I guess we'll know for certain when we see who goes bankrupt first
I think a lot of European countries aren't prepared for any kind of military action that equates to more than the international equivalent to a stern slap on the wrist. And for the most part they've benefited by having comparatively better budgets for infrastructure, healthcare, education, et al. Whereas in the US, a disproportionately large chunk of the budget goes into military spending. A lot of it is questionable spending. Too many high ranking officers are too closely involved with defense contractors. And this sometimes results in gear of questionable value. (The M16 and M4 family of assault rifles are amongst the least reliable in use by any modern military, for example.)
On the note of military spending, I think it says a lot about the economic power of the US when we can simultaneously fight two far flung wars for years on end, and still make a strong presence in interdicting in a third. Many countries would have been ruined by trying to support a ten year war, much less starting an 8 year war during it, and making a presence in a third. Though it does appear that the nation is economically tired of wars.
If NATO and/or the UN are going to be able to perform true military action in the coming years than there are going to have to be some changes in a lot of member nations' militaries. Like stepped up spending.
Needless to say, our leaders are bit more reluctant to use military force if our turf isn't directly threatened, especially with our neighbors being a possible threat. Not being at each others' throats is a nice change of pace
Oh, and guess who's housing Libyan refugees.
Maybe Gates should speak to Polish officials about it; after all we're both in NATO and we're about to have our turn at managing the EU.
Seriously, Europe can't even apparently as a whole, cooridinate any kind of airstrikes effectively, guess who got to do that. While in TWO wars already? The US. Think of how utterly pathetic Libya is as a country, and NATO couldn't even beat them.
NATO is worthless as a military entity. There's apparently only a very select few countries worth -anything- across the Atlantic, when it comes to military force, and some of which decided to sit on their ass, all the while saying "SOMEONE SHOULD DO SOMETHING OH MY GOD".
I say cut the funding to NATO, and keep ties with Denmark, Belgium, Canada, and Brittain the rest can stuff it.
Seriously, Europe can't even apparently as a whole, (...)
EXACTLY.
Europe is not a single country, dammit!
That's the problem.
Europeans like to bitch about Americans being the world police, and yet when Libya happened we were Begged to go in. Because lets face it, short of a few disproportionate contributors to NATO, there are no militaries that apparently can even whip one near stoneage waste land without us to guide them every step of the way.
Like I said, outside of the countries I mentioned the rest can just go to hell. It's not like they can defend themselves, or others anyway. If countries other than the ones I've listed decided to out and out disband their militaries, it would make pretty much no difference in Nato's strength.
The lack of integrity may be looking like a problem, but it's not going to change anytime soon. And it's really easy to bash from a point of a large country whose closest enemies are conveniently at least a few seas away.
We have Russia just around the corner.
You may also notice that a portion of UN/NATO/EU forces are already deployed all over the world, be it African countries, the Middle East or the Balkans. It's not like we don't have a lot of other problems (such as keeping the EU intact).
You may also notice that a portion of UN/NATO/EU forces are already deployed all over the world, be it African countries, the Middle East or the Balkans. It's not like we don't have a lot of other problems (such as keeping the EU intact).
And the US is supporting many of those efforts too. There are troops in Africa, Bosnia, Kosovo, South Korea, the Phillippines, and other places in addition to our two theaters of war.
You may also notice that a portion of UN/NATO/EU forces are already deployed all over the world, be it African countries, the Middle East or the Balkans. It's not like we don't have a lot of other problems (such as keeping the EU intact).
And the US is supporting many of those efforts too. There are troops in Africa, Bosnia, Kosovo, South Korea, the Phillippines, and other places in addition to our two theaters of war.
I am aware of that.
Point is: European countries are lacking manpower and morale. We're used to fight among ourselves rather than some people in Africa or Middle East.
You may also notice that a portion of UN/NATO/EU forces are already deployed all over the world, be it African countries, the Middle East or the Balkans. It's not like we don't have a lot of other problems (such as keeping the EU intact).
And the US is supporting many of those efforts too. There are troops in Africa, Bosnia, Kosovo, South Korea, the Phillippines, and other places in addition to our two theaters of war.
I am aware of that.
Point is: European countries are lacking manpower and morale.
And a set of balls too, in most cases.
You may also notice that a portion of UN/NATO/EU forces are already deployed all over the world, be it African countries, the Middle East or the Balkans. It's not like we don't have a lot of other problems (such as keeping the EU intact).
And the US is supporting many of those efforts too. There are troops in Africa, Bosnia, Kosovo, South Korea, the Phillippines, and other places in addition to our two theaters of war.
I am aware of that.
Point is: European countries are lacking manpower and morale. We're used to fight among ourselves rather than some people in Africa or Middle East.
How do you fight among yourselves without manpower or morale?
How do you fight among yourselves without manpower or morale?
In this time of "peace", with politics.
WWII wasn't that long ago... and it was simply the loudest.
How do you fight among yourselves without manpower or morale?
In this time of "peace", with politics.
WWII wasn't that long ago... and it was simply the loudest.
Sounds like you need a good ole fashioned war to boost morale. I'd suggest France. You can't lose against France.
How do you fight among yourselves without manpower or morale?
In this time of "peace", with politics.
WWII wasn't that long ago... and it was simply the loudest.
Sounds like you need a good ole fashioned war to boost morale. I'd suggest France. You can't lose against France.
Sorry dude, but you're an idiot.
Try living in Warsaw near a goddamn military cemetery for a while and then glorify bloodshed.
Yeah, we actually do take war seriously. You could say we grew out of it.
How do you fight among yourselves without manpower or morale?
In this time of "peace", with politics.
WWII wasn't that long ago... and it was simply the loudest.
Sounds like you need a good ole fashioned war to boost morale. I'd suggest France. You can't lose against France.
Sorry dude, but you're an idiot.
Try living in Warsaw near a goddamn military cemetery for a while and then glorify bloodshed.
Yeah, we actually do take war seriously. You could say we grew out of it.
Who was glorifying bloodshed? I made a joke and you ASSumed a lot of moronic crap apparently.You could say we grew out of it.
But you still call for it, as long as it's someone else paying the bills and doing the bleeding.
You could say we grew out of it.
But you still call for it, as long as it's someone else paying the bills and doing the bleeding.
Not only that, but turning themselves into lambs for the slaughter means that their cemetary will be filled with far more new bodies should they ever be invaded again. Then they will cry to us to pull their nuts out of the fire.
@ADHadh: Nobody is saying you have to make war, but you really should be prepared just in case it comes to you.......again.
You could say we grew out of it.
But you still call for it, as long as it's someone else paying the bills and doing the bleeding.
Not only that, but turning themselves into lambs for the slaughter means that their cemetary will be filled with far more new bodies should they ever be invaded again. Then they will cry to us to pull their nuts out of the fire.
@ADHadh: Nobody is saying you have to make war, but you really should be prepared just in case it comes to you.......again.
Yeah, I agree. Places like Germany need to build up a massive military war machine... wait didn't they do that and WWII happened?
Sounds like you need a good ole fashioned war to boost morale. I'd suggest France. You can't lose against France.
Sorry dude, but you're an idiot.
Try living in Warsaw near a goddamn military cemetery for a while and then glorify bloodshed.
Yeah, we actually do take war seriously. You could say we grew out of it.
Who said anything about bloodshed? He said to invade France, not start a real war or anything. Just send in the girl scouts (or whatever your European equivalent is), let them occupy the country for their summer camping trip, then pack up and go home.
I wouldn't call Libya a "near stoneage wasteland" and I'm not sure about the begging part.
The lack of integrity may be looking like a problem, but it's not going to change anytime soon. And it's really easy to bash from a point of a large country whose closest enemies are conveniently at least a few seas away.
We have Russia just around the corner.
You may also notice that a portion of UN/NATO/EU forces are already deployed all over the world, be it African countries, the Middle East or the Balkans. It's not like we don't have a lot of other problems (such as keeping the EU intact).
Oh yes, since Russia, a country whose entire military is just wasting away (literally rusting out in impound yards) with a piss poor trained piss poor armed military is such a threat..
then again, to someone who can't even beat Libya, I suppose anyone with an assault rifle is a Colossal Threat when there isn't a Sea seperating you from them. :rollleyes:Oh you mean those operations that the US primarly Funds?, that the US primarily provides Logistics for when actual action is involved?
And if you haven't noticed, the US is falling apart (literally) at this point. And we are still doing better collectively at waging multiple wars than Europe&NATO seems to be able to do, by just waging One War, against a primitive vastly outdated, and piss poorly organized force.
Also, can the "we grew out of it!" crap. because you haven't. The very moment
hits the fan, you come screaming "Help help America. You are our only hope. because we're incompetent!". So much of Europe and the "we grew out of war" pacifist crap, is the very best example of why Pacifism doesn't work. Because it is utterly dependent on someone else coming in to save your ass, so you don't 1 compromise your morals, or 2 die, or 3 both. It's bullcrap!
If we're supposed to be the heavies in every conflict that bust out everywhere, how bout America starts a "Come help us" tax. If a country wants our military protection, they pay us a stipend. I mean, we're the worlds military anyway. I say, we act the mob. You want us to fight, pay us. Otherwise, go screw yourselves.
In addition, we shouldn't have to ask permission to start a war if we're attacked. I've never heard of Vinny the Nose having to ask permission to break the legs of the guy that owes him money or hasn't kept up with his payments.
Let's go gangsta' or don't go at all.
(This is sarcasm of course, but part of me does feel like it would make a lot more sense than how we handle things as is.)
Of course this is a generality. European nations ahve certainly launched initiatives where they faffed about avoiding gunfire instead of accomplishign objectives, and America has had operations in both of the current wars where losses were expected.
And, of course, the story is always different in a soldier's boots.
On the whole, though, I think we need to seriously rethink the nature of military and the reason for sending it out if we feel we need to have it but aren't willing to ask soldiers to die. Maybe we just shouldn't go some times. Maybe we need a completely different kind of military.
And if you haven't noticed, the US is falling apart (literally) at this point. And we are still doing better collectively at waging multiple wars than Europe&NATO seems to be able to do, by just waging One War, against a primitive vastly outdated, and piss poorly organized force.
Are you sure it is "despite of" and not "because of"?
You could say we grew out of it.
But you still call for it, as long as it's someone else paying the bills and doing the bleeding.
EXACTLY!
And if you haven't noticed, the US is falling apart (literally) at this point. And we are still doing better collectively at waging multiple wars than Europe&NATO seems to be able to do, by just waging One War, against a primitive vastly outdated, and piss poorly organized force.
Are you sure it is "despite of" and not "because of"?
Europe seems over all incapable of waging wars, and much of the countries across the atlantic are as broke as we are.
And considering how small our military is for the amount of theatres the US is in presently, NATO really really should have been able to handle Libya without US intervention.
If we're supposed to be the heavies in every conflict that bust out everywhere, how bout America starts a "Come help us" tax. If a country wants our military protection, they pay us a stipend. I mean, we're the worlds military anyway. I say, we act the mob. You want us to fight, pay us. Otherwise, go screw yourselves.
I've heard from guys that were in Desert Storm that Kuwait was willing to pay us but the government's stance was "we're not mercenaries". I can understand it. While it sounds like a good idea at first, it would become a slippery slope, especially if we were actually getting enough money to profit from it instead of just helping to cover expenses. War should be a hard decision and getting paid a buttload of money for it (especially when the people getting the money aren't the ones risking their lives) makes it a lot easier.
The American military is deeply crippled by an unwillingness to take casualties. The American public is (generally, and ironically) supportive of being Team America, but they're unwilling to accept that going to war means so of your own people will die, and instead of accepting that, yep, that's what happens when you send people to shoot at each other they freak out and evey casualty becomes one casualty too many. This, in turn, hamstrings the way that operations are designed and implemented. Europe, on the other hand, if they're not willing to take casualties they usually just don't go.
QFT!
Maybe we can avoid casualties by designing and using terminator like drones. I mean the technologies there. If we built and kept the factories in the U.S. it would create an industry and create jobs. Two birds with one stone...
Only one thing is wrong with that, battle drones aren't cars (not that we make good cars these days but I'm just saying they're a tad more complicated to fabricate). We don't have the workforce with the necessary know-how to be able to put them together. Designing them? We could probably do that though Japan has the leg up on us there if they'd stop with smexy ones. Building them? No. Unless we totally revamp our educational system and make college more affordable.
Maybe we can avoid casualties by designing and using terminator like drones. I mean the technologies there. If we built and kept the factories in the U.S. it would create an industry and create jobs. Two birds with one stone...
Only one thing is wrong with that, battle drones aren't cars (not that we make good cars these days but I'm just saying they're a tad more complicated to fabricate). We don't have the workforce with the necessary know-how to be able to put them together. Designing them? We could probably do that though Japan has the leg up on us there if they'd stop with smexy ones. Building them? No. Unless we totally revamp our educational system and make college more affordable.
You overestimate what would go into it. A person would hit a button on a machine which would then go about assembling a part. If something went wrong the machine would stop and beep at the person. Who would then call a 'technician' to come and reset the machine. If you've ever worked in a factory you'd know this kind of stuff (well modern factories anyway). As far as the AI goes its just a high end computer protected by a shell that blocks EMFs. The worst thing I see happening with this plan is the U.S. takes over the world one country at a time and drives the price of steel and titanium up...
Maybe we can avoid casualties by designing and using terminator like drones. I mean the technologies there. If we built and kept the factories in the U.S. it would create an industry and create jobs. Two birds with one stone...
Only one thing is wrong with that, battle drones aren't cars (not that we make good cars these days but I'm just saying they're a tad more complicated to fabricate). We don't have the workforce with the necessary know-how to be able to put them together. Designing them? We could probably do that though Japan has the leg up on us there if they'd stop with smexy ones. Building them? No. Unless we totally revamp our educational system and make college more affordable.
You overestimate what would go into it. A person would hit a button on a machine which would then go about assembling a part. If something went wrong the machine would stop and beep at the person. Who would then call a 'technician' to come and reset the machine. If you've ever worked in a factory you'd know this kind of stuff (well modern factories anyway). As far as the AI goes its just a high end computer protected by a shell that blocks EMFs. The worst thing I see happening with this plan is the U.S. takes over the world one country at a time and drives the price of steel and titanium up...
If it's automated, how do you get that you're going to put folks to work? Witness the automotive industry, it went automated and so hired less human workers. Before robots started building our cars and trucks, Detroit was doing pretty well for itself. Then Japan and other countries started using robots and we had to follow suit because machines work cheaper than people.
Now the auto industry in the US is a shell of its former glory, and if you ask me, it's because it went automated.
Now, if you're saying we'll have seperate factories for every component, then I could see that requiring a large work force. At the very least, it would put our steel workers back to work. I used to live in a steel town. Let me tell you, if it only did that, I think it would be worth it.
Now the auto industry in the US is a shell of its former glory, and if you ask me, it's because it went automated.
Chicken or egg: did the fall cause a loss in concern for competitive quality, or did the loss in competitive quality contribute to the fall?
While I would agree that the industry did a very poor job at emotionally and logistically integrating atuomation, in no small part because the displaced workers had been trained to see themselves as a proud widgit pounder and little else leaving a large unemployed workforce with barely-transferrable skills, I don't think that automation alone is what gutted the industry.
Now the auto industry in the US is a shell of its former glory, and if you ask me, it's because it went automated.
Chicken or egg: did the fall cause a loss in concern for competitive quality, or did the loss in competitive quality contribute to the fall?
While I would agree that the industry did a very poor job at emotionally and logistically integrating atuomation, in no small part because the displaced workers had been trained to see themselves as a proud widgit pounder and little else leaving a large unemployed workforce with barely-transferrable skills, I don't think that automation alone is what gutted the industry.
Good points, but it did have something to do with it. Some of my kin, were those "proud widget pounders". I also had kin that worked at McDonnell Douglas (sp?). Most retired, others turned to farming to make ends meet. Maybe I'm biased by the way they talk about Detroit's "glory days".
Now the auto industry in the US is a shell of its former glory, and if you ask me, it's because it went automated.
Chicken or egg: did the fall cause a loss in concern for competitive quality, or did the loss in competitive quality contribute to the fall?
While I would agree that the industry did a very poor job at emotionally and logistically integrating atuomation, in no small part because the displaced workers had been trained to see themselves as a proud widgit pounder and little else leaving a large unemployed workforce with barely-transferrable skills, I don't think that automation alone is what gutted the industry.
Good points, but it did have something to do with it. Some of my kin, were those "proud widget pounders". I also had kin that worked at McDonnell Douglas (sp?). Most retired, others turned to farming to make ends meet. Maybe I'm biased by the way they talk about Detroit's "glory days".
I have nothing against proud widget-pounders. I feel they were exploited by an industry that used them, duplicitously treating them as "family" when it was, in reality, keeping them barely-employable to meet its own ends, and when they were no longer needed it discarded them. In my mind the "glory days" of Detroit were the illusion of a workforce that had been tricked.
I also think some good came out of that illusion: on the ground level the pride of the work force was their opium, but it was also an immensely positive force that did have an impact on the end product, and being a country of production has a significant impact on national perception. As an individual working in a creative field I know that there is a tangible emotional result of making something that you can hold in your hands, or at the very least show to others and say "I made that," that you just don't get from moving units across a spreadsheet.
Now the auto industry in the US is a shell of its former glory, and if you ask me, it's because it went automated.
Chicken or egg: did the fall cause a loss in concern for competitive quality, or did the loss in competitive quality contribute to the fall?
While I would agree that the industry did a very poor job at emotionally and logistically integrating atuomation, in no small part because the displaced workers had been trained to see themselves as a proud widgit pounder and little else leaving a large unemployed workforce with barely-transferrable skills, I don't think that automation alone is what gutted the industry.
Good points, but it did have something to do with it. Some of my kin, were those "proud widget pounders". I also had kin that worked at McDonnell Douglas (sp?). Most retired, others turned to farming to make ends meet. Maybe I'm biased by the way they talk about Detroit's "glory days".
I have nothing against proud widget-pounders. I feel they were exploited by an industry that used them, duplicitously treating them as "family" when it was, in reality, keeping them barely-employable to meet its own ends, and when they were no longer needed it discarded them. In my mind the "glory days" of Detroit were the illusion of a workforce that had been tricked.
I also think some good came out of that illusion: on the ground level the pride of the work force was their opium, but it was also an immensely positive force that did have an impact on the end product, and being a country of production has a significant impact on national perception. As an individual working in a creative field I know that there is a tangible emotional result of making something that you can hold in your hands, or at the very least show to others and say "I made that," that you just don't get from moving units across a spreadsheet.
Oh, I wasn't insulted. In fact, I was agreeing with and everything you just wrote is exactly what I think about it too. When this country made things, we were far stronger than we are now, as a country. Somewhere along the line, "working the line" became something folks shouldn't aspire too. It became, "own your own company", "buy a house with money you don't have" and other things.
Maybe I'm just old fashioned and Pluisjen and I had a discussion about this sort of thing a couple of weeks ago. But when I was a kid, my dream was a good factory job, a home I paid for with money I earned, and a wife and kids. Anything else would have been gravy.
Even if I wasn't the only one that felt that way, the factories are gone and to me, the American Dream with them.
PS.
This isn't me bashing America. I just mourn the loss of our industrial strength.
An interesting article relating to US combat casualties throughout the past wars...
www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articl...
An interesting article relating to US combat casualties throughout the past wars...
Good article, and this right here is basically the sum of the situation:
html_removed
Some pundits point out that this force protection mania limits the effectiveness of American troops. Some soldiers and marines agree, but most are quite content to see their chances of surviving combat increased.
I do have to say that I also like the bit at the end of the article about the potential challenge in fighting a more conventional war (though I'm a bit unnerved at how given it's taking a future war with North Korea.)
and give them free reign to do what is necesary to win.
And there's the rub.
We tried convetional war in Korea once. It didn't go so well the last time. Next time it will not change. They have had far to many years to dig in and build bunkers. Just sending in waves of troops would be walking into a meat grinder. Let the troops use what they know from the streets of Iraq, and Afgan and give them free reign to do what is necesary to win.
These days our greatest weapons are our culture and the internet. Poeple can easily see our freedoms. And this tends to inspire unrest in oppressed peoples. Notice all the uprisings in the middle east, and how much effort North Korea and China put into controlling their populace (and limiting net access).
We tried convetional war in Korea once. It didn't go so well the last time. Next time it will not change. They have had far to many years to dig in and build bunkers. Just sending in waves of troops would be walking into a meat grinder. Let the troops use what they know from the streets of Iraq, and Afgan and give them free reign to do what is necesary to win.
Actually we kicked North Korea's ass. The problem was China stepping in. If the stuff on wikileaks is any indication, there's a pretty good chance that won't happen next time around.
If the stuff on wikileaks is any indication, there's a pretty good chance that won't happen next time around.
You don't need Wikileaks for that. Every time Kim Jong Il has been saber rattling as of late, China steps in and delivers a figurative pimp slap to the back of KJI's head. Beijing is losing patience with him. And Beijing doesn't want a shadow war with the US. The Chinease government doesn't particularly like us, but their economy is too wound up in ours. They know there's a good chance that if we go under we're going to drag them down too.
Only one thing is wrong with that, battle drones aren't cars (not that we make good cars these days but I'm just saying they're a tad more complicated to fabricate). We don't have the workforce with the necessary know-how to be able to put them together. Designing them? We could probably do that though Japan has the leg up on us there if they'd stop with smexy ones. Building them? No. Unless we totally revamp our educational system and make college more affordable.
Meh. A lot of drones aren't as high tech as people think they are. We could build killer robots using entirely existing technology. It really wouldn't be much fancier than building a car.
www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/article...
That pretty much highlights most of the issues with NATO and ISAF. I think we should just say **** it and pull out. We'll create a new coalition of the US, Canada, Australia, and the UK, since they're the only ones that seem willing to help, not to mention the most trustworthy of our supposed allies.
We'll create a new coalition of the US, Canada, Australia, and the UK, since they're the only ones that seem willing to help, not to mention the most trustworthy of our supposed allies.
Agreed.