Nato spearhead force ‘too vulnerable’ to be deployed in war with Russia

[Aragorn2002]

12 minutes ago, Raptorx7 said:

Taking in refugees instead of focusing exclusively on building up the  military=Weakness

Were doomed as a species, we have learned nothing, even after wars that killed hundreds of millions. How much larger should the US military be and how much larger should European militarys be, how far do we need to go to meet this "massive" Russian threat?

Do you know what little is left of the NATO tank force for example? I'm ashamed to say my own country practically sold all of it's tanks some time ago. There are plans to raise a dutch tank force again, but the damage is done. The situation isn't much better in Germany or other NATO countries. So the question 'how much larger' is more relevant than you seem to think. And what is the US military presence in Europe at the moment? A couple of Shermans at Bastogne and surroundings probably.

Doomed as species...Bombastic nonsense.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Aragorn2002

[Kinophile]

1 minute ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Do you know what little is left of the NATO tank force for example? I'm ashamed to say my own country practically sold all of it's tanks some time ago. There are plans to raise a dutch tank force again, but the damage is done. The situation isn't much better in Germany or other NATO countries. So the question 'how much larger' is more relevant than you seem to think. And what is the US military presence in Europe at the moment? A couple of Shermans at Bastogne and surroundings probably.

I  don't know what fun stuff you're on,  but I hope you brought enough for everyone. 

[AttorneyAtWar]

3 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Do you know what little is left of the NATO tank force for example? I'm ashamed to say my own country practically sold all of it's tanks some time ago. There are plans to raise a dutch tank force again, but the damage is done. The situation isn't much better in Germany or other NATO countries. So the question 'how much larger' is more relevant than you seem to think. And what is the US military presence in Europe at the moment? A couple of Shermans at Bastogne and surroundings probably.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_US_Army

 

This doesn't include ABCT's that rotate in out every year either, and it also doesn't include the units stationed in the Balkans currently.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Raptorx7

[Rebby]

I heard the DAF is leasing some BW Leopards for the upcoming military exercises, so it isn't that tragic. 

 

 

[Aragorn2002]

2 minutes ago, kinophile said:

I  don't know what fun stuff you're on,  but I hope you brought enough for everyone. 

Yes, let me know if you need an overdose.

[Battlefront.com]

I was about to lock this, but then wasn't, now am again

There's been very little Russia "bashing" in this thread.  In fact, I would say there's been FAR more NATO "bashing".  For some reason it appears that if you call out a militaristic, expansionist autocracy with a proven track record of attacking its neighbors (and lying about it on top of it) then you are "bashing".  But if you say how impotent, incompetent, and utterly useless NATO is you're just stating facts.  Hopefully now that I've pointed that out people will see who is really getting bashed.

One thing we seem to all agree upon is that Russia attacking the Baltics would be stupid.  Even those who think NATO couldn't fight its way out of a wet paper bag and Russia is capable of defying historical precedents and current generally agreed to facts seem to agree that it would be really stupid.  As someone who has a degree in history and is lucky enough to have a day job that allows me to have conversations like this AND get paid for it (heh), I don't see this as a very gray area.  Russia attacks the Baltics, as a nation state it dies.  How badly or how fast it dies is debatable, but just like drinking tea with polonium in it... it's not going to be pretty or end well.

Steve