The end of NATO - good for Europe?

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, seahawk said:

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

Well, I think thats entirely the reason why they are moving towards TLAM delivered nukes rather than writing in Minuteman to the defence of Europe. And I understand that really, they want to create a firebreak, and thats fine. It just does no good trying to pretend strategic assets for the defence purely of the United States should be counted towards their contribution to NATO. It hasnt been the case since the 1960's when McNamara swept his broom about. The last time you can say a US strategic asset was directly for the defence of Europe was the Jupiter Missiles in Turkey, and we all remember the kind of mayhem THOSE caused.

[seahawk]

There I have to strongly disagree. In the end the weapon system does not matter, the intended target does. Obviously the Russians would not care if Moscow is hit by a TLAM or a minuteman. A NATO nuke hitting Moscow would surely always trigger the Russians to fire their full arsenal, which would also be aimed at the USA. 

So for this to work, USA would have to communicate to Moscow, that Russia hitting certain targets will only be answered by certain weapons against certain targets. Now we can be certain that France and the UK would respond in kind to a Russian nuke hitting their soil it means that the all non nuke NATO nations or some of them would be "acceptable" targets for a limited nuclear exchange, kind like Germany in the early Cold War. If that happens, I will gladly pay 5% more income tax to pay for a Polish bomb and a EU nuke force. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

20 minutes ago, seahawk said:

There I have to strongly disagree. In the end the weapon system does not matter, the intended target does. Obviously the Russians would not care if Moscow is hit by a TLAM or a minuteman. A NATO nuke hitting Moscow would surely always trigger the Russians to fire their full arsenal, which would also be aimed at the USA. 

 

Im not sure. The Russians have some really odd ways they look at nuclear weapons. For example, one book I have suggested in 2009 they wargamed nuking Norfolk, Virginia. With a tactical weapon, presumably a cruise missile. Ostensibly the idea was that if they hit America with a tactical weapon, the US might not hit back with a strategic weapon. Which is an interesting argument, that somehow I dont really see standing up in a crisis. But hey, it was what they were wargaming. Maybe they even believe it.

In the end, the Americans want the ability to go nuclear, but they dont want to flip a minuteman or a Trident. For us, it doesnt make a lot of difference, because if there is a nuclear war in Europe, we are going to be in it, so the mode of delivery doesnt much matter. Thats why we have sub megaton warheads on some Tridents. The Americans were also experimenting with the idea in the War on Terror, because they thought they might have to nuke Johnny Taliban. Fortunately wiser heads prevailed. But in a war with Russia? Very good reasons why they wont want to flip their primary nuclear force, because its just about conceivable in their minds you can decouple a nuclear war from attacks on America, by keeping it all in Europe.

Im not saying its a good plan, or even a workable one. But that seems to be the American and Russian logic, and its all running on rails again. Even the Oresnik missile, if its not a complete fraud as many suspect it is, is a step towards rebuilding the SS20 force. If they can manage it still of course.

Quote

So for this to work, USA would have to communicate to Moscow, that Russia hitting certain targets will only be answered by certain weapons against certain targets. Now we can be certain that France and the UK would respond in kind to a Russian nuke hitting their soil it means that the all non nuke NATO nations or some of them would be "acceptable" targets for a limited nuclear exchange, kind like Germany in the early Cold War. If that happens, I will gladly pay 5% more income tax to pay for a Polish bomb and a EU nuke force. 

Well.. I was wargaming this in my head. There is a very good reason why the US probably cant stay out of a European nuclear war, and Ill tell you.

Lets say the British Prime minister rings up the American President. 'I say, terrible thing. Birmingham has been attacked by nuclear weapons.' (Im sure many of you wouldnt regard this as a terrible thing, but lets assume for the moment it is).

(sound of Hamburger muching) 'Gee, terrible thing mac. So what do you want me to do about it?'

'Well I was thinking, you might want to attack the Russians with us...'

(sound of spluttering and freedom fries dropped on the floor) 'Hey, are you crazy? You want my nice country getting messed up and all?'

Now assuming this occurs, thereis a gambit the British prime minister can play. He could say 'well, if you wont come along with me, I can park my SSBN's off the East Coast of the US, and salvo my missiles. Russia will come to the conclusion those Trident missiles are yours, and respond accordingly.'

So, one of two things occurs. The Americans go along with the British, and alliance solidarity is maintained. Or the American President rings up the Russian president saying the British PM has gone mad, and America isnt remotely thinking of using nuclear weapons. At which point the Russian President is distinctly shit up, which might have all kinds of strange political effects we can barely dream of.

At that point it really makes no difference whether the Americans commit or not. They will be dragged into the war, whether they like it or not. Probably not.  The French could do the same of course. I somehow doubt the Russians will be able to tell the difference between a Trident and a M51. After all, if Stanislav Petrov couldnt tell the difference between a cloud and a missile strike, there is good reason to think its probably impossible to tell what kind of flag is painted on the side of a missile.

So, functionally I dont think the Americans can decouple themselves from a European theatre nuclear war, even if some might delude themselves they can. OTOH, there is good evidence they still do think this is a possiblity. Either than or they are just making work for the arms companies.

Edited December 6, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[Murph]

And Stuart, your scenario is typical European dragging the US into wars we have no interest in, that are just European dynastic squabbles.  As usual, going back all the way to WWI, and before.  Or, we could sink your four subs, and be done with it to prevent you from starting a war that (as usual) you want the US to come in and deal with.  See WWI and WWII for reference.  I am thinking Admiral King was more correct than I knew.

[rmgill]

‘Beware of foreign entanglements.’
 

Wasn’t that Jefferson? 

[R011]

It may soon be time to re-activate Seventh (US) Army along the Inner Ukrainian Border, and ask when the British Army of the Dnepr is going to join them,  but at the moment, the US seems to have sufficient forces in Europe in response to the current situation.  Yes, a far cry from the late eighties, but that force isn't needed yet, if at all.

[glenn239]

5 hours ago, Murph said:

 Or, we could sink your four subs, and be done with it to prevent you from starting a war that (as usual) you want the US to come in and deal with.

No need to do that.  The British submarine fleet is currently trending towards useless due to logistical incompetence, kind of like a metaphor for the entire country these days,

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/royal-navys-nuclear-submarine-nightmare-serious-212709

The Royal Navy's attack submarine fleet faced significant operational downtime, with reports indicating that no British attack submarines were deployed for over two months due to logistical issues.

[seahawk]

13 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Im not sure. The Russians have some really odd ways they look at nuclear weapons. For example, one book I have suggested in 2009 they wargamed nuking Norfolk, Virginia. With a tactical weapon, presumably a cruise missile. Ostensibly the idea was that if they hit America with a tactical weapon, the US might not hit back with a strategic weapon. Which is an interesting argument, that somehow I dont really see standing up in a crisis. But hey, it was what they were wargaming. Maybe they even believe it.

 

I must admit, I prefer no nuclear war in Europe over the success of the continental US also getting nuked. Maybe policies should aim to avoid war and not drag nations from other continents into one.

The best solution is:

• accept legitimate Russian interests and their sphere of influence
• end NATO to remove the burden from the US taxpayer
• built sufficient EU forces

 

if 3 does not happen: Learn Russian.

[Stuart Galbraith]

13 hours ago, Murph said:

And Stuart, your scenario is typical European dragging the US into wars we have no interest in, that are just European dynastic squabbles.  As usual, going back all the way to WWI, and before.  Or, we could sink your four subs, and be done with it to prevent you from starting a war that (as usual) you want the US to come in and deal with.  See WWI and WWII for reference.  I am thinking Admiral King was more correct than I knew.

 

There is a very fine book by Herman Khan 'On Thermonuclear war', where both sides are committed towards a course of action, and he uses the metapor playing of two kids playing chicken on a bridge with two cars. One will swerve or perhaps, neither will swerve. The whole book is full of gambits like that. Even Kennedy's promise to invade Cuba, that too was a gambit, and my example should also be seen in that light. No PM would do such a reckless thing. But it is interesting to speculate on the response if we did.

TBH, it doesnt make much difference anyway. The British Government might say nothing to the US President and it would probably make no difference,although the thought of the US President begging the Russian president to leave him out the fight is somewhat darkly amusing, like a thermonuclear age Ike Clanton at OK Corral.

https://www.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/b73e187a-fa09-481d-a188-e34869708e8a

 

Regardless, as soon as Russia see's an SLBM inbound, he is going to assume its Britain, France or America, and probably respond on all three. After all, why wouldnt he? He assumes the British and French are your loyal sepoys, so in the end, from his perspective its America that armed them and enabled them. We would all suffer the same fate, and its ridiculous with all 3 countries owning SSBN's with similar capablities that they would recognise, or even care, there is a difference.

I also have to say, its also strange you getting exercised at my saying the British Government would drag you into a nuclear war, when just a few posts ago you were saying the minuteman missiles are for NATO defence. Your understandable outrage is the best example of why this isnt so, and never has been so. You want to decouple a nuclear war to Europe, and always have done.  That it likely wont work, wont stop your statesmen and military men trying.

And that is why its ridiculous to try and decouple yourself from NATO. On a conventional and nuclear basis, Russia assumes we are all the same thing. Run for the hills all you like, it doesnt mean the Russian posse wont come after you too.

Edited December 7, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 hours ago, rmgill said:

‘Beware of foreign entanglements.’
 

Wasn’t that Jefferson? 

There is a quote in Niall Fergusons biography of Henry Kissinger thats worth mentioning. I forget the exact words, but it was something Kissinger wrote in the mid 1960's. That what national soverignty can survive in the era of the ICBM and the strategic bomber? And its a fair point. Since then we have the microchip and increased connectedness in global trade. Half of the airplanes and cars you build in America are now built with foreign components.

This American fantasy, to draw up the drawbridge, and ignore the screaming going on outside, is a calming fantasy you fella's always return to every few decades or so. And It wont work, because your values are the same as ours, and if our values piss people off, yours are scarcely less going to. Besides, it never did work very well. You tried to stay out of the Napoleonic war, and we still  burned your White house down. You tried to stay out of WW1, and the Jerries sank a liner full of rich American's. So much for avoiding foreign enganglements.

JFK once said 'Domestic policy can only defeat us. Foreign policy can kill us'. Im astonished that, in the aftermath of the Global War on Terror, anyone could still think ignoring the outside world will still work. That was the mindset of Bill Clinton's all through the 1990's, and it arguably led directly led to 911.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

9 hours ago, R011 said:

It may soon be time to re-activate Seventh (US) Army along the Inner Ukrainian Border, and ask when the British Army of the Dnepr is going to join them,  but at the moment, the US seems to have sufficient forces in Europe in response to the current situation.  Yes, a far cry from the late eighties, but that force isn't needed yet, if at all.

Its not even necessary. All I suggest is a small force that is completely viable, or at least has the appearance of being completely viable, and a serious political willingness to commit it. The one we have now shows more concern about Russian sensiblities about escalation, than it does being a viable fighting force to contribute to NATO defence.

If you think deterrence and not warfighting is the way forward, this is an obvious problem.

[Stuart Galbraith]

7 hours ago, glenn239 said:

No need to do that.  The British submarine fleet is currently trending towards useless due to logistical incompetence, kind of like a metaphor for the entire country these days,

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/royal-navys-nuclear-submarine-nightmare-serious-212709

The Royal Navy's attack submarine fleet faced significant operational downtime, with reports indicating that no British attack submarines were deployed for over two months due to logistical issues.

Oh Glenn, behind the times again. That was a broken ship lift. It never affected the SSBN fleet which remaind on patrol, and its now been fixed. In fact, it was the prioritization of the SSBN fleet that created the SSN availability problem.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/24501766.six-uk-astute-class-nuclear-submarines-stuck-port-repairs/

https://www.navylookout.com/end-in-sight-for-royal-navy-attack-submarine-woes/

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

58 minutes ago, seahawk said:

I must admit, I prefer no nuclear war in Europe over the success of the continental US also getting nuked. Maybe policies should aim to avoid war and not drag nations from other continents into one.

The best solution is:

• accept legitimate Russian interests and their sphere of influence
• end NATO to remove the burden from the US taxpayer
• built sufficient EU forces

 

if 3 does not happen: Learn Russian.

Absolutely. I never want them to fly. Equally I see no reason to live on my knees for evermore.

People may struggle to understand my perspective. When I was a kid, probably about 10 or so, my father showed me a plate at Heston services on the M4. Heston services was built on a former airport near London. So the plate (It seems to be gone now) said 'it was on this spot in 1938 that Neville Chamberlain gave his famous 'peace in our time' speech after returning from Munich.

Around the same time he showed me that, about 6 coachloads of CND people going to London to protest against the bomb. Rightly or wrongly, appeasement and nuclear strategy have always been linked in my mind. So when I see everyone on tanknet, lining up to throw this country or that policy under the bus, that always springs to mind. And the terrible cost of trying to avoid the worst sometimes makes things even worse.

Im not even sure the Russian nuclear systems work very well. One of the Oresniks they fired on Ukraine supposedly blew up in flight. A 50 percent failure rate, something the Russians must be aware of, is not a great position to be in to start demanding we make concessions.  Im in no position to want want to put to this to the test of course. Despite lots of animations of them nuking Mar a Lago, im pretty sure they arent either.

Id like to see a European nuclear force, as long as it doesnt come under EU or NATO command. The problem is having two national leaders make a decison about its use when it comes to it. It would work better purely as procurement, ie, a common nuclear warhead, missile, submarine, but both still belong to the nation states of Britain and France. I dont think the EU are remotely responsible enough to have that responsiblity.

Edited December 7, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[seahawk]

Strangely live in Western Europe until 1989 was not that bad and accepting the sphere of influence of the other side, avoided a global nuclear war. One must not turn everything into an all out war. However one should prepare for one, if tension rises.

[Stuart Galbraith]

4 hours ago, seahawk said:

Strangely live in Western Europe until 1989 was not that bad and accepting the sphere of influence of the other side, avoided a global nuclear war. One must not turn everything into an all out war. However one should prepare for one, if tension rises.

We accepted their sphere of influence, they funded terrorism, subversion, expanded influence into numerous countries to try and get improved strategic position, and tried to open a missile gap where they could intimidate us into capitulation. Lets not pretend both sides had equal motives, and that such a situation could not happen again.

[seahawk]

5 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

We accepted their sphere of influence, they funded terrorism, subversion, expanded influence into numerous countries to try and get improved strategic position, and tried to open a missile gap where they could intimidate us into capitulation. Lets not pretend both sides had equal motives, and that such a situation could not happen again.

Ask them how they felt about the Stingers in Afghanistan... or the Bay of Pigs episode..

[Stuart Galbraith]

42 minutes ago, seahawk said:

Ask them how they felt about the Stingers in Afghanistan... or the Bay of Pigs episode..

How did we feel about AK47s in Northern Ireland? Way I see it, they got back what they had been doing since the beginning of the cold war. Screw them.

[seahawk]

They will have said the same...

[Stuart Galbraith]

And they were wrong, just as they were wrong when they said they had a legitimate 'sphere of interest' in Ukraine. Sod them. No over defunct Empire had the US bending over backwards to placate them, I see no reason why Russia should be any different.

[urbanoid]

18 minutes ago, seahawk said:

They will have said the same...

Still, fuck them and the tank they rode in on.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Just now, urbanoid said:

Still, fuck them and the tank they rode in on.

Which of course they generally do...

[seahawk]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

And they were wrong, just as they were wrong when they said they had a legitimate 'sphere of interest' in Ukraine. Sod them. No over defunct Empire had the US bending over backwards to placate them, I see no reason why Russia should be any different.

How did the US get involved? Why should the US care?

[Murph]

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Its not even necessary. All I suggest is a small force that is completely viable, or at least has the appearance of being completely viable, and a serious political willingness to commit it. The one we have now shows more concern about Russian sensiblities about escalation, than it does being a viable fighting force to contribute to NATO defence.

If you think deterrence and not warfighting is the way forward, this is an obvious problem.

What about the invincible European Union Defense Force?  It is a small force....  Also I just see no compelling US interest in Europe anymore, the Cold War is over, and has been over for 30 years.  Nato should have gone away long ago, but like taxes, tolls, and the clap it just hands on.

[Sinistar]

whatever you think of putin, my problem with western policy makers and observers is that they do not actually take much time to understand the way he thinks

that is just off the table

who cares

but that is just playing the game poorly because

it makes all the sense in the world to try and read your opponent in order to understand his thought process

anyone who thinks that is a bad idea is not a good player

if they simply think putin = bad, and that is all they think of it then putin can run circles around them because putin is more of a player than these types of players

that is: often the neocons or woke left who get triggered and emotional and do not deal with criticism of their globalist ideas particularly well without emotional breakdowns

 

putin asks a german businessman why he behaves the way he does and alludes to the concept of sovereignty

 

if you listen to putin's addresses he often explains how he views sovereignty differently than the west, which as of lately is hell bent on self destruction

and that he will not permit the same thing to happen to russia

 

here i think it is instructive at least to understand his perspective if you are going to view him as a rival

 

 

[Murph]

THIS is the PROBLEM.  Why are we the world's ATM?