The end of NATO - good for Europe?

[DB]

The UK defence spending figures generally include pensions but do not include capital spend on the nuclear deterrent (i.e. does include operating the SSBNs but does not include their design and construction).

It's not clear to me whether the percentage figure about the defence budget covers any or all of these things, or whether it is segregated into portions depending on whether they are a NATO commitment or not.

[FALightFighter]

23 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Here is how the USAEUR now looks today. Now if you have a better source, please post it up, and Ill be happy to acknowledge my failings.

Im counting a grand total of 6 Divisions on European soil. Which sounds a whole lot, until you realise,

They are primarily headquarters, with the vast bulk of their forces on the other side of the Atlantic. 2 Divisions are make up primarily of   logistics and communications troops.  One seems to control intelligence equipment. One is an air defence unit. One is made up of light infantry and a Strike Brigade, and the other division is largely keeping all its stuff on the other side of the Atlantic.

The Units that are here, are primarily support units. There are just 4 Brigades permanently that can be used in combat. 2nd Cavalry Regiment at Vilseck. 41st Field Artillery Brigade at Grafenwhor, 12th Combat Avn Bde at Ansbach, and 173rd Airborne in Vicenza.

I would include the Air Defence brigade at Sembach, but as about a third of it is in Turkey and Israel, Im not sure that really counts.

There IS the Atlantic resolve rotational forces you see on the chart. But they dont all seem to deploy at once, and seem to amount to no more than 6000 troops deployed at any one time. Which working it out, would seem likely to be part of the 64000 troops Ive already indicated.

https://www.europeafrica.army.mil/AtlanticResolve/

In any case, it seems to amount to 2 whole Brigades and an artillery brigade and a logistic brigade slated to Europe. Perhaps thats been enhanced since, but if so, Ive yet to see a source on it.

Yes, you could have maybe 1 whole division turn up after 'Reforger'. The point is, they are not there now, and as far as deterrence, clearly not contributing anything like what the Europeans are.  I keep hearing the huge amounts US taxpayers are spending on European defence. Can someone point it out where it please?

 

Yes, including the US. Which is, demonstrably, not spending the 2 percent its demanding from everyone else. You are perfectly right in slamming everyone not spending 2 percent on NATO, right after you acknowledge that you cannot possibly be doing it yourself when you look at where the bulk of your expenditure is going.

Fairly self evidently  the NATO catchment area is everywhere that isnt inside the area defined by the NATO treaty. Meaning, not Afghanistan, or poncing about in Africa or the middle east. USAEUR is split between Europe and Africa. Only the Spanish bits could possibly qualify as a NATO concern.

Reservists are part of your armed forces too, right? If a reservist in Europe can be counted as part of the Armed Forces, then why shouldnt we count yours? You presumably would be calling them up in any war with Russia. Fact remains, you have most of your forces in CONUS. All the Europeans have the vast majority of ours here. So Its far easier to calculate what we are putting into NATO than it is America. It looks entirely like the DOD is fudging its contribution when you look at where the vast majority of the troops are, the Pacific rim.

Even the UK until very recently was counting military pensions as part of its defence expenditure. Im reaasonably certain the US is doing the same thing. Its probably where Cameron got the idea from.

Your picture appears mostly correct as far as I can tell from open source reporting. Unfortunately, you don’t seem to have any idea how to interpret it.

 

There’s a division headquarters with 2 armored brigades, division artillery, and combat aviation brigade in Poland.Thats about 15,000 troops.

 

There’s an additional division headquarters, with a infantry brigade and a division artillery in Romania, about 4,000 troops.

 

In addition to the two brigades permanently stationed in Europe, you have 2 armored brigades, 2 infantry brigades, and a Stryker brigade, about 25,000 troops in maneuver brigades.

 

For all your blather, I don’t think anyone but maybe Poland could maintain that many troops deployed. And that doesn’t count anything not deployed, including mobilized reservists. My point on reservists is not that you were counting reservists unfairly, but that counting reservists who live and work in Florida as “deployed in” Florida is stupid. They live there, and can be mobilized and deployed as required.

Edited December 4, 2024 by FALightFighter

[Stuart Galbraith]

18 minutes ago, FALightFighter said:

Your picture appears mostly correct as far as I can tell from open source reporting. Unfortunately, you don’t seem to have any idea how to interpret it.

 

There’s a division headquarters with 2 armored brigades, division artillery, and combat aviation brigade in Poland.Thats about 15,000 troops.

 

There’s an additional division headquarters, with a infantry brigade and a division artillery in Romania, about 4,000 troops.

 

In addition to the two brigades permanently stationed in Europe, you have 2 armored brigades, 2 infantry brigades, and a Stryker brigade, about 25,000 troops in maneuver brigades.

 

For all your blather, I don’t think anyone but maybe Poland could maintain that many troops deployed. And that doesn’t count anything not deployed, including mobilized reservists. My point on reservists is not that you were counting reservists unfairly, but that counting reservists who live and work in Florida as “deployed in” Florida is stupid. They live there, and can be mobilized and deployed as required.

There is a Division headquarters in Poland, and according to the video I posted they claim they rotate 6000 troops at a time. Now whether there is overlap and there is in fact some forces retained from the previous troop rotation, im not sure. But its fairly clearly said on that video, 6000 troops every rotation, every 9 months. Now if you have a source for that 15000, please, post it up, then I can poke it with a stick. I am genuinely interested.  I can only imagine its inclusive of the 4 Brigades you seem to have in Europe, not how many you actually have in Poland.

Yes, im perfectly happy agreeing with you there are up to 4 or 5 divisional commands in Europe, I even said so. What im pointing out is that whilst there is a lot of divisional commands, there are just 4 US brigades on hand to utilize them. They do nothing for the defence of Europe, unless further combat commands are dispatched in wartime. They do nothing for deterrence purposes. Im not even sure they are even really useful for hand holding, which presumably is their intent.

Yes, for all my blather,  it actually turns out im likely right. But dont worry, I wont press you to concede that, because nobody else does either.

Your land contribution to the defence of Europe is  trivial compared to some of the smaller NATO members. Even Estonia can put more combat brigades in the field than that. You do make up slightly for it in airforces you have 2 wings full time in europe, and one in the UK, and one in Turkey. That amounts to, if my calculations are correct, something like 144 combat aircraft, just 7 more than the RAF can contribute Typhoons, minus the 37 or so F35's we now posess. And lets not forget, the RAF is regarded as the sick man of Europes air defence forces. Also, any of the aircraft you have here are still F16's, when several European airforces have completed the transition to F35.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britains-typhoon-fleet-counts-and-variants-revealed/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Forces_in_Europe_–_Air_Forces_Africa

Ill happily concede the airlift capacity is genuinely useful. Is it a capability that Europe, if it pulled its airlift capacity, couldnt do itself? Probably not. I dont see it as a gamechanger.

 You can say im playing with National guardsman figures, fine, if you say so,  but if so, tis trivial compared to some of you guys that have seemingly convinced yourself you still have 11 armoured Divisions sat in Europe, and we Europeans are running up your credit card again and laughing at you.

You are buying and spreading a poisonous line of rhetoric from your polticians that understand your armed forces even less than you do. I dont blame them for pulling your chain, but I can and do blame you guys for not doing basic fact checking before gobbing off at us Europeans for not pulling our weight, before looking at how little pulling you guys are doing yourself.

Ill leave it there. Ive work to do, and you guys are never going to admit how little you are really doing, because its contrary to the narrative, and heavens forgive anyone that ever contradicts the Tanknet narrative.

 

 

[Murph]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No Murph, but you happily round on people that do that tell you you are wrong that certainly have delved deeply into it. For my sins Ive spent a lifetime reading up on the cold war, and NATO's part in it. I dont consider myself graduate standard, but I can see all the holes in your arguments.

You didnt spend any money propping up European Governments. By the 1960's they were more than able to prop themselves up, and repay what you spent on the Marshall plan by being good customers, in all kinds of goods, not least military equipment.

The problem with you guys, you think purely in fiscal terms. You forget there is a structure to the international security order that goes far beyond what money is spent on it. My father said it best, defence is the insurance policy you never want to pay out. You are calculating on purely fiscal cost, and forgetting the alternative, war, and what the lack of security that follows will mean to your economy, maybe even your lives.

 

I will politely disagree Stuart.  Apparently the head of NATO went to "lay the law down to Trump" over the US/NATO relationship and made some threats.  As for my opinions, I would direct you to Derek Leebaert's masterpiece of work: The Fifty Year Wound; The True Price of the Cold War, which details the US paying for Europe.  After reading Dr. Leebaert's work, I find that the scales have dropped from my eyes, and I see clearly, very clearly.   Perhaps the most perceptive book on the Cold War yet written.

https://www.amazon.com/Fifty-Year-Wound-Americas-Victory/dp/0316518476/ref=sr_1_4?crid=32EJ9NYK92M8V&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.oFZq8i0150hR5ikY83RUC-lyUh3iHDK7wBOKGFUr-PSVRTEp1MPUOpDObQrT1NMJWnp8UFzz7Yg-lMpptYCYLSgpRXG5QYikMGH9mH7jOibxn_wf01jWR54QaD0oeLspbqSv7_MvBRBUHs-WlmFS2p7MbKx00yGfXkh_bv-8X1f6oDBFfcu0MAPvpDWSHFevqIMLAyxhxziN-OKrnzSx0w-yWtVL_Nqx3kgJzNIC7ug.A320oGL_H7nXrlHaE56r8KgPheW2u1KgfNezqhZupxg&dib_tag=se&keywords=Derek+Leebaert&qid=1733323740&sprefix=derek+leebaert%2Caps%2C150&sr=8-4

 

[Murph]

Yes, Stuart, every single bomber, sub and ICBM contributes to Europes defense.  It is patently silly to think otherwise.  And Yes, I look at the cost the US has paid compared to our European brethren who always told us: "We cannot pay more, because if we do our economies will get weak, and the communists will take over".  The same excuse for 50+ years, well I am tired of being the bank.

[seahawk]

2 hours ago, Murph said:

Yes, Stuart, every single bomber, sub and ICBM contributes to Europes defense.  It is patently silly to think otherwise.  And Yes, I look at the cost the US has paid compared to our European brethren who always told us: "We cannot pay more, because if we do our economies will get weak, and the communists will take over".  The same excuse for 50+ years, well I am tired of being the bank.

Well, there is another way of looking at it. If you believe the Russian  narrative, that they feel threatened by NATO and if we assume that the US provides the muscle of NATO, how threatened would Russia feel by a NATO without the US. And would that not reduce the threat to Europe?

[urbanoid]

Just now, seahawk said:

Well, there is another way of looking at it. If you believe the Russian  narrative, that they feel threatened by NATO and if we assume that the US provides the muscle of NATO, how threatened would Russia feel by a NATO without the US. And would that not reduce the threat to Europe?

Just as much, as long as 'EuroNATO' maintained an open door policy without regard to 'historic Russian lands' and 'rightful sphere of influence' bullshit, which it should.

[Murph]

3 minutes ago, seahawk said:

Well, there is another way of looking at it. If you believe the Russian  narrative, that they feel threatened by NATO and if we assume that the US provides the muscle of NATO, how threatened would Russia feel by a NATO without the US. And would that not reduce the threat to Europe?

Probably in the short run, long run? Who knows.  

[seahawk]

29 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Just as much, as long as 'EuroNATO' maintained an open door policy without regard to 'historic Russian lands' and 'rightful sphere of influence' bullshit, which it should.

Which it most likely would not, because it would not be in the interest of Europe to be in conflict with Russia.

[urbanoid]

2 hours ago, seahawk said:

Which it most likely would not, because it would not be in the interest of Europe to be in conflict with Russia.

In such a scenario my vote would be for Polish nuclear program, even if I had to 'eat less'.

[seahawk]

7 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

In such a scenario my vote would be for Polish nuclear program, even if I had to 'eat less'.

That would make a lot of sense.

[R011]

12 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Im sorry, this is pure semantics. The US defends itself not as part as NATO, but as an action of its own Soverignty. It would continue to do so without a blip if it left NATO.

NATO was hardly setup to defend CONUS from attack. Unless you mean Canada, although that was very much a case of protecting the US from Strategic bombers. Nobody really conceived the Russians were going to invade it, anymore than they might invade the US.

 

Perhaps, but the only time Article V was ever invoked was because of attacks on the Continental United States.  NATO does not equal Europe alone 

[FALightFighter]

12 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

There is a Division headquarters in Poland, and according to the video I posted they claim they rotate 6000 troops at a time. Now whether there is overlap and there is in fact some forces retained from the previous troop rotation, im not sure. But it’s fairly clearly said on that video, 6000 troops every rotation, every 9 months. Now if you have a source for that 15000, please, post it up, then I can poke it with a stick. I am genuinely interested.  I can only imagine it’s inclusive of the 4 Brigades you seem to have in Europe, not how many you actually have in Poland.

In all seriousness, are you ok? Because you seem to be having a tough time grasping reality. You do realize that the video you posted was ~2-1/2 years old, and the most recent update to the articles beside it was more than 18mos ago, right?

I’m not going to do all of your research for you, but I think the current and next Armored BCT rotations, heel-to-toe rotations (meaning no gaps between units, or continuous presence), are 3/1Armored Division, which replaced 3/4Infantry Division this week (https://www.army.mil/article/281756/the_1st_armored_divisions_bulldog_brigade_assumes_authority_from_task_force_iron_in_poland) and 1/3Infantry Division, which will deploy in January (https://coastalcourier.com/news/3rd-ids-1st-brigade-head-back-europe-early-next-year/). I couldn’t quickly determine who 1/3ID is replacing, but I’m sure you can with a little googling.

That’s two armored BCTs exactly what’s shown in your picture that you didn’t bother to read.

 

12 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, im perfectly happy agreeing with you there are up to 4 or 5 divisional commands in Europe, I even said so. What im pointing out is that whilst there is a lot of divisional commands, there are just 4 US brigades on hand to utilize them. They do nothing for the defence of Europe, unless further combat commands are dispatched in wartime. They do nothing for deterrence purposes. Im not even sure they are even really useful for hand holding, which presumably is their intent.

Blah blah blah. “Divisional commands”? Do you mean Divisions? Let’s be precise. You looked at the picture that shows 6 (not 4-5) two-star headquarters (note, not divisions), and the started babbling about “logistics and communications troops.  One seems to control intelligence equipment. One is an air defence unit. One is made up of light infantry and a Strike Brigade” while ignoring the two divisions that are actually important to your argument. Yes, they are rotational- we’re deploying trained units, without the distraction of dependents, to deter and exercise.

12 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, for all my blather,  it actually turns out im likely right. But dont worry, I wont press you to concede that, because nobody else does either.

I’m not going to concede, because you are flat out wrong. I don’t know if your stupid, crazy, or just contrary and obtuse, but you’re flat out wrong.

 

12 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Your land contribution to the defence of Europe is  trivial compared to some of the smaller NATO members. Even Estonia can put more combat brigades in the field than that. …..

Again, you’re just wrong. The Estonian land forces field a rump division, with two brigades and only 4 active and two reserve infantry battalions. Your own picture, if you had bothered to count, shows 4 armored battalions, 2 Bradley battalions, 3 Stryker battalions, and 5 infantry battalions (either air assault or airborne). Not3 I’m only counting what is actually in Europe, not the third airborne battalion that is a national guard unit. So, 4th grade math, 14 battalions vs 6. You’re comparison is just silly.

 

12 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 You can say im playing with National guardsman figures, fine, if you say so,  but if so, tis trivial compared to some of you guys that have seemingly convinced yourself you still have 11 armoured Divisions sat in Europe, and we Europeans are running up your credit card again and laughing at you.

I’m only challenging the bullshit you’re throwing around. I’m a professional, and know exactly what we have. And realize that the sustainment infrastructure is WAY more important than combat troops, which we can deploy fairly rapidly should the need arise. But only effectively if the support infrastructure is in place.

 

12 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

You are buying and spreading a poisonous line of rhetoric from your polticians that understand your armed forces even less than you do. I dont blame them for pulling your chain, but I can and do blame you guys for not doing basic fact checking before gobbing off at us Europeans for not pulling our weight, before looking at how little pulling you guys are doing yourself.

Ill leave it there. Ive work to do, and you guys are never going to admit how little you are really doing, because its contrary to the narrative, and heavens forgive anyone that ever contradicts the Tanknet narrative.

All this is just more blah blah blah bullshit. You’re free to take a look at the facts and form your own opinion. But don’t get the facts wrong when you make your assessment. I’m not following any narrative, just looking at facts and correcting you’re skewed analysis.

[Stuart Galbraith]

6 hours ago, FALightFighter said:

In all seriousness, are you ok? Because you seem to be having a tough time grasping reality. You do realize that the video you posted was ~2-1/2 years old, and the most recent update to the articles beside it was more than 18mos ago, right?

I’m not going to do all of your research for you, but I think the current and next Armored BCT rotations, heel-to-toe rotations (meaning no gaps between units, or continuous presence), are 3/1Armored Division, which replaced 3/4Infantry Division this week (https://www.army.mil/article/281756/the_1st_armored_divisions_bulldog_brigade_assumes_authority_from_task_force_iron_in_poland) and 1/3Infantry Division, which will deploy in January (https://coastalcourier.com/news/3rd-ids-1st-brigade-head-back-europe-early-next-year/). I couldn’t quickly determine who 1/3ID is replacing, but I’m sure you can with a little googling.

That’s two armored BCTs exactly what’s shown in your picture that you didn’t bother to read.

 

Blah blah blah. “Divisional commands”? Do you mean Divisions? Let’s be precise. You looked at the picture that shows 6 (not 4-5) two-star headquarters (note, not divisions), and the started babbling about “logistics and communications troops.  One seems to control intelligence equipment. One is an air defence unit. One is made up of light infantry and a Strike Brigade” while ignoring the two divisions that are actually important to your argument. Yes, they are rotational- we’re deploying trained units, without the distraction of dependents, to deter and exercise.

I’m not going to concede, because you are flat out wrong. I don’t know if your stupid, crazy, or just contrary and obtuse, but you’re flat out wrong.

 

Again, you’re just wrong. The Estonian land forces field a rump division, with two brigades and only 4 active and two reserve infantry battalions. Your own picture, if you had bothered to count, shows 4 armored battalions, 2 Bradley battalions, 3 Stryker battalions, and 5 infantry battalions (either air assault or airborne). Not3 I’m only counting what is actually in Europe, not the third airborne battalion that is a national guard unit. So, 4th grade math, 14 battalions vs 6. You’re comparison is just silly.

 

I’m only challenging the bullshit you’re throwing around. I’m a professional, and know exactly what we have. And realize that the sustainment infrastructure is WAY more important than combat troops, which we can deploy fairly rapidly should the need arise. But only effectively if the support infrastructure is in place.

 

All this is just more blah blah blah bullshit. You’re free to take a look at the facts and form your own opinion. But don’t get the facts wrong when you make your assessment. I’m not following any narrative, just looking at facts and correcting you’re skewed analysis.

You can keep blah blahing all you like. The fact is, I told you that you have 4 brigades to defend Europe, and you found one more. Kudo's to you. Im sure thats going to make all the difference when WW3 starts. I said 4 brigades, you said 11 Divisions. You really want to debate further whom was closer to the truth here, because I really dont see it adding much to the debate, do you?

12 hours ago, R011 said:

Perhaps, but the only time Article V was ever invoked was because of attacks on the Continental United States.  NATO does not equal Europe alone 

You are right, except at no time was NATO ever in combat to defend America, until the US invoked that article 5. Put simply, the Twin Towers only really became a NATO concern after they were knocked down. They were certainly not defending them before, and nobody requested they should.

Yes, its true, every city in North America  is part of that treaty. But at no point does NATO have forces on the ground (or even in the air) defending them. These are purely a bilateral concern. Nor has Canada or America ever expressed interest in that happening, even after 911. We are now 23 years after after 911, and there are, as best I can tell, still no NATO personnel at NORAD.

I can think of only one exception to this rule, which is the US Second Fleet, for which the commander is dual hatted as Commander for Joint Force Command for the Atlantic, whom reports to SACEUR. Im uncertain whether that is all the time, or that 2nd Fleet only comes under NATO when the command staff or the President decree's it so.

 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[sunday]

6 hours ago, FALightFighter said:

I’m not going to concede, because you are flat out wrong. I don’t know if your stupid, crazy, or just contrary and obtuse, but you’re flat out wrong.

Stuarting is a thing.

[Stuart Galbraith]

17 hours ago, Murph said:

Yes, Stuart, every single bomber, sub and ICBM contributes to Europes defense.  It is patently silly to think otherwise.  And Yes, I look at the cost the US has paid compared to our European brethren who always told us: "We cannot pay more, because if we do our economies will get weak, and the communists will take over".  The same excuse for 50+ years, well I am tired of being the bank.

No Murph, it absolutely doesnt. And your country acknowledged that fact as long ago as the 1980's with the deployment of Gryphon Ground Launch Cruise Missiles and Pershing 2. If you had the intent of using your ICBMs for the defence of Europe, then there was absolutely no reason to do so. Even now you are going ahead with a sea launched TLAM with a nuclear warhead for the INF mission, since Trump (logically) withdrew from it. Now, if you have the intent to fire those minuteman missiles the very moment Russia lobs a nuclear weapon on a European city, then why do you need the sealaunched theatre capability?

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12084

The words '“non-strategic regional presence”  and “need for flexible and low-yield options'' fair leap out the page here. Its basically saying, ''we want the ability to go nuclear, without firing them from CONUS.''

There is a seperation between European defence and European defence. Even the French would seem to make that distinction with their seaborne nuclear deterrent, which was, last I checked,  not part of NATO, only if they ever choose to make it so. Ours is. It was part of the Polaris agreement between Kennedy and Macmillan at Nassau that our nuclear deterrent would be pledged to NATO. And so it remains, though we can still use it for national missions if we wish.

 

Edited December 5, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

18 hours ago, Murph said:

I will politely disagree Stuart.  Apparently the head of NATO went to "lay the law down to Trump" over the US/NATO relationship and made some threats.  As for my opinions, I would direct you to Derek Leebaert's masterpiece of work: The Fifty Year Wound; The True Price of the Cold War, which details the US paying for Europe.  After reading Dr. Leebaert's work, I find that the scales have dropped from my eyes, and I see clearly, very clearly.   Perhaps the most perceptive book on the Cold War yet written.

https://www.amazon.com/Fifty-Year-Wound-Americas-Victory/dp/0316518476/ref=sr_1_4?crid=32EJ9NYK92M8V&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.oFZq8i0150hR5ikY83RUC-lyUh3iHDK7wBOKGFUr-PSVRTEp1MPUOpDObQrT1NMJWnp8UFzz7Yg-lMpptYCYLSgpRXG5QYikMGH9mH7jOibxn_wf01jWR54QaD0oeLspbqSv7_MvBRBUHs-WlmFS2p7MbKx00yGfXkh_bv-8X1f6oDBFfcu0MAPvpDWSHFevqIMLAyxhxziN-OKrnzSx0w-yWtVL_Nqx3kgJzNIC7ug.A320oGL_H7nXrlHaE56r8KgPheW2u1KgfNezqhZupxg&dib_tag=se&keywords=Derek+Leebaert&qid=1733323740&sprefix=derek+leebaert%2Caps%2C150&sr=8-4

 

Reading the blub, nobody is saying Americans didnt make a sacrifice to win the cold war. The ones that fair leap out at me is the 58220 of your armed forces you lost in Vietnam, a sacrifice I respect the more I read about it. They clearly made a contribution to winning the cold war, if only by running down the communists who were dumping resources into it, but nobody would suggest they were propping up Europe doing it. They were not even propping up a French colonial power, because the French had already left. Your soirre's in Africa and South America in the 1970's and 1980's supporting this rebel group and that, also contributed nothing to European security.  Neither did spending all that money supplying the mudjeheddin. Neither should I had, did Britain fighting the falklands war. All these conflicts were framed by the cold war, but contributed virtually nothing to European security, even if they all built, inexorably, towards the successful conclusion of the Cold War.

And lets stop and think of some of those sacrifices the US Public made, and what they ultimately mean. They made Boeing the most powerful aviation company in the world, a position it still enjoys today, despite their best efforts to fuck it up. It made you the worlds leading shipbuilder for 20 years after WW2. It made you the worlds second largest weapon supplier, a position you likely still retain. It created the growth in the American computer industry you are still a world leader at some 60 years later. it made you a world leading chipmaker, a lead you are striving to bring back for the same reasons you got it in the first place, defence procurement. It gave you everything from Pot noodles to teflon frying pans.  It gave us the internet. It made you a space power, and you remain even now a world leader at it.

Is that really a sacrifice? If it is, surely not as large a one as the Europeans that lost their colonial Empires and went from first rank world powers to pawns in someone elses game, buying your weapons for the most part because they were the only game left in town. You became a first rank world power and the opportunities that gave you, we Europeans became also rans.

Which is why I find all this chest beating from the redhats, about how they should never fought WW2, never became involved in European affairs, deeply repellent. You won. You became first rank, the American  dream came through for you. That you then squandered it is on you guys, not us.

Just another 'stabbed in the back ' myth when you get down to it.

Edited December 5, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[FALightFighter]

16 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

You can keep blah blahing all you like. The fact is, I told you that you have 4 brigades to defend Europe, and you found one more. Kudo's to you. Im sure thats going to make all the difference when WW3 starts. I said 4 brigades, you said 11 Divisions. You really want to debate further whom was closer to the truth here, because I really dont see it adding much to the debate, do you?

You really are delusional, aren’t you. Your 4 brigade count is a dog’s breakfast of the two BCTs stationed in Europe and trying to lump FA and ADA (I think, but it may be aviation instead of one of them) with them while ignoring the three rotational BCTs, two rotational DIVARTYs, a rotational aviation brigade, and the rest of the infrastructure that is FAR more important to the theater than combat units.

Yes, I stand by my 11 division statement. The only US division that can’t deploy to Europe is the 2d Infantry Division in Korea. The 25th is unlikely to do so, but even the 11th Airborne in Alaska has exercised in NATO. And that’s just active duty- I didn’t include the 8 National Guard divisions.

I’ll ask again, in all seriousness, are you ok?

[seahawk]

There is no reason to attack Stuart, he is just a typical European used to getting free security provided by the US.

[Stuart Galbraith]

7 hours ago, FALightFighter said:

You really are delusional, aren’t you. Your 4 brigade count is a dog’s breakfast of the two BCTs stationed in Europe and trying to lump FA and ADA (I think, but it may be aviation instead of one of them) with them while ignoring the three rotational BCTs, two rotational DIVARTYs, a rotational aviation brigade, and the rest of the infrastructure that is FAR more important to the theater than combat units.

Yes, I stand by my 11 division statement. The only US division that can’t deploy to Europe is the 2d Infantry Division in Korea. The 25th is unlikely to do so, but even the 11th Airborne in Alaska has exercised in NATO. And that’s just active duty- I didn’t include the 8 National Guard divisions.

I’ll ask again, in all seriousness, are you ok?

Still only 6000 troops, rotated every 9 months. Im still waiting for that to sink in...

Im fine, im not the one that convinced himself you still have 11 Divisions ready for Europe.

Tell me, when was the last Reforger you ran? What is your sealift capacity for getting Divisions across to Europe in a hurry? Do you see a yawning problem here that nobody wants to talk about? It took you over 6 months to lift a corp to the middle east in 1990.  Try and do that now.

[seahawk]

The need to transport US troops is not an need the US has, but a result of insufficient forces the Europeans are fielding. If the Europeans would field 3 armoured corps, there would be no need for US troops.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, seahawk said:

There is no reason to attack Stuart, he is just a typical European used to getting free security provided by the US.

Oh seahawk, thanks for the assistance. I think.

Its really quite simple, the Americans have a crude metaphor, shit, or get off the pot. I see a lot of pretending that the US are ready to defend Europe, but it doesnt go too far because they are frightened of pissing off people like Ryan and Murph, or worse, the Kremlin. But they dont dare withdraw, because it would tank their defence industry and likely spark a war.

So we have an inconsistent middling approach where they vaguely pretend to defend us, and we pretend not to be too needy. That will work, right up to Putin fails to be deterred, which he has been regularly every decade this century so far.In short, something different needs to happen, or the same mistakes that led up to the Ukraine war are going to happen again.

I dont want Ameriacns to defend us. I just want them to help deter the next war in Europe. Thats all. I dont want 11 mythical divisions after WW3 starts. I dont want firedragons or men of steel. I just want a single sodding division sat in Poland permanently on hand to help (which is about what Britain sustained in Afghanistan for 20 years, so Its not a big ask) to stop that war happening.

And it doesnt even need to be a good one. You can take all the engines out out the tanks and push around cardboard cutouts if you wish. Understaff it, and fill it with Sgt Bilko's if you will Just as long as the Russians believe its real, thats all that is necessary.

Im not asking for a cold war era contribution. That is never what ive asked for or expected. Its not even necessary. You think 6000 troops rotated every 9 months is adequate? It isnt. Its basically the same response to Russia pre 2022, and clearly, that failed.

Edited December 6, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

22 minutes ago, seahawk said:

The need to transport US troops is not an need the US has, but a result of insufficient forces the Europeans are fielding. If the Europeans would field 3 armoured corps, there would be no need for US troops.

Yes there would, because America is only one of 3 nuclear powers in NATO. Short of giving the Polish nuclear weapons (not such a bad idea actually), then someone has to man up and put forces in Poland or Romania, if only to be a nuclear tripwire.

It doesnt even have to be many. if you believe a nuclear exchange could begin with 2 battalions, a single Divisions on hand is enough. Britain and France could contribute that much, and probably should. But the French are probably on the brink of electing a fascist regime that wants to dump NATO even more than Trump does (and lets not forget, they did leave the combined command staff for 25 years, so its not an idle concern) , and the British, as per usual, are broke. So who else is there?

Edited December 6, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[FALightFighter]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Still only 6000 troops, rotated every 9 months. Im still waiting for that to sink in...

Im fine, im not the one that convinced himself you still have 11 Divisions ready for Europe.

Tell me, when was the last Reforger you ran? What is your sealift capacity for getting Divisions across to Europe in a hurry? Do you see a yawning problem here that nobody wants to talk about? It took you over 6 months to lift a corp to the middle east in 1990.  Try and do that now.

An armored brigade is closer to 5000, and there are 2 of them, plus an air assault brigade of similar size and an aviation brigade, BEFORE we start talking about the Stryker, Airborne, Field Artillery and Aviation brigades already stationed in Europe. We’ve already plowed the ground of your (intentional) misunderstanding that dated website, that was only talking about one operation, not all of USAREUR-AF.

And I’ll address your complaints about USAREUR-AF, too, since it’s just pissing and moaning. Throughout the ColdWar, the US had only one combatant command (USEUCOM, the four-star joint command) for all of Europe and Africa. Its service component commands (not just Army, but Navy, Air Force and USMC, too) were likewise responsible for both continents. In ~2005, we created a new combatant command, USAFRICOM, but only the Army created a separate service component command. Recently, we recombined the separate Army service component headquarters, returning to the exact same situation we had through the Cold War for the Army service components. But somehow, because you’re having a bad spell or want to snivel and whine, that’s now a problem.

I don’t think we have 11 divisions “ready for Europe”, so stop changing my words and moving the goalposts. What I actually said was that 11 of 12 ACTIVE US divisions are on NATO soil, since you erroneously claimed that we only have one there. US is NATO, asI consistently corrected my peers on two different NATO assignments that spoke as if NATO is some external entity that we were helping instead of something we are an original component of.

Your last paragraph goes back to your fundamental misunderstanding of how things work.Whats important is the sustainment and C2 infrastructure to support the corps, not the combat troops. It took so long in the Middle East in 1990 precisely because that infrastructure didn’t exist, and it was a field army of three corps (2 Army and 1 USMC), not a corps. And the theater army, corps and sustainment command in Europe already have much of that infrastructure in place, we’re just talking moving the combat troops.

And since you decided to bring up corps now, let’s talk about that. Is there any European country that can even field a corps, with all the required corps troops? I don’t think so. Outside the US, NATO has these cute little “multinational corps” that are barely a headquarters for several divisions- no corps level troops, ADA, field artillery, sustainment, signal, logistics, engineer, military police, etc, etc ad nauseum.

[seahawk]

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes there would, because America is only one of 3 nuclear powers in NATO. Short of giving the Polish nuclear weapons (not such a bad idea actually), then someone has to man up and put forces in Poland or Romania, if only to be a nuclear tripwire.

It doesnt even have to be many. if you believe a nuclear exchange could begin with 2 battalions, a single Divisions on hand is enough. Britain and France could contribute that much, and probably should. But the French are probably on the brink of electing a fascist regime that wants to dump NATO even more than Trump does (and lets not forget, they did leave the combined command staff for 25 years, so its not an idle concern) , and the British, as per usual, are broke. So who else is there?

Why should the US get involved in a nuclear war in Europe?