Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A word of advice though, I suggest you spend more on defence and especially Main Battle Tanks and Artillery, as if the Americans are gone, the Russians would have massive superiority in such areas, should they ever fancy a bit of invading, then again you could build a line or even a wall to keep them out. Just a friendly word of advice.
Bye Bye -
I agree with Germany paying for its own defense.
In regards against defending against a Russian invasion, the entire battle of the tanks is pretty much pointless. A single nuclear shell fired from a mobile cannon can clear the battlefield of tanks, personnel, and support aircraft. Late 1950s technology.
This is really their only effective option. Beyond that, the Russians would win a conventional land war against Europe (without the USA) hands down.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,175 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19472
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
I agree with Germany paying for its own defense.
In regards against defending against a Russian invasion, the entire battle of the tanks is pretty much pointless. A single nuclear shell fired from a mobile cannon can clear the battlefield of tanks, personnel, and support aircraft. Late 1950s technology.
This is really their only effective option. Beyond that, the Russians would win a conventional land war against Europe (without the USA) hands down.
The trouble is, apart from the French and British the rest of Europe don't have much in the way of independent nuclear options.
The British Army Royal Artillery had US Supplied 'Honest John' Nuclear Artillery at the height of the Cold War, which were later replaced by the 'MGM-52 Lance' Nuclear Artillery.
Whilst the RAF also has a number of various nuclear missiles and bombs including the 'B57' nuclear bomb and 'WE.177' weapons, which could also be used as Nuclear deoth charges at sea as well as on land.
Whilst the Royal Navy had Polaris Nuclear Submarines which were replaced with the Trident SSBNs, currently in service and which are to be replaced by a new generation of Royal Navy SSBN Submarines.
Britain also had been working on nuclear land mines at the height of the Cold War, their code name being Blue Peacock and 10 were to be located in Germany, so you are exactly right, what we planned to do was take out the Russian Tanks with nuclear weapons.
Putin was quite happy that nato is a former shadow of itself and has become synonomous with US troops and equipment. Nato troops a joke unless led by a US military man with US equipment.
Putin should be worried Trump is trying to revitalize NATO.
Trump approaches negotiations with cards he will not necessarily play. He never said he would pull out of NATO. His words, however, accomplished a positive discussion, revisitng the effectiveness of NATO and effots to improve NATO.
The euros hate to spend money on defense and enjoy their socialism only because the USA is involved to carry the day when needed. Time for euro to step up.
The euros hate to spend money on defense and enjoy their socialism only because the USA is involved to carry the day when needed. Time for euro to step up.
Germany has the strongest economy coupled with low defence spending, around 1.2% GDP, it's also where the US Army has most of it's troops in Europe, followed by the Italy which is home to a US Army Parachute Brigade, USAF Base, US Navy Support Facility and a US Naval Air Station.
If the US wants to get angry with anybody then start with Germany, as they should definately be setting an example and meeting the 2% figure, as they have a string economy and are home to a large percentage of US Forces stationed in Europe.
Having U.S. bases is more a burden than an advantage. Member of foreign forces make up just 0.06% of the population in Germany, but they commit 1.2% of all rapes. They commit twentyfold more rapes than the average.
The self-commitment of 2% of GDP for defence spending should be achieved no later than 2024. 2% of the German GDP in 2024 would mean about 80 bn Euros. We spend now about 37 bn Euros. To achieve this goal we would have to increase expenditures for defence every year by about 6 bn Euros. That's crazy.
Of course Europe should be able to defend itself. But for achieving this we don't need a huge fleet of carriers, we don't need air bases all around the world. We just have to scare Russia and in my opinion it's kinda absurd to think that they would attack a member of the EU. Maybe they will try to cause trouble in the Baltics (because of the Russian minority there). Maybe they could try to occupy small parts of these countries, but even this seems absurd to me. But of course Europe alone should be able to protect all of its member states. A large-scale military assault against the EU? That is completely absurd.
We should establish a European Army. Of course Germany should have to burden the biggest part of it. I don't have a problem with that. But 2% seems still too much in my opinion. That's politically also not enforceable in Germany. If we had to spend so much, then I would demand that the U.S. forces have to left Germany. They can go to Italy and Greece, the weather and the food there is much better anyway.
Having U.S. bases is more a burden than an advantage. Member of foreign forces make up just 0.06% of the population in Germany, but they commit 1.2% of all rapes. They commit twentyfold more rapes than the average.
The self-commitment of 2% of GDP for defence spending should be achieved no later than 2024. 2% of the German GDP in 2024 would mean about 80 bn Euros. We spend now about 37 bn Euros. To achieve this goal we would have to increase expenditures for defence every year by about 6 bn Euros. That's crazy.
Of course Europe should be able to defend itself. But for achieving this we don't need a huge fleet of carriers, we don't need air bases all around the world. We just have to scare Russia and in my opinion it's kinda absurd to think that they would attack a member of the EU. Maybe they will try to cause trouble in the Baltics (because of the Russian minority there). Maybe they could try to occupy small parts of these countries, but even this seems absurd to me. But of course Europe alone should be able to protect all of its member states. A large-scale military assault against the EU? That is completely absurd.
We should establish a European Army. Of course Germany should have to burden the biggest part of it. I don't have a problem with that. But 2% seems still too much in my opinion. That's politically also not enforceable in Germany. If we had to spend so much, then I would demand that the U.S. forces have to left Germany. They can go to Italy and Greece, the weather and the food there is much better anyway.
We shouldn't establish anything. If the old world societies of Europe don't think their sovereignty is worth protecting out of their own coffers, then why the hell should the money come out of ours?
In this country, we're talking about kicking people off of welfare and shrinking the social safety net. But American taxpayers should subsidize European security? Like hell. When did Berlin become more important than Baltimore? I love Europe, but my own countrymen are more important.
There should be no more U.S. bases in Europe. Cold War is over. Time to move on. It's the duty of Germany, France and Britain to be a bulwark against Russian aggression.
...he delivered a stark warning to the 23 member nations who aren’t paying what they should. “America will meet its responsibilities,” Mattis said. “But if your nations do not want to see America moderate its commitment to this alliance, each of your capitals needs to show support for our common defense.”
... “No longer can the American taxpayer carry a disproportionate share of the defense of Western values. Americans cannot care more for your children's future security than you do.” What sets Mattis’ warning apart from previous complaints is it was backed by an explicit threat to moderate America’s commitment, if the rest of the NATO nations don’t pay up.
Thank you.
EU has two Nuclear armed nations , fully capable of wiping Russia off the map.
EU has two Nuclear armed nations , fully capable of wiping Russia off the map.
EU has two Nuclear armed nations , fully capable of wiping Russia off the map.
That alone ensures western europe will never be invaded. The UK can project its power they have subs that can kill russia months later.
Nato is vital, but it is the USA that wants it to be bigger and to be used for more regional conflicts, the intent of NATO was to thwart the USSR, not conduct operations in the middle east.
In short the US wants NATO to be a tool to conduct regional war. The EU want NATO to simply perform its initial role as a deterrent to Russian expansion. The EU should spend more , but the US should reduce its costs by reducing its european foot print.
But all of this is noise, Trump is damaging international relations so fast i would not be surprised if Putin gets exactly what he hoped... (a divided US-EU).
I'm try'na figure out how anyone can disagree! How long should Europe remain on the American dole?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
