The idea that cutting our military spending is a good idea in the position we're in now vis a vis China is absurd.
-
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
The idea that interest on our national debt will soon overcome our entire defense budget is absurd, but I digress . . .
My suggestion was that we close our European bases and send the message that our European allies are now primarily responsible for the defense of Europe. We would still be in NATO, and therefore join any war and provide that deterrence factor.
You quote pre-Ukraine numbers and are employing pre-Ukraine thinking. Russia also outnumbered Germany during WWII. The thing is, if they fought again today, Russia would still be using the same tanks they fought with the last time whereas the combined European force would not. Short of nukes being used, it would be no contest. No serious person could argue otherwise at this point.
At what point does our debt become a bigger threat, in your mind, than China? What expeditionary threat does China pose to the US tax payer that requires us to spend double what we did in 2002? We just learned that we now only have 1 near peer competitor instead of 2, doesn't that change the calculus in favor of reduced spending? Serious questions that I hope you will answer directly.
BFD. The solution is as simple as it is easy. Increase defense spending to bring down the ratio. Am I ready for Congress or what?
How much do you propose to give in to China? Where is your line in the Pacific? As to losses by our taxpayers, just start with the economic. Jobs, investment, consumer prices, products, etc. Then consider the human cost, as in human rights, and the moral cost to the millions of tax payers that care about such things. Reagan, Thatcher and the Pope sere unified in the immorality of Communisms as much as the military threat. EVERYTHING has a cost. Not just weapons.
*Sigh* OK Wink, OK . . . . .BFD. The solution is as simple as it is easy. Increase defense spending to bring down the ratio. Am I ready for Congress or what?
Questions I answered many pages back, but I think going down the china route risks taking this discussion off the rails and off the thread topic of Europe. My bad for taking Nittanys remark and asking questions about it, as that's a whole different discussion.
Our footprint in Great Britain and Germany has been greatly reduced since 1990. Removing all of it, and not having an infrastructure to reinforce doesn't make sense. Also starting from zero, moving forces across what will be a contested Atlantic ocean (GIUK) is a gamble we don't need to self inflict.
I don't mean to misappropriate, but @Flash once pointed out, what will you do with all the personnel and equipment we have in Europe? To accommodate their housing and training spaces in the US will be very expensive. Especially when you consider many of those facilities in Europe cost us little compared to new build in the US.
Where is this insane bullshit coming from? Pull out of Europe BECAUSE Russia invaded another country for the second time this century? Just reset the board to pre-WW2 status and see if we can pull off the same meat-fueled miracles next time? Oh but the debt. Spare me there’s a much better fix than destroying the fragile system of deterrence that’s kept us from throwing another entire generation into the blender.
It has always been easier and cheaper to have permanent forces forward. The fact that we have such a large footprint in Germany and Italy has made every other military operation on that side of the world easier, cheaper, faster and more effective... Libya in the 80s, Desert Storm, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Afghanistan, OIF, and all the NEO and HADR operations. Our vast logistical network depends on all of that forward presence to be as effective as it is. Guess where most of the Intermediate and depot level maintenance happens for naval aviation in the 2nd, 5th and 6th Fleet AORs happens... in Germany.
If the end goal is cost savings, I can think of 20 other ways of addressing that without creating an enormous liability in our ability to conduct effective military operations in the part of the world where we have historically done so most often.
Somebody take the bait on this post. I’m drinking alone in a grocery store (downtown McClanahan’s, if @nittany03 is asking)
By that logic, our NATO allies should have bases and be storing equipment in Alaska, just in case.
You are still thinking in a pre-Ukraine paradigm. We are not needed to defend Europe. This isn't 1955. Europe is rebuilt and Russia is impotent, thanks largely to us. We can leave it to them now. Convince me I'm wrong with facts and data. How do you imagine a war going between Russia and Europe if it started with us not having any bases or equipment there? Explain to me how Europe would lose that war.
Facilities aren't the expensive thing.. people are. We will put those people to better use deterring China. Some of them will need new jobs, as we downsize to a peacetime military. What we do with the equipment I leave to the supply guys. It's not needed in Europe, though.
This is a straw man argument. We will still have access to European airfields and straits, and I am not saying we 100% pull everything out. But we don't need large, permanent bases with thousands of personnel there. Even if we lost some capability, though.. oh shucks. I guess the world police response time will be a little longer.
Random8145
Registered User
Personally I think it would be a bad idea to have the Europeans handle their own defense for a couple of reasons:
1) They'll argue repeatedly over who should be the leader
2) One of them might decide to become the primary military of Europe, which could be a bad thing if due to political issues they decide to try conquering Europe.
3) If a war breaks out, we're still involved anyway, so why not stay and maintain our leadership position.
1) They'll argue repeatedly over who should be the leader
2) One of them might decide to become the primary military of Europe, which could be a bad thing if due to political issues they decide to try conquering Europe.
3) If a war breaks out, we're still involved anyway, so why not stay and maintain our leadership position.