Trump MAGAthread VI

[Ism]

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.

Yes, and even if our policy doesn't change, those states promised to spend 2%, so they should be spending 2%.

[Izandai]

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.

We get it, you don't care about people, you don't need to reiterate that every time you post.

[Lady Scylla]

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.

With Trump as President, I'd be more reluctant to help the US if I were a European country.

[Napkiraly]

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?

Do I want to cut a deal with Ivan? No. Especially if the Europeans have shown a willingness to take the necessary precautions. I'm not for abandoning allies that have actually pulled their weight or even punched above it.

However crappy allies are another matter and quite frankly should be dropped if they become a liability.

And yes, the PRC is the primary strategic adversary of the USA. They are the ones most aggressively pushing for alternative institutions in which they hold the seat of power, are increasing their military capabilities, and are spreading their influence to important theaters of the world such as Africa and increasingly other parts of Asia and South America. They are gunning to be the center of the civilized world once again; to be the Middle Kingdom once more.

[Uxupox]

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

With Trump as President, I'd be more reluctant to help the US if I were a European country.

If they are reluctant then there is always the door.

[The East Marches II]

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.

Moving light units is alot different than heavy tanks and self propelled guns. 5k on the new Eastern Front will be nothing. We need to be able to move 100,000 plus tanks, artillery and all the fun stuff that goes with.

[Lady Scylla]

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.

I seem to recall many countries joining the coalition into Afghanistan and Iraq (Twice).

[Conserative Morality]

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

Oh, okay. You really convinced me over centuries of military theory and recent shitshows showing what a massive problem offensive operations are. Thanks, random internet guy!

[Lady Scylla]

With Trump as President, I'd be more reluctant to help the US if I were a European country.

If they are reluctant then there is always the door.

Such Merc thinking.

[The East Marches II]

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.

We get it, you don't care about people, you don't need to reiterate that every time you post.

Not wanting to be shackled to a dead corpse means I'm a bad guy. Please tell us more how martyring ourselves will help America? Denial of basic common sense.

[Uxupox]

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.

Moving light units is alot different than heavy tanks and self propelled guns. 5k on the new Eastern Front will be nothing. We need to be able to move 100,000 plus tanks, artillery and all the fun stuff that goes with.

Not to mention that you can literally move green status BCT's within a 24 hour notice to any place in the world. (Supposedly). And they are not even designated as RPF's.

[The East Marches II]

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.

I seem to recall many countries joining the coalition into Afghanistan and Iraq (Twice).

Quality bait, only the British pulled their weight. The rest did fuck all for fighting. Some even bribed the bad guys so they didn't have attacks in their sectors.

[Hittanryan]

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.

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.

What exactly does the US military need to be freed up for, exactly? And what, we're going to go it alone? I don't know about you guys, but I'd just assume not embark on any more poorly-planned unilateral military adventures, which is what I'm expecting out of the current Administration.

[Uxupox]

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

Oh, okay. You really convinced me over centuries of military theory and recent shitshows showing what a massive problem offensive operations are. Thanks, random internet guy!

I can give you a class on strategic level OPORDS, different levels of war and full spectrum operations if you want.

[Napkiraly]

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

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.

What exactly does the US military need to be freed up for, exactly? And what, we're going to go it alone? I don't know about you guys, but I'd just assume not embark on any more poorly-planned unilateral military adventures, which is what I'm expecting out of the current Administration.

Other theaters of operations for starters.

[Uxupox]

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

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.

What exactly does the US military need to be freed up for, exactly? And what, we're going to go it alone? I don't know about you guys, but I'd just assume not embark on any more poorly-planned unilateral military adventures, which is what I'm expecting out of the current Administration.

Bush didn't plan missions, nor did Obama and neither will Trump.

[Hittanryan]

What exactly does the US military need to be freed up for, exactly? And what, we're going to go it alone? I don't know about you guys, but I'd just assume not embark on any more poorly-planned unilateral military adventures, which is what I'm expecting out of the current Administration.

Other theaters of operations for starters.

Where? When?

[Conserative Morality]

Moving light units is alot different than heavy tanks and self propelled guns. 5k on the new Eastern Front will be nothing. We need to be able to move 100,000 plus tanks, artillery and all the fun stuff that goes with.

"Light units"

You do realize we were porting around artillery battalions for the Frenchies, right? 5k would be nothing. But as I said, our involvement was minimal in terms of our capabilities. 1/20 of our C-17 fleet. Just our C-17 fleet. Just our active C-17 fleet. That's not including our active C-5s, C-130s, or mothballed C-141s...

[Lady Scylla]

I seem to recall many countries joining the coalition into Afghanistan and Iraq (Twice).

Quality bait, only the British pulled their weight. The rest did fuck all for fighting. Some even bribed the bad guys so they didn't have attacks in their sectors.

If the US got attacked, I doubt much of Europe would sit back like nothing was happening. Trump's idea that the US is somehow entitled to reimbursement is insane.

[Uxupox]

Quality bait, only the British pulled their weight. The rest did fuck all for fighting. Some even bribed the bad guys so they didn't have attacks in their sectors.

If the US got attacked, I doubt much of Europe would sit back like nothing was happening. Trump's idea that the US is somehow entitled to reimbursement is insane.

Well they didn't provide much support for Afghanistan. ISAF was a failure.

[Hittanryan]

What exactly does the US military need to be freed up for, exactly? And what, we're going to go it alone? I don't know about you guys, but I'd just assume not embark on any more poorly-planned unilateral military adventures, which is what I'm expecting out of the current Administration.

Bush didn't plan missions, nor did Obama and neither will Trump.

Did I say Bush planned missions? I said he embarked on a poorly-planned unilateral military adventure, not that he planned individual missions.

[The East Marches II]

Quality bait, only the British pulled their weight. The rest did fuck all for fighting. Some even bribed the bad guys so they didn't have attacks in their sectors.

If the US got attacked, I doubt much of Europe would sit back like nothing was happening. Trump's idea that the US is somehow entitled to reimbursement is insane.

Its a sunk cost at this point. Europe can care all they want but how many tanks can they send to the front to help? That's the important part. Caring does fuck all.

[Conserative Morality]

Do I want to cut a deal with Ivan? No. Especially if the Europeans have shown a willingness to take the necessary precautions. I'm not for abandoning allies that have actually pulled their weight or even punched above it.

However crappy allies are another matter and quite frankly should be dropped if they become a liability.

And yes, the PRC is the primary strategic adversary of the USA. They are the ones most aggressively pushing for alternative institutions in which they hold the seat of power, are increasing their military capabilities, and are spreading their influence to important theaters of the world such as Africa and increasingly other parts of Asia and South America. They are gunning to be the center of the civilized world once again; to be the Middle Kingdom once more.

The PRC is not the crouching tiger you think it is. It's more paper than flesh. You really overestimate their capabilities and ambitions.

[Napkiraly]

Other theaters of operations for starters.

Where? When?

The Pacific should be the primary one and sooner rather than later. It's good seeing that the Japanese are at least starting a slow build up and the ROK has generally maintained a solid defense capability for their country from what I can tell (someone correct me if I am wrong).

[Proctopeo]

Quality bait, only the British pulled their weight. The rest did fuck all for fighting. Some even bribed the bad guys so they didn't have attacks in their sectors.

If the US got attacked, I doubt much of Europe would sit back like nothing was happening. Trump's idea that the US is somehow entitled to reimbursement is insane.

I wonder how effective many of those countries would be, at, you know, responding.