Is there any point in keeping NATO around?

[FriendlyFire]

In the time I was there I learned that the only Germans who understood their mess were the ones on the border. The ones away from the border but no less under threat were oblivious, but no less than their government which seemed eager to lose.

Had a quick read of the wiki Germany had mandatory conscription, I'd imagine every single male in Germany would be a reservist then.

I'd wonder if Germany really re-militarize that other countries would probably become alarmed.

Even the Federal Border Protection Force, a mobile,lightly armed police force of 10,000 men, was only formed in 1951. A proposal to integrate West German troops with soldiers of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Italy in a European Defence Community was proposed but never implemented.

In 1956, conscription for all men between the ages of 18 and 45 was reintroduced

During the Cold War the Bundeswehr was the backbone of NATO's conventional defence in Central Europe. It had a strength of 495,000 military and 170,000 civilian personnel. Although Germany had smaller armed forces than France and the United States, Cold War Historian John Lewis Gaddis assesses the Bundeswehr as "perhaps world's best army"

The Army consisted of three corps with 12 divisions, most of them heavily armed with tanks and APCs. The Luftwaffe owned significant numbers of tactical combat aircraft

German military was the suspension of the compulsory conscription for men in 2011

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr#Cold_War_1955.E2.80.931990

 

[Formaldehyde]

Its fun to see people rewrite the history I lived.

It's "fun" to see people who think they "lived" the real "history" use so many anecdotal evidence logical fallacies while making the logical fallacy that this must make them authorities on the subject.

Personally I think you would have done well as Stasi or KGB, but not as regular population under the communist boot. You would be crying even louder than you do as a citizen of a democracy with your freedoms to throw away.

So those who merely mention the facts while disagreeing with such apparently nonsensical statements should be "Stasi" or "KGB"? How "anti-American" of me to not believe these allegations without any actual corroborating facts.

The so-called "Cold War" was likely over long before you even served in a cushy assignment in West Germany, apparently with some paranoid West German soldiers who didn't even represent the population who wanted the US military to leave long before, because they didn't actually feel threatened at all. And it certainly no longer exists 25 years after the downfall of the Soviet Union.

 

[red_elk]

Only the US and Europe obviously weren't "terrified" at all of a Soviet first strike. If they had been, they would have been practicing civil defense drills like the Soviet Union did right up to the time of their downfall.

As one of those who "lived under the communist boot"
There were different civil defense courses, though people mostly didn't think they would help much in case if things get hot. We knew that we were under threat, but most people believed NATO wouldn't dare to attack us while we are strong enough to defend ourselves.

Ordinary people relied on the state to provide us with basics, like making sure we always have things like food, place to live, job, security from invaders, healthcare, etc. Everyone knew that you will always have these basic things no matter what, even if you are lazy bum. And if you work hard or do important job and do it well, you can have much more.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Those in Moscow continued to have regular civil defense drills until the Soviet Union collapsed. I can't say for other areas that wouldn't be subject to direct nuclear attack.

OTOH civil defense preparations were basically non-existent in the US and Europe starting with the early 60s after the Cuban Missile crisis. They found the expense was too much to continue with the pretense of preparing for something they knew would likely never happen.

 

[CavLancer]

Had a quick read of the wiki Germany had mandatory conscription, I'd imagine every single male in Germany would be a reservist then.

I'd wonder if Germany really re-militarize that other countries would probably become alarmed.

Twelve then, I didn't realize it was so many. Remember that Germany was split and occupied and had the border running through it, 2 very different governments... Doubt they could rise up again. Their airforce was pitiful, flying old F-5s which crashed on a regular basis.

Iirc the 30+ divisions the Sovs maintained in Eastern Europe were part of a force of a hundred and some, many of which were filled out by reservists.

 

[Agent327]

I agree with most of your post, but this part ignores a few things. Like for example Germany being the losers of WW2 and being treated as such to a large extend. Not only was Germany in pretty bad shape after that war, leading to quite a large war-weariness, but there was also the attempt of denazification and demilitarisation, with every German getting beaten over the head with the fact that Germany did horrible things and was to blame for the death of many innocent people. There simply was no way to try and get the militaristic attitude that existed prior to the war

I think you are one war late here. Contrary to WW I, Hitler's war wasn't greeted with enthusiasm at all. In fact, on day 1 of the invasion of Poland, an observer noted a complete silence in the streets of Berlin. This attitude only changed after the unexpected victories, but that lasted no longer than Stalingrad.

But I think we're moving a bit off topic.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Bad news for the Baltics.

Nato has started war gaming a response in case Russia attacks there, and they lose the simulated battle every time.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/18...war-plans-for-a-baltic-battle-against-russia/

For the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. Department of Defense is reviewing and updating its contingency plans for armed conflict with Russia...

...The results were dispiriting. Given the recent reductions in the defense budgets of NATO member countries and American pullback from the region, Ochmanek says the blue team was outnumbered 2-to-1 in terms of manpower, even if all the U.S. and NATO troops stationed in Europe were dispatched to the Baltics — including the 82nd Airborne, which is supposed to be ready to go on 24 hours’ notice and is based at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

“We just don’t have those forces in Europe,” Ochmanek explains. Then there’s the fact that the Russians have the world’s best surface-to-air missiles and are not afraid to use heavy artillery.

So where's our heavy artillery?
Oh ya, freaking Rumsfeld cancelled the Crusader artillery system in 2002.
Said the air force would become the new artillery.
Maybe that works, unless the other said has fantastic SAM's of course.

From 13 years ago:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2002/05/outgunned.html

And the administration's reasoning wasn't lost on my beer-drinking buddies. Rumsfeld's official justification for the move was that the 40-ton Crusader wouldn't be able to keep up with the tanks and fighting vehicles it was designed to protect. While it might have been a terrific weapon for the set-piece battles it was designed for—against massed Soviet forces in the flats of Central Europe—the Crusader figured to be of dubious use in short-lead-time maneuver warfare in faraway mountainous places like Afghanistan. And so the Army will have to make do with its Gulf-War-era howitzers, with their much slower rate of fire, eventually to be augmented by a precision-guided round, as well as various planned mobile surface-to-surface rocket systems.

But to Army folks, the demise of the Crusader also signals something else: The Pentagon is downplaying the value of artillery. To soldiers this seems unfathomable. Artillery fire is accurate, long-range, and continuous—three things indispensable on the battlefield that really aren't found together in any other land weapon. Even if the Crusader is the wrong weapon at the wrong time, it's natural for soldiers to worry about the Pentagon leadership that's leaving them without a next-generation artillery weapon. In the words of one former Army officer, Rumsfeld and his DOD cadre "don't understand what artillery does."

Perhaps we will see more little green men in the future.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26532154

 

[red_elk]

[Yawn]
"Give us more money, otherwise the Russians will come and get us all"

 

[CavLancer]

Furthermore any split of the forces of NATO by say, Germany rising up and trying to conquer Europe or France getting a new Napoleon wouldn't have to be overcome in the last resort by NATO itself but would get squashed like a bug by the Soviets. Likely this sort of thing was what that daily Soviet military briefing was about. Any split in NATO solidarity would create a weakness so profound that the Soviets could easily get to the Rhine. For instance lets say the dozen divisions of the Germans, augmented by another dozen reserve divisions with very little heavy equipment, were to start trying to clear West Germany of their NATO allies in a bid to throw off the evil yoke of US and allied victor oppression. In the middle of all this who is defending the border against those 30 Russian divisions? That doesn't include any forces of Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, or Bulgaria...the Warsaw Pact countries. Nor does it include the other 70+ Soviet divisions stationed in Russia. The West would have been smashed had we abandoned the collective defense that is NATO and gone off to do their own thing at any point.

These days, since the allies of the Soviet Union (Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, or Bulgaria) got rid of the boot of Russian communist oppression the very first chance they got when the split happened on the Soviet side and Russia itself tossed the damned inconvenient communists, the NATO countries had a lot of room to cut their militarizes down to a bare minimum instead of going off and trying to conquer each other. The Russians have long since gotten rid of the Supreme Soviet or any other trappings of that communism that in the end they found too repugnant to not revolt against. However I consider that there may well be a briefing by the Russian military to Putin in which they might go to him and say, "Mr President, this might be a great day to conquer the Ukraine" and Putin says. "Okay, go for it." Russians will be Russians you know, with or without communists. So, the strength of NATO is cut to the bone. The Poles bought the tanks of Germany since they didn't need them anymore and may well be the single greatest bulwark of the West to invasion by Russia...not counting the Ukraine itself which is slowly being ground down and cut up and occupied by Russia.

This may be why NATO is worried Kaitzilla. Since NATO overspent the peace dividend and Russia started selling oil and natural gas now that they aren't communist anymore, the dynamic is changing. New and powerful Russian weapons are being produced while the Poles are driving the old NATO tanks and Russia in the Ukraine has shown that they still are the same old expansionist threat that they always will be. NATO is right to be concerned. NATO should be deploying to the Ukraine to lend a little help, but I guess Germans would rather do nothing now and fight in Germany someday.

 

[Yeekim]

Dead weight eh? You are clueless.

Poe's law strikes again.
That should teach me to try irony in RD threads.

But yeah, the US contributions to NATO dwarfing everybody else is obvious. Which is what makes clamoring for some sort of exclusive European alliance... yes, clueless is the kind sort of description.

 

[Commodore]

Bad news for the Baltics.

Nato has started war gaming a response in case Russia attacks there, and they lose the simulated battle every time.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/18...war-plans-for-a-baltic-battle-against-russia/



So where's our heavy artillery?
Oh ya, freaking Rumsfeld cancelled the Crusader artillery system in 2002.
Said the air force would become the new artillery.
Maybe that works, unless the other said has fantastic SAM's of course.

So they win the battle, but they would ultimately lose the war. The simulation you reference only involves the forces we currently have stationed in Europe. It doesn't factor in the mobilization that would take place in every NATO nation.

I also hate that all these simulations assume there will be some "Great Russian Horde". Russia has a smaller population than the US and has a smaller standing military than the US. And while Russia has done quite a bit of military modernization lately, they still do not have nearly the amount of force multipliers, or power projection capabilities of the US.

Why am I only talking about the US? Because I am illustrating that the US is just one NATO nation, and they could defeat Russia in a protracted conventional conflict alone. Throw in the other NATO nations, plus the US's Pacific allies who could probably be coaxed into hitting Russia as well, and things start to look pretty grim for Russia in any war they start with NATO. They simply have too much land to defend and not enough people to defend it and their potential enemies have the ability to strike anywhere in the Russian homeland while Russia really doesn't have the ability to do the same without resorting to using their nuclear arsenal.

And what allies can Russia call upon? Assad? Iran? North Korea? Those are not the allies you want on your side when you are fighting the most powerful and sophisticated militaries on the planet.

Speaking of sophistication, that reminds me of another disparity between Russia and NATO: training. Sure, Spetznaz are some of the best trained soldiers on the planet, but the average Russian infantryman is poorly trained and equipped compared to his NATO counterpart. The Russian military also seems to suffer greatly from a leadership problem. Their operations in Georgia, Ukraine, and Chechnya were poorly executed and extremely sloppy operations. When operations are poorly executed, that can usually be attributed to poor leadership from officers and NCOs on the ground.

So, in this hypothetical conflict, Russia may initially take the Baltics, but the region would then be liberated in relatively short order.

 

[Kyriakos]

Baltic micronations shouldn't worry, we still do have a decent army and i am sure we will come to help them.

 

[r16]

oh , as if the American might is so invulnerable .

Turkey's NATO membership has survived past military coups. It's in an oddball position. We need them enough to not kick them out, even though we don't like the coups. But the reason for the coups is that sectarian leaders keep winning elections, and we like them even less.

you actually love the coups . The latest one in 1980 was orchestrated by Carter himself so that Saddam would be sure there would be no intervention in his glorious conquest of Iran . Stupid as it may seem , it's indeed the case , now that Iraq was the reason say this Centcom thing was established and Saddam felt easier when America's boys took over ...

 

[Agent327]

you actually love the coups . The latest one in 1980 was orchestrated by Carter himself

Never heard this fairy tale before. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Yeekim]

Baltic micronations shouldn't worry, we still do have a decent army and i am sure we will come to help them.

I am sure we can count on you to hold a referendum where you'll vote to win.

 

[r16]

Never heard this fairy tale before. Thanks for sharing.

it's only because the Turkish History is not a particularly studied thing in the West . "America's boys" directly come from Americans themselves with an aide reaching Carter in the Opera and saying that their boys did it . Carter blew Iran up when the generals were all ready to quell the uprising in the streets with massive bloodshed . Carter opened the way for the invasion of Afghanistan , see the massacre of the families of Russian advisors in Herat . Carter never saw Afghanistan as Russia's Vietnam . Carter was planning to have that in Iran . Carter ignored many of his advisors on the forthcoming improvements in guided missile tech , Carter saw the world in terms of October 1973 , where supposed Western superiorities were dealt with effectively . Carter saw the coming decades in terms of an apocolips or whatever the hell that word is . Carter's Nobel will be revoked . If you like one , ı can have a dozen .

 

[Agent327]

Interesting. 1980 was a presidential election year (Carter lost). In Turkey, however, the military were not interfering with violent protests, so as to have a pretext for their coup.
How do these completely separate phenomena link up to 'Carter orchestrated the coup' exactly? Because none of which you just stated mentioned any explanation besides 'our boys did it'. Seeing as 'our boys' were right wing Turkish military, something doesn't quite add up. Which is probably why no historian will ever mention it in a history of Turkey during the 20th century.

 

[r16]

there was no Read my lips, no new taxes thing in 1980 , Carter was a goner even before there might have been anything done . What you call violent protests is a daily death toll of up to 20 people , Left and Right , in the beginning of a civil war to come . Indeed not much action were taken against them even if there was all the legal framework in place , Martial Law and all .

and this is where America's boys come in ...

we have seen this country grapped in a Counter-revolution for the sake of oilfields of Kerkük ; we have seen seperatists have been granted absolute freedom in planting explosives ; we have seen an entire network of Jihadi operatives re-established and improved upon . It's hard to see or grasp any notion of this when you are not living in a country where "Foreign" interests hold sway .

as such we have seen the "immobilization of the country" before the Arab Spring thing ; it's only so simple to assume the same in 1980 . Either shut up and accept Western plans and hence eventual destruction of your country in years to come or watch idiotic youths conduct daily vendettas in the streets . Long repeating am a no-good loser in a forum where the veterans abound . Almost to a man , they are veterans of 1974 , where it was this close to losing the battle in Cyprus , due to "mismanagement" ... ı don't think they will ever bother with providing a scheme of organization and stuff for the US activities in Turkey so that ı can make a point on a forum ...

 

[Kyriakos]

So, r16, does "r16" mean Red A(1)pple F(6)ield?

Or is the turkish word for 'tree' beginning with the 6th letter of the alphabet or something

 

[r16]

ı said ı would be the last Turk in Turkey in some strategy forum , that's why they had me banned . For polluting the place when there was this rosy future ahead . Though you might love the thing that my "unfailing" series of "being right" is now a campaign thing or something with locals readily telling each other that "But he is a pervert." or "mocks Muslims with reference to beards." This last from a guy who doesn't have a beard and obviously no clue to the "origin" . Where the beardy son of a mine owner had the energy minister to breakfast in the mine . The secure , all secure mine a year before it exploded and 300 or so were killed . The New Turkey of course declares it was a sabotage , and not the beardy cutting on safety . But then ... the whole world kinda expects the energy minister to deploy to the Southeast and be a martyr as he said he would love to ...

am unfailingly right only because it was impossible to miss , even for an idiot like me , that the West would never give anything to Ankara in any deal .