re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Europe isn’t going to start investing in their common defense until daddy cuts the cord and sends them off on their own.

It’s like telling a teenager that they need to pay for their own car insurance but would rather spend their money on video games and iPhones while you just sit their paying their car insurance hoping one day they’ll get it.

quote:

---

We used funded others to help them instead of boots on the ground other than a handful of advisors, both during Reagan and post 9/11. The pressure put on during Reagan helped take the USSR down.

---

Yeah man I know. That has nothing to do with what I or anyone else in thread was talking about.

quote:

---

The WWII Allies did not allow Germany to have much more than a small defense force for decades. It is sort in ingrained into their psyche and budgets not to fund military now.

---

What’s everyone else’s excuse…aside from maybe the French

quote:

---

The rhetoric from the left when he proposed it was basically apocalyptic. Hell man, Obama was thought to be a comedic genius when he told Romney to give the 80’s their foreign policy back.

---

This is a completely fair point and needs to be brought up. Not to condemn the “machine”, but to point out there is a large contingency of people on the left and right who don’t have a meaningful basis for an opinion.

If you thought Romney was absurd then, you need to admit you’re an idiot.

If you think the Q crew is absurd now but thought Obama was clever then, you’re an idiot.

quote:

---

Now that Ukraine with substantial help has shown that the Russian Army is not capable of over-running Europe, why does the US have to have such a large presences.

Esp if NATO expands to include some more capable states vs trip-wires, and the membership actually meets their obligations....

---

We don't, and yes, in the long term, the USA will save money. We:

1) Can let Europe take much of the lead for its defense. And Russia will not be powerful enough to threaten Europe for decades, if then.

2) Will no longer need such a big Army. As we reorient our security posture to confront China, it will be more important to strengthen the Air Force, Navy, and Marines.

The situation really isn't that different from WWII. The Army took on the role of defeating the Nazis, and the Navy and Marines defeated the Japanese.

But there's another big reason for the US leading NATO that will continue to be a reason that much of NATO will want us to continue to lead, and why we probably will:

US leadership of NATO, and the membership of most of Europe in the alliance, has played a key role in preventing those European countries from fighting amongst themselves.

For example, why have Greece and Turkey gotten close to war but always ended up avoiding it? It's the United States, that why.

And history has shown that it's in our interest to prevent big European wars.

quote:

---

But has DoD put resources into implementing those demos and defending against them?

---

The DOD is spending lots of $$ on developing drone swarm technology. Go to Youtube and search for DARPA Drone Swarm. I think it's safe to assume they are developing countermeasures as well. As this is cutting-edge technology, I doubt we ever see it in Ukraine.

quote:

---

It’s like telling a teenager that they need to pay for their own car insurance but would rather spend their money on video games and iPhones while you just sit their paying their car insurance hoping one day they’ll get it.

---

The potential problem applying that analogy is what if the kids says frick it I would rather play video games than drive, then the parents are stuck hauling the kid around everywhere they want him to go.


I think the US "overspending" is a result of two ideas:

1. It keeps us in a position of power when it comes to geopolitics. I think we often take this for granted and the power we would lose might be stunning. That is inconsequential if you are a devoted isolationist. Personally despite the number of wars we have been in I think the world has been a more peaceful place than it would have been if we had not wielded the power we have over the last 80 years. I am not making light of the 7,000+ US deaths in the War Against Terror, I just think it is highly possible it could have been a lot worse.

2. Part of the heavy bill we pay allows us access to bases in a lot of these countries. Those bases are incrementally more expensive than if we had them on US soil but they allow for force projection that would be far more expensive if we duplicated them with air/sea power. Force projection is the number one reason why we are the most capable military in the world and it isn't even close.


One of the dirty little secrets of military prowess is you have to use it to keep the blade honed. I hate to use a football analogy but a team can practice every day but playing the game brings a different level of skill advancement. You learn to react to different offenses and defenses and play with more intensity and focus partly because of the stakes. God help me for saying it but an army full of soldiers that have never been shot at nor taken a life is not as capable as one that has.

quote:

---

This place may be the one thing keeping him from tipping over the edge

---

Na, he still has his fan fiction collection to add too.

But then again, where would he go to bitch about the show when it doesn't go the way he thought it should?

quote:

---

As much as he irks me at times I honestly hope he isn't permabanned. This place may be the one thing keeping him from tipping over the edge and I mean that sincerely. The manic energy he has needs to go somewhere. I would rather him be melting down and flinging shite here than IRL.

---

Good points. I can't disagree.