Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[US Foreign Policy] Talk about the Foreign Policy of the United States

16791112100

Posts

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited November 2018
    (Also, when was the last time the US actually used its strategic bombers in a meaningful way, other than just throwing them into the mix cuz they have them like in Iraq?)
    Projecting force in the South China Sea and on the Korean DMZ

    Oh well the Europeans will definitely need that.

    Never mind y'all. Nothing to see here! NATO4lyfe!

    Edit: Less snarky, you seem to be committing any number of errors mixed together, like equivocating between capabilities, underestimating European capacity, overestimating Russian capabilities, and miscalculating the time horizon. Like, you continue to harp on the F-35 and however will the EU build a generation V fighter to replace the F-35... uhhh... well they currently have the F-35, and it's not like the Americans are going to stop selling them, and also the Russians don't have a generation V fighter, and the Europeans have a perfectly serviceable generation IV figther, like what do you think the Europeans are going to do? Throw out all their F-35s and then sit on their hands not developing a generation VI for 20 years? You think the Americans are going to repossess all these F-35s? You think one day the EU just texts the US that they're done, and the US should come over and collect the box of American things the EU's left on the doorstep?

    hippofant on
    FencingsaxmrondeauelectricitylikesmeGaddezHeffling
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    I haven’t seen this reported in any English language press yet, but here is a BBC journalist showing a clipping from Le Monde, the French news publication.

    It says that Trump met with the leaders of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and began the meeting by blaming them for the war in Yugoslavia. Apparently, it took several minutes for the leaders to realize that Trump didn’t understand that the Balkans are not the Baltics.


    Oh my god this is incredible. You can't even explain your way around this, he's just stupid.

    There's like no way more than a fifth of Americans could accurately place either.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    lonelyahavaSleepTicaldfjam
  • Desktop HippieDesktop Hippie ATOMIKA! IT’S ME! IT’S DESKTOP HIPPIE!Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    I haven’t seen this reported in any English language press yet, but here is a BBC journalist showing a clipping from Le Monde, the French news publication.

    It says that Trump met with the leaders of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and began the meeting by blaming them for the war in Yugoslavia. Apparently, it took several minutes for the leaders to realize that Trump didn’t understand that the Balkans are not the Baltics.


    Oh my god this is incredible. You can't even explain your way around this, he's just stupid.

    There's like no way more than a fifth of Americans could accurately place either.

    Very true, but you would expect that someone who didn’t know would at least be coached by his staff enough so he didn’t make an idiot of himself in front of three foreign leaders.

    muhqxj.jpg
    destroyah87FencingsaxmonikerKetBralonelyahavaEmerlmaster999ElldrenMagellMr FuzzbuttkimeBullheadMild ConfusionelectricitylikesmeSleepJazzJaysonFourHefflingemp123SkeithKristmas Kthulhu
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    I haven’t seen this reported in any English language press yet, but here is a BBC journalist showing a clipping from Le Monde, the French news publication.

    It says that Trump met with the leaders of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and began the meeting by blaming them for the war in Yugoslavia. Apparently, it took several minutes for the leaders to realize that Trump didn’t understand that the Balkans are not the Baltics.


    Oh my god this is incredible. You can't even explain your way around this, he's just stupid.

    There's like no way more than a fifth of Americans could accurately place either.

    Very true, but you would expect that someone who didn’t know would at least be coached by his staff enough so he didn’t make an idiot of himself in front of three foreign leaders.

    Yeah, this is "too stupid to even listen to a very very short briefing".

    Desktop HippieCptKemzikCommander ZoomFencingsaxmonikerEmerlmaster999ElldrenBullheadelectricitylikesmeEchoSleepJazzJaysonFouremp123SkeithKristmas Kthulhu
  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    (Also, when was the last time the US actually used its strategic bombers in a meaningful way, other than just throwing them into the mix cuz they have them like in Iraq?)
    Projecting force in the South China Sea and on the Korean DMZ

    Oh well the Europeans will definitely need that.

    Never mind y'all. Nothing to see here! NATO4lyfe!

    Long range force projection? Yes, if they want to be a credible military, they will. Especially when their main strategic rival can hit targets in Germany and deny air/sea access within a 300km radius of Kaliningrad.

  • Desktop HippieDesktop Hippie ATOMIKA! IT’S ME! IT’S DESKTOP HIPPIE!Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I haven’t seen this reported in any English language press yet, but here is a BBC journalist showing a clipping from Le Monde, the French news publication.

    It says that Trump met with the leaders of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and began the meeting by blaming them for the war in Yugoslavia. Apparently, it took several minutes for the leaders to realize that Trump didn’t understand that the Balkans are not the Baltics.


    Oh my god this is incredible. You can't even explain your way around this, he's just stupid.

    There's like no way more than a fifth of Americans could accurately place either.

    Very true, but you would expect that someone who didn’t know would at least be coached by his staff enough so he didn’t make an idiot of himself in front of three foreign leaders.

    Yeah, this is "too stupid to even listen to a very very short briefing".

    Between this, Trump’s rantings about NATO, and his skipping the memorial service that was the entire point of this trip this might turn out to be Trump’s most disastrous foreign visit yet.

    Which given his record is really saying something.

    muhqxj.jpg
    monikerElldrenJazzMortal Sky
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited November 2018
    hippofant wrote: »
    (Also, when was the last time the US actually used its strategic bombers in a meaningful way, other than just throwing them into the mix cuz they have them like in Iraq?)
    Projecting force in the South China Sea and on the Korean DMZ

    Oh well the Europeans will definitely need that.

    Never mind y'all. Nothing to see here! NATO4lyfe!

    Long range force projection? Yes, if they want to be a credible military, they will. Especially when their main strategic rival can hit targets in Germany and deny air/sea access within a 300km radius of Kaliningrad.

    Well now I'm sure you have no idea wtf you're talking about, when you place a capability that only the US military has as the thing that makes someone a "credible military."

    Also casually mixing entirely different capabilities - long-range force projection in the western Pacific vs defending against A2/AD in the Baltic vs strategic defense of German sites against Russian launches - as though they're all the same, again.

    hippofant on
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Oh no the EU lacks strategic bombers to deter Russia, they only have nuclear weapons, whatever shall they do

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
    electricitylikesme
  • CptKemzikCptKemzik Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I haven’t seen this reported in any English language press yet, but here is a BBC journalist showing a clipping from Le Monde, the French news publication.

    It says that Trump met with the leaders of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and began the meeting by blaming them for the war in Yugoslavia. Apparently, it took several minutes for the leaders to realize that Trump didn’t understand that the Balkans are not the Baltics.


    Oh my god this is incredible. You can't even explain your way around this, he's just stupid.

    There's like no way more than a fifth of Americans could accurately place either.

    Very true, but you would expect that someone who didn’t know would at least be coached by his staff enough so he didn’t make an idiot of himself in front of three foreign leaders.

    Yeah, this is "too stupid to even listen to a very very short briefing".

    Between this, Trump’s rantings about NATO, and his skipping the memorial service that was the entire point of this trip this might turn out to be Trump’s most disastrous foreign visit yet.

    Which given his record is really saying something.

    He's still processing from Democrats sweeping the house and state gov'ts from earlier this week.

  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    (Also, when was the last time the US actually used its strategic bombers in a meaningful way, other than just throwing them into the mix cuz they have them like in Iraq?)
    Projecting force in the South China Sea and on the Korean DMZ

    Oh well the Europeans will definitely need that.

    Never mind y'all. Nothing to see here! NATO4lyfe!

    Edit: Less snarky, you seem to be committing any number of errors mixed together, like equivocating between capabilities, underestimating European capacity, overestimating Russian capabilities, and miscalculating the time horizon. Like, you continue to harp on the F-35 and however will the EU build a generation V fighter to replace the F-35... uhhh... well they currently have the F-35, and it's not like the Americans are going to stop selling them, and also the Russians don't have a generation V fighter, and the Europeans have a perfectly serviceable generation IV figther, like what do you think the Europeans are going to do? Throw out all their F-35s and then sit on their hands not developing a generation VI for 20 years? You think the Americans are going to repossess all these F-35s?

    You know the Dutch and Italians only have 11 F-35s actually in physical possession between them, right? If they actually were to decouple themselves from NATO with language like "defend ourselves from the United States" then... yeah, frankly, they might not be able to finish their buys (roughly 30 each for the Dutch and Belgians and like 50 for the Italians). And even if their buys are completed, that's frankly not a huge number of planes, and they'd certainly need to move forward with their own European 5gen or 5.5gen concept.

    Again, I never said Europe can't do this. I was replying to those who said it would be easy or necessarily desirable given the degree to which Europe relies on American capabilities, Anglo-American forces and American-sourced materiel at present time. I'm not sure why this is controversial to you.
    hippofant wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    (Also, when was the last time the US actually used its strategic bombers in a meaningful way, other than just throwing them into the mix cuz they have them like in Iraq?)
    Projecting force in the South China Sea and on the Korean DMZ

    Oh well the Europeans will definitely need that.

    Never mind y'all. Nothing to see here! NATO4lyfe!

    Long range force projection? Yes, if they want to be a credible military, they will. Especially when their main strategic rival can hit targets in Germany and deny air/sea access within a 300km radius of Kaliningrad.

    Well now I'm sure you have no idea wtf you're talking about, when you place a capability that only the US military has as the thing that makes someone a "credible military."

    Also casually mixing entirely different capabilities - long-range force projection in East Asia vs defending against A2/AD in the Baltic vs strategic defense of Germany sites against Russian launches - as though they're all the same, again.

    I listed each of these independently to start with, you're the one who asked for an example of our use of our own capability and then complained I didn't give you a European example.

    If you think only the US has this capability, I'm quite sure you have no idea what you're talking about...

  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    (Also, when was the last time the US actually used its strategic bombers in a meaningful way, other than just throwing them into the mix cuz they have them like in Iraq?)
    Projecting force in the South China Sea and on the Korean DMZ

    Oh well the Europeans will definitely need that.

    Never mind y'all. Nothing to see here! NATO4lyfe!

    Edit: Less snarky, you seem to be committing any number of errors mixed together, like equivocating between capabilities, underestimating European capacity, overestimating Russian capabilities, and miscalculating the time horizon. Like, you continue to harp on the F-35 and however will the EU build a generation V fighter to replace the F-35... uhhh... well they currently have the F-35, and it's not like the Americans are going to stop selling them, and also the Russians don't have a generation V fighter, and the Europeans have a perfectly serviceable generation IV figther, like what do you think the Europeans are going to do? Throw out all their F-35s and then sit on their hands not developing a generation VI for 20 years? You think the Americans are going to repossess all these F-35s?

    Actually Dongs is not saying that in the least.

    Dongs is saying here are the capabilities the Europeans are currently relying on the Americans for. If the parts of Europe not currently under the Russian thumb decide that they want all in on a European defense force to replace an America that is currently having a senility/racist old man problem (and a senile racist old voter problem) here is what they will need to replace.

    Dongs is also saying that they will need to find the domestic will to spend a hell of a lot more than they have been spending on NATO. Dongs is not saying that they do not have the capacity. It will take time and money and will. We know Europe has money. Time is a factor not under their control, but under the control of any potential strategic threat, but barring bad luck they have the time. The only question is will.

    If they can summon the will Dongs is saying they can do it. Dongs is also saying that if they can REALLY summon the will they could create something more cohesive then NATO.

    You seem to be leaping to conclusions bringing in Poland and Germany, which Dongs did not mention except as part of the problems to be overcome in creating a truly cohesive force. But he also mentioned that if it could be overcome that would be an advantage over the present NATO design.

    shryke wrote: »
    The Democrats aren't crazy but they are still, you know, running the US and it's foreign policy. Which is in the "you don't have a global hegemony without bombing a few eggs" wheelhouse.
    Dongs GaloreSolarElldren
  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Registered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Oh no the EU lacks strategic bombers to deter Russia, they only have nuclear weapons, whatever shall they do

    Yes, let's rely entirely on le Force de Frappe, just like NATO in the 1960s only way shittier

    PLA
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    A decent number of European countries such as France like projecting force in a way that relies on US support.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    I haven’t seen this reported in any English language press yet, but here is a BBC journalist showing a clipping from Le Monde, the French news publication.

    It says that Trump met with the leaders of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and began the meeting by blaming them for the war in Yugoslavia. Apparently, it took several minutes for the leaders to realize that Trump didn’t understand that the Balkans are not the Baltics.


    Oh my god this is incredible. You can't even explain your way around this, he's just stupid.

    There's like no way more than a fifth of Americans could accurately place either.

    Very true, but you would expect that someone who didn’t know would at least be coached by his staff enough so he didn’t make an idiot of himself in front of three foreign leaders.

    To be fair, his staff may not have known the difference, either

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    CptKemzikDesktop HippieRchanenshrykeElldrenJazz
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I haven’t seen this reported in any English language press yet, but here is a BBC journalist showing a clipping from Le Monde, the French news publication.

    It says that Trump met with the leaders of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and began the meeting by blaming them for the war in Yugoslavia. Apparently, it took several minutes for the leaders to realize that Trump didn’t understand that the Balkans are not the Baltics.


    Oh my god this is incredible. You can't even explain your way around this, he's just stupid.

    There's like no way more than a fifth of Americans could accurately place either.

    Very true, but you would expect that someone who didn’t know would at least be coached by his staff enough so he didn’t make an idiot of himself in front of three foreign leaders.

    Yeah, this is "too stupid to even listen to a very very short briefing".

    Between this, Trump’s rantings about NATO, and his skipping the memorial service that was the entire point of this trip this might turn out to be Trump’s most disastrous foreign visit yet.

    Which given his record is really saying something.

    *cough cough* Helsinki. It'll take more than being a dumbass to the Baltics, a dipshit to NATO, and an asshole to a fallen warrior service memorial, to top that one.

    However, what I am legitimate curious about, is did Trump actually remember the Balkans, and thought "This is a good time to go off on them", or was he coached by someone incompetent who confused it themselves when they briefed him? Because I'll be honest, if it was the former, then I'm honestly not giving him enough credit for retaining information from several decades ago that didn't involve him personally. Even if he did get an important part (like it being in a completely different part of the continent), and the people in front of him not being there.

    tynicDesktop HippieElldren
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited November 2018
    Rchanen wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    (Also, when was the last time the US actually used its strategic bombers in a meaningful way, other than just throwing them into the mix cuz they have them like in Iraq?)
    Projecting force in the South China Sea and on the Korean DMZ

    Oh well the Europeans will definitely need that.

    Never mind y'all. Nothing to see here! NATO4lyfe!

    Edit: Less snarky, you seem to be committing any number of errors mixed together, like equivocating between capabilities, underestimating European capacity, overestimating Russian capabilities, and miscalculating the time horizon. Like, you continue to harp on the F-35 and however will the EU build a generation V fighter to replace the F-35... uhhh... well they currently have the F-35, and it's not like the Americans are going to stop selling them, and also the Russians don't have a generation V fighter, and the Europeans have a perfectly serviceable generation IV figther, like what do you think the Europeans are going to do? Throw out all their F-35s and then sit on their hands not developing a generation VI for 20 years? You think the Americans are going to repossess all these F-35s?

    Actually Dongs is not saying that in the least.

    Dongs is saying here are the capabilities the Europeans are currently relying on the Americans for. If the parts of Europe not currently under the Russian thumb decide that they want all in on a European defense force to replace an America that is currently having a senility/racist old man problem (and a senile racist old voter problem) here is what they will need to replace.

    Dongs is also saying that they will need to find the domestic will to spend a hell of a lot more than they have been spending on NATO. Dongs is not saying that they do not have the capacity. It will take time and money and will. We know Europe has money. Time is a factor not under their control, but under the control of any potential strategic threat, but barring bad luck they have the time. The only question is will.

    If they can summon the will Dongs is saying they can do it. Dongs is also saying that if they can REALLY summon the will they could create something more cohesive then NATO.

    You seem to be leaping to conclusions bringing in Poland and Germany, which Dongs did not mention except as part of the problems to be overcome in creating a truly cohesive force. But he also mentioned that if it could be overcome that would be an advantage over the present NATO design.

    NOT having a Generation V fighter is NOT a problem that's relevant to a force reorganization/development that takes place over 10+ years, PLUS it also presumes that the US won't sell any more F-35s to the EU, because, presumably, the Europeans have left NATO*, but for some reason have done this before they can replace the capability of the F-35. Nor is force projection in the Western Pacific relevant to the development of a EU defense force, nor does said capability make one a "credible military" - or if it does, then nobody has said credible military other than the US, so who cares if the Europeans have it or not?

    Like, the very premise embedded here in this phrase - "a European defense force to replace an America" - highlights this. Why would a European defense force need Western Pacific force projection? Why would said defense force need strategic bomber penetration of Russia? This is what I'm referring to when I say Dongs is mixing up capabilities, between the relevant and the irrelevant, and confusing the timescales. Like, yes, a EU defense force would need forward presence forces and high-readiness forces... because those are the exact capabilities a EU defense force would be created to fulfill.

    So here's a list of capabilities that, some of them aren't ones that are relevant to a EU defense force, some of them are explicitly why you'd want a EU defense force, some of them are capabilities the US is likely to continue providing anyways, and they're all thrown together with some actual capability deficiencies like slop, and the conclusion then is that the EU is going to need a decade+ to develop the capabilities that a EU defense force would explicitly be developed to meet? Uh.


    * Or rather, entirely broken off friendly relations with the US, since non-NATO US allies also have the F-35.

    hippofant on
    Gaddez
  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    A decent number of European countries such as France like projecting force in a way that relies on US support.

    Yes, and they've done a substantial part of the heavy lifting on those occasions, for example, the U.S. only flew ~30% of the sorties in Odyssey Dawn or Allied Force, which not coincidentally were missions proximate to Europe and which the Euros felt to be in their own best interests. But in Odyssey Dawn the US still flew over 75% of the refueling and SEAD missions. That's the kind of capability Europe lacks and would have to develop if it wanted to be a military power proportionate to its size and influence.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited November 2018
    Actually, to clarify this discussion further, I think the real stick in my craw is that Dongs Galore is positing that a EUDF would entirely supplant NATO, in the short-term, and I think that's erroneous.

    Specifically, I think that the US is in an unfavourable position here, because the EU can back out of NATO exactly as much as it'd like to. If the EU wants to develop X capability, it can choose to; if it it doesn't want to, it can continue relying on the US provision of that capability, and I don't think the Americans can do anything about it, except to just unilaterally dissolve NATO, which would be to their detriment.

    The problem (for the Americans) is that the EU has capacity, and has always had the capacity; it has just opted not to develop any of it. It's always been an option for them, but the political fragmentation of the European nations and the general desire to "keep Germany down" has made it an unattractive option. But if it's their only option, they'll take it, and, if anything, the history of NATO - and the experience of European solidarity and cooperation under its protection - and Trump's (and also Obama's) grumbling about NATO have made that option increasingly attractive for the EU.

    As Trump (and Obama) grouse about how the Europeans have not "paid enough" for NATO, they actually undermine the core conceit of NATO, which is really that the Americans are going to pay the Europeans not to arm (or to stay disarmed). For about 10 years after WWII, this was necessary for the Europeans, because of the economic destruction wrought by the war, but since then, or at least certainly in recent years, it's really become more of an "opt-in" situation for the Europeans. And if Trump is going to change the parameters of the deal... well, the expectation should be that the Europeans are naturally going to reconsider all the parameters of the deal, and they're going to start "opting out" of some of the elements they no longer find "cost-effective."

    And I'm not sure what leverage the Americans have to keep the Europeans in on any/every element, short of blowing the whole thing up (or at least threatening to).

    hippofant on
    mrondeauCommander ZoomelectricitylikesmeFencingsaxGaddezHeffling
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    A decent number of European countries such as France like projecting force in a way that relies on US support.

    Yes, and they've done a substantial part of the heavy lifting on those occasions, for example, the U.S. only flew ~30% of the sorties in Odyssey Dawn or Allied Force, which not coincidentally were missions proximate to Europe and which the Euros felt to be in their own best interests. But in Odyssey Dawn the US still flew over 75% of the refueling and SEAD missions. That's the kind of capability Europe lacks and would have to develop if it wanted to be a military power proportionate to its size and influence.

    But while I'm not an expert on the matter, isn't this a capability that Europe couldn't easily ramp up, if they wanted to. They've just let the US do it in the past, because it's simpler, easier, and cheaper for them, and they're willing to trade favor and influence to the US in exchange.

    If the US don't appear to want that favor and influence in the European theater (as Trump seems to indicate), then I'm not seeing how they can't do it themselves relatively quickly. At which point, it'll be even harder for the US to get that capacity to influence back again.

    If Trump weren't such a petulant toddler about well... everything, I could see this being a "bump out of the nest" type move. Get Europe to stand on it's own, independent of the US. That's seeming to be the eventual result, though I doubt very much it was the initial intent.

    RchanenelectricitylikesmeFencingsax
  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Rchanen wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    (Also, when was the last time the US actually used its strategic bombers in a meaningful way, other than just throwing them into the mix cuz they have them like in Iraq?)
    Projecting force in the South China Sea and on the Korean DMZ

    Oh well the Europeans will definitely need that.

    Never mind y'all. Nothing to see here! NATO4lyfe!

    Edit: Less snarky, you seem to be committing any number of errors mixed together, like equivocating between capabilities, underestimating European capacity, overestimating Russian capabilities, and miscalculating the time horizon. Like, you continue to harp on the F-35 and however will the EU build a generation V fighter to replace the F-35... uhhh... well they currently have the F-35, and it's not like the Americans are going to stop selling them, and also the Russians don't have a generation V fighter, and the Europeans have a perfectly serviceable generation IV figther, like what do you think the Europeans are going to do? Throw out all their F-35s and then sit on their hands not developing a generation VI for 20 years? You think the Americans are going to repossess all these F-35s?

    Actually Dongs is not saying that in the least.

    Dongs is saying here are the capabilities the Europeans are currently relying on the Americans for. If the parts of Europe not currently under the Russian thumb decide that they want all in on a European defense force to replace an America that is currently having a senility/racist old man problem (and a senile racist old voter problem) here is what they will need to replace.

    Dongs is also saying that they will need to find the domestic will to spend a hell of a lot more than they have been spending on NATO. Dongs is not saying that they do not have the capacity. It will take time and money and will. We know Europe has money. Time is a factor not under their control, but under the control of any potential strategic threat, but barring bad luck they have the time. The only question is will.

    If they can summon the will Dongs is saying they can do it. Dongs is also saying that if they can REALLY summon the will they could create something more cohesive then NATO.

    You seem to be leaping to conclusions bringing in Poland and Germany, which Dongs did not mention except as part of the problems to be overcome in creating a truly cohesive force. But he also mentioned that if it could be overcome that would be an advantage over the present NATO design.

    NOT having a Generation V fighter is NOT a problem that's relevant to a force reorganization/development that takes place over 10+ years, PLUS it also presumes that the US won't sell any more F-35s to the EU, because, presumably, the Europeans have left NATO*, but for some reason have done this before they can replace the capability of the F-35. Nor is force projection in the Western Pacific relevant to the development of a EU defense force, nor does said capability make one a "credible military" - or if it does, then nobody has said credible military other than the US, so who cares if the Europeans have it or not?

    Like, the very premise embedded here in this phrase - "a European defense force to replace an America" - highlights this. Why would a European defense force need Western Pacific force projection? Why would said defense force need strategic bomber penetration of Russia? This is what I'm referring to when I say Dongs is mixing up capabilities, between the relevant and the irrelevant, and confusing the timescales. Like, yes, a EU defense force would need forward presence forces and high-readiness forces... because those are the exact capabilities a EU defense force would be created to fulfill.

    So here's a list of capabilities that, some of them aren't ones that are relevant to a EU defense force, some of them are explicitly why you'd want a EU defense force, and they're all thrown together with some actual capability deficiencies like slop, and the conclusion then is that the EU is going to need a decade+ to develop the capabilities that a EU defense force would explicitly be developed to meet? Uh.


    * Or rather, entirely broken off friendly relations with the US, since non-NATO US allies also have the F-35.

    Seriously? You're asking why something called a "defense force" would need an offensive strike capability?
    1. dude, I picked the name "EU defense force" at random, it has no bearing on anything
    2. ask the Israel Defense Force why they have bombers that can reach Iran

    Again, I brought up the Western Pacific because you asked me when the last time we used our bombers for a mission which could not have been done by other assets. I answered your question factually. Do you want me to name a hypothetical use for strategic bombers in the European theater? Fine! To find and attack the Russian North Sea Fleet, like their Tu-95s and Backfires would be doing the whole time! To carry standoff weapons to hit targets like Arkangelsk or Crimea without risking a larger number of Mirages carrying shorter-range missiles!

    Yes, the EUDF would be created to fulfill those capabilities the same way NATO notionally exists to do so. I wanted to convey how substantial those capability gaps actually would be without non-EU NATO partners - for example 3/4ths of the current Forward Presence deployment. That is a major level of additional mobilization which EU members would be called on to fulfill above and beyond their NATO target. When we're talking about the pros and cons of a European Army replacing NATO, that's an important consideration.

    Rchanen
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited November 2018
    1. dude, I picked the name "EU defense force" at random, it has no bearing on anything

    Maybe this is the problem. "EU defense force" is not really a random name. It's a concept that's been bandied about in European strategic circles for a while now and carries with it certain connotations and assumptions already.

    See, for example: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20049804

    hippofant on
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Trump is also skipping a memorial service for fallen WWI soldiers at a cemetery today during his trip to France, because of “inclement weather.” He’s sending Pompeo instead.

    It's 53 degrees with light rain.

    Yes, but it’s wet.

    *edit* Actually I should source this. A few news outlets are covering it, but here’s Newsweek.


    Support the troops on Armistace Veteran's Day!

    Christ, what an ignorant asshole.

    monikerDesktop HippieGnome-InterruptusElldrenFencingsaxJazzJaysonFourAl_watBrainleechemp123
  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    edited November 2018
    hippofant wrote: »
    1. dude, I picked the name "EU defense force" at random, it has no bearing on anything

    Maybe this is the problem. "EU defense force" is not really a random name. It's a concept that's been bandied about in European strategic circles for a while now and carries with it certain connotations and assumptions already.

    I still don't understand the "Don't need a strategic bomber" thing. You are going to want an offensive capability for any armed force. Defensive force or not.

    I mean the last time a purely defensive strategy had a chance in hell of working was WWI.

    Nowadays a purely defensive strategy is just a more militaristic way of asking to be stomped flat.

    Edit: Also I don't attend the University of Toronto.

    Rchanen on
    shryke wrote: »
    The Democrats aren't crazy but they are still, you know, running the US and it's foreign policy. Which is in the "you don't have a global hegemony without bombing a few eggs" wheelhouse.
  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    A decent number of European countries such as France like projecting force in a way that relies on US support.

    Yes, and they've done a substantial part of the heavy lifting on those occasions, for example, the U.S. only flew ~30% of the sorties in Odyssey Dawn or Allied Force, which not coincidentally were missions proximate to Europe and which the Euros felt to be in their own best interests. But in Odyssey Dawn the US still flew over 75% of the refueling and SEAD missions. That's the kind of capability Europe lacks and would have to develop if it wanted to be a military power proportionate to its size and influence.

    But while I'm not an expert on the matter, isn't this a capability that Europe couldn't easily ramp up, if they wanted to. They've just let the US do it in the past, because it's simpler, easier, and cheaper for them, and they're willing to trade favor and influence to the US in exchange.

    If the US don't appear to want that favor and influence in the European theater (as Trump seems to indicate), then I'm not seeing how they can't do it themselves relatively quickly. At which point, it'll be even harder for the US to get that capacity to influence back again.

    If Trump weren't such a petulant toddler about well... everything, I could see this being a "bump out of the nest" type move. Get Europe to stand on it's own, independent of the US. That's seeming to be the eventual result, though I doubt very much it was the initial intent.

    It would be easy in the sense that it's primarily a matter of buying more stuff they already have, rather than inventing new stuff. They could procure additional inflight refueling platforms easily. SEAD is... somewhat more complicated; it involves specialized antiradar weapons and EW platforms of which European countries have some, but not nearly as many or as advanced as the US (the F-35 would help a lot going forward), and is also a matter of operational expertise. They would have to invest in developing more of their own stuff to fully replace the US in that capacity.
    As with all things in government procurement, this is easier said than done, and will be made more difficult if it's a partnership of sovereign EU members and not a federal, unitary program.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited November 2018
    Rchanen wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    1. dude, I picked the name "EU defense force" at random, it has no bearing on anything

    Maybe this is the problem. "EU defense force" is not really a random name. It's a concept that's been bandied about in European strategic circles for a while now and carries with it certain connotations and assumptions already.

    I still don't understand the "Don't need a strategic bomber" thing. You are going to want an offensive capability for any armed force. Defensive force or not.

    I mean the last time a purely defensive strategy had a chance in hell of working was WWI.

    Nowadays a purely defensive strategy is just a more militaristic way of asking to be stomped flat.

    Edit: Also I don't attend the University of Toronto.

    Damn proxy. You still might not have access anyways, but it's a Foreign Policy piece by a fellow from the Brookings Institute calling for a EUDF to bolster EU participation in NATO, one that specifically calls for the sharing of NATO assets with the EUDF.


    Here's another link, directly from the EU itself: REFLECTION PAPER ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPEAN DEFENCE It lays out three scenarios, summarized on Page 16, ranging from increased cooperation within NATO with more robust European leadership and technological independence. None of these include the supplanting/dissolution of NATO.

    hippofant on
  • The Dude With HerpesThe Dude With Herpes Registered User regular
    Trump is also skipping a memorial service for fallen WWI soldiers at a cemetery today during his trip to France, because of “inclement weather.” He’s sending Pompeo instead.

    It's 53 degrees with light rain.

    Yes, but it’s wet.

    *edit* Actually I should source this. A few news outlets are covering it, but here’s Newsweek.


    Support the troops on Armistace Veteran's Day!

    Christ, what an ignorant asshole.

    I mean, can we just take a brief second to talk about the profound irony of a rich duty dodging asshole, who thinks war is the answer to everything; being unwilling to weather a mild temperature with light rain to honor the people who fought a war suffering in trenches for ungodly amounts of time, suffering blizzards, downpours, disease, starvation and constant bombardment, fighting a war that was caused wholly by the petty fuckupery of rich royals?

    I mean jesus god damned christ, you couldn't make up something this perfect and emblematic if you tried.

    Steam: Galedrid - XBL: Galedrid - PSN: Galedrid
    Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
    Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand

    shrykeRchanenDesktop HippiemonikerGnome-InterruptusNyysjanCommander ZoomElldrenscherbchenPLAHavelock2.0DarkPrimusBurnagekimeMild Confusiondestroyah87SmrtnikFencingsaxForarJazzCelloJaysonFourDacAl_watHefflingBrainleechMortal Skyemp123SkeithKristmas Kthulhu
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited November 2018
    Trump is also skipping a memorial service for fallen WWI soldiers at a cemetery today during his trip to France, because of “inclement weather.” He’s sending Pompeo instead.

    It's 53 degrees with light rain.

    Yes, but it’s wet.

    *edit* Actually I should source this. A few news outlets are covering it, but here’s Newsweek.


    Support the troops on Armistace Veteran's Day!

    Christ, what an ignorant asshole.

    I mean, can we just take a brief second to talk about the profound irony of a rich duty dodging asshole, who thinks war is the answer to everything; being unwilling to weather a mild temperature with light rain to honor the people who fought a war suffering in trenches for ungodly amounts of time, suffering blizzards, downpours, disease, starvation and constant bombardment, fighting a war that was caused wholly by the petty fuckupery of rich royals?

    I mean jesus god damned christ, you couldn't make up something this perfect and emblematic if you tried.

    It's also the 100th anniversary of the end of WWI today. That's what he's skipping out on.

    shryke on
    Desktop HippiemonikerCommander ZoomElldrenHavelock2.0kimeMild ConfusionVeagleFencingsaxJazzJaysonFourAl_watAegisA Dabble Of TheloniusHefflingemp123Kristmas Kthulhu
  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    Trump is also skipping a memorial service for fallen WWI soldiers at a cemetery today during his trip to France, because of “inclement weather.” He’s sending Pompeo instead.

    It's 53 degrees with light rain.

    Yes, but it’s wet.

    *edit* Actually I should source this. A few news outlets are covering it, but here’s Newsweek.


    Support the troops on Armistace Veteran's Day!

    Christ, what an ignorant asshole.

    I mean, can we just take a brief second to talk about the profound irony of a rich duty dodging asshole, who thinks war is the answer to everything; being unwilling to weather a mild temperature with light rain to honor the people who fought a war suffering in trenches for ungodly amounts of time, suffering blizzards, downpours, disease, starvation and constant bombardment, fighting a war that was caused wholly by the petty fuckupery of rich royals?

    I mean jesus god damned christ, you couldn't make up something this perfect and emblematic if you tried.

    We have said it before and we will say it again. 2018 has hack writers.

    shryke wrote: »
    The Democrats aren't crazy but they are still, you know, running the US and it's foreign policy. Which is in the "you don't have a global hegemony without bombing a few eggs" wheelhouse.
    monikerElldrenMorganVKristmas Kthulhu
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava Mortius is correct Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    You know

    Part of me is relieved that he sent Pompeo.

    Can you imagine the even bigger shit storm that he'd get us into if he said something wrong on the centennial armistice day?

    I get that it's rude and offensive and he should feel some semblance of shame eventually maybe.

    But I think, overall, him not being there is a good thing.

    CelestialBadgermonikerCommander ZoomElldrenPLAKetBraMortal Sky
  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    1. dude, I picked the name "EU defense force" at random, it has no bearing on anything

    Maybe this is the problem. "EU defense force" is not really a random name. It's a concept that's been bandied about in European strategic circles for a while now and carries with it certain connotations and assumptions already.

    See, for example: https://www-jstor-org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/stable/20049804

    Can you give me a title? That link is walled off by the UoT. I don't recall hearing "EUDF" used to describe the various futures of Eurocorps before.

  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    You know

    Part of me is relieved that he sent Pompeo.

    Can you imagine the even bigger shit storm that he'd get us into if he said something wrong on the centennial armistice day?

    I get that it's rude and offensive and he should feel some semblance of shame eventually maybe.

    But I think, overall, him not being there is a good thing.

    Him not even being in the fucking office would be the best thing.

    But I do agree that Pompeo is likely to fuck up less than Trump. Low standard, but you take what you can get.

    shryke wrote: »
    The Democrats aren't crazy but they are still, you know, running the US and it's foreign policy. Which is in the "you don't have a global hegemony without bombing a few eggs" wheelhouse.
    lonelyahavatynicEmerlmaster999Commander ZoomElldrenBurnageFencingsaxJaysonFour
  • The Dude With HerpesThe Dude With Herpes Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Trump is also skipping a memorial service for fallen WWI soldiers at a cemetery today during his trip to France, because of “inclement weather.” He’s sending Pompeo instead.

    It's 53 degrees with light rain.

    Yes, but it’s wet.

    *edit* Actually I should source this. A few news outlets are covering it, but here’s Newsweek.


    Support the troops on Armistace Veteran's Day!

    Christ, what an ignorant asshole.

    I mean, can we just take a brief second to talk about the profound irony of a rich duty dodging asshole, who thinks war is the answer to everything; being unwilling to weather a mild temperature with light rain to honor the people who fought a war suffering in trenches for ungodly amounts of time, suffering blizzards, downpours, disease, starvation and constant bombardment, fighting a war that was caused wholly by the petty fuckupery of rich royals?

    I mean jesus god damned christ, you couldn't make up something this perfect and emblematic if you tried.

    It's also the 100th anniversary of the end of WWI today. That's what he's skipping out on.

    Right, that's what I meant; but I guess that description of a war doesn't exactly narrow it down, unfortunately. :(

    Steam: Galedrid - XBL: Galedrid - PSN: Galedrid
    Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
    Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    1. dude, I picked the name "EU defense force" at random, it has no bearing on anything

    Maybe this is the problem. "EU defense force" is not really a random name. It's a concept that's been bandied about in European strategic circles for a while now and carries with it certain connotations and assumptions already.

    See, for example: https://www-jstor-org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/stable/20049804

    Can you give me a title? That link is walled off by the UoT. I don't recall hearing "EUDF" used to describe the various futures of Eurocorps before.

    Sorry, my proxy is changing the URL in my browser: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20049804

    Also: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/reflection-paper-defence_en.pdf - doesn't specifically mention a "EU defense force," but lays out three separate scenarios in which a EU defense force will complement NATO to varying degrees.

  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    I suspect that "bad weather" was an excuse. Most likely Trump is blowing his top in a hotel room over snarky Europeans and Democrat gains in the house.

    FencingsaxDac
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    You know

    Part of me is relieved that he sent Pompeo.

    Can you imagine the even bigger shit storm that he'd get us into if he said something wrong on the centennial armistice day?

    I get that it's rude and offensive and he should feel some semblance of shame eventually maybe.

    But I think, overall, him not being there is a good thing.

    I'd rather see him embarrass himself more.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Registered User regular
    edited November 2018
    hippofant wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    1. dude, I picked the name "EU defense force" at random, it has no bearing on anything

    Maybe this is the problem. "EU defense force" is not really a random name. It's a concept that's been bandied about in European strategic circles for a while now and carries with it certain connotations and assumptions already.

    See, for example: https://www-jstor-org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/stable/20049804

    Can you give me a title? That link is walled off by the UoT. I don't recall hearing "EUDF" used to describe the various futures of Eurocorps before.

    Sorry, my proxy is changing the URL in my browser: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20049804

    Also: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/reflection-paper-defence_en.pdf - doesn't specifically mention a "EU defense force," but lays out three separate scenarios in which a EU defense force will complement NATO to varying degrees.

    I don't think those were within the scope of our discussion, since it began last page with phrases like "a world where NATO no longer holds, US is not necessarily the ally of EU" and "NATO with no USA but most of EU" - those are the cases I was responding to; where Europe has to fully decouple itself from NATO.

    A European collective defense organization parallel to NATO would be a different matter.

    Dongs Galore on
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava Mortius is correct Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    You know

    Part of me is relieved that he sent Pompeo.

    Can you imagine the even bigger shit storm that he'd get us into if he said something wrong on the centennial armistice day?

    I get that it's rude and offensive and he should feel some semblance of shame eventually maybe.

    But I think, overall, him not being there is a good thing.

    I'd rather see him embarrass himself more.

    It's a solemn occasion to mark the end of a horrific, brutal, and destructive war. It had lasting impacts on the face of Europe that reach even until today.
    Entire villages wiped out, swathes of land still littered with explosives and wire.
    Entire family trees removed from the world.
    An entire generation of young men obliterated.
    And the leaders of the world we inherited from their loss are gathering to honor their memory, their murder, their sacrifice and the treaty that brought it all to an end.

    This is not the time, nor the place to wish for Donald Fucking Trump to make a bigger buffoon of himself. We are all better off without him there.

    We can't get rid of him as president yet, but we can at least do some part of honouring the dead by not letting him trample on their graves.

    tynicSolarCelestialBadgerRchanenElldrenMeeqeHavelock2.0VeagleFencingsaxTynnanCelloJaysonFourAl_watMorganVMortal SkySkeithKristmas Kthulhu
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    You couldn't replace the US military in Europe in ten years, I think.

    The US has a cultural concept of military service as a big thing that just doesn't exist over here. The UK is the biggest military in Europe and it struggles for manpower constantly. Part of that is because pay isn't great and more funds would resolve that to an extent, but you're not going to get past that cultural issue where the US military plus reserve is ten times the size of the UK military plus reserves, but is only five times the population as a country, and it's not like they'll just take anyone, you still have to get in. If it's EU, that;ll mean no US, no UK, no Turkey...

    Now, Europe does have a large population, and is wealthy, and maybe, with extra funds, it could make up the difference. But the largest military budget in the world, the most effective military, most powerful Navy, most powerful air force... yes with ten years of funding, development, increase in investment and recruitment that would be a start, but I dunno if you could even get close to covering the gap. And remember all that money has to come from somewhere, are European nations just going to double defence budgets? No, and even if they did, that wouldn't be close to what they'd actually need to be putting in.

    Speaking more mainly to the topic, Europe as a continental position (i.e. including the UK and potentially Turkey) could probably take over it's own defence in ten years, if they did make a concerted effort. But if NATO fell apart tomorrow and was replaced by a European Defence Alliance, then that would be a sudden and hugely real concern for any nation that borders Russia. They don't have ten years, they'll falling into a new diplomatic reality right now, because Putin is happy to use violent military force vs civilian populations in bordering countries, and has done multiple times before.

    It's a big concern. Europe cannot simply turn around and say "well up yours Trump, we'll replace the US!" even if they were prepared to spend the cash and the time to try to do so. Not that Macron is actually going to do that, although he probably thinks that if you can keep NATO going and shift European defence into a place where it can protect itself even if the US does not keep to the treaty that'd be a good thing (and I would agree with that)

    Dongs Galore
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Europe doesn't have to match the US. They don't need a dozen giant carriers tooling around the world being ready to fight multiple wars

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
    PLAKetBraNeveronSmrtnikForarRedTideGaddezJaysonFourDacHefflingTicaldfjamSkeithKristmas Kthulhu
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    You know

    Part of me is relieved that he sent Pompeo.

    Can you imagine the even bigger shit storm that he'd get us into if he said something wrong on the centennial armistice day?

    I get that it's rude and offensive and he should feel some semblance of shame eventually maybe.

    But I think, overall, him not being there is a good thing.

    I'm just glad the photos won't include him in it.

    lonelyahavaElldrenJazzCelloJaysonFourMorganVemp123
This discussion has been closed.