Outlaw,Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09
Firstly, I am not trying to sell you anything. What I am asserting however, is that the situation is perhaps not as dire as various analysts and commentators make it out to be. Here are some points to consider:
- The Russian Army is effectively on its own and is not composed as a global expeditionary force. It is intended to operate without significant support from the other services and close to its supply lines. This is why the Russian Army will always place a premium on generating organic fires, air defense and EM warfare
- The U.S. Army is intended for expeditionary purposes, making it lighter for ease of mobility
- The U.S. Army also operates as part of a Joint Force and is reliant upon air superiority or supremacy by U.S. aviation (USAF and USMC)
- The U.S. Army as a bureaucratic institution has been a major beneficiary of defense largesse during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it is acting to find new missions to ensure funding
For instance, the endless refrain about NATO assets in the European theater being unable to prevent or repel a Russian invasion in the Baltics without reinforcements and mobilization, is disingenuous. Even with 60% of U.S. forces committed to the Asia-Pacific theater, the USAF and USN assets can saturate Russian air defenses and other targets with cruise missiles from stand-off ranges before Riga falls i.e. well within the 60-hour window.
The reports by RAND and Carnegie are thinly-veiled attempts to expand USAE and make it the primary instrument of conventional deterrence against Russia. Given that the Army’s primacy caused the F-22 production to be capped at under 200 aircraft, the gall is quite astounding.
Secondly, as regards the role of U.S. aviation in EM warfare, this is part of the Third Offset. Have you considered EMW missiles eliminating threats ahead of the ground forces or EMW UAVs loitering overhead? The F-35 is not a like-for-like replacement but a new concept altogether. It may well prove to be a failure in practice, but conceptually, it is the future.
Thirdly, I agree that the Army needs to be bolstered in key areas, but it also needs to be cut down to size.
No, Outlaw. You’re missing the real story here, which is that Germany is willing to pay some or most of the costs of maintaining the French nuclear deterrent in exchange for being covered by it, because this is less expensive than conventional deterrence i.e. spending 2% or more of GDP on defense.Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09
Every country is aware that nuclear deterrence is cheaper than conventional deterrence. Yet the idea of Germany controlling nuclear weapons will have the same reactions in many European countries as the idea of Japanese nuclear weapons would have on Southeast Asia.
Huh? Talk about the tail wagging the dog. This is utterly ludicrous. Europe will not accept Germany as its leader for obvious reasons and Germany is not about to break the Trans-Atlantic Alliance. However, the German government knows the anti-Americanism and “Progressive” values sell well in Germany, and are a convenient distraction to Germany backstopping the Euro, dealing with migrants, hollowing out the Bundeswehr, etc.Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09
Yeah, I’ve known about this since it was announced. A big yawn here.Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09
Bookmarks