Thread: America The worlds police

Originally Posted by Julie

HA! Exactly right Bluesman. And, that would be Georgia...and that's what I pay too!. And many people think southern people are stupid. Vote accordingly...stupid is as stupid does.

Here here.

GA ROCKS.

OK I'm sick of being confused for a guy, change of avatar.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Israel has proven capable of defending itself (those Egyptian and Syrian troops were not massing on the border for a tea party, a surprise attack was the only way Israel could guarentee victory) time and again, whereas both South Korea and Europe have been relying upon the United States to look after their interests for thirty years. That is why Israel is an ally deserving of respect.

Take a look through serious military eyes. Israel beat up on some chumps who were not serious at driving the Israelis to the sea. It is NOT impressive by WWIII standards. And NATO was a WWIII force.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

And as for "what kind of BS is that?" regarding the Western Europe's ability to meet it's defense committments (i.e. looking out for their own defense, the primary reason for the nation state to exist in the first place), Western Europe's population was larger, and it's economy far larger still, than that of the Soviet Union. With a larger population and economy, there is NO reason why they had to rely on the United States (which contributed a large portion of the defense of southern Germany, naval supremacy, a nuclear arsenal sufficient to ensure 2nd strike capability, and a very large portion of NATO's air forces) for their defense, other than a lack of will to devote the necessary resources to protect themselves.

1st of all, it's just not the USSR but the Warsaw Pact. 2nd, the US was the author of the North Atlantic Treaty. 3rd, by treaty, the Supreme Allied Commander is always an American and the General Secretary is always a European (which leaves Canada out in the boonies).

Get the picture? The Americans designed NATO the way they wanted it. It was the price the Europeans paid to get the Americans in Europe. NATO's origins from Europe's PoV was to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down.

As with anything else, things changed. The original reason why NATO had a smaller force (some 87 divisions against the Warsaw Pact's 173 divisions) was the over-reliance on nukes. It seemed that was the answer to everything. Canada had nukes from tac nukes with 4 Brigade to nuke tip AAMs. Hell, even the CF-104 were nuke carriers to burn Russian columns. Until people figured out that relying purely on nukes is a really, really bad, extremely bad idea. However, by that time, the Warsaw Pact had caught up with nuke numbers (some say they were allowed to catch up by McNamara <arggghhhhh!!!!>).

So, what now? Increase the number of NATO divisions? Well, guess what, we follow the leader and the leader was the US and the US was NOT going to follow the Soviets. Good thing too. Considering that we (and I mean we, NATO had a big hand in helping shaped the Air-Land doctrine) produced a force less than half that of the Warsaw Pact and that scared them to death. Under Ronald Reagan's leadership, the Warsaw Pact actually thought we were going to invade them.

So, don't go throwing things around when you don't know the details.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Take a look through serious military eyes. Israel beat up on some chumps who were not serious at driving the Israelis to the sea. It is NOT impressive by WWIII standards. And NATO was a WWIII force.

As with anything else, things changed. The original reason why NATO had a smaller force (some 87 divisions against the Warsaw Pact's 173 divisions) was the over-reliance on nukes. It seemed that was the answer to everything. Canada had nukes from tac nukes with 4 Brigade to nuke tip AAMs. Hell, even the CF-104 were nuke carriers to burn Russian columns. Until people figured out that relying purely on nukes is a really, really bad, extremely bad idea. However, by that time, the Warsaw Pact had caught up with nuke numbers (some say they were allowed to catch up by McNamara <arggghhhhh!!!!>).

So, what now? Increase the number of NATO divisions? Well, guess what, we follow the leader and the leader was the US and the US was NOT going to follow the Soviets. Good thing too. Considering that we (and I mean we, NATO had a big hand in helping shaped the Air-Land doctrine) produced a force less than half that of the Warsaw Pact and that scared them to death. Under Ronald Reagan's leadership, the Warsaw Pact actually thought we were going to invade them.

Don't forget that NATO divisions are considerably larger than Warsaw Pact divisions. Usually a NATO division is 2-2.5 times the Warsaw Pact division size.

They had equal number of mens on both sides. However Warsaw Pact had more equipment but most of them were junk compared to the majority of NATO's assets.

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici

I pay 1.65 a gallon.

Brig Ray sir,
See what I mean. VVV is paying Rs.18 to a litre of petrol in Texas, and I'm pay Rs.43.20p per litre of petrol in Bombay.
Thats the difference, when your nation uses policy to further national intrest. Morality and has its place, but it should not supercede national intrest.

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici

OK I'm sick of being confused for a guy, change of avatar.

Whose picture is that?...It looks like one half of a snap.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Don't forget that NATO divisions are considerably larger than Warsaw Pact divisions. Usually a NATO division is 2-2.5 times the Warsaw Pact division size.

They had equal number of mens on both sides. However Warsaw Pact had more equipment but most of them were junk compared to the majority of NATO's assets.

We had this talk before. Just to refresh everybody else who is not aware of this.

WP divisional taskings are still divisional level taskings. They're much more focus in what they want their divisions want to do than we are. It does not change the fact that they throwing 3 divisions from 3 different directions against one of ours.