Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 84

Thread: Bundeswehr Restructuring

  1. #61
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,703
    Here's some reading material on NATOs current position in the Baltics:

    http://www.icds.ee/fileadmin/media/i...Baltic_Gap.pdf

    Authored by Wesley Clark and Egon Ramms (former Brunssum commander) among others.

    Basically proclaims that we need nukes.

  2. #62
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    3,844
    If you want to trade what you call "new Europe" (actually far older nations than Germany) for half of Berlin and the Oder-Neisse line again while advocating 'European unity', equivocating about missile shields that protect you as well others do not be surprised why others don't swallow it.

  3. #63
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,703
    About 21% of Germans want the wall back. Only 48% in the West think that reunification had more positive than negative points for them. And 18% in the East would prefer having the political system of the German Democratic Republic.

    Among those over 30, that is those born before the wall fell, the numbers are considerably higher btw.

  4. #64
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Mar 08
    Posts
    1,896
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    From the German perspective, a number of unresolved questions exist that should be answered before Berlin takes decisions to expand its participation in NATO missile defence.

    From the security perspective the threat analysis needs to be clarified. At the moment, there are different opinions about what NATO intends to defend against. It must also be asked whether the successful implementation of the Iran agreement would not offer sufficient reason to re-evaluate the scope and timeframe of the project.

    From the military perspective, the performance of the system should be assessed from different perspectives. Experience has already been gathered with intercepting short-range missiles. Defence against medium-range and intermediate-range missiles has only been tested in a handful of cases, and these were rarely based on realistic conditions. In this context, it is also important to ask to what extent Germany and other European NATO allies would be included in decisions to deploy or use missile defence systems in times of peace or crisis. Finally, in terms of including German frigates in the system, the possible negative impact on the German navy’s overall operational capability needs to be taken into account.

    From the alliance perspective, it should be considered whether and how NATO allies can better reconcile the different objectives associated with the creation of a missile defence system. The difficult process of deciding to deploy – and later withdraw – Patriot systems from Turkey is an indication of negative consequences differences over missile defences could have for the alliance’s cohesion. In particular, the question needs to be asked what influence Europe would have on the possible use of such capabilities in times of crisis.


    How is Chamberlain?
    I wonder if Germany could be talked into purchasing THAAD down the line?

    Poland could be another customer in the mid/late 2020s.

  5. #65
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    From the German perspective, a number of unresolved questions exist that should be answered before Berlin takes decisions to expand its participation in NATO missile defence.

    From the security perspective the threat analysis needs to be clarified. At the moment, there are different opinions about what NATO intends to defend against. It must also be asked whether the successful implementation of the Iran agreement would not offer sufficient reason to re-evaluate the scope and timeframe of the project.

    From the military perspective, the performance of the system should be assessed from different perspectives. Experience has already been gathered with intercepting short-range missiles. Defence against medium-range and intermediate-range missiles has only been tested in a handful of cases, and these were rarely based on realistic conditions. In this context, it is also important to ask to what extent Germany and other European NATO allies would be included in decisions to deploy or use missile defence systems in times of peace or crisis. Finally, in terms of including German frigates in the system, the possible negative impact on the German navy’s overall operational capability needs to be taken into account.

    From the alliance perspective, it should be considered whether and how NATO allies can better reconcile the different objectives associated with the creation of a missile defence system. The difficult process of deciding to deploy – and later withdraw – Patriot systems from Turkey is an indication of negative consequences differences over missile defences could have for the alliance’s cohesion. In particular, the question needs to be asked what influence Europe would have on the possible use of such capabilities in times of crisis.


    How is Chamberlain?
    A whole bunch of horse puckey and complete dishonesty by you, Sara. The Shield is not for Germany to refuse ... and frankly, nor hers to command. SACEUR, by treaty, is an AMERICAN Command. The 2IC may rotates but when a known crisis is building, you can be sure an American would be in command.

    That was why we had the fucking idiot Wesley Clark in command of the Kosovo War!
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 14 May 16, at 05:55.
    Chimo

  6. #66
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,703
    Quote Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
    I wonder if Germany could be talked into purchasing THAAD down the line?
    Nope, we're integrating PAC-3MSE in our own system that'll be introduced in a few years.

    Long-term plans are for something austere with out-of-atmosphere intercept btw.

  7. #67
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by kato View Post
    Here's some reading material on NATOs current position in the Baltics:

    http://www.icds.ee/fileadmin/media/i...Baltic_Gap.pdf

    Authored by Wesley Clark and Egon Ramms (former Brunssum commander) among others.

    Basically proclaims that we need nukes.
    You did note that I call Wesley Clark a fucking idiot.
    Chimo

  8. #68
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,703
    Yeah, and I agree for the most part.

    The word "nuclear" occurs 54 times in the above document btw.

  9. #69
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    3,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    A whole bunch of horse puckey and complete dishonesty by you, Sara. The Shield is not for Germany to refuse ... and frankly, nor hers to command. SACEUR, by treaty, is an AMERICAN Command. The 2IC may rotates but when a known crisis is building, you can be sure an American would be in command.

    That was why we had the fucking idiot Wesley Clark in command of the Kosovo War!
    Colonel, I was merely quoting back what our German friend had said. I added the "How is Chamberlain?" because it struck me as a load of BS. As far as the missile shield goes it is designed to protect all of Europe with the Command in Ramstein (Germany). Please see; http://gdb.rferl.org/1A7F6D09-0DD4-4...47FC598769.png I am well aware that SACEUR is a US Command. I would like it stay that way and therefore reject any silly ideas about a 'European army' as it would directly undermine the trans Atlantic alliance.

    Now our German Gentleman says 'old Europe' (which I take to mean the nations that were NATO members during the Cold War) no longer needs US support, even perhaps alliance; a debatable point but my point is that without what kato somewhat arrogantly refers to as "New Europe" (by which he means the lands and nations east of the old Oder-Neisse line upto the Muscovite border) remaining free and allied to the US and 'old Europe' he would be squealing for US help just as in the Cold War days. I feel that it is also hypocritical to speak of 'European unity' on the one hand while seemingly being ambivalent regarding the security of your Eastern allies and partners. For these and reasons I am pro NATO and a strong supporter of the trans Atlantic alliance which in my view remains the bedrock of Western and European security and fully agree with Albany Rifles that European nations should and must do more to contribute to their own security.
    Last edited by snapper; 14 May 16, at 13:34.

  10. #70
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,703
    Radio Free Europe? Seriously?

    As for "load of BS" - SWP is a policy shaper. If SWP publishes something of such gravity, you can assume that that either is the current or the near-future opinion of at least the German government. While they style themselves as the German version of RAND they're more of a mix of RUSI and USIP. With a healthy helping of military and intelligence service involvement.

  11. #71
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    3,844
    Are you suggesting that a missile shield east of Germany will not contribute at all to German security? I take it you would agree that it does contribute to your security so I fail to see your real point Sir. Nor do you answer my larger point I note regarding the trans Atlantic alliance; I would be genuinely interested to hear your view if you could explain it precisely.

  12. #72
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,703
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Now our German Gentleman says 'old Europe' (which I take to mean the nations that were NATO members during the Cold War) no longer needs US support, even perhaps alliance; a debatable point but my point is that without what kato somewhat arrogantly refers to as "New Europe" (by which he means the lands and nations east of the old Oder-Neisse line upto the Muscovite border) ...
    The terms "Old Europe" and "New Europe" were not defined by me. Sure, on both sides of the Atlantic they tried to mend fences, but the term as a distinction stands.

    And to word it a bit more strongly: The fact that Eastern European nations - along with the poodles on the island - tend to betray European Unity whenever it fits them and for the past two to three decades have mostly been a leech in Europe's side does lend credence to making that same distinction.

    As for NATO? Ukraine changed a lot there. In Germany you'll still find overwhelming support for NATO "being important to European security" (89% in favour, 9% calling for dissolution), and scant majorities thinking of NATO positively (57% in the West, 48% in the East). You however won't find much support for NATO being further enlarged eastwards (19% in favour), or even for supporting the current Eastern European border nations in case of a Russian attack (42% in favour). 57% of Germans want "more political independence from the USA", which directly impacts NATO obviously.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Are you suggesting that a missile shield east of Germany will not contribute at all to German security? I take it you would agree that it does contribute to your security so I fail to see your real point Sir.
    The missile shield doesn't add a shred of security for Germany from German perspectives. In what way would it? Iran - as pushed by RFE and other US propaganda sources - wouldn't attack its best European business partner. Russia? Russia has entirely different means in its hands against which the BMD system as currently laid out and planned is entirely useless.
    Last edited by kato; 14 May 16, at 15:05.

  13. #73
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    3,844
    So you advocate 'European unity' and would like a 'European army' but enhancing security for your eastern allies and partners does not contribute to German security? Is there not some contradiction here?

    As for your opinion polls frankly they mean nothing and you must know this.

    Regarding the "poodles on the island" are you referring to Britain? I assume so but "betraying Europe" is ripe when it comes from a nation that has consistently bullied Greece etc for the sake of it's own private export market? What is North Stream if not betrayal? More contradictions or must all European interests be identical to German interests?

  14. #74
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,018
    Ohh,but the BMD does something marvelous wrt Russia.It takes away the option of destroying NATO with salami tactics.They cannot bluff their way with limited nuclear strikes,as practiced since 2008 in their Zapad exercises.

    As for European unity,is pretty much dying.As for leeching,thanks Lord,the German companies made a big buck with the expansion.
    The good things like free trade and movement of citizens and I emphasize ''citizens'' will probably continue,but the idea of EE armies coming under German command is not going to happen.Period.

    For now Eastern Europe depends on American support.But it's mutually beneficent.For the simple reason of the result of Kato's polls and German policy.German interests as well as it's poodle,France,are inevitably linked to Russia's and that's an unacceptable position for both USA and EE.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  15. #75
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,703
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    enhancing security for your eastern allies and partners does not contribute to German security?
    How does the BMD shield enhance security for our eastern allies? Beyond getting a few American feet on the ground.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    What is North Stream if not betrayal?
    North Stream was signed years before we absorbed the East to broaden our cheap labour base. And connects Germany with German-owned gas fields. Which are inconveniently located in Russia.

    And, please, bullying Greece? The opinion on the street here is that we shouldn't be giving Greece a single red cent.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. WAB Staff Restructuring
    By Ironduke in forum WAB Information Center
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 19 Dec 10,, 17:20
  2. Old but still good, Staff Guidance on Defence Restructuring
    By Repatriated Canuck in forum International Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 28 Apr 07,, 09:39

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •