First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Russia and the US
36898 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 6/17/15

VZ68 wrote:

I think it would have to be the UN. The whole reason this got started was NATO was sticking it's nose into a place it didn't belong (Ukraine) and since the only two nations currently following NATO regulations on GNP% for defense numbers, NATO should go the way of the Dodo bird.

Hell, the UN is a clusterfuck of dipshittery in it's own right. The US should just walk away and only come to the aid of Korea, Japan, Poland and Morocco.


The reason the US spends more than its partners is because it's juggling a large number of operations, has a larger population and domestic territory to defend, and has adopted into everyday political discourse rhetoric which disparages reductions in defence spending as tantamount to surrender to the amorphous foe that is terrorism and suggests that the very act of proposing a reduction constitutes betrayal of its armed servicemen.

Demanding that every partner nation, regardless of its size, population, location, international military activity, and so on spend at least 2% of its gross domestic product on defence is a great way to ensure that everyone's at least minimally equally committed to maintaining a military alliance's effectiveness, but it's not necessarily reflective of allies' ability or need to meet that obligation. A country that's completely surrounded by allied countries doesn't need to be beefed up as much as one that has a non-NATO country right next door on three sides, but having a country which is totally surrounded by allies as a member prevents gaps from forming (so they're not worthless). That has real implications for determining what obligations partners ought to have.

One might argue that NATO has outlived its usefulness in light of the fact that its existential foes, the Warsaw Pact and the USSR, have both dissolved. One might argue that while there still ought to be an international military partnership like NATO, NATO itself shouldn't be used anymore for whatever reason and is mostly being used because it's what was already around. But this spending angle against NATO just doesn't make sense to me. Having a uniform spending obligation throughout a military alliance might preserve the peace within, but wait: it hasn't, has it? Explain this to me, because I just keep coming to the conclusion that a uniform spending standard is too much of an oversimplification of these partners' relationships, strategic importance to the alliance, and relative ability to maintain such spending. It's not a simple thing.
17553 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Chicago,IL
Offline
Posted 6/17/15
I don't worry about what i can't control.
I do care,but there's nothing i can do.
11239 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
14 / F / California
Offline
Posted 6/17/15

BlueOni wrote:


VZ68 wrote:

I think it would have to be the UN. The whole reason this got started was NATO was sticking it's nose into a place it didn't belong (Ukraine) and since the only two nations currently following NATO regulations on GNP% for defense numbers, NATO should go the way of the Dodo bird.

Hell, the UN is a clusterfuck of dipshittery in it's own right. The US should just walk away and only come to the aid of Korea, Japan, Poland and Morocco.


The reason the US spends more than its partners is because it's juggling a large number of operations, has a larger population and domestic territory to defend, and has adopted into everyday political discourse rhetoric which disparages reductions in defence spending as tantamount to surrender to the amorphous foe that is terrorism and suggests that the very act of proposing a reduction constitutes betrayal of its armed servicemen.

Demanding that every partner nation, regardless of its size, population, location, international military activity, and so on spend at least 2% of its gross domestic product on defence is a great way to ensure that everyone's at least minimally equally committed to maintaining a military alliance's effectiveness, but it's not necessarily reflective of allies' ability or need to meet that obligation. A country that's completely surrounded by allied countries doesn't need to be beefed up as much as one that has a non-NATO country right next door on three sides, but having a country which is totally surrounded by allies as a member prevents gaps from forming (so they're not worthless). That has real implications for determining what obligations partners ought to have.

One might argue that NATO has outlived its usefulness in light of the fact that its existential foes, the Warsaw Pact and the USSR, have both dissolved. One might argue that while there still ought to be an international military partnership like NATO, NATO itself shouldn't be used anymore for whatever reason and is mostly being used because it's what was already around. But this spending angle against NATO just doesn't make sense to me. Having a uniform spending obligation throughout a military alliance might preserve the peace within, but wait: it hasn't, has it? Explain this to me, because I just keep coming to the conclusion that a uniform spending standard is too much of an oversimplification of these partners' relationships, strategic importance to the alliance, and relative ability to maintain such spending. It's not a simple thing.


Problem is they aren't effective at all. They have less equipment, equipment that is super outdated, or not enough spare parts and ammo to be useful in the least.

I mean there are NATO members without tanks. NATO members with M48 tanks. It's like allowing kids to ride tricycles in the Indy 500. I'm tired of the US being the World Police® and I'm tired of the countries that bitch about the US being the World Police® are the very same countries that make the US BE the World Police®
Ejanss 
16249 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/17/15

VZ68 wrote:
Problem is they aren't effective at all. They have less equipment, equipment that is super outdated, or not enough spare parts and ammo to be useful in the least.


You mean NATO, or Russia?
(Who pretty much used up the last of their Red Army firepower on Afghanistan, and vice versa, which is why we were able to walk into Afghanistan unopposed the first time.)
11650 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 6/17/15

Ejanss wrote:


VZ68 wrote:
Problem is they aren't effective at all. They have less equipment, equipment that is super outdated, or not enough spare parts and ammo to be useful in the least.


You mean NATO, or Russia?
(Who pretty much used up the last of their Red Army firepower on Afghanistan, and vice versa, which is why we were able to walk into Afghanistan unopposed the first time.)


To be fair both would be ineffective at this point.
30098 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 6/17/15

LONGNAMEYOUWONTMISS wrote:

Everyone's complacent nowadays because no one is crazy enough to launch nukes with the knowledge that it will end the world.


Well... There is one exception.



LOL
36898 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 6/17/15

VZ68 wrote:

Problem is they aren't effective at all. They have less equipment, equipment that is super outdated, or not enough spare parts and ammo to be useful in the least.

I mean there are NATO members without tanks. NATO members with M48 tanks. It's like allowing kids to ride tricycles in the Indy 500. I'm tired of the US being the World Police® and I'm tired of the countries that bitch about the US being the World Police® are the very same countries that make the US BE the World Police®


While equipment certainly shouldn't be that outdated (though to be fair, as far as I'm aware it's just Turkey and Greece still using M48s) it's not the only contribution allies in a military alliance might provide. I already hinted at one: geographic advantage. It's simply easier to get to Russia, Ukraine, or Belarus quickly (and without being shot at) if you've a continuous line of allied territory along the way. The thing about NATO is that although it very obviously serves western European interests, it's a very convenient way for the US to position itself against a mutual rival and access the Middle East and Africa. Sure, Germany isn't spending as much and has far less equipment, but it's also a fantastic spot to set up an airport for making flyovers in northern Europe, eastern Europe, and western Russia.


gopstop wrote:

Yes, absolutely. Does it mean Russia wants to wage war against the US? Nope. I believe the conflict in Ukraine is not going to escalate to such scale that there will be a direct threat to the US.


No. Russia just wants to maintain its sphere of economic and political influence, and saw a significant part of the Ukrainian population expressing interest in building closer ties to its historical political and economic rivals. So it put pressure on Ukraine's leadership to refuse to build those ties, said leadership did as Russia asked, and a ton of people in Ukraine flipped their wigs. Next thing you know Yanukovych is in Russia, Poroshenko's president of Ukraine, and Russia has annexed Crimea and is funneling arms, vehicles, and personnel into Donbass and Luhansk.

This isn't some existential threat to the US, and in fact the US doesn't really have any obligation to back Ukraine up since they're not a member of NATO (however much their current leadership wishes it were otherwise). But it is something the US should keep an eye on since it's important to its European partners. Russia is, after all, a major supplier of oil and natural gas in Europe, and Ukraine is an entry point for these resources. This isn't nothing, especially considering just how reliant on oil and natural gas exports Russia is. Losing Ukraine's favour would've been a very big deal to them.
Posted 6/17/15 , edited 6/17/15
Let's say this, because this is a difficult topic.

There's a set of allies that are as close as ever right now. That's US x Japan x Germany x England x South Korea

Then there's Russia x China x North Korea x Iran

The bond between Japan and the US especially is strong when it comes to China and Russia. The way we handled the AIIB (World Bank created by China that the two countries refuse to join as per their partnership), and the Russian x Ukrainian conflict.

If Russia were to try anything, likely with the help of China or Iran, Japan is now militarized to handle that too. To the dismay of a lot of the Japanese leaders, yes, but Abe is adamant that force would likely be necessary even if the US got attacked, and not Japan directly (the use of force can be only be under terms of danger to the people of Japan).

So basically, unless Russia x China x Iran want to go to war with US x Japan x everyone else, they won't do anything.
11239 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
14 / F / California
Offline
Posted 6/17/15

Ejanss wrote:


VZ68 wrote:
Problem is they aren't effective at all. They have less equipment, equipment that is super outdated, or not enough spare parts and ammo to be useful in the least.


You mean NATO, or Russia?
(Who pretty much used up the last of their Red Army firepower on Afghanistan, and vice versa, which is why we were able to walk into Afghanistan unopposed the first time.)


Russia might be bad, BUT it has manpower. NATO has a few members with standing armies that could do something, but everybody is pretty gimped at this moment. Germany's main rifle can't hold a zero when fired a couple of times because of cheap plastic, the L85 finally got a firing pin that won't break after 100 rounds, and maybe these guys have enough export model American equipment to slow something down, but if you've been seeing what our export model armor does against ISIS....

Well, it blows up real good.

Russia has 20,000 tanks. Most outdated, but serviceable. Germany has 225, UK 227. Say what you will, they don't have 20,000 rounds of ammo for their tanks.
11239 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
14 / F / California
Offline
Posted 6/17/15

AiYumega wrote:

Let's say this, because this is a difficult topic.

There's a set of allies that are as close as ever right now. That's US x Japan x Germany x England x South Korea

Then there's Russia x China x North Korea x Iran

The bond between Japan and the US especially is strong when it comes to China and Russia. The way we handled the AIIB (World Bank created by China that the two countries refuse to join as per their partnership), and the Russian x Ukrainian conflict.

If Russia were to try anything, likely with the help of China or Iran, Japan is now militarized to handle that too. To the dismay of a lot of the Japanese leaders, yes, but Abe is adamant that force would likely be necessary even if the US got attacked, and not Japan directly (the use of force can be only be under terms of danger to the people of Japan).

So basically, unless Russia x China x Iran want to go to war with US x Japan x everyone else, they won't do anything.



England is no longer a "special friend" and Germany is in the same boat. Which is why we need to pull completely out of Europe, and damn near anything that Europe has stuck their fingers in. Let Europe deal with Africa.


Posted 6/17/15 , edited 6/17/15


Yeah youre right.

Also, if anything, we'd need to all get together and take care of ISIL, because, don't look now, but they're destroying World Heritage Sites and capturing cities like it's going out of style.

The world's got a lot of problems, but that's gotta be priority #1 or #2 for most countries now.
36898 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 6/17/15 , edited 6/17/15

AiYumega wrote:

Yeah youre right.

Also, if anything, we'd need to all get together and take care of ISIL, because, don't look now, but they're destroying World Heritage Sites and capturing cities like it's going out of style.

The world's got a lot of problems, but that's gotta be priority #1 or #2 for most countries now.


They're capturing cities because a lot of the Iraqi armed forces are just leaving their equipment behind and running off, and the reason that's happening is because the way Iraq's new government was set up and run left a lot of people with little in the way of reasons to believe it had their interests in mind. It's simply not possible to stop ISIL, or whatever comes after them, without addressing that problem.

There's also to consider that ISIL has proven remarkably good at recruiting idiots through social media to commit terrorist acts in their name.

"Hey there, girl from the US! Why not come to Syria and help out people who've been selling girls like yourself into slavery to fund their campaign?"

"Why, that sounds like a great idea!"

Seriously. The fuck?
22777 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / London
Offline
Posted 6/17/15 , edited 6/17/15
Japan would be eliminated first if a war ever broke out, the only thing that would probably save them is the fact that it's in the middle of the sea, similar to how GB wasn't invaded by Nazi Germany but due to the increasing technology they'll still probably get invaded, England also kind of has their own protection; they have nuclear weapons which you can see, help try to deter people
75756 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
50 / F / Toronto
Offline
Posted 6/17/15

streamhopper wrote:

I grew up in the 80's, under the constant shadow of nuclear war. There was a long lull. But now, Russia is rattling it's sword again. Does today's youth fear nuclear war enough? I'm not trying to earn a ban here, but really, I think we've grown complacent


I don't know if I've become complacent but I've taken every day since the doomsday clock wasn't frontline news as a gift.


21973 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / The Bahamas
Offline
Posted 6/17/15
Born in '82 so I remember the last bits of the Cold War and the scare that the communists were going to bomb everyone and everything in Christendom. In fact if you apply for a government job in my country, they still ask if you are/were affiliated with/know of any communists or visited a communist country. I remember the USSR and Soviet Russia.

No, I don't think today's youth fear nuclear war at all. I think they are more afraid of not being able to access Twitter and Facebook. Complacent? Possibly, but isn't it the fault of those of us who remember it? We didn't teach them about the Cold War like our parents and grandparents taught us about WW1 and WW2.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.