Trump MAGAthread VI

[Hittanryan]

At this point, maybe tough love is what the Europeans need. Maybe they'll start whistling a different tune if next time there is an attack or some other conflict, Uncle Sam flat out refuses to assist. If they aren't willing to commit to defending themselves, why should the USA? Honestly, it kind of blows at times that Canada is right next door to the USA so it has to be protected regardless because Canada also really needs that tough love. Less than 1% of GDP on defense, Jesus I cannot properly convey how terrible that is.

I have an honest question: what do Americans believe will happen in the US if NATO allies increase their military spending? Do they think that the US will reduce its military spending in turn to give tax breaks or spend on domestic matters? To that I say fat chance, especially with the Republicans in power. The military is the only thing the Republicans want to spend money on; their proposed budgets so far slash funding to social programs across the board while increasing funding to the military. Even if the Democrats were in power, in the end defense contracts provide too much pork, and the US has too many global interests to seriously reduce its military.

[Uxupox]

If the only viable enemy (Which is Russia) actually manages to defeat the entirety of Europe. Then they are idiots.

And then when Russia consolidates resources and territory you get dragged into a conflict you hide from like Jehovah's Witnesses at the door because they're not going to settle for just Europe.

The only one who will be hiding is you.

[The East Marches II]

At this point, maybe tough love is what the Europeans need. Maybe they'll start whistling a different tune if next time there is an attack or some other conflict, Uncle Sam flat out refuses to assist. If they aren't willing to commit to defending themselves, why should the USA? Honestly, it kind of blows at times that Canada is right next door to the USA so it has to be protected regardless because Canada also really needs that tough love. Less than 1% of GDP on defense, Jesus I cannot properly convey how terrible that is.

Because the US is more than capable of handling whatever overruns Europe and consolidated all that resource. Clearly. Life is a video game where nobody nee' no steenkin' badges allies.

Strawman time, that's how you know you won Nap. GG no re.

[Conserative Morality]

Both are better alternatives to either getting involved in WW3 because insufficient detterant. 1. happens anyway if we don't get our troops to Europe. We haven't done a Reforger tier exercise in many years. We'd have to feed units piecemeal into battle and suffer far more losses than otherwise due to our so called Allies weakness. That's even assuming we get there in time which is... doubtful. It takes weeks to cross the Ocean and airlift can't mass enough troops on its own to matter.

Why is it that in every hypothetical the opposition is comprised of hyper-competent aliens who instantly appear on the appropriate fronts in a surprise attack?

Do you remember Operation Serval? This isn't 1939.

[Lady Scylla]

Why am I arguing with you? You'd love to see NATO dissolved. Any action towards that goal would be praised regardless of logical consistency or viability.

Oh right, enlisted in the military but never wants to fight.

I'd be concerned if he enjoyed it.

[The East Marches II]

At this point, maybe tough love is what the Europeans need. Maybe they'll start whistling a different tune if next time there is an attack or some other conflict, Uncle Sam flat out refuses to assist. If they aren't willing to commit to defending themselves, why should the USA? Honestly, it kind of blows at times that Canada is right next door to the USA so it has to be protected regardless because Canada also really needs that tough love. Less than 1% of GDP on defense, Jesus I cannot properly convey how terrible that is.

I have an honest question: what do Americans believe will happen in the US if NATO allies increase their military spending? Do they think that the US will reduce its military spending in turn to give tax breaks or spend on domestic matters? To that I say fat chance, especially with the Republicans in power. The military is the only thing the Republicans want to spend money on; their proposed budgets so far slash funding to social programs across the board while increasing funding to the military. Even if the Democrats were in power, in the end defense contracts provide too much pork, and the US has too many global interests to seriously reduce its military.

We will likely have to increase. The Chinese build up means we will have to match them. Even our current levels aren't enough. If liberals and conservative alike want us to play world savior, they will have to face the financial bill. Having an understrength military only invites disaster. Don't guarentee what you aren't prepared to fight for. That is why I'm an isolationist. Being world police isn't worth the cost or the dead. However if we are to do it we have to do it right or we risk even worse disaster.

[Uxupox]

Both are better alternatives to either getting involved in WW3 because insufficient detterant. 1. happens anyway if we don't get our troops to Europe. We haven't done a Reforger tier exercise in many years. We'd have to feed units piecemeal into battle and suffer far more losses than otherwise due to our so called Allies weakness. That's even assuming we get there in time which is... doubtful. It takes weeks to cross the Ocean and airlift can't mass enough troops on its own to matter.

Why is it that in every hypothetical the opposition is comprised of hyper-competent aliens who instantly appear on the appropriate fronts in a surprise attack?

Do you remember Operation Serval? This isn't 1939.

Maskirovka.

[Conserative Morality]

Maskirovka.

Yes, we've seen how efficient *that* is. "Nyet, our polite green men are not Russian troops."

[Lady Scylla]

More like signing up for the fire department but never wanting to go on a call.

You do realise that fire departments are constantly doing fire prevention work, right? This may come as a shocker, but yeah most firefighters probably don't want people's homes burning down unless they are a complete psychopath. It runs the risk of them dying, civilians dying, pets dying, lives completely upended, etc. It's generally not a good thing.

But at least Uxu has shown a willingness to do some civic duty for his nation and put his life on the line if necessary. Not to mention, and Uxu can correct me if I am wrong, he has served a combat tour and has seen what war is like upfront. Unlike you.

Pffft. My recruiter sold me the same shtick.

[Napkiraly]

At this point, maybe tough love is what the Europeans need. Maybe they'll start whistling a tune if next time there is an attack or some other conflict, Uncle Sam flat out refuses to assist. If they aren't willing to commit to defending themselves, why should the USA? Honestly, it kind of blows at times that Canada is right next door to the USA so it has to be protected regardless because Canada also really needs that tough love. Less than 1% of GDP on defense, Jesus I cannot properly convey how terrible that is.

"Maybe tough love is what the Europeans need"

If Europe gets in deep shit and the US refuses to help, there are one of two ways that's going to go down:

1. They get their asses kicked and end up in Warsaw Pact 2.0 in which case our inaction has strengthened our enemies.

2. They kick the ass of their opposition and then refuse to play nice with the US and pursue an independent foreign policy contrary to our's.

Neither of those are good outcomes for us.

If they get overrun, then even I wonder if the USA could assemble the force necessary to retake Europe sufficiently. America is a behemoth to behold but even it is not invincible. As Marches stated, it'd be piecemeal at best if America were to respond right away which most likely would not be enough to hold out the Russians for very long.

I find the second scenario quite unlikely. The powers of Europe's security capabilities are not at the same levels of readiness and advancement as they were in the past. Even the UK would most likely not be able to become a fortress again (assuming the British and French nuclear capabilities are eliminated).

I don't like Ivan and consider them a strategic threat. But the PRC is a greater threat. Ivan wants his old spot back in the European game but doesn't seem to want to be a global power again. The PRC does, it is the primary strategic adversary of the USA right now. They are gunning for America's place and are becoming ever more aggressive in doing so. I can cut a deal with Ivan if he wants to play around in Europe - that's the fault of the Europeans not taking their defense capabilities seriously. America is getting sidetracked with Russia because the Europeans aren't pulling with the USA. Even Obama recognized this which is why he was rather miffed by Europe's twiddling on defense matters. He just didn't have the will to push them on it.

[The East Marches II]

Both are better alternatives to either getting involved in WW3 because insufficient detterant. 1. happens anyway if we don't get our troops to Europe. We haven't done a Reforger tier exercise in many years. We'd have to feed units piecemeal into battle and suffer far more losses than otherwise due to our so called Allies weakness. That's even assuming we get there in time which is... doubtful. It takes weeks to cross the Ocean and airlift can't mass enough troops on its own to matter.

Why is it that in every hypothetical the opposition is comprised of hyper-competent aliens who instantly appear on the appropriate fronts in a surprise attack?

Do you remember Operation Serval? This isn't 1939.

They aren't hyper competent and Serval is only 5,000 or so. The French logistic capabilities are a joke and they needed American help to do even that. They'd never be able to sustain mass deployments as we did to Iraq and Afghanistan (which didn't really involve that large of vehicle transfers and more reusing of shit in theater).

[Lady Scylla]

And then when Russia consolidates resources and territory you get dragged into a conflict you hide from like Jehovah's Witnesses at the door because they're not going to settle for just Europe.

The only one who will be hiding is you.

Don't make me throw a bucket of water at you two. You can dick compare somewhere else, thanks.

[Napkiraly]

You do realise that fire departments are constantly doing fire prevention work, right? This may come as a shocker, but yeah most firefighters probably don't want people's homes burning down unless they are a complete psychopath. It runs the risk of them dying, civilians dying, pets dying, lives completely upended, etc. It's generally not a good thing.

But at least Uxu has shown a willingness to do some civic duty for his nation and put his life on the line if necessary. Not to mention, and Uxu can correct me if I am wrong, he has served a combat tour and has seen what war is like upfront. Unlike you.

Pffft. My recruiter sold me the same shtick.

Cool beans.

[Izandai]

"Maybe tough love is what the Europeans need"

If Europe gets in deep shit and the US refuses to help, there are one of two ways that's going to go down:

1. They get their asses kicked and end up in Warsaw Pact 2.0 in which case our inaction has strengthened our enemies.

2. They kick the ass of their opposition and then refuse to play nice with the US and pursue an independent foreign policy contrary to our's.

Neither of those are good outcomes for us.

Both are better alternatives to either getting involved in WW3 because insufficient detterant.

I take it you think we should've stayed out of WW2?

1. happens anyway if we don't get our troops to Europe. We haven't done a Reforger tier exercise in many years. We'd have to feed units piecemeal into battle and suffer far more losses than otherwise due to our so called Allies weakness. That's even assuming we get there in time which is... doubtful. It takes weeks to cross the Ocean and airlift can't mass enough troops on its own to matter.

You've been playing too much COD. Russia can't actually invade all of Europe all at once.

[Uxupox]

Maskirovka.

Yes, we've seen how efficient *that* is. "Nyet, our polite green men are not Russian troops."

It's actually very proficient.

[Lady Scylla]

Pffft. My recruiter sold me the same shtick.

Cool beans.

But beans are good when they're cooked.

I just think it's funny how they sell that crap and try to fill your head -- just give me the damn paper and let me make some money.

[Conserative Morality]

If they get overrun, then even I wonder if the USA could assemble the force necessary to retake Europe sufficiently.

With the way some people talk about European militaries, they seem to think that they can't hold their own against a strong wind.

America is a behemoth to behold but even it is not invincible. As Marches stated, it'd be piecemeal at best if America were to respond right away which most likely would not be enough to hold out the Russians for very long.

I find the second scenario quite unlikely. The powers of Europe's security capabilities are not at the same levels of readiness and advancement as they were in the past. Even the UK would most likely not be able to become a fortress again (assuming the British and French nuclear capabilities are eliminated).

I think you underestimate the difficulty of offensive operations both in terms of combat and logistics.

I don't like Ivan and consider them a strategic threat. But the PRC is a greater threat. Ivan wants his old spot back in the European game but doesn't seem to want to be a global power again. The PRC does, it is the primary strategic adversary of the USA right now. They are gunning for America's place and are becoming ever more aggressive in doing so. I can cut a deal with Ivan if he wants to play around in Europe - that's the fault of the Europeans not taking their defense capabilities seriously. America is getting sidetracked with Russia because the Europeans aren't pulling with the USA. Even Obama recognized this which is why he was rather miffed by Europe's twiddling on defense matters. He just didn't have the will to push them on it.

The PRC is our primary strategic adversary?

... what?

And being willing to cut a deal with Ivan?

Is this a joke?

[The East Marches II]

Both are better alternatives to either getting involved in WW3 because insufficient detterant.

I take it you think we should've stayed out of WW2?

1. happens anyway if we don't get our troops to Europe. We haven't done a Reforger tier exercise in many years. We'd have to feed units piecemeal into battle and suffer far more losses than otherwise due to our so called Allies weakness. That's even assuming we get there in time which is... doubtful. It takes weeks to cross the Ocean and airlift can't mass enough troops on its own to matter.

You've been playing too much COD. Russia can't actually invade all of Europe all at once.

It could, shit tanks are better than no tanks. The Russians out number the Europeans and have more equipment. Only Poland and the Baltics are taking defense seriously. Even they know they will be just a roadbump. You haven't been keeping track of the Russian rebuilding or their stockpiles of kit. The Europeans foolishly scrapped theirs instead of mothballing.

[Uxupox]

Both are better alternatives to either getting involved in WW3 because insufficient detterant.

I take it you think we should've stayed out of WW2?

1. happens anyway if we don't get our troops to Europe. We haven't done a Reforger tier exercise in many years. We'd have to feed units piecemeal into battle and suffer far more losses than otherwise due to our so called Allies weakness. That's even assuming we get there in time which is... doubtful. It takes weeks to cross the Ocean and airlift can't mass enough troops on its own to matter.

You've been playing too much COD. Russia can't actually invade all of Europe all at once.

You don't need to attack the whole of Europe.

[Hittanryan]

I have an honest question: what do Americans believe will happen in the US if NATO allies increase their military spending? Do they think that the US will reduce its military spending in turn to give tax breaks or spend on domestic matters? To that I say fat chance, especially with the Republicans in power. The military is the only thing the Republicans want to spend money on; their proposed budgets so far slash funding to social programs across the board while increasing funding to the military. Even if the Democrats were in power, in the end defense contracts provide too much pork, and the US has too many global interests to seriously reduce its military.

We will likely have to increase. The Chinese build up means we will have to match them. Even our current levels aren't enough. If liberals and conservative alike want us to play world savior, they will have to face the financial bill. Having an understrength military only invites disaster. Don't guarentee what you aren't prepared to fight for. That is why I'm an isolationist. Being world police isn't worth the cost or the dead. However if we are to do it we have to do it right or we risk even worse disaster.

So why bother getting the Europeans to increase their budgets if it's not going to change our policy either way?

[Uxupox]

If they get overrun, then even I wonder if the USA could assemble the force necessary to retake Europe sufficiently.

With the way some people talk about European militaries, they seem to think that they can't hold their own against a strong wind.

America is a behemoth to behold but even it is not invincible. As Marches stated, it'd be piecemeal at best if America were to respond right away which most likely would not be enough to hold out the Russians for very long.

I find the second scenario quite unlikely. The powers of Europe's security capabilities are not at the same levels of readiness and advancement as they were in the past. Even the UK would most likely not be able to become a fortress again (assuming the British and French nuclear capabilities are eliminated).

I think you underestimate the difficulty of offensive operations both in terms of combat and logistics.

I don't like Ivan and consider them a strategic threat. But the PRC is a greater threat. Ivan wants his old spot back in the European game but doesn't seem to want to be a global power again. The PRC does, it is the primary strategic adversary of the USA right now. They are gunning for America's place and are becoming ever more aggressive in doing so. I can cut a deal with Ivan if he wants to play around in Europe - that's the fault of the Europeans not taking their defense capabilities seriously. America is getting sidetracked with Russia because the Europeans aren't pulling with the USA. Even Obama recognized this which is why he was rather miffed by Europe's twiddling on defense matters. He just didn't have the will to push them on it.

The PRC is our primary strategic adversary?

... what?

And being willing to cut a deal with Ivan?

Is this a joke?

It's not difficult at all to conduct offensive operations...

[Napkiraly]

At this point, maybe tough love is what the Europeans need. Maybe they'll start whistling a different tune if next time there is an attack or some other conflict, Uncle Sam flat out refuses to assist. If they aren't willing to commit to defending themselves, why should the USA? Honestly, it kind of blows at times that Canada is right next door to the USA so it has to be protected regardless because Canada also really needs that tough love. Less than 1% of GDP on defense, Jesus I cannot properly convey how terrible that is.

I have an honest question: what do Americans believe will happen in the US if NATO allies increase their military spending? Do they think that the US will reduce its military spending in turn to give tax breaks or spend on domestic matters? To that I say fat chance, especially with the Republicans in power. The military is the only thing the Republicans want to spend money on; their proposed budgets so far slash funding to social programs across the board while increasing funding to the military. Even if the Democrats were in power, in the end defense contracts provide too much pork, and the US has too many global interests to seriously reduce its military.

It can focus on other parts of the globe, particularly the Pacific. It means flexibility for the rest of the US military and less strain on resources for the rest of its global commitments. Most importantly, it shows that they have the will to do their part.

[Uxupox]

We will likely have to increase. The Chinese build up means we will have to match them. Even our current levels aren't enough. If liberals and conservative alike want us to play world savior, they will have to face the financial bill. Having an understrength military only invites disaster. Don't guarentee what you aren't prepared to fight for. That is why I'm an isolationist. Being world police isn't worth the cost or the dead. However if we are to do it we have to do it right or we risk even worse disaster.

So why bother getting the Europeans to increase their budgets if it's not going to change our policy either way?

Because at this current stage we are literally backpacking them around with our dead. They need to step it up.

[The East Marches II]

We will likely have to increase. The Chinese build up means we will have to match them. Even our current levels aren't enough. If liberals and conservative alike want us to play world savior, they will have to face the financial bill. Having an understrength military only invites disaster. Don't guarentee what you aren't prepared to fight for. That is why I'm an isolationist. Being world police isn't worth the cost or the dead. However if we are to do it we have to do it right or we risk even worse disaster.

So why bother getting the Europeans to increase their budgets if it's not going to change our policy either way?

Even our increase won't be enough on its own. We will be spread out globally. Unless Europe puts up more too we will be wasting money effectively. It's why I believe if they won't join in, we should be willing to walk away. Why waste money on something pointless? They can be held hostage by their weakness and not drag us down too.

[Conserative Morality]

They aren't hyper competent and Serval is only 5,000 or so. The French logistic capabilities are a joke and they needed American help to do even that. They'd never be able to sustain mass deployments as we did to Iraq and Afghanistan (which didn't really involve that large of vehicle transfers and more reusing of shit in theater).

The initial transfer of Serval was 4,000 or so within a week, and yes, that was with Americans doing the heavy lifting. A small amount of our force. A 20th of our active duty C-17 fleet alone.

Force projection is our thing. Getting our forces over to Europe in a timely manner is not the problem you seem to think it is.