The end of NATO - good for Europe?

[seahawk]

I strongly believe, that more responsibility and more focus would be good.

[Murph]

Just found this.  Sort of proves my point.

 

[seahawk]

Yep, that is obvious and shows how much money the US could save.

 

Edited December 2, 2024 by seahawk

[Stuart Galbraith]

9 hours ago, Murph said:

Just found this.  Sort of proves my point.

 

Except, as you doubtless realise, its complete bollocks, and Ill tell you why. All the European states are spending for defence primarily inside Europe, the NATO catchment area. Alright, Britain's 2 carriers sometimes go to the middle east, and so do the French ones, but primarily, Europe is our own concern.

The US spends money to defend Japan, South Korea, its got forces in the Indian ocean, the Pacific, the Persian Gulf, Sea of Japan, South Atlantic, Syria, Iraq. Even its forces in Europe are split with Africa. its no longer USAREUR, its USAREUR-AF, which means the 4 Brigades you have here are apparently to be shared with Africa too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Europe_and_Africa

Also, it includes the US nuclear deterrent, which is not pledged to NATO at all, but to your own defence. The only nuclear weapons you have pledged to NATO are a 200 warhead stockpile in Europe, which is somewhat dwarfed by the Russian tactical nuclear stockpile which is something over 1500 warheads. Its even dwarfed by the combined British and French nuclear stockpile (I think the French alone have something like 300 warheads).

Granted, sometimes the aircraft you have in the US are dual roled, and sometimes go to Europe, but sometimes go to the Pacific. OTOH, European based ones frequently go to the middle east, making the distinction somewhat moot.

It all makes US posturing about how much they spend on NATO pointless, because the vast majority of your military expenditure isnt spent on NATO at all, as you can figure out in 5 minutes looking by how few units they still have in Europe. You can thank Donald Rumsfled for taking your argument away about the US being indispensible for European defence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Europe_and_Africa#/media/File:US_Army_Europe_&_Africa_-_Organization_2023.png

This means, you leave NATO, you pull out of Europe, you would made a miniscule dent in that deficit you claim we are burning in your wallet, but would lose the vast majority of your weapons exports to Europe. Likely a net loss.

 

We discussed this before on the other thread, but I dont think its stuck.

 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Add these up. You add up ALL the NATO deployments, they come to 51926 troops.  If you add Japan, South Korea and Bahrain together, it comes to 85138. That of course doesnt include sailors at sea, but Im willing to bet the bulk of the deployments remain the Gulf, Sea of Aden and the Pacific.

You spent 3.4 percent of GDP in 2023. Let assume that these deployments inside and outside the NATO catchment area both equate to half the expenditure (and likely the deployments outside the NATO area are more costly than that, but lets go with this logic for a moment), then this could mean you are spending at most 1.7 percent of GDP on NATO. Which means Donald Trump will have to threaten to not to defend America for not meeting the NATO target. You would be almost level pegging with Germany.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures

 

 

https://vividmaps.com/united-states-military-deployments-mapped/

		1 Japan 55,666 2 Germany 36,160 3 South Korea 25,726 4 Italy 12,661 5 United Kingdom 9,766 6 Bahrain 3,746 7 Spain 3,108 8 Norway 2,593 9 Turkey 1,713 10 Belgium 1,137

[seahawk]

I think you are missing the point. Those graphics posted are the first shown when you google NATO spending USA. If you have "think tanks" intentionally publish data, that is misleading, then it tells you something about the stability of the US commitment, which imho is no longer given, as everything is dominated by the partisan struggle between the liberals and the Americans.

[Ssnake]

Also, military pensions included in US figures, not in most other countries.

[Stuart Galbraith]

If this is correct, then it would appear the US has 105200 troops deployed worldwide, outside of the NATO catchment area.

 

Including the 6.6 in Guam natch. Against whats listed as 64 thousand in NATO, I guess up a little bit up on previous years from supporting Ukraine.

However you look at it, you still have verging on twice as many troops deployed outside NATO as inside it. And this, other than the troops on Guam, isnt even including the troops you have deployed in the US, which is the real headspinner.

https://usafacts.org/articles/where-are-us-military-members-stationed-and-why/#:~:text=As of September 2023%2C the US had 2.63,troops across the 50 states and Washington%2C DC.

As of September 2023, the US had 2.63 million military personnel, including active-duty troops, reserve, and civilian workers stationed domestically.^[1] Of these, 1.14 million (3,294) were active-duty troops across the 50 states and Washington, DC. Roughly 60% of these troops were in five states: California (161,052 troops), Virginia (127,020), Texas (110,582), North Carolina (90,841), and Florida (65,159).

 

Yes, you actually have more US military personnel deployed in Florida than you do in the NATO catchment area. I mean I can entirely see why. We all have seen Red Dawn, and I bet those pinko bastards are just waiting to invade when you have your trousers down.

 

 

You still want to make the claim you are spending as much on NATO in GDP as the target?  Because you tot this up, there is absolutely no bloody way you are meeting the NATO 2 percent target.  You arent even keeping the ammunition stockpiles here like you once did, which would be at least something towards the expenditure on Europe.

 

Edited December 2, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[futon]

In the past decade, there's been a US-Japan defense relation concept discussed in Japanese security circles. It's what has been termed "Spear and Shield". Spear for attack. Shield for defense. Japan is quite capable of defending itself. And defending itself de facto means defending US bases and assets. Japan is the shield. The US goes out beyond and is postured for offensive activities such as any contingency about DPRK and Taiwan. The offensive posture is a big factor in deterrance - which lends itself as part of defense. However, that concept is blurring as Japan starts to pick up a role as part of the spear. 

So when say "defending Japan" it includes more than just literally defending only at Japanese soverign territory. But it also includes the offensive posturing. As the years come, the amount of offensive capability to deter China is going to increasingly become massive. The US can focus on offensive posturing as Japan strengthens shield role. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

We can play around with the term, but ultimately they are there guaranteeing Japanese security, whether they are needed in that role or not. They are the final line of Defence when Godzilla and Mothra turn up, let alone those Chicom bastards.

Truth be told, you probably dont need them there. A wing of TLAM's armed with nukes would be more than sufficient for the US in Japan. They are there probably for the reason you describe, and also because they are a useful throttle over Japanese political ambitions.

Not that its ostensibly said as such im sure, but if you ever started to develop nuclear weapons, or perchance one day some Japanese politician might say 'Lets take the Kuriles back and Make Japan Great Again', the US could say 'well we will withdraw our troops then.' Im sure its always an implicit concern of your politicians to keep them there for economic reasons, even ignoring the obvious military utility having them there.

And of course it annoys the PRC, which is perfectly a good enough reason to keep them there in itself I would have thought.

[futon]

6 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

We can play around with the term, but ultimately they are there guaranteeing Japanese security, whether they are needed in that role or not. They are the final line of Defence when Godzilla and Mothra turn up, let alone those Chicom bastards.

Truth be told, you probably dont need them there. A wing of TLAM's armed with nukes would be more than sufficient for the US in Japan. They are there probably for the reason you describe, and also because they are a useful throttle over Japanese political ambitions.

Not that its ostensibly said as such im sure, but if you ever started to develop nuclear weapons, or perchance one day some Japanese politician might say 'Lets take the Kuriles back and Make Japan Great Again', the US could say 'well we will withdraw our troops then.' Im sure its always an implicit concern of your politicians to keep them there for economic reasons, even ignoring the obvious military utility having them there.

And of course it annoys the PRC, which is perfectly a good enough reason to keep them there in itself I would have thought.

Take the Kuriles back? Oh geez.. Japan is a long way from thinking like that. 

Although Russia sort of opened up pandora's box didn't it. I'm sure the UK would support Japan actually. Ukraine already sort of has.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Id rather keep all our borders as they now are, even Korea's, it causes too much trouble to revisit it. Although yes, Ive more sympathy for Japans claim than I do Russia's, simply because there is hardly anyone living there, so its not going to inconvinience anyone other than a few fisherman. OTOH, Argentina said the same about the Falklands, so..

Well yes, thats just it. When you open the door of borders being subject to change, they all are. I could imagine a Mexico in 2200, armed up with drug cartel money and the burgenoning population of Mexicans and Haitians, having designs of Aztlan. After all, if Pancho Villa could do it....

 

[futon]

1 minute ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Id rather keep all our borders as they now are, even Korea's, it causes too much trouble to revisit it. Although yes, Ive more sympathy for Japans claim than I do Russia's, simply because there is hardly anyone living there, so its not going to inconvinience anyone other than a few fisherman. OTOH, Argentina said the same about the Falklands, so..

Well yes, thats just it. When you open the door of borders being subject to change, they all are. I could imagine a Mexico in 2200, armed up with drug cartel money and the burgenoning population of Mexicans and Haitians, having designs of Aztlan. After all, if Pancho Villa could do it....

 

Pursuit for peaceful Korean unification under RoK should be alive and ongoing and only cautioned if its going to be use to trigger a war on the peninsula. 

Honestly, I prefer 2 island for 2 island deal with Russia. It's just that current situation makes it untenable. So it'll have to wait. 

About ＜spooky＞ "Japanese politician ambitious that need to be throttled"..  for every Japanese flag flying in the country, there's probably 500 US flags flying in the US. Y'all don't understand the chasm the exists before reaching that point. 

[Rick]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

Also, military pensions included in US figures, not in most other countries.

Did not know this. Thank you.

[Murph]

5 hours ago, futon said:

In the past decade, there's been a US-Japan defense relation concept discussed in Japanese security circles. It's what has been termed "Spear and Shield". Spear for attack. Shield for defense. Japan is quite capable of defending itself. And defending itself de facto means defending US bases and assets. Japan is the shield. The US goes out beyond and is postured for offensive activities such as any contingency about DPRK and Taiwan. The offensive posture is a big factor in deterrance - which lends itself as part of defense. However, that concept is blurring as Japan starts to pick up a role as part of the spear. 

So when say "defending Japan" it includes more than just literally defending only at Japanese soverign territory. But it also includes the offensive posturing. As the years come, the amount of offensive capability to deter China is going to increasingly become massive. The US can focus on offensive posturing as Japan strengthens shield role. 

The US has a special relationship with Japan, WE made them adopt Article 9, so therefore it is incumbent upon us to live up to the obligation (giri) that we have to defend Japan.  Pure Giri in the sense of we made it, we own it.  Europe, not so much.  Europe can defend itself.  

[Murph]

6 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Also, military pensions included in US figures, not in most other countries.

THank you for that info, I did not know that.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 minute ago, Murph said:

The US has a special relationship with Japan, WE made them adopt Article 9, so therefore it is incumbent upon us to live up to the obligation (giri) that we have to defend Japan.  Pure Giri in the sense of we made it, we own it.  Europe, not so much.  Europe can defend itself.  

You also have a special relationship with the UK, we spent 27 billion on your misguided campaign in Afghanistan, you have access to our old imperial intelligence exchange system, by our permission, access to our base at Diego Garcia, and you are still saying you shouldnt defend any Europeans.

With that kind of precident, the Japanese should be bricking themselves. No wonder they are locked into buying outside the US for their next generation fighter aircraft.

[Murph]

And you did it of your own accord.  I don't recall any "or Else", but if there was please let me know, and I will be happy to concede that.  As for Diego Garcia, a nice base, which the UK has been nice to allow us to use, expand, pay for, build up, etc.  It is very well located for use against the derka derkas.  

 

We did not demand the UK eliminate its military like we did for the Japanese, in fact we have been paying for base expansions since 1940 something, and we also pay for upkeep at Holy Loch for the nuc subs.  We also did not tell the UK to downsize its military to essentially two battalions, one tank, and six APCs.  Or the Royal Navy to one carrier, and five escorts.  That, dear Sir, was completely on the UK governments since 1945 onward.  Less for defense, more for bread and circuses, and importing of those who hate you and your culture.

[futon]

8 hours ago, Murph said:

The US has a special relationship with Japan, WE made them adopt Article 9, so therefore it is incumbent upon us to live up to the obligation (giri) that we have to defend Japan.  Pure Giri in the sense of we made it, we own it.  Europe, not so much.  Europe can defend itself.  

A large portion of Japanese security concerns will be satisfied with that. One other factor I forgot to mention is the nuclear umbrella defense. 

 

[seahawk]

14 hours ago, Murph said:

The US has a special relationship with Japan, WE made them adopt Article 9, so therefore it is incumbent upon us to live up to the obligation (giri) that we have to defend Japan.  Pure Giri in the sense of we made it, we own it.  Europe, not so much.  Europe can defend itself.  

By joining NATO the US actually made a similar promise...

[Sinistar]

5 minutes ago, seahawk said:

By joining NATO the US actually made a similar promise...

 

excellent point

 

if we are seeing all around us that promises do not mean much longer than they are convenient, or that promises are made to be broken or that there is no

 

gauranteeing of what was promised to begin with will or ought to change

 

then that is the problems of promises

 

you want to believe the goodness of it

 

at the same time you see what really is going on and that the world does not operate that way

[seahawk]

Good point. The US needs to concentrate on the internal crisis it is facing and must not waste energy and resources on defending rich and lazy countries like Europe or Japan.

[Stuart Galbraith]

17 hours ago, Murph said:

And you did it of your own accord.  I don't recall any "or Else", but if there was please let me know, and I will be happy to concede that.  As for Diego Garcia, a nice base, which the UK has been nice to allow us to use, expand, pay for, build up, etc.  It is very well located for use against the derka derkas.  

 

We did not demand the UK eliminate its military like we did for the Japanese, in fact we have been paying for base expansions since 1940 something, and we also pay for upkeep at Holy Loch for the nuc subs.  We also did not tell the UK to downsize its military to essentially two battalions, one tank, and six APCs.  Or the Royal Navy to one carrier, and five escorts.  That, dear Sir, was completely on the UK governments since 1945 onward.  Less for defense, more for bread and circuses, and importing of those who hate you and your culture.

Nice deflection btw. You  havent once addressed your country not spending 2 percent on NATO, which, you know, you arent. Not even close. So dont wag your finger at me about having a pitiful army, when you are the ones that broke it, and your sole contribution to the defence of Europe are a few hollow formations that even the sodding Swiss army would walk over in a matter of hours.

 

No, it was not because 'of our own accord'. we did it because of an alliance of which you are a member invoked the article 5.  its what adults do when an alliance is invoked. Oh, lets not forget, there was some old tosh about a special relationship as well, Im sure you vaguely recall something about that. The one where we bend over backwards to give you everything you ask for, and you give us little to bugger all nothing.

Well, partly its down to the end of Empire, which was coming anyway, but your state department managed to speed things up during the Suez crisis (and helped generate an enemy of Israel for the next 20 years along the way.) Nearly overnight we went from a country of 250 plus million to one of 50. Do you not think Murph that along the way, having significantly less income, we might have to make some economies to our defence procurement? Why do you think we ended up keeping McDonnell Douglas in work, when we had so many proud aviation companies of our own? Economies of scale, yes?

Oh it is perfectly true politicians went too far. Even in Margaret Thatchers day we only had ammunition for a week of world war three. And of course the end of the cold war, everyone became dangerously over excited and cut too far.  These are all fairly easy to understand adjustments. I do not approve you understand, I merely set the context you neglect to contribute. You did it yourself.

And to accomodate your bloated demands for the war in the sandbox, we also went without a complete requipment cycle, just to generate as many light infantry as we could. The Unit patches in Afghanistan showing what were formerly mechanised brigades is a fairly strong clue what happened to the British Army. It was burned out, chasing terrorists around Afghanistan, taking more casualties than any of your other allies doing it, and now you say 'well you didnt have to do it, that was your own accord.' Im absolutely certain you, Tanknets Kitsap county militia and George Bush would have been exceptionally accomodating if we had told you to fuck off the week after 911.  I remember what you and Ryan were like back then. Baying for blood. I also remember how you talked about the French whom were significantly less accomodating to your Governments bloody silly ideas. Old Europe, as Rumsfeld and you guys called them.

And thats what happens when you are allies of America these days. You get chewed up, spat out, and then blamed for being so accomdating. I can see what John Le Carre meant about becoming America's streetwalkers, he was spot on.

There was no upkeep for Holy Loch. It was just a bloody depot ship moored in a Loch. Even the jetty your sailors alighted on was British. Did you know Harold Macmillan begged Eisenhower to change his mind about Holy Loch? Its just down the road from Glasgow, and if a nuclear weapon had undershot Holy Loch, it would have landed plumb on what was the second largest city in the country. Eisenhower (and this was the aftermath of Suez when we badly needed American forebearance on our wartime loans) wouldnt have any of it, because he wanted US Sailors to have good R and R in Glasgow. And that is pretty much how CND started in Britain. Did you know that? Probably not. Just think, your President Eisenhower likely helped generate Jeremy Corbyn

As for your understanding of what the British military still has, its as completely eroneous as some of you still delusionally believing you have V Corp waiting in the Fulda gap for 8th Guards Army. Thats whats happens when you get your understanding of Britain from the Torygraph or Tommy Robinson.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 3, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[seahawk]

The US does spent a lot more than 2%. Obviously the assets can be used outside of NATO, which the Europeans would be free to do too, if they would be spending enough.

Imho it is clear that there is an increasing tendency in the US to leave NATO behind. And to be honest a partnership depends on the partners wanting to be in the partnership. If this is no longer the case, it is best to end it.

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, seahawk said:

By joining NATO the US actually made a similar promise...

Yes, exactly.

I do wonder if these guys have figured out, you drop one alliance, everyone looks at you as if you are the people that break alliances. That results in a net loss of influence. In much the same way that America took 20 years to rebuild its international standing after Vietnam, its now in a similar position after Afghanistan. And the smart guys are determined to make that position even worse, just to prove they can be really creative in screwing up America's standing in the world.

2 hours ago, Sinistar said:

 

excellent point

 

if we are seeing all around us that promises do not mean much longer than they are convenient, or that promises are made to be broken or that there is no

 

gauranteeing of what was promised to begin with will or ought to change

 

then that is the problems of promises

 

you want to believe the goodness of it

 

at the same time you see what really is going on and that the world does not operate that way

Oh my, you really have a most feeble minded intellect dont you?

Promises last as long as you keep them. Yes, you can invoke the idea that no promises last. Britain made a pledge to defend France before WW1, and stuck to it in two wars. We did the same about Belgium. America too made a pledge after WW2, and stuck with it for 40 years. So clearly promises did mean something, and still do. At least, those of us born before the MTV generation, or kneel at the temple to the orange messiah anyway.

We might, by your token, be entering a cynical age where promises mean nothing because our politicians have become too stupid to appreciate them, but that to me is just your Russian mentors speaking. Promises and alliances mean something, because if we do not stick with them, there is no world order, and the worlds 195 nations are free to go to war with each other any time they like. Which with the feebleness of the UN, they would.

Maybe you want a multipolar world. Britain, France and Russia's alliance was a first effort to get away from that ridiculous lack of stability, and I see absolutely no reason to return to the world of Empires and Imperialism  just because some crazy old bastard in Russia with too much botox wants a free hand to rebuild his Empire.