Brazil, BRICS, Oil, Military, World Trade Organization, and Trump

2 hours ago, C.B. Saunders said:

Problem is not just the amount Europe spends on defense, its how its spent. European nations look at every major spending program as a protectionist jobs program. I'll admit, the U.S. isn't a paragon of procurement virtue either.

To become a partner capable of standing with (rather than cowering behind) the US, Europe needs to build a military with true combat power. That means 90+% of combat units rapidly deployable and ready to fight. It means tough training standards that haven't been watered down by PC virtue signalling.

If Japan were attacked today, does anyone believe Europe could gather 200-300k combat forces to deploy to the Pacific in 6-8 weeks to defend our friend and ally Japan?

Doing the above would likely require doubling the active duty headcount of NATO's European members and a similar increase in Navy/AF assets. Would require instituting a draft and maybe make receiving social benefits contingent on serving in and being honorably discharged from the military. Don't think Europe discovers the will to fight until they've seen the consequences of their weakness.

Fair point.

Although my understanding is that the battlefield today is cyberspace more so than an actual battlefield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, C.B. Saunders said:

One solution I've expected to hear discussed is for the US to announce as policy that it will only defend US flagged shipping. Make it clear to pirates and rogue states they can have their way with any ship not under our protection. Then let the Dutch or Liberian navy deal with any problems, pay the USN for protection or start shipping on US vessels.

I don't have the numbers, but I was under the impression that the International community had borne the cost of the various naval missions off Somalia very equally. One of the reasons being that there aren't many American flagged vessels passing by. 

Edited by Rasmus Jorgensen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expect you're right about the Somali operation and take your point. But even here, USN provides an integrating leadership role with comm, intelligence, the flagship (USS San Antonio landing dock ship) and support from Joint Base Djibouti (USN/USMC).

And Somalia is a very small part of the world. The real cost of insuring freedom of the seas is far higher than the Somali deployment costs (operating 5-10 international frigates/destroyers to defend against a handful of pirate bases running <30ft launches with small arms).

Absent the assurance of the USN defending freedom of navigation, many large players would begin extracting costs from international shipping. First maybe taxes, fines and regulation imposed by rogue naval vessels on commercial ships in international waters. Then more bold moves like navies from smaller sovereigns seizing vessels (Belarus, NK, Iran) owned/controlled by developed trading nations without a blue water navy (Japan, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Taiwan, Singapore). Final stage would likely be paying mafia-type "protection" money to big nations like Russia, China and operating within their rules (e.g. no trade with Taiwan, etc.).

European and Asian exporters have a history of paying ransom as a cost of doing business. Without the backstop of expensive, global US naval power, these costs would spin out of control. Maritime insurance market would collapse.

Ultimately, international law is "make believe" law without a muscular military willing to enforce it across the globe. Any country that relies on international law owes the US a debt.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2019 at 5:54 PM, Illurion said:

Congratulations Ronwagn,  you beat Rasmus.

I say this because i have come to the conclusion that he only asks for "sources" when he had no "creditable" response to what was said about something.

Actually Illurion I just stopped asking sources from you. Because I know that you cannot back your opinion up. On this particular occassion I asked a source of Ron because it would be interesting to me if it was true - i.e. I would have learned something and then taken it in. But no source was provided, so I am left with the impression that is just an opinion. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Actually Illurion I just stopped asking sources from you. Because I know that you cannot back your opinion up. On this particular occassion I asked a source of Ron because it would be interesting to me if it was true - i.e. I would have learned something and then taken it in. But no source was provided, so I am left with the impression that is just an opinion. 

See.  we each have opinions.   Opinions are good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2019 at 1:56 PM, C.B. Saunders said:

One solution I've expected to hear discussed is for the US to announce as policy that it will only defend US flagged shipping. Make it clear to pirates and rogue states they can have their way with any ship not under our protection. Then let the Dutch or Liberian navy deal with any problems, pay the USN for protection or start shipping on US vessels.

Or we could offer our services for a fee.  America is built on capitalism; why not let our military be mercenaries for hire? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2019 at 4:47 PM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Fair point.

Although my understanding is that the battlefield today is cyberspace more so than an actual battlefield.

Like air power and naval power before it, cyberspace doesn't matter if you can't hold ground. 

Seriously, where do y'all get these ideas?  Small talk at cocktail parties?  Playing golf at the country club? 

Do you ever leave the confines of gated communities? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, mthebold said:

Like air power and naval power before it, cyberspace doesn't matter if you can't hold ground. 

Seriously, where do y'all get these ideas?  Small talk at cocktail parties?  Playing golf at the country club? 

Do you ever leave the confines of gated communities? 

Paul, 

I will elaborate - my understanding was that traditional military was needed for defense and cyberspace capabillities needed for offense. I could have been clearer about that. Sorry. 

Ps. I don't play golf. Don't live in a gated community (doubt there are actually are any Denmark; certainly aren't in the city I live in) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Paul, 

I will elaborate - my understanding was that traditional military was needed for defense and cyberspace capabillities needed for offense. I could have been clearer about that. Sorry. 

Ps. I don't play golf. Don't live in a gated community (doubt there are actually are any Denmark; certainly aren't in the city I live in)  

Ah.  Once upon a time, the US was like that as well.  Kids rode their bicycles in the streets and wandered the neighborhoods making friends.  Gated communities appeared in the US after the government forced "integration" and allowed millions of illegals to cross the border.  We've reached the point where the only guarantee of your child's safety is expensive housing (to keep the violence from moving in) protected by physical walls and armed guards (to keep the criminals at bay). 

If y'all continue the mass immigration, you'll find yourselves building gated communities soon enough. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites