Meanwhile in Iraq & Syria

[Smitty-48]

The most likely country to be attacked and as a result drag the whole alliance down, is the United States, did the Soviets invade West Berlin? Nope, they went straight to Cuba, did Al Qaeda knock the Eiffel Tower down? Nope, World Trade Center. The only country which has ever dragged NATO to war, is the United States, if they go and isolate themselves, thus freeing us from the burden of defending them; good riddance.

[heydaralon]

Maybe that's how Trump should have tried to sell it to Europe. "Look guys, you don't want us as a partner, we are gonna drag you into war."
Works for me. It doesn't seem like Poland or the Baltic countries see it your way, since according to them, Russia is the only country on Earth worse than the United States.


Smitty, based on your last statement, can you provide a justification for NATO in the post Cold War world, other than imperial hubris?

[Okeefenokee]

Maybe that's how Trump should have tried to sell it to Europe. "Look guys, you don't want us as a partner, we are gonna drag you into war."
Works for me. It doesn't seem like Poland or the Baltic countries see it your way, since according to them, Russia is the only country on Earth worse than the United States.


Smitty, based on your last statement, can you provide a justification for NATO in the post Cold War world, other than imperial hubris?

Dividends.

[Smitty-48]

Smitty, based on your last statement, can you provide a justification for NATO in the post Cold War world, other than imperial hubris?

For the United States? The primary strategic interest is maintaining control of the no man's land between Russia's nuclear arsenal and America's, just because you pullled out of and/or disolved NATO, that wouldn't spare the United States from being Russia's primary target in the event of a theatre war, the United States would get dragged in no matter what, so there's nothing gained for America by surrendering control of the situation to the Europeans, you couldn't escape the vortex in the event of, the real purpose of NATO is to prevent the vortex from ever coming about in the first place.

The United States is the main target in NATO, it's not NATO putting the United States in the gunsights, the Russians don't actually have a beef with Poland, Poland is not the existential threat to Russia, the Russians are not targeting the United States because the United States is in Europe, the Russians are targeting Europe for being the proxy of the United States.

The United States is the Hegemon, the other nuclear powers are not targeting Poland, or Norway, they are targeting the United States, the only reason Norway gets hit, is to prevent it from being a base of operations for the Americans.

[heydaralon]

Smitty, based on your last statement, can you provide a justification for NATO in the post Cold War world, other than imperial hubris?

For the United States? The primary strategic interest is maintaining control of the no man's land between Russia's nuclear arsenal and America's, just because you pullled out of and/or disolved NATO, that wouldn't spare the United States from being Russia's primary target in the event of a theatre war, the United States would get dragged in no matter what, so there's nothing gained for America by surrendering control of the situation to the Europeans, you couldn't escape the vortex in the event of, the real purpose of NATO is to prevent the vortex from ever coming about in the first place.

The United States is the main target in NATO, it's not NATO putting the United States in the gunsights, the Russians don't actually have a beef with Poland, Poland is not the exitential threat to Russia, the Russians are not targeting the United States because the United States is in Europe, the Russians are targeting Europe for being the proxy of the United States.

Historically, I believe you are wrong, because much of Poland has been a part of Russia for centuries until Versailles, and Hitler and Stalin ruthlessly divided Poland between themselves in 1939, not to mention the fact that Poland was a part of the USSR for half the 20th century. Poland had a brief flicker after World War 1, and again after the late 80's. It remains to be seen if that light will stay on.

[Smitty-48]

Historically, I believe you are wrong, because much of Poland has been a part of Russia for centuries until Versailles, and Hitler and Stalin ruthlessly divided Poland between themselves in 1939, not to mention the fact that Poland was a part of the USSR for half the 20th century. Poland had a brief flicker after World War 1, and again after the late 80's. It remains to be seen if that light will stay on.

You're looking at the wrong history, hydrogen bombs rendered World War Two obsolete a long time ago, if there is a war between the Russians and NATO, Europe is the sideshow, the main event is the CONUS, the real frontline, is not to your east, it's to the north, straight over the pole.

There's no point in the Russians fighting a conventional war in Europe to defend themselves from the United States, if push comes to shove, they're going straight to the nuclear option, via the arctic, never bothering to stop in Poland at all.

They have two options, nuclear surprise attack or nuclear blackmail, they can't win a conventional war in Europe, they wouldn't even try, it's not going to be NATO dragging the Americans to the brink, it's going to be the other way round, 1962 all over again.

[heydaralon]

Also, you make it seem like Russia has no interest in Europe except for the fact that it is allied with the United States. Stalin would have grabbed even more if the US hadn't stepped in. I'm not comparing Putin to Stalin, or suggesting he is a conqueror, but don't you think its a bit naive to think that Russia would have no interest in Europe if the US wasn't there?

Additionally, both sides have ICBMS. During the early Cold War, when nuclear missiles did not have quite the range they do now, it makes more sense to think in terms of no man's land and territory. But with today's technology, it is quite absurd. In the event of a nuclear exchange, it doesn't really matter what territory you hold. In a conventional war between two nuclear armed powers, it also doesn't matter, because once one side starts losing they will use their nukes, if not before the conventional war even starts. Territory doesn't mean shit when it comes to nukes. Quite frankly, that thinking was a bit silly back then, because we still had strategic air command and submarines.

[heydaralon]

Smitty, based on your last statement, can you provide a justification for NATO in the post Cold War world, other than imperial hubris?

For the United States? The primary strategic interest is maintaining control of the no man's land between Russia's nuclear arsenal and America's, just because you pullled out of and/or disolved NATO, that wouldn't spare the United States from being Russia's primary target in the event of a theatre war, the United States would get dragged in no matter what, so there's nothing gained for America by surrendering control of the situation to the Europeans, you couldn't escape the vortex in the event of, the real purpose of NATO is to prevent the vortex from ever coming about in the first place.

The United States is the main target in NATO, it's not NATO putting the United States in the gunsights, the Russians don't actually have a beef with Poland, Poland is not the existential threat to Russia, the Russians are not targeting the United States because the United States is in Europe, the Russians are targeting Europe for being the proxy of the United States.

The United States is the Hegemon, the other nuclear powers are not targeting Poland, or Norway, they are targeting the United States, the only reason Norway gets hit, is to prevent it from being a base of operations for the Americans.

If that is the case, then there's even less of a reason for NATO than I initially argued for. It truly is as useless as tits on a boar.

[Smitty-48]

Also, you make it seem like Russia has no interest in Europe except for the fact that it is allied with the United States. Stalin would have grabbed even more if the US hadn't stepped in. I'm not comparing Putin to Stalin, or suggesting he is a conqueror, but don't you think its a bit naive to think that Russia would have no interest in Europe if the US wasn't there?

Grab Europe, with what? The European armies outnumber the Russian Army by a significant margin, you need minimum three to one to go over to the offensive, but it is the Russians who are outnumbered three to one, the only force with the mass to go on the offensive, is NATO, not the Russians.

Also, both sides have ICBMS. During the early Cold War, when nuclear missiles did not have quite the range they do now, it makes more sense to think in terms of no man's land and territory. But with today's technology, it is quite absurd. In the event of a nuclear exchange, it doesn't really matter what territory you hold. In a conventional war between two nuclear armed powers, it also doesn't matter, because once one side starts losing they will use their nukes, if not before the conventional war even starts. Territory doesn't mean shit when it comes to nukes. Quite frankly, that thinking was a bit silly back then, because we still had strategic air command and submarines.

Yes, well, the United States is apparently a silly place, but due to their silliness, they want to be leaning forward against the Russians nuclear forces, first strike enabled with BMD, and they want control of the European theater, in order to maintain that capability, in order to menace the Russians from there, the prefered American defensive posture, is to be in an overwhelming offensive posture with the gun right up in the adversaries mouth, cocked, locked, and ready to rock, who knew?

It's not NATO threatening the Russians, they're not scared of Canada, or Poland, or Norway, NATO is just an American base of operations, for the purposes of America putting the fear of God into the Russians, on America's behalf, the rest of NATO is expendable to the Americans, we all just live in no mans land between Russia and the USA, and have been, since the beginning. It has nothing to do with us, and never did.

[heydaralon]

Also, you make it seem like Russia has no interest in Europe except for the fact that it is allied with the United States. Stalin would have grabbed even more if the US hadn't stepped in. I'm not comparing Putin to Stalin, or suggesting he is a conqueror, but don't you think its a bit naive to think that Russia would have no interest in Europe if the US wasn't there?

Grab Europe, with what? The European armies outnumber the Russian Army by a significant margin, you need minimum three to one to go over to the offensive, but it is the Russians who are outnumbered three to one, the only force with the mass to go on the offensive, is NATO, not the Russians.

Also, both sides have ICBMS. During the early Cold War, when nuclear missiles did not have quite the range they do now, it makes more sense to think in terms of no man's land and territory. But with today's technology, it is quite absurd. In the event of a nuclear exchange, it doesn't really matter what territory you hold. In a conventional war between two nuclear armed powers, it also doesn't matter, because once one side starts losing they will use their nukes, if not before the conventional war even starts. Territory doesn't mean shit when it comes to nukes. Quite frankly, that thinking was a bit silly back then, because we still had strategic air command and submarines.

Yes, well, the United States is apparently a silly place, but due to their silliness, they want to be leaning forward against the Russians nuclear forces, first strike enabled with BMD, and they want control of the European theater, in order to maintain that capability, in order to menace the Russians from there, the prefered American defensive posture, is to be in an overwhelming offensive posture with the gun right up in the adversaries mouth, cocked, locked, and ready to rock, who knew?

You know a lot about nuclear capabilities. Explain why from a budgetary perspective it makes sense to have massive European military bases and so forth for a stationary place to launch a nuke, when we have submarines which are harder to track and hit that could just as easily launch a nuke?