NATO Allies could not handle a Russian attack by themselves until we got there. I am asking for the reasoning behind that assertion, given Ukraine's success by themselves and the currently impotent state of both the Russian military and economy.
Unanimity does not apply to a response to an attack. For example, If Poland is attacked, they don't need German permission to defend themselves, but Germany (and all the other Allies) are obligated to also declare war on the attacker and help as if they were attacked themselves. This is automatic, and no vote is required. Further, participation in the NATO command structure is voluntary.
Is your point that if Germany and France don't work together then they will fail separately? If so, why do you think that Germany could not do better even without any help than Ukraine has done? Let alone if the UK, France, Norway, etc are also contributing at least something, while the US would surely be wreaking havoc with our Navy and on the Russian east coast?
And yet we're in the midst of recapitalizing our sub force, our DDGs and investing in a whole new class of FFGs. We spend our defense dollars on CVNs because they have adapted well to a variety of missions short of peer conflict, while being the best means of power projection available during those high end fights. It's not an addiction... it is what has worked for us consistently over the last 80 years.
Random8145
Registered User
Russia will not feel safe unless/until it can rebuild the Soviet empire. I actually think the Russian point-of-view, in its own twisted way, does have some merit. The more countries that westernize with democratic government, that means more countries that could potentially get taken over by a Hitler who then may want to attack Russia. So the solution is to take over control of all of those nations with authoritarian governments that answer directly to Moscow.
Random8145
Registered User
What is the (assuming) Army National Guard Kool-Aid?
ANG is “air national guard” ARNG is “army national guard.” ANG kool-aid tastes sweeter than ARNG, but the impact is the same.
Last edited: