:lmfao:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/24/spain-submarine-s-81-isaac-peral-cant-float_n_3328683.html
QuoteSpain's S-81 Isaac Peral Submarine Cost $680 Million To Build... And Can't Float
As Spain seeks to rein in ballooning deficits, it has discovered some of its bloat surfacing from an unexpected place: under the sea.
According to El Pais, the S-81 Isaac Peral -- the first of four state-of-the-art new submarines commissioned for the Spanish Navy -- is 75 to 100 tons overweight. That may not seem like a lot, considering the submarine's full weight when submerged is 2,430 tons, but according to engineers at Navantia, the Spanish shipbuilding company responsible for its design, that excess bulk is enough to prevent the Isaac Peral from successfully resurfacing once submerged.
Unfortunately for the Spainards, Quartz reports that they have already sunk the equivalent of $680 million into the Isaac Peral, and a total of $3 billion into the entire quartet of S-80 class submarines.
The descent has been precipitous for the S-80 subs, which some had hailed as the most modern non-nuclear submarines in the world. Among the S-80's celebrated advancement is a diesel-electric propulsion engine that, ironically, promises to be 20% lighter than comparable systems while delivering 50% more power. The submarines' technical specifications, along with a computer-generated image of what one will look like, can be found here.
If Spain hopes to salvage its submarines, it must either find some weight that can be trimmed from the current design or lengthen the ship to accomodate the excess weight, The Local notes. Though the latter option is more feasible, it is expected to cost Spain an extra $9.7 million per meter.
The submarine setback couldn't have come at a worse time for Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, who is embroiled in a corruption scandal and saw his approval rating hit a record low in 2013, Reuters reports. According to RT, Rajoy's austerity cuts trimmed the Spanish military budget by 30 percent in 2012, leaving much less room for added ballast. With Quartz reporting that the S-80 program will be delayed an estimated two years and another general election looming in 2015, Rajoy likely will not see the submarines through to fruition.
Spain's opposition United Left party pounced on the opportunity to criticize the current administration. According to EFE, United Left deputy Gaspar Llamazares quoted a famous monologue by Spanish comedian Miguel Gila in a formal question submitted to the Bureau of the Congress of Deputies, asking if the S-80 submarine was "well-colored but did not float." While the humor may be lost in translation, the jest was taken seriously by the Bureau, which scolded Llamazares for his mocking tone.
How did such an expensive project get funded while, as El Mundo notes, the Spanish military's entire special weapons program received a 98% cut? Sheer pride seems to have been a factor: according to Harvard Magazine, the Isaac Peral is named for the Spanish inventor said to have built the first functional modern submarine, and as El Pais explains, Spain hoped the S-80 class would be a new homegrown breakthrough achieved without foreign help.
Now that Navantia is considering bringing in an American contractor to help with the redesign, that dream seems dead in the water.
Next time, just buy German subs. The Israelis love'em.
The current German submarine design is a third smaller than this boat though. I doubt it would fit the Spanish specifications. Spain has much more blue water coastlines than Germany.
Quote from: Syt on May 27, 2013, 11:27:53 AM
Next time, just buy German subs.
Bill Parcells is never wrong: do what you do.
Quote from: Syt on May 27, 2013, 11:27:53 AM
:lmfao:
Next time, just buy German subs. The Israelis love'em.
The taxpayers in Portugal and Greece (ahem) much less though since Ferrostaal also sells overpriced crap as well :rolleyes:
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on May 27, 2013, 11:55:33 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 27, 2013, 11:27:53 AM
:lmfao:
Next time, just buy German subs. The Israelis love'em.
The taxpayers in Portugal and Greece (ahem) much less though since Ferrostaal also sells overpriced crap as well :rolleyes:
Takes two for bribery...
And the U214 class can dive and resurface, so it is at least better value than the S-80. ;)
Quote from: Zanza on May 27, 2013, 11:51:57 AM
The current German submarine design is a third smaller than this boat though. I doubt it would fit the Spanish specifications. Spain has much more blue water coastlines than Germany.
So? Is the government going to surround the coast with an undersea wall of graft?
Quote from: Zanza on May 27, 2013, 11:51:57 AM
The current German submarine design is a third smaller than this boat though. I doubt it would fit the Spanish specifications. Spain has much more blue water coastlines than Germany.
Germans are good at building subs and effectively have set the nato standard for diesel subs since the USN And RN keep building nuclear subs.
Whatever you do, don't but British submarines though.
Quote from: Zanza on May 27, 2013, 12:00:09 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on May 27, 2013, 11:55:33 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 27, 2013, 11:27:53 AM
:lmfao:
Next time, just buy German subs. The Israelis love'em.
The taxpayers in Portugal and Greece (ahem) much less though since Ferrostaal also sells overpriced crap as well :rolleyes:
Takes two for bribery...
And the U214 class can dive and resurface, so it is at least better value than the S-80. ;)
I didn't know the Portuguese and Greek taxpayers were bribed :rolleyes:
As for diving and resurfacing
QuoteGreece Refuses Delivery Of First Type-214 Submarine
By AMI INTERNATIONAL INC.
The Greek Ministry of Defense and Hellenic Navy have refused to accept the first Katsonis-class (Type 214) submarine being built by Howaldtswerke Deutsche Werft (HDW) in Germany, citing a variety of concerns. Sources indicate that the Hellenic Navy has identified the following as among the continuing problems with the submarine, dubbed Papanikolis:
The submarine is reportedly highly unstable while surfaced;
The air-independent propulsion system has lower output power than specified; the unit must be shut down after several hours of sailing due to higher than normal operating temperatures;
Increased propeller cavitations;
Attack periscope vibrates at speeds greater than 3 knots;
Seawater leakage into hydraulic systems;
Problems with the proper function of the flank arrays.
Hellenic Navy sources indicate that the sea service will not accept delivery until, at a minimum, the stability problem is resolved. The delivery of unit one is now more than 18 months behind schedule and the second unit, being built at Greece's Hellenic Shipyards, which was acquired by HDW in 2001, is expected to be launched by the end of the year. Four Katsonis-class submarines in all have been ordered, with all but the first being built at Hellenic Shipyards.
http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/dec06-52.php (http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/dec06-52.php)
At least, Greece with its current economic troubles will be saved from these submarines :) but not Portugal :(
http://duartelevy.eu/?p=2308 (http://duartelevy.eu/?p=2308)
Quote"O Tridente revelou instabilidade ao navegar em superfície e em certas condições de mar," disse aquele responsável, acrescentando que, tal como acontecera com o HS Papanikolis – cuja entrega está atrasada de mais de quatro anos -, "existem dificuldades na integração dos sistemas de gestão de combate" do submarino português e mesmo com o sistema de ar condicionado.
Um relatório a que o 24horas teve acesso, dá igualmente conta de uma situação onde o submarino e a tripulação estiveram em perigo durante um teste ao largo da Alemanha. Segundo o documento, o responsável pelo teste não chegou a enviar um SOS mas "pouco faltou", como nos foi confirmado.
O problema mais grave que foi detectado no "HS Tridente" durante a fase de teste – e que ainda não esta completamente resolvido – "prende-se com o sistema AIP de células de combustível".
Uma questão delicada para o consórcio alemão e para as autoridades portuguesas porque terá sido este sistema o argumento avançado para afastar a proposta francesa: o submarino francês, era superior ao alemão, mas o sistema utilizado pelos franceses – MESMA, Módulo de Energia submarina autónoma – não era considerado o melhor. O "HS Tridente" vem assim equipado com o sistema de células de combustível, enquanto os franceses propunham um sistema de turbina em circuito.
O 24horas tentou obter um comentário junto do Estado-Maior da Armada mas, até ao momento, a única resposta obtida é de que "a Marinha só receberá o submarino quando este passar com sucesso todos testes de mar", alguns dos quais se devem desenrolar ao largo das costas portuguesas.
Executive summary
- unstable when surfaced and/or certain sea conditions (as reported by the Greeks)
- unreliable fuel cell system (unlike the competition)
- combat system integration
- even the air conditioning
Almost sent an SOS during a test in Germany :D
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on May 27, 2013, 12:43:09 PM
I didn't know the Portuguese and Greek taxpayers were bribed :rolleyes:
Their democratically elected government officials were bribed, which at least in Greece was probably easy and expected due to the widespread culture of bribery. :contract:
QuoteAs for diving and resurfacing
The Greek boat made in Germany is operational and so are the two Portuguese ones and the three Korean ones. Seems to be a better design than the S-80 at least. Might have had its problems at first, but what new military equipment doesn't? They fixed it.
QuoteGreece Refuses Delivery Of First Type-214 Submarine
To renegotiate the price. But they want a total of six of these now - too bad they can't actually pay for them.
Swedish subs are best subs.
Needs an on-board QE unit to keep it afloat.
Quote from: The Brain on May 27, 2013, 01:06:32 PM
Swedish subs are best subs.
No Norwegian:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcollico.nettisivu.org%2Ffiles%2F2010%2F07%2F8solskjaer.jpg&hash=d330473776c54049b9c16621c894066a588291ca)
The Polish ones have very nice screen doors.
Quote from: Syt on May 27, 2013, 11:27:53 AM
Next time, just buy German subs. The Israelis love'em.
The riots of Navantia shipyard workers would be crippling.
The reason this project is being funded is simple: the alternative is losing our entire submarine capability. The project has been delayed so long the S-70s are really, really old by now.
Poor Isaac is not rolling in his grave. I'm sure he completely expected Spanish naval politics to screw him over again.
The submarine is an inherently predatory and immoral weapon. Captured sailors on submarines should be hanged.
The submarine is the only viable naval weapon left. All surface ships are way too easy to hit and sink.
Quote from: Iormlund on May 27, 2013, 01:43:35 PM
Quote from: Syt on May 27, 2013, 11:27:53 AM
Next time, just buy German subs. The Israelis love'em.
The riots of Navantia shipyard workers would be crippling.
The reason this project is being funded is simple: the alternative is losing our entire submarine capability. The project has been delayed so long the S-70s are really, really old by now.
By that you mean you would lose your capability to build subs, not the capability to operate them, right?
Would that be such a bad thing?
Of all the various military equipment out there, subs seems pretty low on the list of "useful things your country really ought to be able to build themselves".
Quote from: Berkut on May 27, 2013, 02:23:33 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on May 27, 2013, 01:43:35 PM
Quote from: Syt on May 27, 2013, 11:27:53 AM
Next time, just buy German subs. The Israelis love'em.
The riots of Navantia shipyard workers would be crippling.
The reason this project is being funded is simple: the alternative is losing our entire submarine capability. The project has been delayed so long the S-70s are really, really old by now.
By that you mean you would lose your capability to build subs, not the capability to operate them, right?
Would that be such a bad thing?
Of all the various military equipment out there, subs seems pretty low on the list of "useful things your country really ought to be able to build themselves".
Tell that to the ship building lobby.
Giving up a capability like that is a difficult decision to make. It's got to be really uncomfortable.
Quote from: Zanza on May 27, 2013, 01:54:07 PM
The submarine is the only viable naval weapon left. All surface ships are way too easy to hit and sink.
It's not like submarines are any more difficult. Hell, they don't even need to be hit to sink.
Aboard the quietest submarine in the world
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfjYZUiOkUw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfjYZUiOkUw)
Quote from: Zanza on May 27, 2013, 11:51:57 AM
The current German submarine design is a third smaller than this boat though. I doubt it would fit the Spanish specifications. Spain has much more blue water coastlines than Germany.
Why does Spain need submarines? It isn't as though it is possibly going to go to war with one of its neighbors. Any war it does enter would likely be far away and as a part of a multinational force.
More radically, why do Western European countries need militaries? Some have overseas commitments--so I understand that. Southern Europe needs to control migration from Africa. But what bad would happen if say Germany abolished its military, or at least the vast majority of it?
Quote from: alfred russel on May 27, 2013, 03:04:21 PM
Quote from: Zanza on May 27, 2013, 11:51:57 AM
The current German submarine design is a third smaller than this boat though. I doubt it would fit the Spanish specifications. Spain has much more blue water coastlines than Germany.
Why does Spain need submarines? It isn't as though it is possibly going to go to war with one of its neighbors. Any war it does enter would likely be far away and as a part of a multinational force.
More radically, why do Western European countries need militaries? Some have overseas commitments--so I understand that. Southern Europe needs to control migration from Africa. But what bad would happen if say Germany abolished its military, or at least the vast majority of it?
Well, Spain (and Germany) are a part of NATO and are committed to both mutual defence, and on occasion, have entered into military action as part of the alliance in other parts of the world. Afghanistan is a NATO operation, remember?
Quote from: Barrister on May 27, 2013, 03:05:42 PM
Well, Spain (and Germany) are a part of NATO and are committed to both mutual defence, and on occasion, have entered into military action as part of the alliance in other parts of the world. Afghanistan is a NATO operation, remember?
Mutual defense doesn't mean so much when neither is threatened by anyone.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 27, 2013, 03:04:21 PM
Quote from: Zanza on May 27, 2013, 11:51:57 AM
The current German submarine design is a third smaller than this boat though. I doubt it would fit the Spanish specifications. Spain has much more blue water coastlines than Germany.
Why does Spain need submarines? It isn't as though it is possibly going to go to war with one of its neighbors. Any war it does enter would likely be far away and as a part of a multinational force.
More radically, why do Western European countries need militaries? Some have overseas commitments--so I understand that. Southern Europe needs to control migration from Africa. But what bad would happen if say Germany abolished its military, or at least the vast majority of it?
We need it to showcase our future weapon exports. :P
In general I agree with you: Western European military is way overblown and mainly a political vehicle for industrial and structural policies to support weaker regions in the respective countries. Germany for example is surrounded by allies and the next potential threat, Russia, is far away. It is pretty much inconceivable that we could be involved in a major land war anytime soon.
That said, we are very much dependent on our international trade links, most of which are by sea. So we certainly have need of a navy. We could of course share that navy with other European countries as they will have exactly the same needs to protect trade routes, e.g. off the Horn of Africa or off Africa's west coast. So investing into ships that can protect trade routes makes sense for us.
However, our politicians do cut down the military accordingly. We have about 10% of the heavy tanks that we used to have in the Cold War left, we have created new units that can be deployed in international missions, we develop logistics capabilities to intervene abroad, we (fail to) develop drones to support missions abroad, the navy is restructured to blue water operations far away etc.
Our submarines allow clandestine operations in littoral waters and can scout for surface forces. So I guess they still have some missions that fit our current needs, but in general having silent hunter submarines when virtually all navies in the world are allied to you is probably useless.
Things can change fast in geopolitics, but armies take decades to build. The chance fo an armed confrontation with Russia or China is remote now, but you never know.
Meanwhile Canada should actively work on building up its forces. :menace:
Quote from: garbon on May 27, 2013, 03:20:06 PM
Meanwhile Canada should actively work on building up its forces. :menace:
Agreed. :)
Generally speaking Western militaries are too weak. Only America is halfway decent, but that way lies fatness.
Quote from: Barrister on May 27, 2013, 03:18:10 PM
Things can change fast in geopolitics, but armies take decades to build. The chance fo an armed confrontation with Russia or China is remote now, but you never know.
If it takes us decades to build an army, it will take them decades to build one too. Enough to time to react accordingly.
Russia is a realistic possible threat. They have nukes, but we don't intend to counter that. As far as conventional arms are concerned, the European Union vastly outproduces Russia in everything and has three times the population. That leaves political will to actually commit military might and that's certainly not there right now. So even if we had a powerful military, we would not commit it anyway.
China is on the other side of the world. No matter what they do, we will never be in an armed confrontation with them. Germany would certainly not do anything but sending strongly worded protest notes if China invaded Taiwan or so.
I seem to remember a period when Germany only had 100,000 soldiers. THAT WORKED OUT GREAT
Quote from: Zanza on May 27, 2013, 03:30:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 27, 2013, 03:18:10 PM
Things can change fast in geopolitics, but armies take decades to build. The chance fo an armed confrontation with Russia or China is remote now, but you never know.
If it takes us decades to build an army, it will take them decades to build one too. Enough to time to react accordingly.
Russia is a realistic possible threat. They have nukes, but we don't intend to counter that. As far as conventional arms are concerned, the European Union vastly outproduces Russia in everything and has three times the population. That leaves political will to actually commit military might and that's certainly not there right now. So even if we had a powerful military, we would not commit it anyway.
China is on the other side of the world. No matter what they do, we will never be in an armed confrontation with them. Germany would certainly not do anything but sending strongly worded protest notes if China invaded Taiwan or so.
But if Germany were to simple abolish it's military, as Alfred was suggesting?
Then all you need is for the next Russian President to decide to start marching troops on Berlin...
Alfred said "vast majority" of our military. Compared to the Cold War, when the West German military had about 500k soldiers, we are now down to 185k soldiers, so that's a cut of 63% (and doesn't even consider the East German soldiers of the Cold War). I could see it drop further without risking Russian soldiers marching through Berlin anytime soon and without us losing core military competencies to be able to build up a bigger military if needed.
Oh, and the next Russian president won't be a lunatic, so even if we had no military, he would not just go and try to conquer us. This is the real world, not Civilization.
Also, Belarus and Poland are between Russia and Germany.
Quote from: Zanza on May 27, 2013, 03:39:46 PM
Alfred said "vast majority" of our military. Compared to the Cold War, when the West German military had about 500k soldiers, we are now down to 185k soldiers, so that's a cut of 63% (and doesn't even consider the East German soldiers of the Cold War). I could see it drop further without risking Russian soldiers marching through Berlin anytime soon and without us losing core military competencies to be able to build up a bigger military if needed.
Oh, and the next Russian president won't be a lunatic, so even if we had no military, he would not just go and try to conquer us. This is the real world, not Civilization.
I wish I could be confident of that. :(
Peace in our Time!
yeah, that worked out well didnt it?
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2013, 02:54:28 PM
Quote from: Zanza on May 27, 2013, 01:54:07 PM
The submarine is the only viable naval weapon left. All surface ships are way too easy to hit and sink.
It's not like submarines are any more difficult. Hell, they don't even need to be hit to sink.
:D
So it starts with a red peg in the middle hole.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 27, 2013, 03:14:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 27, 2013, 03:05:42 PM
Well, Spain (and Germany) are a part of NATO and are committed to both mutual defence, and on occasion, have entered into military action as part of the alliance in other parts of the world. Afghanistan is a NATO operation, remember?
Mutual defense doesn't mean so much when neither is threatened by anyone.
Except Spain borders a fairly unstable region of the world. After what's happened in Tunisia, Egypt, Lybia and Syria, who is to say Islamists won't take control of Morocco in the next 20 or 30 years?
The ability to control thousands of miles of coastline might not be important for Germany, but it is for Spain.
Quote from: Zanza on May 27, 2013, 03:30:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 27, 2013, 03:18:10 PM
Things can change fast in geopolitics, but armies take decades to build. The chance fo an armed confrontation with Russia or China is remote now, but you never know.
If it takes us decades to build an army, it will take them decades to build one too. Enough to time to react accordingly.
Russia is a realistic possible threat. They have nukes, but we don't intend to counter that. As far as conventional arms are concerned, the European Union vastly outproduces Russia in everything and has three times the population. That leaves political will to actually commit military might and that's certainly not there right now. So even if we had a powerful military, we would not commit it anyway.
China is on the other side of the world. No matter what they do, we will never be in an armed confrontation with them. Germany would certainly not do anything but sending strongly worded protest notes if China invaded Taiwan or so.
For Hungary, being a weakling 100% dependent on a foreign power to protect us is normal.
But how can you Germans live with that assessment? What you described is that the only reason Russia isn't bullying you to oblivion is that the USA wouldn't let them.
Quote from: Iormlund on May 28, 2013, 12:42:20 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 27, 2013, 03:14:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 27, 2013, 03:05:42 PM
Well, Spain (and Germany) are a part of NATO and are committed to both mutual defence, and on occasion, have entered into military action as part of the alliance in other parts of the world. Afghanistan is a NATO operation, remember?
Mutual defense doesn't mean so much when neither is threatened by anyone.
Except Spain borders a fairly unstable region of the world. After what's happened in Tunisia, Egypt, Lybia and Syria, who is to say Islamists won't take control of Morocco in the next 20 or 30 years?
The ability to control thousands of miles of coastline might not be important for Germany, but it is for Spain.
Not to mention having territories away from the main land mass. The Navy will always be the main part of the Spanish military as long as Spain has the Canaries, Ceuta and Melilla.
Quote from: The Larch on May 28, 2013, 06:54:46 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on May 28, 2013, 12:42:20 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 27, 2013, 03:14:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 27, 2013, 03:05:42 PM
Well, Spain (and Germany) are a part of NATO and are committed to both mutual defence, and on occasion, have entered into military action as part of the alliance in other parts of the world. Afghanistan is a NATO operation, remember?
Mutual defense doesn't mean so much when neither is threatened by anyone.
Except Spain borders a fairly unstable region of the world. After what's happened in Tunisia, Egypt, Lybia and Syria, who is to say Islamists won't take control of Morocco in the next 20 or 30 years?
The ability to control thousands of miles of coastline might not be important for Germany, but it is for Spain.
Not to mention having territories away from the main land mass. The Navy will always be the main part of the Spanish military as long as Spain has the Canaries, Ceuta and Melilla.
It'll just be at the bottom of the ocean. :)
Quote from: garbon on May 28, 2013, 06:55:32 AM
Quote from: The Larch on May 28, 2013, 06:54:46 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on May 28, 2013, 12:42:20 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 27, 2013, 03:14:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 27, 2013, 03:05:42 PM
Well, Spain (and Germany) are a part of NATO and are committed to both mutual defence, and on occasion, have entered into military action as part of the alliance in other parts of the world. Afghanistan is a NATO operation, remember?
Mutual defense doesn't mean so much when neither is threatened by anyone.
Except Spain borders a fairly unstable region of the world. After what's happened in Tunisia, Egypt, Lybia and Syria, who is to say Islamists won't take control of Morocco in the next 20 or 30 years?
The ability to control thousands of miles of coastline might not be important for Germany, but it is for Spain.
Not to mention having territories away from the main land mass. The Navy will always be the main part of the Spanish military as long as Spain has the Canaries, Ceuta and Melilla.
It'll just be at the bottom of the ocean. :)
I'm talking about the whole navy, not just this submarine. :p
Quote from: Zanza on May 27, 2013, 03:30:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 27, 2013, 03:18:10 PM
Things can change fast in geopolitics, but armies take decades to build. The chance fo an armed confrontation with Russia or China is remote now, but you never know.
If it takes us decades to build an army, it will take them decades to build one too. Enough to time to react accordingly.
Russia is a realistic possible threat. They have nukes, but we don't intend to counter that. As far as conventional arms are concerned, the European Union vastly outproduces Russia in everything and has three times the population. That leaves political will to actually commit military might and that's certainly not there right now. So even if we had a powerful military, we would not commit it anyway.
China is on the other side of the world. No matter what they do, we will never be in an armed confrontation with them. Germany would certainly not do anything but sending strongly worded protest notes if China invaded Taiwan or so.
The irony of the Germans so quickly forgetting the lesson theuy so painfully taught everyone else is rather breathtaking.
The point of a Western military is not to win the next war - it is to prevent the next war. And saying "Hey, if they build up, so will we" doesn't prevent wars, it causes them. That is *EXACTLY* the attitude of West towards Germany pre-WW2. They can build up, but so can we.
And it was true - Germany could not compete in the long run. But it took several tens of millions of dead Europeans to solve the problem in that manner.
The problem with this "If the crazy hyper nationalist country next door starts building up, so will we" theory is that it means you start behind the curve. Because politically, nobody will want to believe what is happening at first. And the crazy country will say they are just looking to secure their borders, or re-take their historically relevant bits like Alsace or Georgia. They don't want anymore than Austria, or the Ukraine, and will certainly stop after that. True, Czechoslovakia is a little more, but then the Poles made us mad, so we certainly won't be looking for more than that.
But more to the point, once hyper-nationalist powers start down the road, they cannot turn back. They get a temporary advantage, and they are compelled to use it. Maybe in the long run it is a terrible outcome from them, but it takes a war to make that clear. And despotic hyper nationlist leaders tend to be the kind of people who require wars to prove that they are wrong.
But you know what stops them from starting? When it is hyper clear that it won't work to begin with, and those who are interested in stopping them have the wherewithal to do so.
You are engaging in a process that is the result of the very successful policy you should be looking to continue. NATO made it clear to the USSR that they were too strong to even countenance war as a means of achieving the Soviet Unions goals. War was prevented. NATO "won" because it never fought.
Now you are sitting here saying "Gosh, see, we never really needed that military, never even used it! lets get rid of the scraps that remain." And the idea that the rest of the EU will come to your aid if needed??? They have already done what you are contemplating, or are in the process of doing so! You are all sitting around saying "Collective security!" while each of you individually are getting rid of your military as fast as you can. That is not collective security, that is a mighty fat and juicy target.
I don't know, maybe I am wrong. Maybe the lessons of the lat 2000+ years of European history are all wrong, and THIS TIME it really is different, and war is a thing of the past. I hope that is the case.
But I kind of doubt it.
QuoteChina is on the other side of the world. No matter what they do, we will never be in an armed confrontation with them. Germany would certainly not do anything but sending strongly worded protest notes if China invaded Taiwan or so.
And if Russia invaded the Ukraine?
Quote from: The Larch on May 28, 2013, 06:54:46 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on May 28, 2013, 12:42:20 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 27, 2013, 03:14:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 27, 2013, 03:05:42 PM
Well, Spain (and Germany) are a part of NATO and are committed to both mutual defence, and on occasion, have entered into military action as part of the alliance in other parts of the world. Afghanistan is a NATO operation, remember?
Mutual defense doesn't mean so much when neither is threatened by anyone.
Except Spain borders a fairly unstable region of the world. After what's happened in Tunisia, Egypt, Lybia and Syria, who is to say Islamists won't take control of Morocco in the next 20 or 30 years?
The ability to control thousands of miles of coastline might not be important for Germany, but it is for Spain.
Not to mention having territories away from the main land mass. The Navy will always be the main part of the Spanish military as long as Spain has the Canaries, Ceuta and Melilla.
As an aside... how does Spain reconcile it's ownership of Ceuta and Melilla with it's claims on Gibraltar?
Quote from: Syt on May 27, 2013, 11:27:53 AM
If Spain hopes to salvage its submarines, it must either find some weight that can be trimmed from the current design or lengthen the ship to accomodate the excess weight, The Local notes. Though the latter option is more feasible, it is expected to cost Spain an extra $9.7 million per meter.
AKA the "I'm not overweight, I'm undertall" argument.
Also, I don't believe accommodate is spelled that way even in America.
Quote from: Barrister on May 28, 2013, 10:51:52 AM
As an aside... how does Spain reconcile it's ownership of Ceuta and Melilla with it's claims on Gibraltar?
Very agilely. I think the main one they point out that Ceuta and Melilla are integral parts of Spain while Gibraltar has that weird overseas classification so are not really British.
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2013, 10:42:10 AM
War was prevented. NATO "won" because it never fought.
Now you are sitting here saying "Gosh, see, we never really needed that military, never even used it! lets get rid of the scraps that remain."
As you say, the war was won. So now we can reduce our military to peacetime strength. And I am not convinced that 185k men is the right size for Germany or if we could do with less than that. Alfred said "vastly reduce" and I think that we still have a lot of potential to streamline our military capabilities.
QuoteAnd the idea that the rest of the EU will come to your aid if needed??? They have already done what you are contemplating, or are in the process of doing so! You are all sitting around saying "Collective security!" while each of you individually are getting rid of your military as fast as you can.
No one actually tries to get rid of the military in Europe, so that's a strawman. But question like "Does Spain need subs or the capability to build them" or "Can Germany reduce its armed forces even more?" are perfectly legitimate policy questions even in the light of collective security. A lot of the military capability we have is completely useless against all possible threats out there and on the other hand we do not have the right capabilities to actually take care of the missions our military has.
QuoteThat is not collective security, that is a mighty fat and juicy target.
The idea that Europe is a "target" is ridiculous. Who would target us? And more importantly why? The idea that someone in the 21st century goes on a conquest just because he can is not realistic in my humble opinion.
QuoteMaybe the lessons of the lat 2000+ years of European history are all wrong, and THIS TIME it really is different, and war is a thing of the past. I hope that is the case.
I am convinced that this time it is indeed different.
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2013, 10:50:42 AM
QuoteChina is on the other side of the world. No matter what they do, we will never be in an armed confrontation with them. Germany would certainly not do anything but sending strongly worded protest notes if China invaded Taiwan or so.
And if Russia invaded the Ukraine?
Strongly worded protest note. :contract:
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 10:59:11 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2013, 10:50:42 AM
QuoteChina is on the other side of the world. No matter what they do, we will never be in an armed confrontation with them. Germany would certainly not do anything but sending strongly worded protest notes if China invaded Taiwan or so.
And if Russia invaded the Ukraine?
Strongly worded protest note. :contract:
Exactly. And the knowledge that that is all Europe could do is what makes it much more likely to happen.
I mean - is Russian territorial aggression THAT unlikely in the future?
The EU might not care about Georgia, or Ukraine - but what is Putin's successor decides to press claims to all of the former USSR territories - including EU members in the Baltics?
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 10:58:21 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2013, 10:42:10 AM
War was prevented. NATO "won" because it never fought.
Now you are sitting here saying "Gosh, see, we never really needed that military, never even used it! lets get rid of the scraps that remain."
As you say, the war was won. So now we can reduce our military to peacetime strength.
You've already done that, and then some.[/quote]
QuoteAnd I am not convinced that 185k men is the right size for Germany or if we could do with less than that. Alfred said "vastly reduce" and I think that we still have a lot of potential to streamline our military capabilities.
"Streamlined" is political speak for "Reduce capabilities to save cash".
You *can* do with less, of course. You *can* do with none. Much less than what you have, and you effectively have none in that what you have is incapable of doing anything useful.
If you aren't at that point already, of course.
Which is exactly how this process works. You cut your military, and realize you can no longer accomplish Mission X. So you simply say that you didn't want to do X anymore anyway - then note that gee, without the desire to do mission X, we can cut even more! So you whack off some more stuff, and note "Gosh, we cannot really accomplish Mission Y now either...". No problem - Mission Y was bullshit anyway, and who really wanted or needed to do that? Scrap Mission Y, it isn't important.
Hey! Look! Without the need for Mission Y, we can get rid of ever MORE stuff!
Hmmm, Mission Z is looking kind of sketchy...
Quote
QuoteAnd the idea that the rest of the EU will come to your aid if needed??? They have already done what you are contemplating, or are in the process of doing so! You are all sitting around saying "Collective security!" while each of you individually are getting rid of your military as fast as you can.
No one actually tries to get rid of the military in Europe, so that's a strawman.
Wow, they sure have managed to do so without trying. Not a strawman at all. Europes military today is a bit of a joke outside the UK, and you are contemplating getting rid of the joke.
'
Quote
But question like "Does Spain need subs or the capability to build them" or "Can Germany reduce its armed forces even more?" are perfectly legitimate policy questions even in the light of collective security. A lot of the military capability we have is completely useless against all possible threats out there and on the other hand we do not have the right capabilities to actually take care of the missions our military has.
You don't have any missions anymore, remember? Nobody will ever invade, you won't ever need to project power, Pax Europa for all time.
Quote
QuoteThat is not collective security, that is a mighty fat and juicy target.
The idea that Europe is a "target" is ridiculous. Who would target us? And more importantly why? The idea that someone in the 21st century goes on a conquest just because he can is not realistic in my humble opinion.
Wishful thinking at its best.
Russia. China. Both are potential enemies, and making yourself vulnerable has the bonus effect of making hyper-nationalists in those countries more attractive. Could Hitler have even risen to power if France and England had kept their militaries strong enough that Germany simply could not contemplate re-armament? If he could have gotten into power, could it have gone anywhere? I suggest not.
You are now putting Germany in the role of France. We don't need a military, war is an anachronism. When you have a perfect example of another relatively immature, non-Western, nationalistic power itching to prove themselves right next door.
Quote
QuoteMaybe the lessons of the lat 2000+ years of European history are all wrong, and THIS TIME it really is different, and war is a thing of the past. I hope that is the case.
I am convinced that this time it is indeed different.
It is an interesting perspective, and an interesting argument. I think it even has merit - I *do* think something is different...among the Western, liberal democracies. They don't make agressive war anymore.
But going back to our pre-WW2 analogy, that just means France didn't have to worry about being invaded by England. Germany, which at best was a ridiculously weak, vulnerable, and immature "democracy" (Gosh, where might we find one of those today...hmmm.....) was another story entirely.
So, are things different - yes, they are.
Are they different for ALL the actors involved? Nope, they are not. And until there is some reason to believe that the entire world is a Western, liberal democracy, the actual western liberal democracies would be irresponsible to assume that every other nation is governed by the same political and cultural constraints against aggressive war that we are.
Quote from: Zanza on May 27, 2013, 03:30:07 PM
Germany would certainly not do anything but sending strongly worded protest notes if China invaded Taiwan or so.
An aggressive authoritarian state without regard for the rule of law invades its democratic neighbor (and perhaps instigates a war with the US), and all you do is shrug? Maybe that's your problem right there.
If Germany wants any sort of say in the world we live in (peaceful and democratic or violent and authoritarian; under the rule of law or not; respectful of human rights or filled with atrocities) its going to at least have to be able to fight for it. Closing your eyes and wishing really hard (and hoping the US will bear the burden alone) isn't going to do it. If Germany doesn't care to have a voice in the future, and its highest ambition is to be like Sweden in WW2, left alone to peacefully sell iron ore to the Nazis, well, then, I guess stay on the path that you're on.
Quote from: Kleves on May 28, 2013, 11:24:56 AMIf Germany wants any sort of say in the world we live in (peaceful and democratic or violent and authoritarian; under the rule of law or not; respectful of human rights or filled with atrocities) its going to at least have to be able to fight for it. Closing your eyes and wishing really hard (and hoping the US will bear the burden alone) isn't going to do it. If Germany doesn't care to have a voice in the future, and its highest ambition is to be like Sweden in WW2, left alone to peacefully sell iron ore to the Nazis, well, then, I guess stay on the path that you're on.
Honestly, I can't envision a situation, short of Russians crossing the Oder, in which the majority of Germans would condone a major engagement of its military. Even the force in Afghanistan is but lip service at best. "We're just doing humanitarian/construction work! We're not here to fight!"
If Russia invaded Ukraine, and Germany would pledge 50,000 troops to its defense, I have doubts the government responsible for sending the troops would stay in power for long.
Think back to the 80s, and the NATO Double Track discussion (stationing of Pershing II and other missiles in Germany). It was one of (a number of) reasons the Social Democrats were kicked out of power, and when Kohl took over he wanted to go through with it, but was confronted with hundreds of thousands of people protesting against it and had a hard time getting the approval through parliament.
Kohl had promised Reagan he'd follow through, but after taking power was at first so intimidated that he gave (a pissed off) Reagan a phone call that literally almost half a million people were protesting against the decision in is backyard.
And that whole thing was a legitimate response to the stationing of Soviet SS-20 missiles in Europe.
Quote from: Kleves on May 28, 2013, 11:24:56 AM
Quote from: Zanza on May 27, 2013, 03:30:07 PM
Germany would certainly not do anything but sending strongly worded protest notes if China invaded Taiwan or so.
An aggressive authoritarian state without regard for the rule of law invades its democratic neighbor (and perhaps instigates a war with the US), and all you do is shrug? Maybe that's your problem right there.
If Germany wants any sort of say in the world we live in (peaceful and democratic or violent and authoritarian; under the rule of law or not; respectful of human rights or filled with atrocities) its going to at least have to be able to fight for it. Closing your eyes and wishing really hard (and hoping the US will bear the burden alone) isn't going to do it. If Germany doesn't care to have a voice in the future, and its highest ambition is to be like Sweden in WW2, left alone to peacefully sell iron ore to the Nazis, well, then, I guess stay on the path that you're on.
What could do with its military now if China invades Taiwan (assuming there was will in Germany to fight)?
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2013, 11:16:53 AM
You've already done that, and then some.
And the question is whether we can do some more.
QuoteYou *can* do with less, of course. You *can* do with none. Much less than what you have, and you effectively have none in that what you have is incapable of doing anything useful.
If you aren't at that point already, of course.
We are not capable of doing the things we want to do. We are capable of doing things we don't want to do anymore.
QuoteWhich is exactly how this process works. You cut your military, and realize you can no longer accomplish Mission X. So you simply say that you didn't want to do X anymore anyway - then note that gee, without the desire to do mission X, we can cut even more! So you whack off some more stuff, and note "Gosh, we cannot really accomplish Mission Y now either...". No problem - Mission Y was bullshit anyway, and who really wanted or needed to do that? Scrap Mission Y, it isn't important.
No, it's not. The reality of military policy in Europe is that countries are shifting into new mission profiles. Military budgets are not actually reduced much, e.g. Germany's grew in nominal terms by about 40% since 2000, which is about twice the inflation rate in that time period, so a considerable real growth.
QuoteWow, they sure have managed to do so without trying. Not a strawman at all. Europes military today is a bit of a joke outside the UK, and you are contemplating getting rid of the joke.
I don't think so. There seem to be quite capable units in our military and when there is political will, they are put to good use too. And with new equipment and units we have also changing the types of missions our military is capable of. That said, yes, we did rid of much of our Cold War capability. But there is simply no point in keeping a massive mechanized tank army to fight in the North German plains against the Soviet guards anymore.
QuoteYou don't have any missions anymore, remember? Nobody will ever invade, you won't ever need to project power, Pax Europa for all time.
No, that's just your silly strawman.
Quote
Russia. China. Both are potential enemies, and making yourself vulnerable has the bonus effect of making hyper-nationalists in those countries more attractive. Could Hitler have even risen to power if France and England had kept their militaries strong enough that Germany simply could not contemplate re-armament? If he could have gotten into power, could it have gone anywhere? I suggest not.
You are now putting Germany in the role of France. We don't need a military, war is an anachronism. When you have a perfect example of another relatively immature, non-Western, nationalistic power itching to prove themselves right next door.
China is still on the other side of the planet. Maybe it is relevant for American security interests, but it sure isn't for European security interests. Russia is still much weaker than we are, even with our reduced military capabilities. Russia is the country that took years to beat Chechnya and could barely invade Georgia.
And if you want to discuss history then yes, I think Hitler would still have gone for a war, even if the UK and France had been stronger. Appeasement didn't work not because France and the UK couldn't back it up with force, but because Hitler always planned a war anyway.
Quote
It is an interesting perspective, and an interesting argument. I think it even has merit - I *do* think something is different...among the Western, liberal democracies. They don't make agressive war anymore.
But going back to our pre-WW2 analogy, that just means France didn't have to worry about being invaded by England. Germany, which at best was a ridiculously weak, vulnerable, and immature "democracy" (Gosh, where might we find one of those today...hmmm.....) was another story entirely.
So, are things different - yes, they are.
Are they different for ALL the actors involved? Nope, they are not. And until there is some reason to believe that the entire world is a Western, liberal democracy, the actual western liberal democracies would be irresponsible to assume that every other nation is governed by the same political and cultural constraints against aggressive war that we are.
Fair enough. But I still can't see Russia as a threat to the western-liberal democracies. It certainly is not part of that group, but that alone doesn't make it a threat to us. I would grant you that it is a threat to e.g. the Central Asian and Caucasus republics.
But no matter how much we put into our military, we will never deter it from there, because we clearly lack the political will to get involved in geopolitics of these regions.
Quote from: Kleves on May 28, 2013, 11:24:56 AM
Quote from: Zanza on May 27, 2013, 03:30:07 PM
Germany would certainly not do anything but sending strongly worded protest notes if China invaded Taiwan or so.
An aggressive authoritarian state without regard for the rule of law invades its democratic neighbor (and perhaps instigates a war with the US), and all you do is shrug? Maybe that's your problem right there.
If Germany wants any sort of say in the world we live in (peaceful and democratic or violent and authoritarian; under the rule of law or not; respectful of human rights or filled with atrocities) its going to at least have to be able to fight for it. Closing your eyes and wishing really hard (and hoping the US will bear the burden alone) isn't going to do it. If Germany doesn't care to have a voice in the future, and its highest ambition is to be like Sweden in WW2, left alone to peacefully sell iron ore to the Nazis, well, then, I guess stay on the path that you're on.
Unlike America, we don't feel like we have any kind of global responsibility or global foreign policy mission to fight for democracy or liberty. We care about what happens in Europe (well, except its Eastern fringes). And that's about it. We certainly look at democracy and liberty elsewhere in an approving fashion and will provide political consultants or institutional help or aid or whatever, but not soldiers. Conflict between African states? Send some humanitarian aid. Conflict between Arabs and Iran? Let's try to sell them weapons. Conflict in East Asia? Maybe we can sell them weapons as well? Conflict in the Americas? Monroe Doctrine. ;)
Quote from: garbon on May 28, 2013, 11:45:20 AM
What could do with its military now if China invades Taiwan (assuming there was will in Germany to fight)?
Even at the height of its military power (maybe 1914, 1941, 1985), Germany never had any realistic capability to do anything about the invasion of an island half way around the world. And I don't really see why it should.
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 11:57:36 AM
Even at the height of its military power (maybe 1914, 1941, 1985), Germany never had any realistic capability to do anything about the invasion of an island half way around the world. And I don't really see why it should.
They could have struck with their mighty East Asian Squadron. Could China have invaded Taiwan with the Scharnhorst and the Emden in their way eh?
Quote from: Iormlund on May 28, 2013, 12:42:20 AM
The ability to control thousands of miles of coastline might not be important for Germany, but it is for Spain.
To avoid the reverse Reconquista
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 11:55:07 AM
Unlike America, we don't feel like we have any kind of global responsibility or global foreign policy mission to fight for democracy or liberty.
Why?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 28, 2013, 12:04:28 PM
To avoid the reverse Reconquista
A reverse reverse conquest? I like it!
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 11:55:07 AM
Conflict in the Americas? Monroe Doctrine. ;)
Damn right. GET OFF OF OUR LAWN. :mad:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 28, 2013, 12:05:03 PM
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 11:55:07 AM
Unlike America, we don't feel like we have any kind of global responsibility or global foreign policy mission to fight for democracy or liberty.
Why?
Because Germans only get inspired for military operations when it is for the cause of evil. Good is boring.
Evil also gets cooler uniforms, most of the time.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 28, 2013, 12:05:03 PM
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 11:55:07 AM
Unlike America, we don't feel like we have any kind of global responsibility or global foreign policy mission to fight for democracy or liberty.
Why?
We prefer a policy of non-intervention. Except in our direct backyard, the European Union, where we are very active, and some minor international commitments, e.g. fighting against piracy. Maybe comparable to US foreign policy 1776 - 1917?
America seems pretty exceptional in having this global agenda. Most countries just mind their own business and aren't particularly active in promoting their values or policies abroad.
Some Americans (e.g. our Ed Anger) seem to share that kind of sentiment.
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 12:14:17 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 28, 2013, 12:05:03 PM
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 11:55:07 AM
Unlike America, we don't feel like we have any kind of global responsibility or global foreign policy mission to fight for democracy or liberty.
Why?
We prefer a policy of non-intervention. Except in our direct backyard, the European Union, where we are very active, and some minor international commitments, e.g. fighting against piracy. Maybe comparable to US foreign policy 1776 - 1917?
America seems pretty exceptional in having this global agenda. Most countries just mind their own business and aren't particularly active in promoting their values or policies abroad.
Some Americans (e.g. our Ed Anger) seem to share that kind of sentiment.
France is pretty active. Is Germany not a more responsible international actor than France?
Quote from: Syt on May 28, 2013, 12:14:03 PM
Evil also gets cooler uniforms, most of the time.
:yes:
QuoteSome Americans (e.g. our Ed Anger) seem to share that kind of sentiment.
Alot of us do actually. If anybody else wants to take over maintaining global stability someday that would be great thanks.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 28, 2013, 12:16:18 PM
Is Germany not a more responsible international actor than France?
Few are. :frog:
The thing is: I don't trust anyone else to do it correctly. I mean, our police actions in Iraq and Afghanistan could not have gone better :)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 28, 2013, 12:16:18 PM
France is pretty active. Is Germany not a more responsible international actor than France?
You seem to equate active and responsible. Not sure if I would agree with that equation.
When just considering activeness, France is clearly a more active international actor than Germany when it comes to military action, especially in their former colonies.
I have no real basis to compare France's and Germany's activities in non-military foreign policy, but I would assume that France is more active in its former colonies at least. However, Germany also has a quite active foreign policy, just not a strong military component to it. But that's not all there is to foreign policy.
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 11:55:07 AMWe certainly look at democracy and liberty elsewhere in an approving fashion and will provide political consultants or institutional help or aid or whatever, but not soldiers. Conflict between African states? Send some humanitarian aid. Conflict between Arabs and Iran? Let's try to sell them weapons. Conflict in East Asia? Maybe we can sell them weapons as well? Conflict in the Americas? Monroe Doctrine. ;)
You have a good point there. My impression is that there's a certain smugness in Germany when it comes to war. "We don't do that anymore, we've grown out of that stage. America fights wars? How uncouth!"
Quote from: Syt on May 28, 2013, 12:27:42 PM
"We don't do that anymore, we've grown out of that stage.
:(
What Berkut seems to ignore is that the lack of interest in getting involved in a theoretical invasion of the Ukraine is that western European pacificism isn't a function of a lack of power—it is more about aversion to war. I would hope that the US would also skip such a war—who wants to go to war with Russia unless it is absolutely necessary? Is the Ukraine worth 100s of thousands killed and potential escalation into nuclear war?
Quote from: alfred russel on May 28, 2013, 12:30:32 PM
What Berkut seems to ignore is that the lack of interest in getting involved in a theoretical invasion of the Ukraine is that western European pacificism isn't a function of a lack of power—it is more about aversion to war. I would hope that the US would also skip such a war—who wants to go to war with Russia unless it is absolutely necessary? Is the Ukraine worth 100s of thousands killed and potential escalation into nuclear war?
Of course it is! :mad:
There must hundreds of thousands of German soldiers buried in Ukraine. One of my mother's uncles is one of them. I think we are done with war over Ukraine.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 28, 2013, 12:30:32 PM
What Berkut seems to ignore is that the lack of interest in getting involved in a theoretical invasion of the Ukraine Czechoslovakia is that western European pacificism isn't a function of a lack of power—it is more about aversion to war. I would hope that the US would also skip such a war—who wants to go to war with Russia Germany unless it is absolutely necessary? Is the Ukraine Czechoslovakia Poland worth 100s of thousands killed and potential escalation into nuclear war?
I don't know - of course, I reject the notion that pacifism is a result of not caring. I think it is the other way around.
You purport not to care (which IMO is rather transparently ridiculous - isolationism is no less an unworkable stance today than it was in 1914 or 1938) because you lack the ability to act, because you lack the desire to pay for that ability.
I agree that this is all basically spitting into the wind. You cannot convince people to ever learn from history, and certainly not the correct lessons. Instead they just pick and choose what they like to justify what they want to do anyway, and ignore the obvious lessons.
But that doesn't mean I cannot point it out when they do so.
You know what also didn't stop a world war from breaking out? All sides being armed to the teeth in 1914.
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 12:38:24 PM
There must hundreds of thousands of German soldiers buried in Ukraine. One of my mother's uncles is one of them. I think we are done with war over Ukraine.
It isn't about fighting over the Ukraine, of course. And you know that - trying to pretend like this is based on some sort of noble or altruistic principles is cowardice.
It is about being willing to resist tyranny when such resistance is necessary both for the greater good and even in a nations own self interest. Something that is most certainly a worthwhile and noble principle.
If Germany is not willing to fight for the freedom of the Ukraine, why should France be willing to fight for the freedom of Germany? Or why should the US, for that matter?
And what happened to collective security? Does it only apply when you ask others to protect you?
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 12:14:17 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 28, 2013, 12:05:03 PM
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 11:55:07 AM
Unlike America, we don't feel like we have any kind of global responsibility or global foreign policy mission to fight for democracy or liberty.
Why?
We prefer a policy of non-intervention. Except in our direct backyard, the European Union, where we are very active, and some minor international commitments, e.g. fighting against piracy. Maybe comparable to US foreign policy 1776 - 1917?
America seems pretty exceptional in having this global agenda. Most countries just mind their own business and aren't particularly active in promoting their values or policies abroad.
Some Americans (e.g. our Ed Anger) seem to share that kind of sentiment.
I was remembered! :)
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2013, 12:47:06 PM
It isn't about fighting over the Ukraine, of course. And you know that - trying to pretend like this is based on some sort of noble or altruistic principles is cowardice.
It is about being willing to resist tyranny when such resistance is necessary both for the greater good and even in a nations own self interest. Something that is most certainly a worthwhile and noble principle.
If Germany is not willing to fight for the freedom of the Ukraine, why should France be willing to fight for the freedom of Germany? Or why should the US, for that matter?
And what happened to collective security? Does it only apply when you ask others to protect you?
Last I checked, Ukraine is not part of NATO. We have no formal obligations towards them. And yes, collective security only applies when the attacked party asks others to protect it. Ref. article 5 of the NATO treaty.
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 12:46:40 PM
You know what also didn't stop a world war from breaking out? All sides being armed to the teeth in 1914.
So? I never claimed that being armed was some guarantee that war cannot happen. You can be certain that being armed and ready didn't CAUSE WW1, at least not on the part of the western democracies.
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2013, 12:49:53 PM
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 12:46:40 PM
You know what also didn't stop a world war from breaking out? All sides being armed to the teeth in 1914.
So? I never claimed that being armed was some guarantee that war cannot happen. You can be certain that being armed and ready didn't CAUSE WW1, at least not on the part of the western democracies.
It did cause the Iraq War in 2003 though.
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 12:48:59 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2013, 12:47:06 PM
It isn't about fighting over the Ukraine, of course. And you know that - trying to pretend like this is based on some sort of noble or altruistic principles is cowardice.
It is about being willing to resist tyranny when such resistance is necessary both for the greater good and even in a nations own self interest. Something that is most certainly a worthwhile and noble principle.
If Germany is not willing to fight for the freedom of the Ukraine, why should France be willing to fight for the freedom of Germany? Or why should the US, for that matter?
And what happened to collective security? Does it only apply when you ask others to protect you?
Last I checked, Ukraine is not part of NATO. We have no formal obligations towards them. And yes, collective security only applies when the attacked party asks others to protect it. Ref. article 5 of the NATO treaty.
NATO is a formal means of recognizing a principle that exists outside of NATO. And that is that wars of aggression should be resisted. Of course, under your plan, you could not resist an invasion of the Ukraine even if they were in NATO.
And of course, your view includes the idea that DEAR JESUS DON"T EXPAND NATO TO ANYONE WHO MIGHT ACTUALLY NEED PROTECTION! This goes back to my "Hey, if we just define away any mission (like protecting our neighbors from tyranny) that needs a military, why look, we don't need much of a military anymore!"
This is like someone claiming that they should not protect a Jew from being rounded up and sent to the gas chamber because the Jew didn't ask nicely ahead of time.
TOUGH SHIT, I NEVER AGREED TO PROTECT YOU!
There is another word for this viewpoint. And it has nothing to do with altruism or any kind of admirable human motivation.
It only takes one party to start a war. What are you supposed to do when your neighbor is arming to the teeth, nothing? Is not arming supposed to somehow be morally superior?
Is surrender the "proper" thing to do?
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 12:51:40 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2013, 12:49:53 PM
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 12:46:40 PM
You know what also didn't stop a world war from breaking out? All sides being armed to the teeth in 1914.
So? I never claimed that being armed was some guarantee that war cannot happen. You can be certain that being armed and ready didn't CAUSE WW1, at least not on the part of the western democracies.
It did cause the Iraq War in 2003 though.
I am impressed at how long you were able to go before pulling out that red herring.
Of course, the US military in Gulf War 2 was actually much smaller than it was in Gulf War 1, so I guess even your red herring is based on lack of relevant information.
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2013, 12:53:54 PM
NATO is a formal means of recognizing a principle that exists outside of NATO. And that is that wars of aggression should be resisted. Of course, under your plan, you could not resist an invasion of the Ukraine even if they were in NATO.
I know you ignored my post where I pointed out that your argument that somehow Western Europe is abolishing its military has no foundation in reality, so what you call my plan is not my plan nor that of my country. We could resist - not nearly as well as during the Cold War - but we have considerable military capabilities left. Certainly more than e.g. Chechnya or Georgia, which could pose some resistance to Russia. Combined with the capabilities of our numerous allies - even excluding the US - I am confident that we could counter anything Russia is able to send. Except for their nuclear weapons of course. However, that doesn't answer the question whether our military has the right capabilities and whether we can still get rid of some that are useless. The thread opener - submarines - would not really help us much to defend Ukraine.
QuoteThere is another word for this viewpoint. And it has nothing to do with altruism or any kind of admirable human motivation.
I would never claim altruism or admirable human motivation. We are talking about foreign policy after all. It's about interests.
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2013, 12:55:33 PM
I am impressed at how long you were able to go before pulling out that red herring.
About the same time as your out of context Holocaust reference.
QuoteOf course, the US military in Gulf War 2 was actually much smaller than it was in Gulf War 1, so I guess even your red herring is based on lack of relevant information.
Your point being? In 2003 a Western democracy started a war because it was armed and ready. Or do you actually believe the bullshit reasons your politicians gave you? You can't be that naive. They started the war because they wanted it and there was not enough public resistance due to 9/11.
IMO, it's wrong to ally with another state and not build a military capable of helping defend that ally. If Germany and Poland got invaded by Russia, I expect the US Army to get there and start wrecking things. If Mexico invades the US, I expect German tanks in Texas.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 28, 2013, 12:55:10 PM
It only takes one party to start a war. What are you supposed to do when your neighbor is arming to the teeth, nothing? Is not arming supposed to somehow be morally superior?
Is surrender the "proper" thing to do?
No. But we are talking about current political realities, not some hypothetical scenario. In the current political realities, I think it is a fair question to ask whether the interests of Europe are served best with its current military spending. Or whether spending less and changing the mission profile might actually serve our interests better.
Quote from: Barrister on May 28, 2013, 10:51:52 AM
As an aside... how does Spain reconcile it's ownership of Ceuta and Melilla with it's claims on Gibraltar?
Much better than than its ownership of Olivença or its (intermittent) claim on the Ilhas Selvagens (Savage islands). :)
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 01:04:38 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2013, 12:55:33 PM
I am impressed at how long you were able to go before pulling out that red herring.
About the same time as your out of context Holocaust reference.
QuoteOf course, the US military in Gulf War 2 was actually much smaller than it was in Gulf War 1, so I guess even your red herring is based on lack of relevant information.
Your point being? In 2003 a Western democracy started a war because it was armed and ready. Or do you actually believe the bullshit reasons your politicians gave you? You can't be that naive. They started the war because they wanted it and there was not enough public resistance due to 9/11.
Make uup your mind - did they start the war because they "wanted it" or becuase they were armed and ready?
Of course, the latter doesn't support your claim, but the former (which would...except that it doesn't make sense since the US has been "armed and ready" pretty much continuoulsly since WW2, and yet has not been start wars left and right), is what you started with.
But I am not going to fall into the trap of turning the disucssion into another argument over the Iraq War and why it started. Nice try though.
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 01:04:38 PM
Your point being? In 2003 a Western democracy started a war because it was armed and ready. Or do you actually believe the bullshit reasons your politicians gave you? You can't be that naive. They started the war because they wanted it and there was not enough public resistance due to 9/11.
That was a really bizarre twilight zone era to live through eh? I remember Bush's speeches all but suggesting Iraq's Republican Guard would be parading down Broadway in triumph if we did not act fast. It was just...weird.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 28, 2013, 01:05:26 PM
IMO, it's wrong to ally with another state and not build a military capable of helping defend that ally. If Germany and Poland got invaded by Russia, I expect the US Army to get there and start wrecking things. If Mexico invades the US, I expect German tanks in Texas.
Yes. My argument is that Europe is still capable of defending itself (or North America) against all potential threats. That argument is rejected by Berkut though.
But I don't see any reason why we should care about our capability to defend Taiwan. However, apparently some here think we do have some obligation to be able to intervene there. We certainly don't have a formal obligation - other than our UN membership - and I don't think it should be our policy to take such responsibility and build the necessary capabilities either.
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 01:06:15 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 28, 2013, 12:55:10 PM
It only takes one party to start a war. What are you supposed to do when your neighbor is arming to the teeth, nothing? Is not arming supposed to somehow be morally superior?
Is surrender the "proper" thing to do?
No. But we are talking about current political realities, not some hypothetical scenario.
Current political realities ought to include understanding the risk involved in hypothetical scenarios.
Otherwise you don't need any military at all, since currently there is no war going on at all.
Quote
In the current political realities, I think it is a fair question to ask whether the interests of Europe are served best with its current military spending. Or whether spending less and changing the mission profile might actually serve our interests better.
At least you are finally acknowledging that your "mission profile" is based not on what you actually need to do, hypothetically or otherwise, but rather simply on what you are willing to spend.
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2013, 01:08:53 PM
Make uup your mind - did they start the war because they "wanted it" or becuase they were armed and ready?
Of course, the latter doesn't support your claim, but the former (which would...except that it doesn't make sense since the US has been "armed and ready" pretty much continuoulsly since WW2, and yet has not been start wars left and right), is what you started with.
No, early 2000s after 9/11 were special with regard to being "ready". I think the American people would normally not stand for such an aggressive, unprovoked war like Iraq. So the "ready" really applies for this particular time. Your politicians seized the moment - that's the "wanted it". Only the "armed" is true for the entire time since WW2.
QuoteBut I am not going to fall into the trap of turning the disucssion into another argument over the Iraq War and why it started. Nice try though.
Fine with me, I care for the question about the right level of Europe's military capabilities and obligations more anyway.
Quote from: Valmy on May 28, 2013, 01:09:20 PM
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 01:04:38 PM
Your point being? In 2003 a Western democracy started a war because it was armed and ready. Or do you actually believe the bullshit reasons your politicians gave you? You can't be that naive. They started the war because they wanted it and there was not enough public resistance due to 9/11.
That was a really bizarre twilight zone era to live through eh? I remember Bush's speeches all but suggesting Iraq's Republican Guard would be parading down Broadway in triumph if we did not act fast. It was just...weird.
Is that supposed to be humorous somehow? Excuse me, my Germaness makes it hard to recognize that.
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 01:10:05 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 28, 2013, 01:05:26 PM
IMO, it's wrong to ally with another state and not build a military capable of helping defend that ally. If Germany and Poland got invaded by Russia, I expect the US Army to get there and start wrecking things. If Mexico invades the US, I expect German tanks in Texas.
Yes. My argument is that Europe is still capable of defending itself (or North America) against all potential threats. That argument is rejected by Berkut though.
But I don't see any reason why we should care about our capability to defend Taiwan. However, apparently some here think we do have some obligation to be able to intervene there. We certainly don't have a formal obligation - other than our UN membership - and I don't think it should be our policy to take such responsibility and build the necessary capabilities either.
Honestly, Zanza, I don't think you should care about defending Taiwan either - at least not directly.
I do think Germany (and by Germany I mean the EU, and by the EU I mean the liberal Western democracies as a whole) should be interested in their ability to project force as needed to help with the basic security of the planet as a whole. I do think the West should in fact care about protecting the "rest of the West", like Taiwan.
That does not mean Germany should go build some aircraft carriers of course. But I do think they should have the cultural and societal will to realize that the planet really isn't that big, and in fact the freedom of others, even if they are far away and speak some other language, is important.
Do I think Germany should be sitting around thinking how they can defend Taiwan specifically? Of course not.
I do think Germany should be sitting around thinking about how they can contribute to global security as part and partner with their allies, and do so in a meaningful manner. If China invaded Taiwan, and if that resulted in a war with the US over the freedom of a fellow western, liberal nation (like Taiwan) I don't think even in an ideal world that would see the Bismarck 2010 sailing into battle in the Taiwan Strait.
It would very likely (in my "perfect" world) see a squadron of German fighters being willing to deploy and fight, as an example, as part of a multi-national western force.
And I most certainly think Germany (and Europe) are dangerously kidding themselves if they think the threat of a more conventional war is a thing of the past. Dangerous because acting like there is no threat is the one thing they can do to increase the threat tremendously.
And of course it isn't all about "war" - war is just the failed outcomes of policy. War is what happens when you make it seem like war is a possible way for a party to achieve it's goals. The way to make it not happen is to make it clear it cannot work, now or in the near future.
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2013, 01:11:12 PM
Current political realities ought to include understanding the risk involved in hypothetical scenarios.
Otherwise you don't need any military at all, since currently there is no war going on at all.
Yes, and my hypothetical scenarios do not include a land war with Russia, because I find that so unrealistic that planning for it or going a step further and build mitigating capabilities is a waste of time and resources. Or any kind of war with China. They do include having to intervene in a Mali like situation though.
QuoteQuote
In the current political realities, I think it is a fair question to ask whether the interests of Europe are served best with its current military spending. Or whether spending less and changing the mission profile might actually serve our interests better.
At least you are finally acknowledging that your "mission profile" is based not on what you actually need to do, hypothetically or otherwise, but rather simply on what you are willing to spend.
Of course. In a world of scarcity, how else could one ever come up with a realistic and useful policy? Thinking about hypothetical scenarios without considering the real world context should be left to internet armchair generals, not policymakers that must make hard compromises.
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 01:16:50 PM
Is that supposed to be humorous somehow? Excuse me, my Germaness makes it hard to recognize that.
No. Not intentionally anyway.
Ok, then I just don't get it.
And to be fair, I am really not talking about Germany specifically. They are kind of a stand in for the non-US NATO in general. Or even the non-US western world in general, which I think is becoming rather dangerously complacent in the light of US military domination...which I honestly think is eroding.
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2013, 01:20:33 PM
Honestly, Zanza, I don't think you should care about defending Taiwan either - at least not directly.
I do think Germany (and by Germany I mean the EU, and by the EU I mean the liberal Western democracies as a whole) should be interested in their ability to project force as needed to help with the basic security of the planet as a whole. I do think the West should in fact care about protecting the "rest of the West", like Taiwan.
That does not mean Germany should go build some aircraft carriers of course. But I do think they should have the cultural and societal will to realize that the planet really isn't that big, and in fact the freedom of others, even if they are far away and speak some other language, is important.
Do I think Germany should be sitting around thinking how they can defend Taiwan specifically? Of course not.
I do think Germany should be sitting around thinking about how they can contribute to global security as part and partner with their allies, and do so in a meaningful manner. If China invaded Taiwan, and if that resulted in a war with the US over the freedom of a fellow western, liberal nation (like Taiwan) I don't think even in an ideal world that would see the Bismarck 2010 sailing into battle in the Taiwan Strait.
It would very likely (in my "perfect" world) see a squadron of German fighters being willing to deploy and fight, as an example, as part of a multi-national western force.
And I most certainly think Germany (and Europe) are dangerously kidding themselves if they think the threat of a more conventional war is a thing of the past. Dangerous because acting like there is no threat is the one thing they can do to increase the threat tremendously.
And of course it isn't all about "war" - war is just the failed outcomes of policy. War is what happens when you make it seem like war is a possible way for a party to achieve it's goals. The way to make it not happen is to make it clear it cannot work, now or in the near future.
I agree.
So I guess, the only difference we have is that I think that what Germany and the rest of Western Europe currently does is enough to protect "the West" and you disagree about that.
Berkut, you have to see that the western democratic world has changed in ways that make a lot of historical examples irrelevant. France and Germany will not go to war for the foreseeable future. That is not because of a temporary diplomatic alignment, or a common enemy, or MAD after both countries armed to the teeth. The western world is integrated now to an extent it never has been before in terms of economy travel, and culture. War (at least between first world countries) is acknowledged as catastrophic.
Russia isn't immune to these forces, even if as of now it is less affected. Invading the Ukraine would be incredibly controversial in Russia. The sanctions and probable seizure of assets abroad would be crippling for their economy. I don't see what they would gain and the move would be internally destabilizing. It would be even dumber than the US invading Canada, because at least Canada has nice stuff.
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 01:23:20 PM
Ok, then I just don't get it.
Valmy says that the Bush administration vastly exaggerated the threat of Saddam's regime to the U.S.
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2013, 01:24:59 PM
And to be fair, I am really not talking about Germany specifically. They are kind of a stand in for the non-US NATO in general. Or even the non-US western world in general, which I think is becoming rather dangerously complacent in the light of US military domination...which I honestly think is eroding.
That's understood. I only used Germany as an example because I know our own policy best. But I think we are quite similar in general stance to many of our partners in Europe, so it is a good enough example. I don't think that e.g. the security interests of Germany, Sweden, Spain or Romania differ that much from each other. UK and France have a more global focus due to their history, but the rest of Europe is similar.
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 01:21:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2013, 01:11:12 PM
Current political realities ought to include understanding the risk involved in hypothetical scenarios.
Otherwise you don't need any military at all, since currently there is no war going on at all.
Yes, and my hypothetical scenarios do not include a land war with Russia, because I find that so unrealistic that planning for it or going a step further and build mitigating capabilities is a waste of time and resources. Or any kind of war with China. They do include having to intervene in a Mali like situation though.
QuoteQuote
In the current political realities, I think it is a fair question to ask whether the interests of Europe are served best with its current military spending. Or whether spending less and changing the mission profile might actually serve our interests better.
At least you are finally acknowledging that your "mission profile" is based not on what you actually need to do, hypothetically or otherwise, but rather simply on what you are willing to spend.
Of course. In a world of scarcity, how else could one ever come up with a realistic and useful policy? Thinking about hypothetical scenarios without considering the real world context should be left to internet armchair generals, not policymakers that must make hard compromises.
You are contradicting yourself within the same post.
You say you don't think you should consider a land war with Russia because it is "unrealistic" then immediately agree with me that plans should be based on what you want to spend. Which is it?
Are you not willing to protect Germany from invasion because you think invasion is "unrealistic" or because you simply don't want to pay for it?
I am stating that it is in fact the latter, rather than the former. There is no will to pay for it, therefore we will simply assume that there is no threat, despite a couple thousands years of European history that suggests that ever single time someone decides war is just not going to happen ever again....war happens again. It is beyond naive to just assume that this time things really are different, when the parallels are so obvious, from the western nations blithely complacent in their assurity that war is all done, to the harsh economic times, to the nationalistic power next door going through serious pain after coming through a losing conflict.
I don't think war with Russia is likely in the next 30 years. But I do think it is possible. And I think it is MORE possible the weaker Europe looks to some Putin-like douchebag. And lord knows the emotional climate in Russia sure seems ripe for demagogues and nationalists.
Quote from: Syt on May 28, 2013, 01:26:42 PM
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 01:23:20 PM
Ok, then I just don't get it.
Valmy says that the Bush administration vastly exaggerated the threat of Saddam's regime to the U.S.
Yeah it was kind of surreal. I mean I got the basic arguements, that they were allegedly continuing their WMD programs and could theoretically use them to distabilize the region or hand off to terrorist organizations...but the rhetoric at the time suggested that this scenario was not only assured but imminent.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 28, 2013, 01:26:24 PM
Berkut, you have to see that the western democratic world has changed in ways that make a lot of historical examples irrelevant. France and Germany will not go to war for the foreseeable future. That is not because of a temporary diplomatic alignment, or a common enemy, or MAD after both countries armed to the teeth. The western world is integrated now to an extent it never has been before in terms of economy travel, and culture. War (at least between first world countries) is acknowledged as catastrophic.
Russia isn't immune to these forces, even if as of now it is less affected. Invading the Ukraine would be incredibly controversial in Russia. The sanctions and probable seizure of assets abroad would be crippling for their economy. I don't see what they would gain and the move would be internally destabilizing. It would be even dumber than the US invading Canada, because at least Canada has nice stuff.
Russia is also not immune to the forces of nationalism, demagoguery, and stupidity.
Everything you are saying in regards to Russia invading the Ukraine can (and was) said
and was true about Germany invading Czechoslovakia and Poland. Hitler was worried that he would have to suppress a rebellion of he risked war over the Sudetenland. But its funny how winning makes nationalistic, immature cultures line right up behind the leadership.
And really,do you think Poland had "nice stuff" in 1939? Do you think the "Ukraine" in 1941 had MORE nice stuff than they do now? Of course not. Aggressive regimes are not looking for nice stuff, they are looking for easily snatched assets to prop up their screwed up economies. Does that Ukraine have that? They sure do.
Quote from: Valmy on May 28, 2013, 01:33:49 PM
Quote from: Syt on May 28, 2013, 01:26:42 PM
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 01:23:20 PM
Ok, then I just don't get it.
Valmy says that the Bush administration vastly exaggerated the threat of Saddam's regime to the U.S.
Yeah it was kind of surreal. I mean I got the basic arguements, that they were allegedly continuing their WMD programs and could theoretically use them to distabilize the region or hand off to terrorist organizations...but the rhetoric at the time suggested that this scenario was not only assured but imminent.
Yeah, and a lot of people bought into it (it's one of the reasons we're here, not on EU OT). Still, while I was against the war, I wish I could say with certainty that Germany/France opposed the war so strongly because they believed the presented evidence was insufficient/wrong and not because they wanted to spite the U.S. You know, broken clocks being right twice a day and so on.
I was very much in favor of Desert Storm (unlike 99.9% of my school who went to protest against it), and think the biggest mistake was not to force regime change there and then. Hindsight's a bitch.
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2013, 01:31:30 PM
You are contradicting yourself within the same post.
You say you don't think you should consider a land war with Russia because it is "unrealistic" then immediately agree with me that plans should be based on what you want to spend. Which is it?
Are you not willing to protect Germany from invasion because you think invasion is "unrealistic" or because you simply don't want to pay for it?
You got the order wrong: I am willing to pay for all hypothetical scenarios that I deem realistic. So the first criterion is not the willingness to pay, but rather the threat perception from a hypothetical scenario.
If we were in 1985 right now, I would be willing to pay for a 500k men Bundeswehr with several heavy mechanized divisions because the hypothetical Soviet invasion was not unrealistic back then. In 2013 I am not willing to pay for capabilities that can defend a against a massive land-based invasion because I don't consider that hypothetical scenario realistic.
QuoteI am stating that it is in fact the latter, rather than the former. There is no will to pay for it, therefore we will simply assume that there is no threat, despite a couple thousands years of European history that suggests that ever single time someone decides war is just not going to happen ever again....war happens again.
As I said above, I see it the other way around. From my perspective the "war with Russia" scenario is so unrealistic that I am not willing to pay. I think all our interests are protected fine with the current level of military spending. That's where we differ.
QuoteIt is beyond naive to just assume that this time things really are different, when the parallels are so obvious, from the western nations blithely complacent in their assurity that war is all done, to the harsh economic times, to the nationalistic power next door going through serious pain after coming through a losing conflict.
I don't think war with Russia is likely in the next 30 years. But I do think it is possible. And I think it is MORE possible the weaker Europe looks to some Putin-like douchebag. And lord knows the emotional climate in Russia sure seems ripe for demagogues and nationalists.
I actually find Alfred's argument compelling. I think that this time, things really are different. And that includes Russia. Feel free to call me naive, but I prefer optimistic and believing in the good in humans. :)
Why is war with Russia so unrealistic? They are the first one I would guess if I had to pick the aggressor in the next world war.
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2013, 01:37:17 PM
And really,do you think Poland had "nice stuff" in 1939? Do you think the "Ukraine" in 1941 had MORE nice stuff than they do now? Of course not. Aggressive regimes are not looking for nice stuff, they are looking for easily snatched assets to prop up their screwed up economies. Does that Ukraine have that? They sure do.
You are surely aware of the Nazi Lebensraum ideology, no? So, yes, Poland and Ukraine had nice stuff. Certainly more than they do now because no one (in Russia or Western Europe) would still fall for that agrarian-romantic Lebensraum ideology. I can see a conflict over the rights of Russians in Eastern Ukraine or other former Soviet republics, but about easily snatched assets? Much cheaper to buy them than to fight a war for them.
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2013, 01:31:30 PM
There is no will to pay for it, therefore we will simply assume that there is no threat, despite a couple thousands years of European history that suggests that ever single time someone decides war is just not going to happen ever again....war happens again.
Is this accurate? I know that during and after WWI some people thought it was "the war to end all wars." But Western governments were aware of the threat of Germany, and in particular France went through great sums building the Maginot Line and attempted to hold together various anti German coalitions.
I can't think of a single other circumstance where there was a decision that "war is just not going to happen ever again." I may be forgetting something though.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 28, 2013, 01:43:11 PM
Why is war with Russia so unrealistic? They are the first one I would guess if I had to pick the aggressor in the next world war.
I currently have a project in Moscow and my take on Russians is that they are just as vapid, shallow consumerists as we are and are not really interested in nationalism, ideology etc. anymore. Post-modern consumerist society brings peace. :P
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2013, 01:24:59 PM
And to be fair, I am really not talking about Germany specifically. They are kind of a stand in for the non-US NATO in general. Or even the non-US western world in general, which I think is becoming rather dangerously complacent in the light of US military domination...which I honestly think is eroding.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi39.tinypic.com%2F2val8uc.jpg&hash=d0eb88aeea1ef985ededdd56ab4c31a3a7afeb3c)
When I look at that, Europe is still spending a lot on its military capabilties. When you add non-European Western nations like Japan, Korea, Australia, Canada (probably adds up to about 25% of world military spending) we comfortably outspend all possible threats without even looking at the gigantic spending of the USA.
That is a good point, but to a large extent I look at those kind of comparisons as pretty flawed.
We, meaning the West, don't want to just be able to spend as much or more than others, we want to be able to win wars decisively, quickly, and certainly. So much so that for the most part, we don't even have wars, because there is no point in even trying.
To some extent, it is like comparing the budget of the police department to the budget of the various criminals they are trying to stop, and saying "Gee, it looks like we spend way too much on the police - look how little the drug dealers spend compared to the entire police budget!"
Well, yeah, that is because the police are trying to do a lot more than just compete in a tit for tat conflict with drug dealers. Our military spending is not based on the idea that we need to be able to outspend particular other potential threats, but rather that we want to be able (and by we, again, I mean the West) to provide a reasonable level of security. That includes a lot more than just the ability to win some particular shooting war against some particular potential enemy.
It costs a lot even if you never fire a shot in an actual war.
I think all our potential enemies will be deterred as long as they don't believe they could win a war decisively, quickly and certainly. For that our level of spending seems more than sufficient. Especially as all potential enemies are perfectly aware that we have much more reserves to commit to a prolonged war than they could ever muster.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 28, 2013, 01:26:24 PM
Berkut, you have to see that the western democratic world has changed in ways that make a lot of historical examples irrelevant. France and Germany will not go to war for the foreseeable future.
With each other? Sure. But France is at war right now.
What history shows is that while some rivalries may end (US vs. Britain & Canada, or UK v. France, or Spain v. France), others arise.
The real question is whether some combination of technology and evolved human nature has made war generally obsolete, at least in the developed world. I'd like to hope so, but wouldn't bet the farm on the idea.
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 01:57:55 PM
When I look at that, Europe is still spending a lot on its military capabilties.
2008 is a long time ago.
Since that time EU national spending on defense decreased in absolute terms and the trend is further down.
In the meantime, Chinese spending has gone way, way up.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 28, 2013, 02:15:48 PM
The real question is whether some combination of technology and evolved human nature has made war generally obsolete, at least in the developed world. I'd like to hope so, but wouldn't bet the farm on the idea.
Yeah, I'm never gonna put any money on that. The "this time is different" mentality is always a failure.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 28, 2013, 02:18:17 PM2008 is a long time ago.
I couldn't find a more recent one.
QuoteSince that time EU national spending on defense decreased in absolute terms and the trend is further down.
In the meantime, Chinese spending has gone way, way up.
Ok. All the tiny islands in the South and East China Sea are not worth the bones of the single Pomeranian grenadier.
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 02:22:42 PM
Ok. All the tiny islands in the South and East China Sea are not worth the bones of the single Pomeranian grenadier.
That's not really the sum and substance of what is at stake.
It's always possible to minimize the apparent stakes. E.g. "half of an isolated Berlin isn't worth the carcass of single transport pilot from Peoria."
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 28, 2013, 02:26:19 PM
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 02:22:42 PM
Ok. All the tiny islands in the South and East China Sea are not worth the bones of the single Pomeranian grenadier.
That's not really the sum and substance of what is at stake.
It's always possible to minimize the apparent stakes. E.g. "half of an isolated Berlin isn't worth the carcass of single transport pilot from Peoria."
Fair enough. I guess if China somehow tried to starve Taiwan, but still let aircraft through, I would definitely support such a humanitarian mission and wouldn't mind spending millions or billions on it.
Would America have fought WW3 in 1948 over Berlin? Honest question. I have my doubts.
Wow.
Just....wow.
I am rather despondent that a German could actually ask that question in any kind of seriousness.
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 02:35:19 PM
Would America have fought WW3 in 1948 over Berlin? Honest question. I have my doubts.
:hmm: It depends. Obviously if they had just attacked then natch. But if they had negotiated aggressively and raised the stakes even higher than they did historically? I think so...it would have been hard for us to back down. It was still early in the Cold War that we might have sacrificed Berlin but I really doubt it.
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 02:35:19 PM
Would America have fought WW3 in 1948 over Berlin? Honest question. I have my doubts.
Perhaps, perhaps not. But it didn't come to that. I would suggest one reason it didn't come to that was the fact the US still had significant military assets and a credible threat of employing them in a graduated matter. Thus, the Soviets elected not to run the risk of further escalation.
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 02:35:19 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 28, 2013, 02:26:19 PM
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 02:22:42 PM
Ok. All the tiny islands in the South and East China Sea are not worth the bones of the single Pomeranian grenadier.
That's not really the sum and substance of what is at stake.
It's always possible to minimize the apparent stakes. E.g. "half of an isolated Berlin isn't worth the carcass of single transport pilot from Peoria."
Fair enough. I guess if China somehow tried to starve Taiwan, but still let aircraft through, I would definitely support such a humanitarian mission and wouldn't mind spending millions or billions on it.
Would America have fought WW3 in 1948 over Berlin? Honest question. I have my doubts.
In 1948 the US had the bomb, the USSR didn't.
So yes, I think the US would have gone to war for West Berlin.
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2013, 02:41:21 PM
Wow.
Just....wow.
I am rather despondent that a German could actually ask that question in any kind of seriousness.
I am only thinking of Berlin in particular in that situation specifically. EDIT: I guess it is comparable to how America never fully committed to fight a total war for North Vietnam or North Korea during the Cold War.
I don't doubt that the Americans would have defended Western Europe. Rest assured, I am quite thankful for what America did for Europe during the Cold War.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 28, 2013, 02:46:08 PM
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 02:35:19 PM
Would America have fought WW3 in 1948 over Berlin? Honest question. I have my doubts.
Perhaps, perhaps not. But it didn't come to that. I would suggest one reason it didn't come to that was the fact the US still had significant military assets and a credible threat of employing them in a graduated matter. Thus, the Soviets elected not to run the risk of further escalation.
I agree, but that brings us back to our original question: are the current military assets significant and credible enough to deter our potential enemies? I still think so.
I'm shocked that a German who wants to live in Communist China thinks that the military is strong enough.
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 02:52:15 PM
I agree, but that brings us back to our original question: are the current military assets significant and credible enough to deter our potential enemies? I still think so.
That is true for today. Policy plans for tomorrow.
Zanza:
I've not read the last 4 pages, forgive me if it was covered.
What was/is the German attitude towards Bosnia/Sbrenica? Rwanda?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 28, 2013, 04:03:06 PM
Zanza:
I've not read the last 4 pages, forgive me if it was covered.
What was/is the German attitude towards Bosnia/Sbrenica? Rwanda?
Bosnia: As you know, back then, Germany was incapable of doing much about it. Both from a politics perspective as it was not yet ready to accept that it had a more active role after the end of the Cold War and from a military doctrine/equipment perspective as the military was still completely focused on being a conscript army to fight the Soviets. I think the change in mission profile that Berkut disputes did actually happen and politics are now more ready to use German military assets so I would expect our response nowadays to be more active and more robust.
Rwanda: Terrible. But when talking about realistic policy, Germany will never have capabilities or political will to intervene in a civil war in central Africa by itself. I could imagine Germany contributing to a joint European mission. Not back in 1994, but now in 2013.
That said, I am also quite sure that the European Union of 2013 could not stop a similar genocide occuring somewhere else. The whole genocide took about 100 days. Before our policy makers would even get active, the first 10 days or so would already have passed. Until they made a decision to intervene, it would take at least 10 days as well (maybe one or more go unilaterally like Hollande die in Mali) and then it would take a long, long time to transport enough forces and establish logistics in central Africa to make any intervention viable. Should we build military capabilities to react faster and with greater strength to conflicts in Africa? Hmm.
Quote from: Barrister on May 28, 2013, 10:51:52 AM
As an aside... how does Spain reconcile it's ownership of Ceuta and Melilla with it's claims on Gibraltar?
The Enclaves are not colonies.
Not to mention those cities have never actually been part of Morocco.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on May 28, 2013, 01:07:26 PM
... Ilhas Selvagens (Savage islands). :)
Now you're just making stuff up!
Quote from: Iormlund on May 28, 2013, 04:22:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 28, 2013, 10:51:52 AM
As an aside... how does Spain reconcile it's ownership of Ceuta and Melilla with it's claims on Gibraltar?
The Enclaves are not colonies.
Not to mention those cities have never actually been part of Morocco.
Not trying to beat you up over this, but what is the functional difference between an enclave and a colony?
Quote from: Iormlund on May 28, 2013, 04:22:43 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on May 28, 2013, 01:07:26 PM
... Ilhas Selvagens (Savage islands). :)
Now you're just making stuff up!
Notice I said intermittent claims. ;) Right now, it's quiet though the EEZ is still contested by Spain.
Quote from: Barrister on May 28, 2013, 04:30:28 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on May 28, 2013, 04:22:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 28, 2013, 10:51:52 AM
As an aside... how does Spain reconcile it's ownership of Ceuta and Melilla with it's claims on Gibraltar?
The Enclaves are not colonies.
Not to mention those cities have never actually been part of Morocco.
Not trying to beat you up over this, but what is the functional difference between an enclave and a colony?
An enclave is considered part of the country, a colony is not.
Quote from: Barrister on May 28, 2013, 04:30:28 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on May 28, 2013, 04:22:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 28, 2013, 10:51:52 AM
As an aside... how does Spain reconcile it's ownership of Ceuta and Melilla with it's claims on Gibraltar?
The Enclaves are not colonies.
Not to mention those cities have never actually been part of Morocco.
Not trying to beat you up over this, but what is the functional difference between an enclave and a colony?
Enclave is a geographical definition. It just means a territory surrounded by another country/province/etc. Like West Berlin.
The difference between Gibraltar and Ceuta is that the former is a colony, the latter is not. It's just a part of Spain as Toledo or Salamanca are.
That being said, I don't give a crap about who owns Gibraltar. But it surely would be nice for the Brits to at least pretend they are doing something about the zillion money-laundering colonies they run.
Quote from: Iormlund on May 28, 2013, 04:47:25 PM
Enclave is a geographical definition. It just means a territory surrounded by another country/province/etc. Like West Berlin.
The difference between Gibraltar and Ceuta is that the former is a colony, the latter is not. It's just a part of Spain as Toledo or Salamanca are.
Sounds like a tautology to me. 'Ceuta is not a colony because we call it something else'.
Quote from: Iormlund
That being said, I don't give a crap about who owns Gibraltar. But it surely would be nice for the Brits to at least pretend they are doing something about the zillion money-laundering colonies they run.
Fair enough! And they do seem to have more than their share, don't they.
Quote from: Barrister on May 28, 2013, 10:51:52 AM
Quote from: The Larch on May 28, 2013, 06:54:46 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on May 28, 2013, 12:42:20 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 27, 2013, 03:14:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 27, 2013, 03:05:42 PM
Well, Spain (and Germany) are a part of NATO and are committed to both mutual defence, and on occasion, have entered into military action as part of the alliance in other parts of the world. Afghanistan is a NATO operation, remember?
Mutual defense doesn't mean so much when neither is threatened by anyone.
Except Spain borders a fairly unstable region of the world. After what's happened in Tunisia, Egypt, Lybia and Syria, who is to say Islamists won't take control of Morocco in the next 20 or 30 years?
The ability to control thousands of miles of coastline might not be important for Germany, but it is for Spain.
Not to mention having territories away from the main land mass. The Navy will always be the main part of the Spanish military as long as Spain has the Canaries, Ceuta and Melilla.
As an aside... how does Spain reconcile it's ownership of Ceuta and Melilla with it's claims on Gibraltar?
The Spanish claim on Gibraltar is a museum piece, no sane government would ever press it with a straight face. That's not to say that Spanish governments are happy with Gibraltar's status, but they're not going to actually do anything about it.
In short, the status quo won't change either for Gibraltar or Ceuta & Melilla.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 28, 2013, 01:05:26 PM
IMO, it's wrong to ally with another state and not build a military capable of helping defend that ally. If Germany and Poland got invaded by Russia, I expect the US Army to get there and start wrecking things. If Mexico invades the US, I expect German tanks in Texas.
No American tanks left in Europe. Europe is a large airfield, hospital and listening post.
Which is the way I like it. Europe is the past.
Quote from: Barrister on May 28, 2013, 05:05:40 PMSounds like a tautology to me. 'Ceuta is not a colony because we call it something else'.
We don't just "call it something else", both C&M are fully integrated into Spanish territory like any other part of the country, while Gibraltar keeps its wishy washy status as an Overseas Territory and is still in the UN's list of Non Self-Governing Territories.
Quote from: Barrister on May 28, 2013, 05:05:40 PM
Sounds like a tautology to me. 'Ceuta is not a colony because we call it something else'.
Ceuta is to Spain as BC is to Canada or Kent to the UK. It's functionally the same as any other province, except for its small size and close proximity to Morocco.
Quote from: The Larch on May 28, 2013, 05:06:32 PM
The Spanish claim on Gibraltar is a museum piece, no sane government would ever press it with a straight face. That's not to say that Spanish governments are happy with Gibraltar's status, but they're not going to actually do anything about it.
In short, the status quo won't change either for Gibraltar or Ceuta & Melilla.
Spain has no claim on Gibraltar, they ceded it to Britain as part of the Treaty of Utrecht.
Quote from: Viking on May 28, 2013, 05:30:23 PM
Quote from: The Larch on May 28, 2013, 05:06:32 PM
The Spanish claim on Gibraltar is a museum piece, no sane government would ever press it with a straight face. That's not to say that Spanish governments are happy with Gibraltar's status, but they're not going to actually do anything about it.
In short, the status quo won't change either for Gibraltar or Ceuta & Melilla.
Spain has no claim on Gibraltar, they ceded it to Britain as part of the Treaty of Utrecht.
The wording is trickier than that, though, and was basically established in a way that'd prevent it from being anything else than British or Spanish. That includes eventual independence. Spain's posture is that status quo is ok, but full independence is completely out of the question.
IIRC the tricky part legally speaking is the airport, which was built unilaterally by the Brits on neutral ground around WWII. But, as Larchie mentioned, nobody really gives a crap about Gibraltar in any case.
So now that we've observed the ritual of proclaiming all Europeans as cheese-eating surrender monkeys, what next ?
Quote from: mongers on May 28, 2013, 05:52:02 PM
So now that we've observed the ritual of proclaiming all Europeans as cheese-eating surrender monkeys, what next ?
Me and Seedy insult you people again.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 28, 2013, 06:02:57 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 28, 2013, 05:52:02 PM
So now that we've observed the ritual of proclaiming all Europeans as cheese-eating surrender monkeys, what next ?
Me and Seedy insult you people again.
Good carry on, or can we also assume you've done that too ? :)
I took a break this round. :)
Ed's tapping me in through the ropes.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 28, 2013, 06:07:20 PM
Ed's tapping me in through the ropes.
Man you guys are just going through the motions, did not Berkut use the magic runes, at least three ALL CAPS words repeated three times in the one post, you're honour bound to invocate that next part of the ritual.
I'm not casting fireball.
Quote from: mongers on May 28, 2013, 05:52:02 PM
So now that we've observed the ritual of proclaiming all some Europeans as are cheese-eating surrender monkeys, what next ?
I and my team, once had a beautiful front row view of a Spanish Marine Battalion and a Greek Armor company attempt a landing on a beach in Sardinia. It took them half a day to get a beachhead establish and start moving inland. Like watching a bunch of monkeys fucking a football.
Any guess as to how long it took the US Marine MEU a couple days later?
Hour.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 28, 2013, 06:19:42 PM
Hour.
45 minutes until we first heard the LCAC's. It was quite a sight. Impressive really.
I got a pic of the beaches we were watching. I'll post it later.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 28, 2013, 06:19:09 PM
I and my team, once had a beautiful front row view of a Spanish Marine Battalion and a Greek Armor company attempt a landing on a beach in Sardinia. It took them half a day to get a beachhead establish and start moving inland. Like watching a bunch of monkeys fucking a football.
I bet the sheer number of wild hand gestures brewed up a sandstorm.
It's tough to wade through surf in a tutu.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 28, 2013, 06:30:33 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 28, 2013, 06:19:09 PM
I and my team, once had a beautiful front row view of a Spanish Marine Battalion and a Greek Armor company attempt a landing on a beach in Sardinia. It took them half a day to get a beachhead establish and start moving inland. Like watching a bunch of monkeys fucking a football.
I bet the sheer number of wild hand gestures brewed up a sandstorm.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/941469_10201084622228913_317334376_n.jpg)
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/296121_10201084623268939_1036607640_n.jpg)
so, did you eat that Sardinian cheese with the worms in it?
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 28, 2013, 06:51:09 PM
so, did you eat that Sardinian cheese with the worms in it?
Nein Herr Oberst.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 28, 2013, 06:37:37 PM
It's tough to wade through surf in a tutu.
Not to mention the pom-poms on the feet-- they must get heavy when wet.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 28, 2013, 07:09:13 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 28, 2013, 06:51:09 PM
so, did you eat that Sardinian cheese with the worms in it?
Nein Herr Oberst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casu_marzu
Yum.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 28, 2013, 07:22:49 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 28, 2013, 07:09:13 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 28, 2013, 06:51:09 PM
so, did you eat that Sardinian cheese with the worms in it?
Nein Herr Oberst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casu_marzu
Yum.
They didnt let us out on that one. Not after the our last incident with the French.
Sounds like somebody was an ugly american. Tsk tsk.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 28, 2013, 06:19:09 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 28, 2013, 05:52:02 PM
So now that we've observed the ritual of proclaiming all some Europeans as are cheese-eating surrender monkeys, what next ?
I and my team, once had a beautiful front row view of a Spanish Marine Battalion and a Greek Armor company attempt a landing on a beach in Sardinia. It took them half a day to get a beachhead establish and start moving inland. Like watching a bunch of monkeys fucking a football.
Any guess as to how long it took the US Marine MEU a couple days later?
But did Monty ever take Caen?
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 28, 2013, 07:28:13 PM
Sounds like somebody was an ugly american. Tsk tsk.
My team was just hanging out with our buds from Fernspahlehrkompanie after an ILRRPS exercise. French and Brit teams were watching a soccer game. French got snotty. Fight ensues, with my team and the Germans deciding to enter the fray on the side of the Brits.
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2013, 01:24:59 PM
And to be fair, I am really not talking about Germany specifically. They are kind of a stand in for the non-US NATO in general. Or even the non-US western world in general, which I think is becoming rather dangerously complacent in the light of US military domination...which I honestly think is eroding.
But really, isn't that the natural result of US policy? Without colonies, what's the point?
Quote from: 11B4V on May 28, 2013, 07:46:12 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 28, 2013, 07:28:13 PM
Sounds like somebody was an ugly american. Tsk tsk.
My team was just hanging out with our buds from Fernspahlehrkompanie after an ILRRPS exercise. French and Brit teams were watching a soccer game. French got snotty. Fight ensues, with my team and the Germans deciding to enter the fray on the side of the Brits.
:lol:
Wasn't there a hit book published around 1912 which argued that traditional big wars were the thing of the past?
Quote from: Tamas on May 29, 2013, 03:12:50 AM
Wasn't there a hit book published around 1912 which argued that traditional big wars were the thing of the past?
Normal Angell's The Great Illusion.
Often mischaracterized. He did not argue that war would not occur. He argued that it was futile and counterproductive, which was probably true.
Well, it did keep the terrible Franco-German culture in check for another generation.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 28, 2013, 06:19:09 PM
I and my team, once had a beautiful front row view of a Spanish Marine Battalion and a Greek Armor company attempt a landing on a beach in Sardinia. It took them half a day to get a beachhead establish and start moving inland. Like watching a bunch of monkeys fucking a football.
Any guess as to how long it took the US Marine MEU a couple days later?
Sounds like the Spaniards and the Greeks know what they were doing. If you're on a beach in Sardinia, why would you rush to move inland? Certainly not until at least 2 rounds of cocktails.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 29, 2013, 09:01:26 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 28, 2013, 06:19:09 PM
I and my team, once had a beautiful front row view of a Spanish Marine Battalion and a Greek Armor company attempt a landing on a beach in Sardinia. It took them half a day to get a beachhead establish and start moving inland. Like watching a bunch of monkeys fucking a football.
Any guess as to how long it took the US Marine MEU a couple days later?
Sounds like the Spaniards and the Greeks know what they were doing. If you're on a beach in Sardinia, why would you rush to move inland? Certainly not until at least 2 rounds of cocktails.
Maybe it was warm and after lunch too.
Much of the discussion here misses the point. The problem is not that Europe is unable to defend itself; despite waves of reform, most European militaries are still really only capable of operating on home turf in territorial defence.
The problem is the lack of out-of-area capabilities which even the British and French are reducing. Expeditionary capabilities are more expensive because of all the extra enablers you need, from fleet supply ships to deployable headquarters to transport wings.
If Europe faces a security crisis, it will not be on the Eastern frontier, but in the near-abroad in a case where the US has decided it is not in its interests to act.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 29, 2013, 08:44:01 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 29, 2013, 03:12:50 AM
Wasn't there a hit book published around 1912 which argued that traditional big wars were the thing of the past?
Normal Angell's The Great Illusion.
Often mischaracterized. He did not argue that war would not occur. He argued that it was futile and counterproductive, which was probably true.
So only Renoir understood it for La Grande (=Great) Illusion?
The meaning of this title is still debated nowadays.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 28, 2013, 06:19:09 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 28, 2013, 05:52:02 PM
So now that we've observed the ritual of proclaiming all some Europeans as are cheese-eating surrender monkeys, what next ?
I and my team, once had a beautiful front row view of a Spanish Marine Battalion and a Greek Armor company attempt a landing on a beach in Sardinia. It took them half a day to get a beachhead establish and start moving inland. Like watching a bunch of monkeys fucking a football.
Any guess as to how long it took the US Marine MEU a couple days later?
A bit quicker than these guys ?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2012%2F02%2F07%2Farticle-2097624-119F01B2000005DC-821_964x638.jpg&hash=b925ec2316628c3e96bff98a3ab9c54ce3fa4b28)
:P
Quote from: mongers on May 29, 2013, 05:17:10 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 28, 2013, 06:19:09 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 28, 2013, 05:52:02 PM
So now that we've observed the ritual of proclaiming all some Europeans as are cheese-eating surrender monkeys, what next ?
I and my team, once had a beautiful front row view of a Spanish Marine Battalion and a Greek Armor company attempt a landing on a beach in Sardinia. It took them half a day to get a beachhead establish and start moving inland. Like watching a bunch of monkeys fucking a football.
Any guess as to how long it took the US Marine MEU a couple days later?
A bit quicker than these guys ?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2012%2F02%2F07%2Farticle-2097624-119F01B2000005DC-821_964x638.jpg&hash=b925ec2316628c3e96bff98a3ab9c54ce3fa4b28)
:P
Typical jarheads.
Get a fucking helo and lift that thing out of there. A ch-46 and some ADS slings should do the trick. Bunch of knobs.
Air Force tried to send it as an attachment to
[email protected]
:lol:
God knows those wouldnt be wingnuts trying to get that thing out. That would be a straight up violation of their union contract.
*Change in Working Conditions* :P
Quote from: 11B4V on May 29, 2013, 06:16:49 PM
Typical jarheads.
Get a fucking helo and lift that thing out of there. A ch-46 and some ADS slings should do the trick. Bunch of knobs.
Well I admire their commitment, that thing must weight 5-7 tons ?
No too sure using the barrel as a lever would be a good idea ?
edit:cool, the thing apparently only weights 3.5 tons assuming it's a M777; pretty impressive engineering to get it that light.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 29, 2013, 06:16:49 PM
Typical jarheads.
Get a fucking helo and lift that thing out of there. A ch-46 and some ADS slings should do the trick. Bunch of knobs.
Flying a 46 to the beach (while all the other airops are probably going on) to get some arty that got stuck as it was being pulled off an LCAC seems counterproductive vs. just digging it out and continuing to move it to where it needs to go like they appear to be doing.
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2013, 11:16:53 AMYou are now putting Germany in the role of France. We don't need a military, war is an anachronism.
I've not finished reading the rest of this thread but this is a gross, gross mischaracterisation of France and particularly egregious from somone from the interwar's greatest shirker :P
Quote from: Kleves on May 28, 2013, 11:24:56 AMAn aggressive authoritarian state without regard for the rule of law invades its democratic neighbor (and perhaps instigates a war with the US), and all you do is shrug? Maybe that's your problem right there.
And moving on, I don't think anyone but the US (and Australia) would do much more than send a supportive note to DC and an angry one to Beijing. There's no European country with any pretension of protecting Pacific countries. The most we'd do is support the US, possibly financially and certainly morally.
There's a reason you never really hear about what Europe thinks when, say, North Korea goes mental - that's your bag. As Obama's said, many times, the US is a Pacific power.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 29, 2013, 06:30:14 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 29, 2013, 06:16:49 PM
Typical jarheads.
Get a fucking helo and lift that thing out of there. A ch-46 and some ADS slings should do the trick. Bunch of knobs.
Flying a 46 to the beach (while all the other airops are probably going on) to get some arty that got stuck as it was being pulled off an LCAC seems counterproductive vs. just digging it out and continuing to move it to where it needs to go like they appear to be doing.
Get it out lickty split. Done plenty of slingloads. Work smarter not harder.
If sacrificing Taiwan is the price we have to pay to get Japan to rearm and ready themselves to blanket the PRC with hydrogen bombs, it's worth it.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 29, 2013, 06:44:49 PM
Get it out lickty split. Done plenty of slingloads. Work smarter not harder.
That's exactly what they're doing, instead of prepping and flying a helo from a ship who knows how many miles off the beach and taking up deck space that could be useful for other purposes. Like flying more Marines to the area on 53s.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 29, 2013, 06:59:50 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 29, 2013, 06:44:49 PM
Get it out lickty split. Done plenty of slingloads. Work smarter not harder.
That's exactly what they're doing, instead of prepping and flying a helo from a ship who knows how many miles off the beach and taking up deck space that could be useful for other purposes. Like flying more Marines to the area on 53s.
Dog Three is not open. :lol: Fucking jarheads.
Quote from: Zanza on May 28, 2013, 11:55:07 AM
Unlike America, we don't feel like we have any kind of global responsibility or global foreign policy mission to fight for democracy or liberty. We care about what happens in Europe (well, except its Eastern fringes). And that's about it. We certainly look at democracy and liberty elsewhere in an approving fashion and will provide political consultants or institutional help or aid or whatever, but not soldiers. Conflict between African states? Send some humanitarian aid. Conflict between Arabs and Iran? Let's try to sell them weapons. Conflict in East Asia? Maybe we can sell them weapons as well? Conflict in the Americas? Monroe Doctrine. ;)
This is what worries me about a German-Europe, like we're seeing emerge. It's a well-meaning retirement home. I still think there's a very active role for Europe to play in the world given our near neighbourhood - and Europe still has global interests, beyond trade, that need to be defended. Germany may not be able to play much of a role but I think recent tendencies to being kind-of passive aggressive to her allies (the abstention on Libya for example) isn't helpful.
I think France and Britain are right on this.
QuoteFrance is pretty active. Is Germany not a more responsible international actor than France?
It depends how you define responsible. France is active and has a more enlarged view of French and European interests. Germany is far more insular, with the good and the bad of that. They're not active militarily but I believe they provide a lot of support to missions for state building and police capacity and so on. Which is, of course, very responsible but in a different way and generally more narrowly focused.
And, from a Germany or French perspective, what could possibly have been more responsible than ending the conflict between those countries?
QuoteMy impression is that there's a certain smugness in Germany
Indeed :P
I always think that Germany's kind of smug in the way the UK, US and France are just quite arrogant :lol:
QuoteI do think Germany (and by Germany I mean the EU, and by the EU I mean the liberal Western democracies as a whole) should be interested in their ability to project force as needed to help with the basic security of the planet as a whole. I do think the West should in fact care about protecting the "rest of the West", like Taiwan.
I'm with Zanza on this. We should be able to project force. But there's choices involved. I would far rather that Europe was able to project force independently and strongly in the Atlantic and our near neighbourhood, rather than having to depend on the US and being travellers. We'd be better off making sure we're very able where we are than hoping to contribute to the defence of Taiwan.
I actually think that one problem with the current UK's defence policy is we're cutting everything we do, while I think we'd be better choosing to do less but to focus more on things we do well. But that means to an extent we're more dependant on the US, but I'd argue we can also be a stronger ally in those other key areas (special forces for example).
QuoteRussia is also not immune to the forces of nationalism, demagoguery, and stupidity.
But even now the one thing Europe's militaries probably could do is defend against Russia. That's what they're built for. So Russia isn't scary. China may get scary but isn't at the minute and we'd never be over there anyway. So it's more about using our force by choice: the Mid-East and Africa.
Germany opts against that sort of expansive vision of European security while France and Britain support it. Austerity, universally, makes it implausible.
QuoteWould America have fought WW3 in 1948 over Berlin? Honest question. I have my doubts.
Therefore Europe should pay for an Anglo-British force de frappe, delivered by beautiful Concorde-esque missiles, and an Anglo-French taskforce to occasionally topple North African and Middle Eastern governments. It's the only way Europe can be safe... :mmm:
QuoteWhat was/is the German attitude towards Bosnia/Sbrenica? Rwanda?
In fairness Bosnia's different all over Europe - especially for the Dutch. But I don't think there's any sense anywhere in Europe that we should've done something about Rwanda.
QuoteWe don't just "call it something else", both C&M are fully integrated into Spanish territory like any other part of the country, while Gibraltar keeps its wishy washy status as an Overseas Territory and is still in the UN's list of Non Self-Governing Territories.
They've their own elections. Just like the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. They're a slightly more autonomous version of the French DOM-TOM, no?
Quote from: 11B4V on May 29, 2013, 07:06:21 PM
Dog Three is not open. :lol: Fucking jarheads.
*thinks using a shovel to dig out some tires and hooking arty to a vehicle takes longer than moving other aircraft out of the way, putting a 46 on a deck, prepping it, flying it from a ship, and picking up the arty*
*is in the Army*
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 29, 2013, 07:15:22 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 29, 2013, 07:06:21 PM
Dog Three is not open. :lol: Fucking jarheads.
*thinks using a shovel to dig out some tires and hooking arty to a vehicle takes longer than moving other aircraft out of the way, putting a 46 on a deck, prepping it, flying it from a ship, and picking up the arty*
*is in the Army*
Sounds like they need to get to digging. I know, maybe they can all try to lift it out.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 29, 2013, 07:18:21 PM
Sounds like they need to get to digging. I know, maybe they can all try to lift it out.
Well, since that exercise was like a year ago, and they aren't Army morons who would still be sitting there waiting for a helo, they already moved the thing.
I wonder why we get Marine Corps recruiting advertisements featuring fights against monsters rather than digging artillery pieces out of the sand.
I also wonder whose idea it was to put heavy machinery on beach.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2013, 07:34:43 PM
I also wonder whose idea it was to put heavy machinery on beach.
How else would you propose conducting an amphibious assault?
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2013, 07:34:43 PM
I wonder why we get Marine Corps recruiting advertisements featuring fights against monsters rather than digging artillery pieces out of the sand.
I also wonder whose idea it was to put heavy machinery on beach.
The Germans won't protect Helm's Deep. The jarheads will.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2013, 07:34:43 PMI wonder why we get Marine Corps recruiting advertisements featuring fights against monsters rather than digging artillery pieces out of the sand.
Because showing someone cleaning the head or digging holes or stripping and waxing the deck would be really dumb for recruiting purposes. Gladiatorial battles against fire demons are way cooler.
E: What are the USMC ads showing these days? I haven't seen the monster one in a while, I know that, but I can't think of what they're throwing out there now. The Navy has the one where they're saying the oath, the Army is still going with their cro-mag ARMY STRONG thing. Is USAF still Step Into the Blue, or whatever that was?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 29, 2013, 07:20:13 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 29, 2013, 07:18:21 PM
Sounds like they need to get to digging. I know, maybe they can all try to lift it out.
Well, since that exercise was like a year ago, and they aren't Army morons who would still be sitting there waiting for a helo, they already moved the thing.
You sure?
Quote from: 11B4V on May 29, 2013, 07:47:03 PM
You sure?
I even gave you the reasons why: "Time" and "not Army." It's definitely somewhere else now.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 29, 2013, 07:38:27 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2013, 07:34:43 PM
I also wonder whose idea it was to put heavy machinery on beach.
How else would you propose conducting an amphibious assault?
Does it really do any good to have an artillery piece stuck on the beach--right by the waters edge? Why not just keep it on the boat?
In general though I prefer airborne operations when moving into Sardinia. Despite cost advantages, I suggest avoiding Ryanair and going with Alitalia.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 29, 2013, 07:45:03 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2013, 07:34:43 PMI wonder why we get Marine Corps recruiting advertisements featuring fights against monsters rather than digging artillery pieces out of the sand.
Because showing someone cleaning the head or digging holes or stripping and waxing the deck would be really dumb for recruiting purposes. Gladiatorial battles against fire demons are way cooler.
E: What are the USMC ads showing these days? I haven't seen the monster one in a while, I know that, but I can't think of what they're throwing out there now. The Navy has the one where they're saying the oath, the Army is still going with their cro-mag ARMY STRONG thing. Is USAF still Step Into the Blue, or whatever that was?
The beach assault ad asking which way you will run.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2013, 07:34:43 PM
I also wonder whose idea it was to put heavy machinery on beach.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-nFIjc2-NDAc%2FTw4FqQuNNaI%2FAAAAAAAAAlU%2FOhuivJ7u6xc%2Fs1600%2Fworf-startrek-facepalm.gif&hash=64f820220d6a069b88dc58fc22160e2fe5e642c1)
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2013, 07:49:03 PM
Does it really do any good to have an artillery piece stuck on the beach--right by the waters edge? Why not just keep it on the boat?
They just dig it out a bit and hook it to a vehicle and drive it away. The boat there is a hovercraft, not a big amphib.
Quote from: Ed AngerThe beach assault ad asking which way you will run.
:hmm: I don't think I've seen that one.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2013, 07:49:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 29, 2013, 07:38:27 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2013, 07:34:43 PM
I also wonder whose idea it was to put heavy machinery on beach.
How else would you propose conducting an amphibious assault?
Does it really do any good to have an artillery piece stuck on the beach--right by the waters edge? Why not just keep it on the boat?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-nFIjc2-NDAc%2FTw4FqQuNNaI%2FAAAAAAAAAlU%2FOhuivJ7u6xc%2Fs1600%2Fworf-startrek-facepalm.gif&hash=64f820220d6a069b88dc58fc22160e2fe5e642c1)
Beaches? Heavy artillery? Helos to extract stuck arty?
Should have just used A-10s. :sleep:
Good to see I've kicked off the 'longest dispute' again, not between England and Scotland but between Jarheads and Grunts. :D
Somewhere I've a link to a hilarious Dutch or Italian amphibious assault, I'll dig it out.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2013, 07:34:43 PM
I wonder why we get Marine Corps recruiting advertisements featuring fights against monsters rather than digging artillery pieces out of the sand.
Because the Naval Infantry are that stupid.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 29, 2013, 07:52:52 PM
Beaches? Heavy artillery? Helos to extract stuck arty?
Should have just used A-10s. :sleep:
The email to
[email protected] bounced because the mailbox was too full
Quote from: mongers on May 29, 2013, 07:53:35 PM
Good to see I've kicked off the 'longest dispute' again, not between England and Scotland but between Jarheads and Grunts. :D
Somewhere I've a link to a hilarious Dutch or Italian amphibious assault, I'll dig it out.
Oh, do post. Jarheads of any nationality are well...comical.
Execpt maybe the RoK Marines.
Quote from: mongers on May 29, 2013, 07:53:35 PM
Good to see I've kicked off the 'longest dispute' again, not between England and Scotland but between Jarheads and Grunts. :D
Somewhere I've a link to a hilarious Dutch or Italian amphibious assault, I'll dig it out.
Unfortunately, I don't think there aren't any Jarheads here. Only Army Stupid, Air "Force," and Squids.
Found it, now This is how you conduct an amphibious assault, also check out the large image in the link below the photo for the full details, whole thing expertly planned:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F7%2F7b%2FUS_Navy_060606-N-8154G-115_Two_Landing_Craft_Utilities_%28LCU%29_assigned_to_Amphibious_Craft_Unit_Two_%28ACU-2%29%252C_rehearse_storming_the_beach_in_Curacao%252C_Netherlands_Antilles.jpg%2F1024px-thumbnail.jpg&hash=cc17bf925ca5ffeeb455f9d8e795fd9ede61c892)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/US_Navy_060606-N-8154G-115_Two_Landing_Craft_Utilities_(LCU)_assigned_to_Amphibious_Craft_Unit_Two_(ACU-2)%2C_rehearse_storming_the_beach_in_Curacao%2C_Netherlands_Antilles.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/US_Navy_060606-N-8154G-115_Two_Landing_Craft_Utilities_(LCU)_assigned_to_Amphibious_Craft_Unit_Two_(ACU-2)%2C_rehearse_storming_the_beach_in_Curacao%2C_Netherlands_Antilles.jpg)
Lets pick on the coasties.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 29, 2013, 07:56:45 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 29, 2013, 07:53:35 PM
Good to see I've kicked off the 'longest dispute' again, not between England and Scotland but between Jarheads and Grunts. :D
Somewhere I've a link to a hilarious Dutch or Italian amphibious assault, I'll dig it out.
Unfortunately, I don't think there aren't any Jarheads here. Only Army Stupid, Air "Force Farce", and Squids.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 29, 2013, 07:55:36 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 29, 2013, 07:52:52 PM
Beaches? Heavy artillery? Helos to extract stuck arty?
Should have just used A-10s. :sleep:
The email to [email protected] bounced because the mailbox was too full
That always happens when they go on leave, or the Wing sends out a 5mb PowerPoint on the upcoming BBQ. :mad:
You gotta take the Farce part out of quotes :D
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 29, 2013, 08:00:00 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 29, 2013, 07:55:36 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 29, 2013, 07:52:52 PM
Beaches? Heavy artillery? Helos to extract stuck arty?
Should have just used A-10s. :sleep:
The email to [email protected] bounced because the mailbox was too full
That always happens when they go on leave, or the Wing sends out a 5mb PowerPoint on the upcoming BBQ. :mad:
We know it is full of this:
hey airman! Want a bigger penis?
Quote from: mongers on May 29, 2013, 07:57:57 PM
Found it, now This is how you conduct an amphibious assault, also check out the large image in the link below the photo for the full details, whole thing expertly planned:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F7%2F7b%2FUS_Navy_060606-N-8154G-115_Two_Landing_Craft_Utilities_%28LCU%29_assigned_to_Amphibious_Craft_Unit_Two_%28ACU-2%29%252C_rehearse_storming_the_beach_in_Curacao%252C_Netherlands_Antilles.jpg%2F1024px-thumbnail.jpg&hash=cc17bf925ca5ffeeb455f9d8e795fd9ede61c892)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/US_Navy_060606-N-8154G-115_Two_Landing_Craft_Utilities_(LCU)_assigned_to_Amphibious_Craft_Unit_Two_(ACU-2)%2C_rehearse_storming_the_beach_in_Curacao%2C_Netherlands_Antilles.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/US_Navy_060606-N-8154G-115_Two_Landing_Craft_Utilities_(LCU)_assigned_to_Amphibious_Craft_Unit_Two_(ACU-2)%2C_rehearse_storming_the_beach_in_Curacao%2C_Netherlands_Antilles.jpg)
Priceless
I think I see Natalee Holloway.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 29, 2013, 06:43:37 PM
Quote from: Kleves on May 28, 2013, 11:24:56 AMAn aggressive authoritarian state without regard for the rule of law invades its democratic neighbor (and perhaps instigates a war with the US), and all you do is shrug? Maybe that's your problem right there.
And moving on, I don't think anyone but the US (and Australia) would do much more than send a supportive note to DC and an angry one to Beijing. There's no European country with any pretension of protecting Pacific countries. The most we'd do is support the US, possibly financially and certainly morally.
There's a reason you never really hear about what Europe thinks when, say, North Korea goes mental - that's your bag. As Obama's said, many times, the US is a Pacific power.
Aren't you required to get involved in the Korea thing? UN cease fire and all that.
Quote from: mongers on May 29, 2013, 07:57:57 PM
Found it, now This is how you conduct an amphibious assault, also check out the large image in the link below the photo for the full details, whole thing expertly planned:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F7%2F7b%2FUS_Navy_060606-N-8154G-115_Two_Landing_Craft_Utilities_%28LCU%29_assigned_to_Amphibious_Craft_Unit_Two_%28ACU-2%29%252C_rehearse_storming_the_beach_in_Curacao%252C_Netherlands_Antilles.jpg%2F1024px-thumbnail.jpg&hash=cc17bf925ca5ffeeb455f9d8e795fd9ede61c892)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/US_Navy_060606-N-8154G-115_Two_Landing_Craft_Utilities_(LCU)_assigned_to_Amphibious_Craft_Unit_Two_(ACU-2)%2C_rehearse_storming_the_beach_in_Curacao%2C_Netherlands_Antilles.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/US_Navy_060606-N-8154G-115_Two_Landing_Craft_Utilities_(LCU)_assigned_to_Amphibious_Craft_Unit_Two_(ACU-2)%2C_rehearse_storming_the_beach_in_Curacao%2C_Netherlands_Antilles.jpg)
That's not a beach landing. They are just stopping for Pina Coladas. Look they set up umbrellas!
Quote from: Razgovory on May 29, 2013, 08:14:03 PMAren't you required to get involved in the Korea thing? UN cease fire and all that.
Korea's a bit of an exception. I think most European countries would contribute. But, say, the UK wouldn't contribute anywhere near the amount we did last time and we'd probably be the biggest.
But I don't think you could really say there's a European Korea policy beyond broadly supporting the US. I doubt anyone would do much more than that in the event of, say, a crisis over some Japanese-Chinese islands or Taiwan.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 29, 2013, 06:30:14 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 29, 2013, 06:16:49 PM
Typical jarheads.
Get a fucking helo and lift that thing out of there. A ch-46 and some ADS slings should do the trick. Bunch of knobs.
Flying a 46 to the beach (while all the other airops are probably going on) to get some arty that got stuck as it was being pulled off an LCAC seems counterproductive vs. just digging it out and continuing to move it to where it needs to go like they appear to be doing.
"Fuck it; this is Fire Base Bravo now."
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 29, 2013, 07:45:03 PM
E: What are the USMC ads showing these days? I haven't seen the monster one in a while, I know that, but I can't think of what they're throwing out there now. The Navy has the one where they're saying the oath, the Army is still going with their cro-mag ARMY STRONG thing. Is USAF still Step Into the Blue, or whatever that was?
I get a massive Nimitz-class hard-on with the Navy's "100% On Watch" commercial.
FUCK WITH FREE TRADE SEA LANES AT YOUR PERIL
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 29, 2013, 08:40:35 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 29, 2013, 07:45:03 PM
E: What are the USMC ads showing these days? I haven't seen the monster one in a while, I know that, but I can't think of what they're throwing out there now. The Navy has the one where they're saying the oath, the Army is still going with their cro-mag ARMY STRONG thing. Is USAF still Step Into the Blue, or whatever that was?
I get a massive Nimitz-class hard-on with the Navy's "100% On Watch" commercial.
FUCK WITH FREE TRADE SEA LANES AT YOUR PERIL
I miss the ones with the Godsmack music.
Yeah, I'd get a 60/40 Pacific shift in my pants with those, too.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 29, 2013, 07:14:09 PM
Therefore Europe should pay for an Anglo-British force de frappe, delivered by beautiful Concorde-esque missiles, and an Anglo-French taskforce to occasionally topple North African and Middle Eastern governments. It's the only way Europe can be safe... :mmm:
Avro Vulcan :wub:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn-www.airliners.net%2Faviation-photos%2Fphotos%2F0%2F2%2F5%2F1542520.jpg&hash=c2b7bac49cfe6c1978a7be45d8398ccf08ec7b4b)
That looks like a 50 years old jet.
Oh fuck, I got it right!!!!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_clW92NzmFvI%2FSjcrskTucGI%2FAAAAAAAABqQ%2FHnqZH3vW56E%2Fs1600%2Fahmadinejad.jpg&hash=5558a4cc59db83ca722cde2a789c1445c911aeb9)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_clW92NzmFvI%2FSr_Sy28QJVI%2FAAAAAAAACyE%2FtIMYrajsF4Q%2Fs400%2F12_14_israel_iran_attack_133.jpg&hash=d5da1de405581d3ceae429c629bf1d59afa487ce)
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 29, 2013, 06:43:37 PM
And moving on, I don't think anyone but the US (and Australia) would do much more than send a supportive note to DC and an angry one to Beijing. There's no European country with any pretension of protecting Pacific countries. The most we'd do is support the US, possibly financially and certainly morally.
There's a reason you never really hear about what Europe thinks when, say, North Korea goes mental - that's your bag. As Obama's said, many times, the US is a Pacific power.
And Palmerston weeps in his grave.
Quote from: mongers on May 29, 2013, 07:57:57 PM
Found it, now This is how you conduct an amphibious assault, also check out the large image in the link below the photo for the full details, whole thing expertly planned:
Indeed. The followed the two key rules of any successful beach assault:
1) Pick an LZ with plenty of seating in the shade so that the officers can take noon tea safely on the beach.
2) Pick a target that doesn't have any missile inventory that could be unloaded on those neatly packed landing craft.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 29, 2013, 06:43:37 PM
As Obama's said, many times, the US is a Pacific power.
Amen to that.
Quote from: The Larch on May 28, 2013, 05:36:08 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 28, 2013, 05:30:23 PM
Quote from: The Larch on May 28, 2013, 05:06:32 PM
The Spanish claim on Gibraltar is a museum piece, no sane government would ever press it with a straight face. That's not to say that Spanish governments are happy with Gibraltar's status, but they're not going to actually do anything about it.
In short, the status quo won't change either for Gibraltar or Ceuta & Melilla.
Spain has no claim on Gibraltar, they ceded it to Britain as part of the Treaty of Utrecht.
The wording is trickier than that, though, and was basically established in a way that'd prevent it from being anything else than British or Spanish. That includes eventual independence. Spain's posture is that status quo is ok, but full independence is completely out of the question.
Yes, Spain has first right of refusal if it's status changes. But now Spain has no claim.
Any particular reason why Britain does not annex its colonies like France and US do?
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2013, 10:20:08 AM
Any particular reason why Britain does not annex its colonies like France and US do?
When did the US annex its colonies? Guam? Samoa? US Virgin Islands? Puerto Rico is the only one that can be defined as "annexed", but not fully so.
And France still has a couple of non-annexed colonies, New Caledonia and French Polynesia.
Let's face it, though, the US's biggest technology contribution to future Asia Pacific warfare, the LCS, isn't up to much either.
Quote from: The Larch on May 30, 2013, 10:30:02 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2013, 10:20:08 AM
Any particular reason why Britain does not annex its colonies like France and US do?
When did the US annex its colonies? Guam? Samoa? US Virgin Islands? Puerto Rico is the only one that can be defined as "annexed", but not fully so.
And France still has a couple of non-annexed colonies, New Caledonia and French Polynesia.
Alaska and Hawaii. Puerto Rico is most definitely not annexed, something I hope we correct someday.
And New Caledonia and French Polynesia are not annexed because...they are not sure they want to.
Britain's colonies become Dominions, not a part of the UK. At any rate, why would Britain want to emulate the failed examples of non-British colonial practices? Only British practices have produced civilized results.
Quote from: Neil on May 30, 2013, 10:41:05 AM
Britain's colonies become Dominions, not a part of the UK.
Yeah...even things like the Channel Islands. It just seems weird that even territories like Jersey and Gibraltar that are in Europe and very close are not made part of the UK.
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2013, 10:44:05 AM
Yeah...even things like the Channel Islands. It just seems weird that even territories like Jersey and Gibraltar that are in Europe and very close are not made part of the UK.
Until the war, most Brits thought the Falkland Islands were off Scotland :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2013, 10:44:05 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 30, 2013, 10:41:05 AM
Britain's colonies become Dominions, not a part of the UK.
Yeah...even things like the Channel Islands. It just seems weird that even territories like Jersey and Gibraltar that are in Europe and very close are not made part of the UK.
This video comes in handy for these discussions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10)
Quote from: Siege on May 30, 2013, 03:28:26 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_clW92NzmFvI%2FSr_Sy28QJVI%2FAAAAAAAACyE%2FtIMYrajsF4Q%2Fs400%2F12_14_israel_iran_attack_133.jpg&hash=d5da1de405581d3ceae429c629bf1d59afa487ce)
:glare:
Quote from: The Larch on May 30, 2013, 11:42:22 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2013, 10:44:05 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 30, 2013, 10:41:05 AM
Britain's colonies become Dominions, not a part of the UK.
Yeah...even things like the Channel Islands. It just seems weird that even territories like Jersey and Gibraltar that are in Europe and very close are not made part of the UK.
This video comes in handy for these discussions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10)
Hey, that was pretty damn cool...
I actually learned some stuff!
Yeah now I am watching all of that guy's videos.
Ok those videos on the City of London are just hilarious. Got to love England.
I didn't know the bases in Cyprus had colonial status.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 30, 2013, 09:39:52 AM
Quote from: mongers on May 29, 2013, 07:57:57 PM
Found it, now This is how you conduct an amphibious assault, also check out the large image in the link below the photo for the full details, whole thing expertly planned:
Indeed. The followed the two key rules of any successful beach assault:
1) Pick an LZ with plenty of seating in the shade so that the officers can take noon tea safely on the beach.
2) Pick a target that doesn't have any missile inventory that could be unloaded on those neatly packed landing craft.
To be fair to them I couldn't spot anyone of them yet using the seating, though perhaps they're waiting for that machine to lay the last 6 foot of canvas pathway so the waiter doesn't spill any beach cocktails. :cool:
Quote from: Brazen on May 30, 2013, 10:34:47 AM
Let's face it, though, the US's biggest technology contribution to future Asia Pacific warfare, the LCS, isn't up to much either.
:unsure: They're just corvettes (or frigates if you're being a little generous).
Quote from: Neil on May 30, 2013, 10:41:05 AM
Britain's colonies become Dominions, not a part of the UK. At any rate, why would Britain want to emulate the failed examples of non-British colonial practices? Only British practices have produced civilized results.
How does that jive with the Middle East/India-Pakistan? :hmm:
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 30, 2013, 05:47:41 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 30, 2013, 10:41:05 AM
Britain's colonies become Dominions, not a part of the UK. At any rate, why would Britain want to emulate the failed examples of non-British colonial practices? Only British practices have produced civilized results.
How does that jive with the Middle East/India-Pakistan? :hmm:
Britain hardly had any time with the Middle East, and India was left half-finished. Still, the more British parts of India are amongst the best parts of the third world.
Quote from: Neil on May 30, 2013, 10:41:05 AM
Britain's colonies become Dominions, not a part of the UK. At any rate, why would Britain want to emulate the failed examples of non-British colonial practices? Only British practices have produced civilized results.
Indeed. I always wondered why only the brits managed to create civilized colonies.
Quote from: Siege on May 30, 2013, 06:59:07 PM
Indeed. I always wondered why only the brits managed to create civilized colonies.
Because of Britain's #1 national obsession: leaving Britain.
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2013, 12:33:04 PM
Yeah now I am watching all of that guy's videos.
Ok those videos on the City of London are just hilarious. Got to love England.
The ones about gerrymandering and daylights saving time are great.
And the City of London is just bizarre.
Quote from: Siege on May 30, 2013, 06:59:07 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 30, 2013, 10:41:05 AM
Britain's colonies become Dominions, not a part of the UK. At any rate, why would Britain want to emulate the failed examples of non-British colonial practices? Only British practices have produced civilized results.
Indeed. I always wondered why only the brits managed to create civilized colonies.
What's wrong with Chile and Argentina (at least nowadays)? :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on May 31, 2013, 08:55:35 AM
What's wrong with Chile and Argentina (at least nowadays)? :hmm:
Oh so Louisiana and Quebec are not civilized?!!111
Ok...point taken.
Quote from: Caliga on May 31, 2013, 08:55:35 AM
What's wrong with Chile and Argentina (at least nowadays)? :hmm:
Argentina has seen better days (FWIW they originally benefited quite a bit from strong British influence), though Chile is coming at a pretty nice clip.
Quote from: Valmy on May 31, 2013, 09:02:36 AM
Oh so Louisiana and Quebec are not civilized?!!111
Ok...point taken.
:shifty:
Quote from: derspiess on May 31, 2013, 09:03:49 AM
Argentina has seen better days (FWIW they originally benefited quite a bit from strong British influence)
Yeah, didn't the Welsh settle Patagonia? :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on May 31, 2013, 09:06:13 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 31, 2013, 09:03:49 AM
Argentina has seen better days (FWIW they originally benefited quite a bit from strong British influence)
Yeah, didn't the Welsh settle Patagonia? :hmm:
Correct, but Argentina rebounded from that nonetheless.
FWIW, my wife's childhood best friend had the last name of "Jackson" and looks fairly Americanish. Her ancestors came over on the Mayflower but I forget how her later ancestor(s) ended up in Buenos Aires.
Annoyingly, her dad doesn't speak one word of English and speaks Spanish to me faster than I can process it.
That's easy. Her ancestor was shot by his own men near a small Virginia village in 1862 while rebelling against the lawful government. Then the family fled charges of treason to South America. I mean it is obvious.
You know that Confederados actually did settle in Brazil after the Civil War, right Valmy?
Quote from: Caliga on May 31, 2013, 10:19:35 AM
You know that Confederados actually did settle in Brazil after the Civil War, right Valmy?
Yep. That was intended to be an allusion to that :P
Yes I know Argentina != Brazil
Quote from: Caliga on May 31, 2013, 08:55:35 AM
Quote from: Siege on May 30, 2013, 06:59:07 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 30, 2013, 10:41:05 AM
Britain's colonies become Dominions, not a part of the UK. At any rate, why would Britain want to emulate the failed examples of non-British colonial practices? Only British practices have produced civilized results.
Indeed. I always wondered why only the brits managed to create civilized colonies.
What's wrong with Chile and Argentina (at least nowadays)? :hmm:
I was goofing around the other day on Google Street View with what it has for Chile...
The big thing I noticed is that all the housing areas, from innercity ghetto, to sprawling shanty town, to wealthy, newly built suburb is a big contrast from Norte Amerika. While we usually have wide open, spacious areas facing the street, with easy access to our front entrance...every single home had a gate/fence/wall right at the street blocking all entrances, garages/carports, etc.
Side note: I noticed the same thing in Russia, too.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 31, 2013, 02:38:49 PM
The big thing I noticed is that all the housing areas, from innercity ghetto, to sprawling shanty town, to wealthy, newly built suburb is a big contrast from Norte Amerika. While we usually have wide open, spacious areas facing the street, with easy access to our front entrance...every single home had a gate/fence/wall right at the street blocking all entrances, garages/carports, etc.
Welcome to South America. It's all like that.