Dying For Montenegro

[_Quasimodo]

Yes



1) I'm genuinely curious. If the US hadn't been attacked by Japan in WWII, should the US have stayed out of the war? You seem to suggesting as much. The world map would certainly be different today if we'd stayed home. We'd be dealing with a Nazi Europe and an Imperial Japanese Asia.

2) If, in this dog-eat-dog world you envision, Russia gets to gobble Crimea, Iran gets to munch on Israel, and North Korea is justified in swallowing their southern brother, shouldn't we in the US be taking over some of our weaker neighbors, too?

I'm trying to figure out your thinking. Thank you in advance.

It would have been much, much worse than that. Germany would have developed nuclear weapons first and no doubt would have defeated the Soviet Union. The US would have never developed nuclear weapons.

Having nuclear weapons after taking control of all of Europe, no doubt that Germany would have turned it's eyes to North and South America and probably, eventually Japan and the rest of Asia.

Jews would be extinct and the rest of us would be semi-slaves.

We would have been singing "Deutschland Uber Alles" every morning at school. The Thousand Year Reich would have been a reality.

Still, we would have saved a few dollars in giving aid.

[_Themis]

Repeating myself, I have not said that Germany, France, et al, have useless militaries. What I've said is that they are of no use to us. We don't need them, they need us.

It's more complicated then that and yes they do provide things useful for the US.

If the USA pulled out of NATO, there would be no NATO. What does that say?

It says you like to make assumptions you have no idea about.

What can they do for us that we can't and aren't already doing for ourselves?

They can provide resources, territory, share some of the cost, etc. They help protect US interests around the world.

NATO only makes sense in the context of a hostile USSR/Russia that is bent on world domination.

Which we see from Russia today, and even China.

Cold-War-Era thinking where we're seriously conceiving an invasion of the continental USA. In such a situation you'd have a multi-front conflict with both American and European theaters. Is this a legitimate concern? No.

It was never a real concern. Some of the real concerns was the USSR taking more of the world until the US was an island with no allies.

Say the USA were to get attacked. China and Russia attack the western seaboard. I know, absurd, but go with me. What would our NATO allies do? They don't have the ability to even transport their personnel and equipment over here. Before having a discussion about how helpful they might be in a fight, they can't even get to the damn thing. Simply talking about raw assets, NATO military forces are really only of value in Europe.... with the exception of some Naval/Air support from the UK (who I included as being helpful).

That is a real underestimate. NATO resources are put where they are likely to be needed. Yes many NATO countries can move their militaries to the US if needed, and even the US takes time to move it's own resources and needs allies to make efficient moving and moving to strategic stops possible.

And they don't have the industrial capability to spin up assets in the course of a protracted conflict. Getting real, aside from the USA, everybody has similar problems.

BS. Almost all of them have industrial capacity that can be increased and changed to produce military equipment. Many of them already produce military equipment.

Moreover, at this point on the timeline of technological advancement, nobody can invade the continental United States without pre-emptive nuclear strikes. Does anyone disagree with that?

That was true when NATO was formed.

There is no defensive argument for NATO, only an economic one.

Not true. It's all about containing threats so they don't grow until they become a serious threat to the US. It's also about keeping nukes out of the hands of as many nations as possible. North Korea is now a real threat to the US and there are scenarios where they could be used. The more democracy we have around the world the safer the US is. How many real democracies have threatened the US or other democracies? Promoting these kind of things make everyone, including the US safer. It is also about doing the right thing. I suppose you might be the guy who doesn't risk your life to try and save another, or give money and time to help the unfortunate have better lives.

[_Themis]

All these Russia conspiracies.

You mean the ones the intelligence community is telling us about right?

[_Water Dog]

1) I'm genuinely curious. If the US hadn't been attacked by Japan in WWII, should the US have stayed out of the war? You seem to suggesting as much. The world map would certainly be different today if we'd stayed home. We'd be dealing with a Nazi Europe and an Imperial Japanese Asia.

It has also been said that Japan would have stayed out of the conflict had we not backed them into a corner. A lot of conjecture that's above my pay grade. There are "experts" that predict all sorts of "what if" outcomes had we stayed out of the war. Who the hell knows. What I'll say is that I'm not impressed that empowering Stalin and Mao and the worldwide scourge of communism over Hitler while leaving 50 to 80 million dead was much of a win. That being said I'm as patriotic as anybody and honor our contribution to the cause of freedom in that conflict. I think if it weren't for the holocaust, which was something we didn't really learn about until after the war, the aftertaste of our involvement would be a whole lot different. It's very easy to look back on the ordeal and see it as an obviously righteous cause because of how immensely heinous the Nazis turned out to be.

2) If, in this dog-eat-dog world you envision, Russia gets to gobble Crimea, Iran gets to munch on Israel, and North Korea is justified in swallowing their southern brother, shouldn't we in the US be taking over some of our weaker neighbors, too?

It's not a world I envision, it's simply how the world is. Darwin and all that.

A) Russia already has gobbled up Crimea. Who's gonna go take it back? Neither Democrats or Republicans care enough to put their words into real military action.

B) I don't agree that Iran would munch on Israel. I believe Israel would clean their clocks and order would be established in the middle east a lot more quickly if we got out of the way. The problems over there require solutions we don't have the stomach for. Either way, I have no vested interest in this "holy" war. It's a stupid conflict.

C) Same with South Korea. They are one of the most educated and advanced societies on the planet, sucking off our tit since 1950. They have twice the population and over 50 times the GDP as NK. If they can't defeat the north at this point, SMH. Why should a single American die for their sake? One of my grandfathers almost died in that war. What, now it's my turn or one of my son's turns in the future? Because we like Samsung phones? FTS.

Should have kicked them out of the house a long time ago, before NK went nuclear. I don't know much about the internal politics of that conflict. What is the dynamic, are we holding the south back, or enabling them? Who is responsible for the north going nuclear, is that South Korean incompetence or American incompetence? I don't want to be too hard on them if we're at fault for creating that outcome. My opinion, though, is that if we had any balls, back in 2006 when they did their first nuclear test, it should have been game on immediately. We should have gone to the South Koreans and said, "Ok, this is unacceptable. You boys need to march into the north and fix this. You fix it, or we're gonna fix it for you, and you won't like how we fix it." Either we care about a nuclear north, or we don't. I generally agree that Kimmy isn't likely to disarm through negotiations. I'm impressed Trump got him to the table, but it's pointless if he doesn't give up the nukes. And if he doesn't give up the nukes, then what? We just play this game forever acting like we can't stand for NK to possess nukes while they just go on making even more of them? That sounds more like marketing hype than sincerity to me. A lot of money to be made in saber rattling about NK.

[_Water Dog]

All these Russia conspiracies.

You mean the ones the intelligence community is telling us about right?

Yep, those ones. The same boys that got us into Iraq. You know, the boys that get off on this crap and love to play spy games.

[_Chap]

I sort of like Water Dog's sincerity. And when he says

A lot of conjecture that's above my pay grade.

I'll go along with that.

[_Themis]

Yep, those ones. The same boys that got us into Iraq. You know, the boys that get off on this crap and love to play spy games.

You really shouldn't believe everything the Moron Trump tells you. There are a lot of sources that are telling you Russia was involved. You won't even realize until well after you have lost your freedom.

[Guest]

Thanks. And link is bad, FYI.

Yeah, I noticed that and mentioned it to Morley in an earlier post. It isn't on Netflix anymore, either. I did find it for rent on Amazon Prime for $3 or something like that. I would say it's worth $3 and an hour-and-a-half of someone's time. But my tastes can be eclectic, too.

If the USA pulled out of NATO, there would be no NATO. What does that say?

I don't know. I do know the decades when there was a NATO withstood the threat of nuclear war and major powers failed to go head to head in modern combat for a period of time almost unprecedented in human history. So there's that.

Say the USA were to get attacked. China and Russia attack the western seaboard. I know, absurd, but go with me. What would our NATO allies do? They don't have the ability to even transport their personnel and equipment over here. Before having a discussion about how helpful they might be in a fight, they can't even get to the damn thing.

Poor, poor forgotten Canada.

Simply talking about raw assets, NATO military forces are really only of value in Europe.... with the exception of some Naval/Air support from the UK (who I included as being helpful). And they don't have the industrial capability to spin up assets in the course of a protracted conflict. Getting real, aside from the USA, everybody has similar problems. North Korea may have a million man army, but they can't move it anywhere, so who cares. South Korea may care, but why do we? So, at best, what good would our NATO allies be? They'd counter-attack Russia and form the basis for the European theater? Maybe? That is hard to fathom.

Strategically, NATO's greatest value is as a deterrent to Russian aggression, and it is highly successful as such. There's a reason that Putin is seeking to weaken it. One doesn't work to remove a paper tiger where a real tiger could come and take it's place. I think you're missing more than you realize.

Now, don't take that to mean I don't think we ought to reassess our military priorities and missions. And perhaps NATO needs to be restructured to fit the modern threat profile. But whatever that looks like, NATO countries have also provided for convenient places for us to operate bases and I don't think any global strategy that takes us out of those countries is foreseeable in the reasonable future. We're going to want to project power in that half of the world out of stable, reliable bases and that isn't happening out of Africa or the Middle East.

Moreover, at this point on the timeline of technological advancement, nobody can invade the continental United States without pre-emptive nuclear strikes. Does anyone disagree with that? Even if a naval force were assembled to transport a sufficiently large ground force (ROFL), we'd simply shoot it out of the water. Detonate a nuke right over the fleet in the middle of the pacific. The missile traveling at the speed of sound, how would they stop it? Game out any strategy you like, in a situation where the USA is under attack, it's infeasible to think of NATO members coming to our rescue in a meaningful way. They would be like pesky flies, easily swatted in the course of an attempt to attack the USA... were there an enemy strong enough to mount such an attack.

Ajax, did you read this?

There is no defensive argument for NATO, only an economic one. And when you consider things like OPEC, or Germany building pipelines to Russia, the economic argument becomes untenable. All these Russia conspiracies. It's nothing but a fight over money. Competing pipelines for both oil and natural gas. Russia wants to build a pipeline, Iran wants to build a pipeline, Qatar wants to build a pipeline. Debates over NATO and Syria, that's all it's about. Not defense. Money. Competition over a large customer base that resides in Europe.

[/quote]
That's not true, man. We are positioned over there for more purposes than just Russia. How many of our wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan made it home because they could be quickly moved to Landstuhl in Germany? NATO extends American power and influence in ways that we apparently have integrated into our active mission. I don't think you're seeing the forest for the trees. In this case, the odd need to be on the opposite side of any issue that is perceived as liberal or anti-Trump.

And as I recall, that is where many of these threads started.

[_Morley]

It's not a world I envision, it's simply how the world is. Darwin and all that.

By that reasoning, shouldn't the US be taking over some of our weaker neighbors, too?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

It's not a world I envision, it's simply how the world is. Darwin and all that.

By that reasoning, shouldn't the US be taking over some of our weaker neighbors, too?

You're clearly unfamiliar with our domestic and foreign policies on a historical level. We're probably one of the worst offenders since before our Republic was even founded. It is what it is.

- Doc