Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is NATO Worth The Trouble?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Escape2Victory View Post
    It looks like Germany could do more. I recall they have some law that means they can't commit combat troops overseas? Is that still live?
    They depolyed in Kosovo after much hand-wringing, so there's already a precedent set for deployment outside Germany. (Footage of Bundeswher soldiers shooting up a car approaching their column of vehicles at speed somewhere in Kosovo, killing the men in the car, caused a bit of a stir as I recall things.)

    And obviously almost everyone in the NATO, and the Germans in particular considering the size of the country, could do more these days, since few are even living up to an agreed baseline of 2% of GDP being spent on defense, certainly not Germany.

    During the Cold War otoh the Bundeswehr was detailed to meet, and hold, the intial Soviet onslaught, and so it was tailored to that job.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      No.

      NATO partners want us to rush in and defend them, but do not want or even try to come to our assistance.

      Let them fight their own wars. After all, the Cold War Red Menace is gone, and that is entirely thanks to America.
      Cuban Missle Crisis.

      First to throw in behind the US in confronting the USSR, come hell or high water, was the French under bloody de Gaulle.

      In parts of the US political establishment France has been know as "the foul weather friend" for decades, as opposed to all the "fair weather friends". When there's killing that needs to be done, the French usually aren't absent, and they bring all their own kit for the job too.

      Heck, sometime the French just move ahead so the US don't need to take all the strain — usually someplece in Africa.

      The exception to that situation as a rule, would be the invasion of Iraq. But then France did warn about that...

      It tends to revert back to a set of question if the US wants actual allies, fully able to act independently, and disagree (strenously even), or if it would prefer subordinates it can order about?

      France is probably exactly the kind of European ally the US needs and deserves — frightening prospect as that might be.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
        They depolyed in Kosovo after much hand-wringing, so there's already a precedent set for deployment outside Germany. (Footage of Bundeswher soldiers shooting up a car approaching their column of vehicles at speed somewhere in Kosovo, killing the men in the car, caused a bit of a stir as I recall things.)

        And obviously almost everyone in the NATO, and the Germans in particular considering the size of the country, could do more these days, since few are even living up to an agreed baseline of 2% of GDP being spent on defense, certainly not Germany.

        During the Cold War otoh the Bundeswehr was detailed to meet, and hold, the intial Soviet onslaught, and so it was tailored to that job.
        During the Cold War all of the Germany Mil was under Nato Command and provided the largest numbers in land forces.

        The French continued to have troops stationed in Germany even after they left NATO Mil Command structure they maintained liaisons with NATO/US Headquarters

        Germany first sent troops to Somalia in the early 90s
        "Ask not what your country can do for you"

        Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

        you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
          Cuban Missle Crisis.

          First to throw in behind the US in confronting the USSR, come hell or high water, was the French under bloody de Gaulle.

          In parts of the US political establishment France has been know as "the foul weather friend" for decades, as opposed to all the "fair weather friends". When there's killing that needs to be done, the French usually aren't absent, and they bring all their own kit for the job too.

          Heck, sometime the French just move ahead so the US don't need to take all the strain — usually someplece in Africa.

          The exception to that situation as a rule, would be the invasion of Iraq. But then France did warn about that...

          It tends to revert back to a set of question if the US wants actual allies, fully able to act independently, and disagree (strenously even), or if it would prefer subordinates it can order about?

          France is probably exactly the kind of European ally the US needs and deserves — frightening prospect as that might be.

          I seem to remember France refusing over flight rights when the U.S. wanted to bomb Libya in the 80’s. It doubled the flight time for the bombers because France didn’t want to upset a terrorist.
          Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Tsar View Post
            I seem to remember France refusing over flight rights when the U.S. wanted to bomb Libya in the 80’s. It doubled the flight time for the bombers because France didn’t want to upset a terrorist.
            Yes, they had to make a little detour.

            And apparently at least some Americans have been sucking at this near-terminal slight to them by the French, like it was a hollow tooth, ever since...

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
              Cuban Missle Crisis.

              First to throw in behind the US in confronting the USSR, come hell or high water, was the French under bloody de Gaulle.

              In parts of the US political establishment France has been know as "the foul weather friend" for decades, as opposed to all the "fair weather friends". When there's killing that needs to be done, the French usually aren't absent, and they bring all their own kit for the job too.

              Heck, sometime the French just move ahead so the US don't need to take all the strain — usually someplece in Africa.

              The exception to that situation as a rule, would be the invasion of Iraq. But then France did warn about that...

              It tends to revert back to a set of question if the US wants actual allies, fully able to act independently, and disagree (strenously even), or if it would prefer subordinates it can order about?

              France is probably exactly the kind of European ally the US needs and deserves — frightening prospect as that might be.
              Lots of good points here, can't rep you again yet though. The UK, France, Germany all have strong martial history. If there is a fight we probably have something meaningful to contribute if we believe in the cause.
              Ne Obliviscaris, Sans Peur

              Comment


              • #37
                The NATO alliance is important, if not critical, to both the US and the European allies.

                The US should not pull out and return to ignoring Europe. That would divide the West which would make it an easier target for the Islamic terrorists of whatever organization.

                The Alliance is important for all concerned and it the US pulled out Putin would have reached one of his unstated goals as the Russians hate NATO.

                NATO is one of the main reasons the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact fell apart.

                Sincerely,
                M
                We are not now that strength which in old days
                Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Andy H View Post
                  Hi

                  Doing that will add or weaken US interest & security?

                  US FP & security has/ is based upon not a single European power (France, Germany or Russia for example) controlling the European continent. US Presidents etc have acknowledged that if that were to pass, it would severely compromise America's security.

                  Regards

                  Andy H
                  Call us on a need to need basis, however we are likely to out source to China or Pakistan so just beware.
                  My worst jump story:
                  My 13th jump was on the 13th day of the month, aircraft number 013.
                  As recorded on my DA Form 1307 Individual Jump Log.
                  No lie.

                  ~
                  "Everything looks all right. Have a good jump, eh."
                  -2 Commando Jumpmaster

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    There is no such thing as 'isolationist safety' in today's world. Even private terrorist organizations can reach out and touch someone from the other side of the world, let alone nations such as Russia or China. Thus there is the need to be a part of such organizations like NATO and to maintain overseas bases all over the world so that we can somewhat quickly respond to a threat from such. No such thing as a ocean being a safety net anymore. We can't pack up all our toys, head for home and feel safe. That ship sailed generations ago.
                    "War is hell, but actual combat is a motherf#cker"
                    - Col. David Hackworth

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by hankwill View Post
                      As one U.S.soldier and a member of the NATO forces committed to the defenses of Westeren Europe during the early 1960's.
                      It never ceased to amaze me that every U.S. garrison I had been on had a prominently displayed sign on post stating that"This base will be over run by Warsaw pack forces in 15 minutes or less".(Depending on it's location to the east/west border of Germany.)
                      Also our response to a mock Warsaw pack attack,Alert,was to abandon our bases and hide in the surrounding woods with our vehicles with no stable(none we knew of)means of resupply of anything.The"Alerts" never amounted to anything more that a few days camping in the woods,then back to base. This was before"Vietnan"started to bleed the U.S.military of men and material.
                      This was the same time frame that Charles de Gaulle pulled out of NATO.
                      So ... were these "signs" Official, ... or not

                      Either way, same effect on conveying the situation and response ...

                      Your base is "Ground Zero" and given worse case supposition of Soviet tactics, likely targeted for some form of NBC First Barage!

                      So, "grab rucks and get out of Dodge, NOW!"

                      Assume a Defensible Posture at nearby defensible terrain, await Orders, prepare for Worst.

                      Should get the mindset established, heh ???

                      Ain't 20/20 Hindsight a few decades later so nice ... to know we Greatly Overestimated Soviet strengths and capabilities ...
                      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Tsar View Post
                        I seem to remember France refusing over flight rights when the U.S. wanted to bomb Libya in the 80’s. It doubled the flight time for the bombers because France didn’t want to upset a terrorist.
                        Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
                        Yes, they had to make a little detour.

                        And apparently at least some Americans have been sucking at this near-terminal slight to them by the French, like it was a hollow tooth, ever since...
                        It goes back further than Operation El Dorado Canyon.

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Un...mbing_of_Libya

                        During the Yom Kippur war of 1973, only Portugal would provide the USA with landing rights at Lajes in the Azores to allow the Military Airlift Command to fly vital supplies to Israel.

                        Every other European nation bowed down to the threat of the oil weapon.

                        The best treatment I have to hand of this situation is:

                        http://www.amazon.com/The-Two-OClock.../dp/0312273037

                        which I have just finished rereading and is sitting on my bedside table.

                        And yes, NATO is still worth the trouble, unless it is desired that a modern day Munich crisis is repeated.

                        What's that old saying?

                        "Those that ignore the lessons of history are bound to repeat it."
                        Attached Files
                        Last edited by At ease; 27 Feb 15, 05:21.
                        "It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
                        "You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

                        "Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
                        — Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by At ease View Post
                          (...) During the Yom Kippur war of 1973, only Portugal would provide the USA with landing rights at Lajes in the Azores to allow the Military Airlift Command to fly vital supplies to Israel.
                          I suspect you may have been watching the blowback of the original Suez Crisis there -

                          France and Britain were put in their place there by the US and the USSR as an objective ally.

                          I think at that point - the role of policing the ME was officially shifted from Europe to the Americas.
                          High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.
                          Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Co.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
                            Cuban Missle Crisis.

                            First to throw in behind the US in confronting the USSR, come hell or high water, was the French under bloody de Gaulle.

                            In parts of the US political establishment France has been know as "the foul weather friend" for decades, as opposed to all the "fair weather friends". When there's killing that needs to be done, the French usually aren't absent, and they bring all their own kit for the job too.

                            Heck, sometime the French just move ahead so the US don't need to take all the strain — usually someplece in Africa.

                            The exception to that situation as a rule, would be the invasion of Iraq. But then France did warn about that...

                            It tends to revert back to a set of question if the US wants actual allies, fully able to act independently, and disagree (strenously even), or if it would prefer subordinates it can order about?

                            France is probably exactly the kind of European ally the US needs and deserves — frightening prospect as that might be.
                            France withdrew from NATO in the 60's.
                            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              France withdrew from NATO in the 60's.
                              Yes France withdrew from NATO in 1966 and rejoined as a full member in 2009!
                              Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
                                I suspect you may have been watching the blowback of the original Suez Crisis there -

                                France and Britain were put in their place there by the US and the USSR as an objective ally.

                                I think at that point - the role of policing the ME was officially shifted from Europe to the Americas.
                                I take it you are referring to the 1956 conflict?

                                If what you have suggested was correct, and I don't believe it is, Israel would not have received the hundreds of Centurion tanks it got from the late 1950's onwards from the UK.

                                Likewise, she would not have received the numerous squadrons of French made(as opposed to the more recent Israeli made adaptation) Dassault Mirage fighters in the early-mid 1960's.

                                Furthermore:

                                [.....]

                                20th century

                                The fall of Singapore to the Japanese on 15 February 1942 damaged the empire as it lost a strategic imperial outpost and laid the seeds of the collapse of British imperial power, post World War II.[7] Then, with Indian independence in 1947, there was a gradual draw-down of the military presence “East of Suez”, marking the collapse of the empire.[8][9] The Suez Crisis—a diplomatic and military confrontation in November 1956, caused by the nationalization of Suez Canal by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser—ended in Egypt taking full control of the canal. The economic and military influence of Britain over the region was marginalized, limiting its control over the bases in the Middle East and South East Asia.[9][10][11] In January 1968, a few weeks after the devaluation of the pound,[1][8] Prime Minister Harold Wilson and his Defence Secretary, Denis Healey, announced that British troops would be withdrawn in 1971 from major military bases in South East Asia, "east of Aden", primarily in Malaysia and Singapore[7][12][13] as well as the Persian Gulf and Maldives[14] (both of which are sited in the Indian Ocean), which is when the phrase "East of Suez" entered the vernacular. In June 1970, Edward Heath's government came to power and retained a small political and military commitment to South East Asia through the Five Power Defence Arrangements.[14] Prior to the 1997 handover of Hong Kong to China, Britain based several units in Hong Kong.

                                [.....]
                                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_of_Suez#20th_century

                                So, it was the early 70's that marked the drawdown of European(mainly UK) influence in the Middle East, not the late 1950's as you seem to have suggested.
                                Last edited by At ease; 28 Feb 15, 06:40.
                                "It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
                                "You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

                                "Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
                                — Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X