Thread: America The worlds police

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.

But Soviet divisions had more teeth than NATO divisions, since they were not expected to survive their primary task (whether that be forcing a breakthrough or exploitation). That meant that the logistical tale was extremely limited, freeing up more men for the frontline.

However it is good to remember OoE, that The Warsaw Pact was of extremely limited reliability, in terms of both men and overally fighting quality. Hungary and Czeckoslovakia could not be trusted after their attempted revolutions (56 and 68), and thus their militaries never really were allowed to be effective after that. The Poles were among the most militant in their opposition to Soviet domination, and the GDR had every one of it's divisions shadowed by a Soviet division (not a whole lot of trust). Therefore, the only real military contender that was threatening Western Europe was the Soviet Union. The rest of their "allies" were reluctant at best, and openly rebellious on occasion. I understand that NATO was an American creation, so was our alliance in Korea. What I am arguing is that these alliances stopped benefiting the United States quite some time ago, and now just involve America putting out greater resources in maintaining them than we get back in strategic gain.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Let me get this straight. You are going to bent over, present your ass, to a superior female figure in uniform who has a nightstick at her side.

You know something. I don't know if I have a need-to-know on this one. But I certainly do know that I do not have a want-to-know.

Kinky aint it?

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

I understand that NATO was an American creation, so was our alliance in Korea. What I am arguing is that these alliances stopped benefiting the United States quite some time ago, and now just involve America putting out greater resources in maintaining them than we get back in strategic gain.

Maybe we get other things in return besides strategic backing? Just guessing.

Originally Posted by Julie

Maybe we get other things in return besides strategic backing? Just guessing.

Well, Korea does offer a strategic position in Asia, however given the way their economy is set up (export based) and the way their population feels about us (they hate us), it is unlikely that they will let us use them as a base. Other than that, all we get from them is products that are good at competing against American companies, without even reciprocal access to their markets. I don't really see how us being in Korea benifits the United States now that the Soviet Union is gone.

Blade,

Let me get this straight. You are going to bent over, present your ass, to a superior female figure in uniform who has a nightstick at her side.

Start shouting 'Abu Gharaib Abu Gharaib Abu Gharaib...........' and run to the media.

Maybe VVV will get courtmartialled!

I don't really see how us being in Korea benifits the United States now that the Soviet Union is gone.

You never drop your guard.

The Dragon is still lurking around the corner!

NIC 2020.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

I don't really see how us being in Korea benifits the United States now that the Soviet Union is gone.

Just are presence in the area is half way to being there, and is an advantage. With the situation with North Korea, we need to be in the general vicinity, or "on guard" as Ray stated.