For the first time in 69 years, there are no US tanks in Europe. http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20130410.aspx The rest of the US troops are there because the Europeans pay the US to keep them there. If we were to pull out of the Balkans, US deployment to Europe would be less than the token force in South Korea.
Good. Let the EU handle its own defense. - - - Updated - - - They'll have to. Right now, we subsidize their defense for free. That is jacked up. They need to be paying for their own defense. Really, what Europe needs is for the EU to become the European Federation and for them to create a unified military command structure, unified weapons procurement, and unified doctrine.
That's what the EU trying to do, the members nations don't want it, well some do in some ways but not in other. The one country 100% against a federal EU is the UK. I want to leave the EU now, for along time I wanted to renegotiation but now I don't think it would work. I think the main problem with Europe is that is stops competition between countries, which makes there economies less effective. Nobody wants a united EU military and defence department. Such a thing would be very power, but it wouldn't do anything in my name because I don't see myself as a European, I am British. George Friedmen talked about this and why Europe can't become a nation. I would like to see military competition between nations, all this British and French cooperation should not be happening and wouldn't have 100 years good, yes have do training together, but don't design each others equipment. This has lead to a situation where the UK has the best army in Europe and France has the best navy, what is going on.
Never heard that they were paying us to be there; I thought many of them were charging us rents of various kinds to use bases and the like. In any case, sooner or later the Euros will have to either form a multi-national military of some sort, or become irrelevant in foreign affairs. The U.S. is trending back to isolationism and can't sustain the kind of military budgets of the last 60+ years for much longer, and contrary to some popular fantasies that power vacuum is definitely not a 'good' thing for anybody. Well, except for a scad of wannabee imperialists and extortionists of varying stripes. Power vacuums are always bad.
No they don't. Europe believes, or professes to believe, that since the fall of the Soviet Union they have no enemies and therefore they don't need a realistic defense capability. Our leaving won't change that perception. In fact, it may actually reinforce it.
And then some sort of (*)(*)(*)(*) will hit the fan and some or all of them will jump up and down screaming for the U.S. to get involved, just as they did in WW I and WW I, Part Two. I don't want to see the U.S. go isolationist, the 'forward bases' strategy has worked very well and shouldn't be abandoned just because of some ideological delusion or other. Some bases can be closed, we don't really need Ramstein or Okinawa for instance, but some bases still need to be there.
Well under the structure of NATO thats pretty much the reality of the situation. Is there any realistic threat to NATO or Europe in general at moment? Well the majority of observers suggest not. The US has other fish to fry and they will go on and deal with them
The big question about keeping a military is: what is the appropriate size. Keeping a large military, like the US, has questionable benefits. For one thing, no country is capable or desirous of building an empire. Second, the large WWII weapons are inappropriate for today's military confrontations. For example, the US Navy has not had an actual battle at sea since WWII. No question we have used warships to support the other military branches during battle. But we have built, maintained, and retired military equipment that has never been close to a battlefield. I am not saying we should disarm, or even reduce the size of our military to a dangerously low level. I am saying we (and Europe) can't just build all the new military equipment that our generals want. I am quite sure no one ever does a deep analysis of the type and quantity of military equipment that we need. It seems like the size of our military just ebbs and flows depending on the political conditions. Intelligent decisions cannot be made in that environment.
I guess then the US couldn't ever have a unified military because so many people see themselves as New Yorkers, or Texans, or Californians, right?
It can't be compared to what goes on in Europe, all the wars and all the difference language and cultures.
Why does Europe need a multi-national force to remain relevant? If the UK once gain dominated Europe in naval terms, which it could do once the US leaves, would you say the UK would then be irrelevant? Or Germany increases defence spending to have far and away the best army in Europe again. Or even a UK and German alliance, that would dominate Europe.
So you think the US never having to fight a naval battle since WW2 is a bad thing if it's the case? I think it's a good thing and what you want from your massive military budget, you want to be so feared that nobody would dare challenge you. Which has been the case at sea and in the air, on land the US is more vulnerable.
We are capable, the Russians actually had one until fairly recently, China and/or India could on a local level. However, the fact is you don't have the slightest clue what any other country is desirous of. What 'large WWII weapons'? As William Walker has already pointed out, that means it's working. Would you rather have a major war every 10 or 20 years, just so you can feel like you're getting your moneys worth? And what, exactly, is a 'deep analysis'?
And what, exactly, is a 'deep analysis'?[/QUOTE] Also within this "deep analysis" everybody would have a different out come, the naval, the air force, the army, the marines, the procurement analysts and the politicians.
Why what? Military people represent a unique cross-section of the American demographic; they are informed and well-traveled, It would be interesting and informative to hear their thoughts, opinions and ideas regarding numerous topics including current events and news items.
Interesting article- this jumped out at me: The American troops are hostages, to help keep the peace in a part of the world that has brought us some of the most destructive wars in history. While the Russians complain that the continued presence of U.S. forces in Europe is a threat to Russia, most Europeans have a more justifiable fear of Russian aggression. The Europeans pick up most of the cost of keeping the American troops there and itÂ’s not a bad place to be stationed for a few years, despite the fact that Russia still has more tanks in service than all the rest of Europe.
It's indicative of a policy shift to the Pacific...EUCOM troop numbers are reduced as more troops are added to the USPACOM AOR to counter China and North Korea.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10130248 And yes, I realize North Korea is not a 'large country', but you need to remember that the most destructive attack on the US since Pearl Harbor was carried out by an NGO, not a country. The threat has evolved and is continuing to do so. Tanks!? The largest tank battle since Kursk was the Battle of 73 Easting during Desert Storm. Most of the Middle East is perfect tank terrain, if you think you might ever want to fight a war there, you're going to need tanks. The 203 mm howitzer, which dated from pre-WW2, has not been used for years. What we have now are 155mm and 105mm howitzers. Just about every military in the world uses something very similar. The last US battleship was decommissioned in 1992. Says who? Si vis pacem, para bellum First of all, nothing is government is ever 'non-political'. If that's what you want, get used to disappointment. Second, the Department of Defense is a civilian agency and the Secretary of Defense is a civilian appointee.
Buy Northern Cyprus (I bet we could get it really cheap) or take Merkel's advice and buy a couple of the Greek islands, build a deep water port and a 10,000 foot runway and we're done. Close down everything else in Europe.
Northern Cyprus is owned by Turkey and the UK has two bases on the island of Cyprus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Base_Area
