Officer of Engineers
Military Professional
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2003
- Messages
- 34,225
Who cares?!?! You need to ready an answer! The point is you have no answers AND THE RUSSIANS KNOW IT!
Last edited:
NATO without the US
- Thread starter Officer of Engineers
- Start date
Officer of Engineers
Military Professional
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2003
- Messages
- 34,225
They were found
Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia
Just not in the quantities that we expected but nevertheless, the intel is clear. Saddam buried his chemical weapons knowhow, just as he buried his nuclear weapons knowhow. He NEVER destroyed them.
The French campaigned against the war and Security Council approval of the war at the UN, and succeeded in that. Which fine, that's their right to do so as a sovereign country and a permanent Security Council member. But when Sarkozy had to get the Libya conflict resolved to maintain French energy and oil industry investments in Libya that were signed with Gaddafi as well as the Libyan refugee crisis crossing the Mediterranean and most of them would end up in France, the U.S. didn't owe the French anything. That was a have our cake and eat it too moment for the French state. Did they ever apologize? "Hey, we railed on your war in Iraq was wrong for years, but now we need you to do the exact same type of war for us in Libya. If we acknowledge we're hypocrites, will you pretty please come bomb Tripoli for us?"
I thought so much less of Obama's foreign policy after worthless piece of sh*t Nicolas Sarkozy got him to do Libya. Everything in Syria finished the job, but you railed against Bush's foreign policy in the Middle East, was able to get elected President partly off it, and then you proceeded to do the exact same f#cking thing WHERE WE HAD NO INTEREST AT STAKE.
Last edited:
The your the one starting a war and you better have a very good plan for ending! If you don't? You'll end up where Putin is in now. He went to war with what his generals told him was a 'good plan' and look at where Russia is now.
Gun Grape
Resident Curmudgeon
Been a while. Keep getting sidetracked. Here is the Gunny's thoughts.
The thread is NATO without the US. Flip it around and tell me "What is the US without NATO?" . Specifically all the bases we use in Europe and throw Diego Garcia in for good measure
We are presently seeing the US having a bit of a problem with Iran. And one of the reasons we haven't struck yet is because the Saudis and the UAE have ruled out the use of their bases and airspace by US forces against Iran.
So imagine the US trying to project force in the Med without Rota, Naples, Sigonella, Souda Bay, Gaeta.
Imagine trying to move troops and equipment to the Middle East or the Far East without our air bases in Europe. The air refuelers will need to have air refuelers to make the trip
When it comes to nukes, its not a big deal. Tactical Nukes pretty much went out in the late 80s. We have Thermobaric and ICM rounds that can do
the same damage without releasing the nuclear genie.
You use FAE when you have a tactical problem on the battlefield. You use Nukes when you are in a F U nobody gets to use it anymore
The thread is NATO without the US. Flip it around and tell me "What is the US without NATO?" . Specifically all the bases we use in Europe and throw Diego Garcia in for good measure
We are presently seeing the US having a bit of a problem with Iran. And one of the reasons we haven't struck yet is because the Saudis and the UAE have ruled out the use of their bases and airspace by US forces against Iran.
So imagine the US trying to project force in the Med without Rota, Naples, Sigonella, Souda Bay, Gaeta.
Imagine trying to move troops and equipment to the Middle East or the Far East without our air bases in Europe. The air refuelers will need to have air refuelers to make the trip
When it comes to nukes, its not a big deal. Tactical Nukes pretty much went out in the late 80s. We have Thermobaric and ICM rounds that can do
the same damage without releasing the nuclear genie.
You use FAE when you have a tactical problem on the battlefield. You use Nukes when you are in a F U nobody gets to use it anymore
Yep, imagine what 500 modern intermediate range ballistic missiles armed with conventional warheads would do to Russia's electricity grid and it's oil and gas distribution networks.
Last edited:
Officer of Engineers
Military Professional
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2003
- Messages
- 34,225
When someone tries nuclear blackmail, the only option is threaten them with nuclear war.
This only works if you have plans to complete a strategic strike. Otherwise, this is nothing more than nuisance attack. Witness how many times the Ukrainians completed strikes on Russian energy assets and yet, the Russians ain't reducing their strengths in the UKR anytime soon.
Obviously. But if you don't have nuclear weapons and your looking at a scenario where you may be or are being threatened by a nation that does? Then you will have by default developed a strategic plan designed to decapitate your opponents critical infrastructure using weapons specifically designed for that task. (You would also be constantly updating that plan.)
Last edited:
Gun Grape
Resident Curmudgeon
But the Ukrainians are attacking with drones outfitted with RPG and Mortar warheads. Their largest long range drone can carry a 32Kg warhead.
Thats almost two 155mm M107HE rounds worth of TNT
Imagine if those attacks were carried out with ATACMs size munitions. With either a 213KG blast warhead (extended range missile) then followed up with 950 AP bomblets a hour later after fire fighters arrive.
Officer of Engineers
Military Professional
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2003
- Messages
- 34,225
Europe can't win without the US, says former US NATO official
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte drew stinging rebukes from across the continent over remarks alleging Europe can't defend itself without the aid of the US. While Europeans say the assessment is unjustified, US contacts tell Euronews he's just telling it like it is. #EuropeNews
www.euronews.com
The problem for Europe is metal including everything from vehicles to aircraft to satellites and of course magazine depth. About the only areas where the Europeans have a distinct advantage over Russia is surface naval warfare and maybe to a lesser degree air power. They have the capacity to become independent of the US for military support but it will be a generational process (well a decade long one if your just talking about getting the basics right). Russia on the other hand isn't it a position to threaten anyone with invasion for the foreseeable future so it's all going to come down to a) How serious and committed all the main European players in NATO are to upping their game and how quickly they can come to a consensus as to how much or what is needed where and even more importantly who pays for and operates it.
Last edited:
Officer of Engineers
Military Professional
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2003
- Messages
- 34,225
Moldova is under threat
abcnews.go.com
NATO's ability to deter Russia has taken a hit with trans-Atlantic infighting
NATO's ability to deter Russia has taken a huge hit as trust within the alliance erodes
abcnews.go.com
There's nothing stopping the U.S. from picking and choosing countries in Europe in such a scenario to enjoy a status similar to the current "major non-NATO ally" status. I'd expect it actually. The UK almost certainly would be one because look at UK defense and finances currently, which gets us access to Diego Garcia and also the British sovereign bases in Cyprus from which we could reach the Middle East. Italy would make sense strategically for its spot on the Mediterranean and if based there you could reach North Africa. If we wanted to retain force structure in Europe, I'm sure Poland would welcome us with open arms because Eastern Europe are in NATO for the U.S., not for the other members.
Kind of amazes me throughout this war that Transnistria, this thin strip of land between de facto Moldova and Ukraine, has just been sitting there. They've done nothing, and the Moldovans and Ukrainians have done nothing.Moldova is under threat
NATO's ability to deter Russia has taken a hit with trans-Atlantic infighting
NATO's ability to deter Russia has taken a huge hit as trust within the alliance erodes
Gun Grape
Resident Curmudgeon
Then you have to negotiate overflight rights for the rest of Europe. Or every mission from England becomes a Operation El Dorado Canyon to avoid NATO /EU airspace.
Why would any NATO country agree to have us operate bases in their country after we say we will not come to their defense and leave NATO?
GG I'm sure the Trump Administration will have no problem replacing NATO's European members with loyal, reliable and stable partnerships in places like Morocco, Algeria, Chad, Egypt or Sudan etc. She'll be right!
There is some discussion recently within both current government parties about nuclear weapons in case the US leaves. Although mostly by the usual rightwingers, like CDU defense specialist Roderich Kiesewetter. There's also some Bundeswehr generals in favour of it btw. The argument these people bring forward against nuclear sharing of French nukes is (long-term) a possible future election win in France by Marine Le Pen.
From the German perspective the problem isn't leaving NPT itself, but as a consequence also withdrawing from the 2+4 Treaty, i.e. the "settlement in place of" a peace treaty for WW2. People lobbying in favour of nuclear armament therefore tend to propose an alliance-owned nuclear arsenal instead.
Regarding anti-nuclear opinion, there were surveys run in recent times - in particular in mid-2025 in light of the Iran-Israel War. While overall 72% of Germans oppose Germany owning nuclear weapons, among young people (age group 18-24) it's rather the opposite, with 54% in favour. There may be some movement in overall opinion in one or two decades therefore.