I hated the whole fecking thing. It was depressing and a foretaste of the shit debates we are going to get.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) look forward to a new life under Ruben Amorim. What system will we be playing? What players will impress? and how will it all go? We also say goodbye to Ruud Van Nistelrooy and review United's 3-0 win at home against Leicester City.
- Status
To add to @Aldo's point...
The USMC currently has 32 infantry battalions, 11 artillery battalions, 3 tank battalions and 8 light armored and amphibious battalions, 3 combat engineer battalions, and 4 recce battalions... And that's just in the direct combat arms. So is he taking downsize or adding 4 more infantry battalions? Does he even know?
Building an "active" army to 540,000 would require adding some 100,000+ men to a force that just finished drawing down from that almost exact size.
A 350 ship surface combatant + submarine Navy would require adding almost 80 combatant vessels to the fleet. A single Arleigh Burke class destroyer is almost $2 billion, and a new Zumwalt class destroyer $4 billion.
The USMC currently has 32 infantry battalions, 11 artillery battalions, 3 tank battalions and 8 light armored and amphibious battalions, 3 combat engineer battalions, and 4 recce battalions... And that's just in the direct combat arms. So is he taking downsize or adding 4 more infantry battalions? Does he even know?
Building an "active" army to 540,000 would require adding some 100,000+ men to a force that just finished drawing down from that almost exact size.
A 350 ship surface combatant + submarine Navy would require adding almost 80 combatant vessels to the fleet. A single Arleigh Burke class destroyer is almost $2 billion, and a new Zumwalt class destroyer $4 billion.
I'm only (very mildly) looking forward to the 2nd one. Anderson Cooper is a good moderator.
I think he might actually have a learning disability.
He definitely has ADHD. He doesn't even listen to questions. Just picks out a word and goes on a complete tangent.
His biographer came to that conclusion. His attention span was so short he had to give up interviewing him about his past and try to piece it all together from other people.
A fairly large number of Americans want this man to be their commander in chief.
Drumpf, that is, not Pogue.
Do we? We need the US in NATO, but we certainly don't need their troops in Germany. Not really, that is. They don't serve any purpose here. They are stationed in Germany to organize logistics for operations in the middle east, which is certainly not something NATO is involved in.
We do. Our military (German) is a joke, and we aren't really willing to change that. Keeping American troops here means it doesn't matter though, as they just defend the status quo, which is fine with most of us.
I reckon you should give it a go in 2020.
What's the latest? I heard the polls were swinging back a bit toward Trump? God help us.
We don't need them in Germany for that, which was my point. Although I agree that wie should invest more money into our military. I really was rather sad that the ruomurs we are interested in the french helicopter carriers they built for Russia didn't turn out to be true. Would've been a nice addition to our new F125 destroyer frigates, which are also build with amphibic operations in mind.
Btw, despite what Mr. Trump says, we already pay a considerable amount of money to the US to back up their troops here.
The defense spending pledge that NATO members made is 2% of their GDP. Right now I think only 5 out of 28 countries are meeting that number.
Well, there's no imminent danger to the status quo, but it really isn't a stretch of mind to think there could be in the next decades. Just imagine the Turkish coup would have worked and brought someone hostile towards Europe to the presidency. What will happen to Russia once Putin is gone? Having the US troops here means we're untouchable... Nato is nothing but a promise without them. While we do pay some of the cost of the troops here, it certainly isn't as much as it would cost us to protect ourselves. We don't have to be thankful for them, in the end they're here to serve their own interests... however we do doubtlessly benefit a lot. I didn't say we should invest more into our military, i'm fine with the way things are currently.
true. The US, Greece, Poland, Uk and Estonia spend more than 2% of their GDP on the military. Would be great if these countries understand that they waste money and reduce the amount to a more resonable share; just like all the other countries.
Europe is also untouchable without the USA, when it comes to defense. It is true so, that NATO couldn´t wage wars abroad without the US capabilities. At least not without massive pain.
It's quite simple and it was a hashtag months ago. It should have stuck and should just be the standard reply to anything the feckwit says. #TrumpDon'tKnowShit!
Defensively, we are perfectly fine. Despite the fearmongering and the capabilities shown in Syria and Ukraine, the Russian forces are in no way a match for the european ones. They have a few modern and organized units, but in depth, the Russian military is still underfunded and in desperate need of modernization.
The problem we have without the US is the lack of offensive capabilities, especially in logistics. We only have one real carrier left at the moment (3 in 2020) and no long range air strike capabilities.
If you want to be in the club, you should pay the pledged membership fee. As it stands, 23 nations are not and are relying on US trip wires to insure their defense.
I agree with US military commanders who stated during the Crimean crisis that a US-less NATO would not be able to defeat its nearest unfriendly major military power (Russia).
Besides that, could any NATO nation other than the US actually unilaterally defeat an enemy of the size and capability of ISIS (much less a conventional force)?
Not really...
http://warontherocks.com/2016/04/outnumbered-outranged-and-outgunned-how-russia-defeats-nato/
And that's with our help.
Well, tough luck, because given the economic situation in Europe, the spending on military will probably not increase. Your claims about the Russian military and its comparison to the European ones is absurd and has nothing to do with reality. The European militaries outmatch the Russian forces in every category (including man-power) with the exception of old tanks. The idea that Russia could win a conventional offensive war against the European Nato states is completely delusional.
You are right, that the European capabilities to launch any operation abroad are nothing compared to the US ones. So without the US, Europe would struggle with any serious foreign intervention; including bombing ISIS. I remember that the French were running out of ammo during the Libya debacle after a week or so, begging the USA to help them out. That was quite hilarious. That said I am not too keen on these endeavors and quite happy that Europe can´t launch them on their own.
We should just change the pledge to 1 or 0.5%. (I agree that it isn't acceptable to pledge one thing and do another, but there's no natural reason it has to be 2% when all possible adversaries could spend 100% and still spend less in absolute numbers).
The jury's still out on whether the US can. I hope they can, but if they do it will be with the help of Kurds, moderate fractions (Whatever that means these days in Syria) and others.
While that may be true today, it might change. I'm not saying we can't defend ourselves, what i'm saying is we can't defend ourselves alone as well as with the US, and that it would cost a fortune to get close. I for one wouldn't want to pay for that. We've "found" an arrangement that's to our mutual benefit, why would we want to change it?
Last edited:
Those aren't "my claims". They are the stated reality of military leaders and foreign policy think thanks. I'm simply relaying the information. "Tough luck" to the Baltic NATO allies should an attack come.
https://www.google.com/amp/foreignp...cs-nato-would-lose-quickly/amp/?client=safari
http://warontherocks.com/2016/04/outnumbered-outranged-and-outgunned-how-russia-defeats-nato/
We currently aren't acting unilaterally. We also aren't using anywhere near our full capability in the fight against ISIS. We've handcuffed ourselves to virtually naval and air assets only.
We could deploy a full 3 combat division corps (almost 200,000 men) to the region should the political powers that be become so inclined, just as we did in Iraq in 2003.
Last edited:
No doubt. Would that defeat ISIS though? I'd wager they'd just move to the next desert nobody cares for.
If we are defining defeat as annihilating Isis's forces on the ground in Syria and Iraq, then yes it could.
There was a thread on here a few weeks ago about alternatives to the current air campaign in which I stated how I believe the above aim is possible. It relies upon Sun Tzu's prescription for a battle in which you must destroy your opponent's force in the field.
Before you post stuff like that, please read and understand it before you do.
It's about the situation in the baltics. Nobody doubts that NATO would be unable to defend the baltics. But the problem there is not the fact that our military ins inferior, but that we would have to fight far away from home while they just have to cross the border.
That thing about the M109 is epecially stupid. Yes, the US still relies on it. But nobody else does, european forces rely on the far more capable PzH2000.
The article is nitpicking parts fitting it's agenda.
I'd imagine a ground campaign could wipe out their weapons pretty quickly but we'd still be left with countless small groups who would simply vanish.
I'd vote Pogue over trump every day of the week.
Before you say things like that, understand I have read and do fully understand it.
NATO cannot currently provide credible defense to its own members WITH the United States. Imagine NATO without it (go back to my original post on the subject).
Also, European NATO members weapons capability doesn't help them much when they do not have the logistical capability to get it where it is needed.
Currently, European defense budgets have created hollow forces throughout the continent. They have technology and look decent on paper, but because of budgetary constraints they can only bring tiny fractions of their force to combat readiness at any one time (well under normal force rotation quotas).
NATO with the US could lose the Baltics. NATO without the US is a paper tiger. Europe needs the US and its defense spending and a moderate amount of hawkishness more than some would like to admit.
Well ok, I guess it depends what you define as defeating. To me ISIS isn't akin to a Nation/Country/State (They'd like to be, but they aren't), they're more of a cult. As such there isn't a real victory to be had, you can only aim to push back the cult's ideology, hoping it dies out one day. I don't think they can be truly beaten by conventional military forces. If the US were to do as you propose I fear it would go the same way Afghanistan has been going the last 14 years (Similiar anyway, they're are incomprehensible many influences in both countries that make for different situations, but that would be my fear).
I completely agree that the idea cannot be defeated militarily. I'm simply speaking in terms of eliminating their military forces in Iraq/Syria.
Is he applying Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP)? He also seems to insert his slogans unrelated to questions etc.
It's basic media training to repeatedly crowbar in slogans and key messages into interviews. The skill is in doing this as subtley as possible, as opposed to sounding like you're having a stroke.
Gary Johnson - What is Aleppo ?
I dislike Hilary as much as anyone else but she actual appear's to be the only one who isn't a complete idiot.
- Status