Author Topic: US versus NATO  (Read 32487 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 136,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,234
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #250 on: July 13, 2018, 19:54:56 »
At the same time, the Soviet Union was also one of major recipients of Canadian grain (IIRC Red China was also a major recipient).

Russia is now the largest grain exporter in the world. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-16/russia-is-exporting-more-wheat-than-any-country-in-25-years

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,962
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #251 on: July 13, 2018, 20:44:34 »
Until the supply chain to China kicks in....

Indeed! And that time is not too far away: https://ig.ft.com/gazprom-pipeline-power-of-siberia/

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 214,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,605
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #252 on: July 14, 2018, 09:54:07 »

That's a formidable force right off the bat, France, Germany, the UK working together.

Seriously?

It's funny you discount the military power of the USA so quickly, 'they can go it alone'...but consider that triad to be a formidable force. 
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 281,936
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,621
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #253 on: July 14, 2018, 13:09:24 »
Seriously?

It's funny you discount the military power of the USA so quickly, 'they can go it alone'...but consider that triad to be a formidable force.

Those 3 countries have some serious internal security problems that aren't getting any better.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 168,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,168
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #254 on: July 14, 2018, 13:39:54 »
Those 3 countries have some serious internal security problems that aren't getting any better.

You could say the same about the U.S.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 281,936
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,621
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #255 on: July 14, 2018, 14:11:20 »
You could say the same about the U.S.

In hindsight yes definitely. I don;t think it's at the same level as the other 3 or with the same type of players but definitely a possibility for increased security concerns that the police may not be able to handle. In the case of the states though there's 400 million guns involved so those could act as a deterrent or accelerate.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline PPCLI Guy

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 168,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,380
  • It's all good
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #256 on: July 14, 2018, 14:20:26 »
Those 3 countries have some serious internal security problems that aren't getting any better.

Are they also being over-run by murders, rapists and MS13?
"The higher the rank, the more necessary it is that boldness should be accompanied by a reflective mind....for with increase in rank it becomes always a matter less of self-sacrifice and more a matter of the preservation of others, and the good of the whole."

Karl von Clausewitz

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 231,980
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,252
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #257 on: July 14, 2018, 14:34:10 »
Are they also being over-run by murders, rapists and MS13?

Do Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn count? :)
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 168,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,168
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #258 on: July 14, 2018, 14:38:37 »
In hindsight yes definitely. I don;t think it's at the same level as the other 3 or with the same type of players but definitely a possibility for increased security concerns that the police may not be able to handle. In the case of the states though there's 400 million guns involved so those could act as a deterrent or accelerate.

What are the internal security risks in the U.K., Germany, and France?  How do they differ than the U.S.?  How are they more or less than the U.S.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 281,936
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,621
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #259 on: July 14, 2018, 14:57:55 »
Are they also being over-run by murders, rapists and MS13?

I'd say yes to various levels of all 3.

Stabbing epidemic in London, child sex gangs in the UK. Various terrorist attacks. Lots of unrest and violent protests across all 3.
Ms13 is apparently branching out quite a few places too.

Am I wrong to think that internal security problems in Germany UK and France pose a bigger threat to the spirit of NATO than in the US?

There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 281,936
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,621
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #260 on: July 14, 2018, 15:10:42 »
What are the internal security risks in the U.K., Germany, and France?  How do they differ than the U.S.?  How are they more or less than the U.S.
Basically what I said to PPCLI Guy. 

The situation in the US is political with US citizens.  In the other 3 countries I'm thinking the sheer amount of refugees inundating the countries along with aggressive protests seems to me like a bigger security risk if we're talking about the security of the borders.


There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 168,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,168
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #261 on: July 14, 2018, 15:20:47 »
Stabbing epidemic in London, child sex gangs in the UK. Various terrorist attacks. Lots of unrest and violent protests across all 3.
Ms13 is apparently branching out quite a few places too.

Is a stabbing epidemic a internal security threat, or a criminal problem?  It is synonymous with the gun violence epidemic in the U.S., so if you're going to label London stabbings as an internal security threat, then so are U.S. shootings.

How is a child sex gang an internal security threat?  Those exist in the U.S. as well.

Lots of unrest and violent protests across all 3?  What was Charlottesville?
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 281,936
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,621
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #262 on: July 14, 2018, 15:36:58 »
Is a stabbing epidemic a internal security threat, or a criminal problem?  It is synonymous with the gun violence epidemic in the U.S., so if you're going to label London stabbings as an internal security threat, then so are U.S. shootings.

How is a child sex gang an internal security threat?  Those exist in the U.S. as well.

Lots of unrest and violent protests across all 3?  What was Charlottesville?

PPCLI Guy asked "Are they also being over-run by murders, rapists and MS13?" so I responded yes and gave what I thought were good examples.

Stabbings in London. Child sex stuff in the UK. I left out the high sexual assault rates across a lot of Europe including countries like Germany where the police are getting caught hiding sexual assault cases. Not to mention more terrorist attacks in those countries drawing more resources.

As for Charlottesville I'd argue that's more of a case of people vs people and less about people vs the government.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2018, 15:41:19 by Jarnhamar »
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 168,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,168
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #263 on: July 14, 2018, 15:38:58 »
Am I wrong to think that internal security problems in Germany UK and France pose a bigger threat to the spirit of NATO than in the US?

Basically what I said to PPCLI Guy. 

The situation in the US is political with US citizens.  In the other 3 countries I'm thinking the sheer amount of refugees inundating the countries along with aggressive protests seems to me like a bigger security risk if we're talking about the security of the borders.

If the situation in the US is political with US citizens, then why does the current administration put so much political capital into Central American migrants?

As for refugees, are they really an internal security threat?  Where is the data to back this up?  How can the "sheer number" of refugees be a problem for France who took just a 25,000 more than the U.S., or the U.K., who actually took less than the U.S.?

To your first question, Europe's political issues surrounding migrants and refugees seem to track in domestic issues and outward into E.U. concerns.  I've never heard of the refugee/migrant issue as a threat to the "spirit of NATO" - it actually appears that European countries are working together on dealing with it through both the E.U. and NATO.

When the largest ally in the organization goes to social media to complain about the alliance being "obsolete" and "worse than NAFTA," and than proceeds to embarass the next two biggest allies in public before taking off for a one-on-one meeting with the primary security concern in Eastern Europe, I'd argue that yes, the current U.S. administration poses a "bigger threat to the spirit of NATO" than the the ill-defined "internal security problems" (whatever those actually may be).  The President's view that alliances are bad for the U.S. is well known.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 281,936
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,621
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #264 on: July 14, 2018, 16:16:35 »
If the situation in the US is political with US citizens, then why does the current administration put so much political capital into Central American migrants?
No idea.

Quote
As for refugees, are they really an internal security threat?  Where is the data to back this up?

Speculation. 
What kind of damage could you do if you got thousands of refugees primed and riled up? Weaponized so to speak.
What do you suppose would have happened if it was a prophet Mohamed blimp instead of a Trump blimp flown over London. Do you think the London police could have handled that? I don't.

Basically what I'm suggesting is that there are a lot of refugees in Europe (and those 3 aforementioned countries)  and if they become collectively pissed off enough their numbers could pose a serious security concern. Russia would then theoretically be in a better position to invade with those countries looking inwards. 

But, you mentioned trade is a two way street (agreed) and it doesn't behoove Russia to attack someone they're making so much money from.

SO, if Russia is so un-inclined to invade Europe (which I think they're not inclined to do) then how important IS NATO? And should the US be spending so much money on NATO and Europe's defense if 2018 Russia isn't the threat that 1960 Russia was?


I think the US (1949 to now) used NATO not only to draw a line in the sand against the Russians but to get their hands involved in a hell of a lot of workings of foreign countries. I think just maybe Trump realized this* and doesn't see Russia as poised to take over Europe and wants to reinvest US efforts and material elsewhere. And maybe be just a little less involved in everyone's business.


*I remember near when Trump was first elected he drew some ire for saying "You think our country's so innocent?" when talking about Russia. I found it a very astute point to make.


« Last Edit: July 14, 2018, 17:02:30 by Jarnhamar »
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 168,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,168
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #265 on: July 14, 2018, 17:34:34 »
Speculation. 
What kind of damage could you do if you got thousands of refugees primed and riled up? Weaponized so to speak.
What do you suppose would have happened if it was a prophet Mohamed blimp instead of a Trump blimp flown over London. Do you think the London police could have handled that? I don't.

You conflate "migrants," "refugees," and "Muslims" in the same though experiment.  Which is it?

As for speculation, replace "Muslim refugees" with "African Americans."  Look at Ferguson for a real, as opposed to speculative, case study.  Add the fact that Russian actors target African Americans online to stoke racial tensions and you really have to wonder who would be more vulnerable to social disorder.

What I'm getting at goes to your original question/point - I don't believe the U.K., France, or Germany have any reason to be more or less fearful or concerned than the U.S. about ethnic tensions in their countries.

Quote
SO, if Russia is so un-inclined to invade Europe (which I think they're not inclined to do) then how important IS NATO? And should the US be spending so much money on NATO and Europe's defense if 2018 Russia isn't the threat that 1960 Russia was?

The concern isn't with an invasion of France, or Germany, or Poland.  The concern is for Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, who've already experienced other forms of hostility from Russian actors.  The fear in Europe is that if NATO was apatheic, or riven by division, then it'd do nothing if "little green men" cross into the Baltic states.

Are sanctions as effective if not backstopped by a U.S.-led NATO?  Nobody has to really discuss nuclear deterrence when NATO's conventional deterrence is as strong as it is (relative to Russia).  But what if that calculus changes?  Are Russian calculations on NATO deterrent efforts in the Baltics different if the US is not involved in NATO?

I think, if you answer those questions, some intrinsic value to NATO may become apparent.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 104,665
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,526
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #266 on: July 14, 2018, 18:03:34 »
Since this is hypothetical I will posit that the zombie threat is not to be overlooked. ;D

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 105,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,191
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #267 on: July 14, 2018, 18:23:00 »
Since this is hypothetical I will posit that the zombie threat is not to be overlooked. ;D

Need those shovel truncheons from WWZ.  The book not the garbage movie...
Optio

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 54,990
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 611
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #268 on: July 14, 2018, 18:26:36 »
I think Infanteer makes some excellent points.

I'm in total agreement with those that contend that the threat to NATO is not Russian invasion and occupation of the Western European heartland.  I don't believe that Russia has either the military capability or the political desire to do that.  The numbers don't support it (population, relative overall forces, geographical area, etc.) and the existence of a nuclear deterrent make the fears of 1949 very different than the fears of 2018. 

That being said, there certainly are military threats on the periphery of Europe and of NATO itself.  While Russia may not be a military threat to NATO as a whole, it certainly has the ability to generate local superiority of forces in order to obtain limited military objectives.  Eastern Ukraine, the Baltic States, Georgia, the Balkans, Hungary, Syria, Iran, the "Stans", etc. are all potential targets for limited political/hybrid/military action.   A weakened NATO with an isolationist United States not present to provide a strong military backbone is a gift for Russia in this sense.

We may complain that the massive US post-war military has lead to American military adventurism and meddling in the affairs of other states, but also remember that it is that same massive US military that acts as a bulwark against the expansionist plans of illiberal powers such as Russia and China. 

Many on here have argued that we (the West) already have enough military power to stop a Russian invasion of Europe and that 2% of GDP is a completely arbitrary number for defence spending targets and I totally agree.  However, I'd ask those people to tell me if NATO has the right type of forces available to respond to a sudden Russian annexation of the Donbass, or intervention on behalf of Russian-speaking populations in Eastern Estonia or Latvia, etc.

2% of GDP may be a completely arbitrary number as a measure of defence spending, but what other measure would you use instead?  2% doesn't speak to overall effectiveness, but with that level of funding you'd hope at least that a nation would be able to provide some type of effective military contribution. 

We may not need to literally defend Europe at this point (at least in the sense that it was seen when NATO was founded in 1949), but there are certainly still threats to the liberalism on which Western society relies which do require the ability to muster strong military responses to the threats that we face.  I strongly disagree with Donald Trump on most thing, but in this one particular area I think he is right...the rest of NATO has been shirking its responsibilities and needs to carry more of the military burden.

 :2c:


Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 104,665
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,526
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #269 on: July 14, 2018, 18:55:26 »
Would the US actually use nukes to save Europe ? One reason for US troops in Poland to act as a trip wire. Our real deterrant were neutron weapons which went away.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 281,936
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,621
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #270 on: July 14, 2018, 19:20:14 »
You conflate "migrants," "refugees," and "Muslims" in the same though experiment.  Which is it?
Lets rip a page out of the EU's book and call them Asian or people of North African descent.

Quote
As for speculation, replace "Muslim refugees" with "African Americans."  Look at Ferguson for a real, as opposed to speculative, case study.  Add the fact that Russian actors target African Americans online to stoke racial tensions and you really have to wonder who would be more vulnerable to social disorder.[/qupte]

So Russians are getting African Americans riled up on Tumblr? I believe it, smart move. If we're being honest, African American males count for the majority of murder statistics (murdered and murdering) in the US as well as majority of incarcerated persons. It seems logical they would be a target of Russia if they wanted to sow discord. I can easily seem them doing the same with Asians and North African refugees et el in the US or especially Europe. Again, can you imagine the fall out of a prophet Mohamed blimp in London? Ouch.

Quote
What I'm getting at goes to your original question/point - I don't believe the U.K., France, or Germany have any reason to be more or less fearful or concerned than the U.S. about ethnic tensions in their countries.
Okay. I still think the sheer number of refugees in those countries pose a security risk. I don't believe the US has concentrations of refugee camps like places like Calais does. And the problem isn't solely refugees but also nationals who are fed up, legitimately or not, with refugees. Both IMO can be weaponized.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS8PqMUMOrg
British truck drivers want army protection after migrant attacks.

and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYAuOmOT1Ak




Quote
The concern isn't with an invasion of France, or Germany, or Poland.  The concern is for Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, who've already experienced other forms of hostility from Russian actors.  The fear in Europe is that if NATO was apatheic, or riven by division, then it'd do nothing if "little green men" cross into the Baltic states.
Yea, Russia is ******* with us for sure along that front. GPS spoofing, cell phone text hijacking. Are we actually concerned that Russia is going to roll across into Latvia or are they just being dicks?


Quote
Are sanctions as effective if not backstopped by a U.S.-led NATO?  Nobody has to really discuss nuclear deterrence when NATO's conventional deterrence is as strong as it is (relative to Russia).  But what if that calculus changes?  Are Russian calculations on NATO deterrent efforts in the Baltics different if the US is not involved in NATO?
The US sold uranium to Rosatom, the same company that provides energy to Germany. I feel like if they were that much of a threat the US wouldn't have been selling them uranium.

Quote
I think, if you answer those questions, some intrinsic value to NATO may become apparent.
I'm as much a koolaid drinker as the next grunt but when it seemed more and more like Turkey, a NATO country, was buying and dealing with oil with ISIS I lost a bit of faith. Not to mention the US secretary of state admitted to knowing the weapons the US was selling Saudi Arabia was finding it's way into ISIS hands. NATO seems more of a business than line of defense.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 168,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,168
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #271 on: July 14, 2018, 19:45:02 »
Yea, Russia is ******* with us for sure along that front. GPS spoofing, cell phone text hijacking. Are we actually concerned that Russia is going to roll across into Latvia or are they just being dicks?

Replace "Latvia" in your question with "Eastern Ukraine" and ask yourself the question in 2014.

Estonia sure isn't taking chances.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -5620.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 275,522
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,554
    • Army.ca
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #272 on: July 14, 2018, 21:44:45 »
Are they also being over-run by murders, rapists and MS13?
Maybe not MS-13...........yet.
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 168,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,168
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #273 on: July 15, 2018, 03:35:34 »
 :boring:

Are we seriously putting a street gang from a country of 6 million people with less members than the Crips or Bloods at the top of the security threat pyramid?
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 539,465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,934
  • Your example, not your opinion, can cause change
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #274 on: July 15, 2018, 08:33:18 »
When the largest ally in the organization goes to social media to complain about the alliance being "obsolete" and "worse than NAFTA," and than proceeds to embarass the next two biggest allies in public before taking off for a one-on-one meeting with the primary security concern in Eastern Europe, I'd argue that yes, the current U.S. administration poses a "bigger threat to the spirit of NATO" than the ill-defined "internal security problems" (whatever those actually may be).  The President's view that alliances are bad for the U.S. is well known.
I just wanted to repeat this so that it doesn't get lost in the shuffle;  again, can't wait to see what gets tweeted out of Helsinki regarding NATO and/or Baltic security concerns.
There’s nothing more maddening than debating someone who doesn’t know history, doesn’t read books, and frames their myopia as virtue. The level of unapologetic conjecture I’ve encountered lately isn’t just frustrating, it’s retrogressive, unprecedented, and absolutely terrifying.
~Chris Evans