US to withdraw 12,000 troops from Germany

[Stevicus]

Nobody says it aloud but the underlying dispute is about the evaluation of the geopolitical scene. For most Europeans Russia isn't the threat that the USSR was. We simply don't feel the need to waste our money on defence any more.

I think a lot of Americans feel the same way about our own military. Why do we keep doing this? People asked the same questions even during the Cold War, about the building up of nuclear weapons, about wars such as Vietnam.

And it's correct to say that Russia really isn't the threat that the USSR was. Moreover, during the Cold War, I think they mostly exaggerated the threat of the USSR anyway.

But back then, it was the Republicans who were making a big thing about the "evil empire," while it was the Democrats who favored a more peaceful approach. Now, it seems to be reversed (although a lot of Republicans still appear to be stuck in Cold War mode as well).

You mean: create any conflict to rectify the existence of the globalized military?
The cold war is over. But “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” - Upton Sinclair.
That's why the US military-industrial complex hasn't adapted to the new reality.

I don't think they even want to adapt. It's not really good for America in the long run, to be wasting resources on pointless adventurism. Yet that's just what they're doing.

Americans like their power fantasies. Only that they are getting more and more unrealistic over time.

I think most Americans just want to survive at this point. A lot of people seem to be coming to the realization that they'll have to face a new reality. A lot of things we took for granted in the past may not be there in the future. I would hope this might encourage a more practical outlook, as opposed to grandiose, abstract myths about American exceptionalism, the "shining city on the hill," and all the other nonsense Americans have been spoon-fed since birth.

 

[Stevicus]

OK. I’ll bite. What is this “MAD maths” you speak of?

I think math drives everybody mad (except for @Polymath257 perhaps).

And how does it allow a force wipe out an opponent 30 times it’s own size? (assuming no use of nuclear, biological, or poison gas weaponry - and also recognizing that the larger opposing force is equally or nearly equally well equiped and motivated).
You may use Russia into the Ukraine or the Syrian conflict as an example of this “math” in action.

That's the point I was making. There was a quote from one official who said that removing 12,000 troops from Germany would "weaken NATO's position," but I wonder how and why they would reach that conclusion. Are they doing the math? Against an army of 900,000, our position is already quite weak. So, what's the big deal about 12,000 troops? That's what I'm asking.

Regarding Russia and Ukraine, I see that as an old dispute strictly between them, and it doesn't appear to have anything to do with the rest of Europe or the U.S. It's not really a "math" problem in this instance, although just as with the Syrian conflict, there's some history and geography to consider - especially since Turkey lies between Syria and the Crimea (with the US sending some troops to the Black Sea region).

Incidentally, the Russians have been wanting Constantinople back under Orthodox control since 1453. If Putin manages to accomplish that, they'll canonize him as a saint.

Mind you, as to the OP. Yes, I think pulling our support troops out of other nations is good overall, and yes, tRump did it out of childish spite, he did it badly, and in the end our troops are not really out of Europe anyways. This was just a slap at Germany....foorrrrrr whatever the hell Donny-boy pooped his pants over in the first place.

I don't know that this will hurt or help his reelection chances, although I imagine some voters will ask why he's even bothering with this issue at this time. There are bigger problems here at home to worry about.

 

[Heyo]

OK. I’ll bite. What is this “MAD maths” you speak of?
And how does it allow a force wipe out an opponent 30 times it’s own size? (assuming no use of nuclear, biological, or poison gas weaponry - and also recognizing that the larger opposing force is equally or nearly equally well equiped and motivated).

Your assumption is wrong. It is about nuclear weapons.
MAD stands for Mutually Assured Destruction, the cold war doctrine that no side would begin a war when utter destruction was guaranteed. The madness comes in when you know that that destruction was guaranteed 20 times over and negotiations about limiting nukes were often about if one side had 21 times the power to destroy the other.

 

[Stevicus]

Your assumption is wrong. It is about nuclear weapons.
MAD stands for Mutually Assured Destruction, the cold war doctrine that no side would begin a war when utter destruction was guaranteed. The madness comes in when you know that that destruction was guaranteed 20 times over and negotiations about limiting nukes were often about if one side had 21 times the power to destroy the other.

I recall at some point around the election of 1980, there was a heavily-advertised news documentary program called "The Defense of the United States." It was when the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan and the Iranians had occupied the U.S. embassy and held its personnel hostage for 444 days. And it was just after Carter had launched a failed rescue attempt which only made him look more impotent and weak.

And this documentary made it seem like the U.S. was getting weaker and weaker. They outlined a scenario which involved a Soviet first strike against the US with an all-out missile barrage, while they showed a dramatization of US missile crews desperately trying to launch but not being able in time before the Soviet missiles get there. The fear was that there'd be so little time to respond that we might not be able to. They could destroy us but we wouldn't get the chance to destroy them - or at least not as badly.

Plus, we were badly outnumbered in Europe in terms of conventional forces, so the idea was that a nuclear deterrent was needed to counter the massive Soviet ground forces which threatened Western Europe.

Nicaragua was also a big issue, and I remember the quasi-Birchers in the American Conservative Union putting out a propaganda video about a possible scenario where Nicaragua falls to communism, then the rest of Central America, then Mexico, then the United States. The exact same scenario was used in the plot of the movie Red Dawn which came out a few years later.

 

[pearl]

Trump said he was doing it because, in his view, Germany has failed to meet NATO's defense spending target of 2% of GDP. He also accused Germany of taking advantage of the US on trade.

I agree with others who stated this is in Putin's favor.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Your assumption is wrong. It is about nuclear weapons.
MAD stands for Mutually Assured Destruction, the cold war doctrine that no side would begin a war when utter destruction was guaranteed. The madness comes in when you know that that destruction was guaranteed 20 times over and negotiations about limiting nukes were often about if one side had 21 times the power to destroy the other.

Ah. M.utually A.ssured D.estruction. There’s a term I haven’t heard in 30+ years.
Hmmmm... maybe grist for another thread, but IMHO any and every “leader” involved with a nuclear exchange would be dragged from their homes, along with their families, and butchered in the streets within a week of the first mushroom cloud. Every member of the executive and legislative branches would be summarily executed without trial. No questions asked. Only cheering and angry shouting. Military units ordered to protect the Kremlin or D.C. would “find an emergency” eleswhere, or suffer an “accidental” weapon discharge in the direction of the persons they were ordered to protect.

The only question one might have about this: Are tRump and/or Putin so old, senile, insane and deluded that they might not understand this fact?

There would be no mercy from the survivors. Ever.​

===============================

That said.....a build-up of regular forces, leading to invasion is almost a nonexistent possibility. It would result in forces being shuffled all over the globe for weeks or months. There would be plenty of saber rattling (including the threat of nukes, etc....), but actually nuking.....not likely at all. The whole MAD threat was/is always a bluff (from the sane). One hopes that if tRump’s naive insanity led him to call for missles, then a ranking general nearby would put a bullet through tRump’s skull for the good of our nation. (I would be far from alone in calling for the general’s acquittal and veneration repeatedly during his trial).

A “suprise” invasion in force is again almost impossible in this day of satellite imagery.
Regardless of the presence of soon-to-be-Ex-president tRump, Putin could never hope to hold diddly-squat from an invasion into Europe, and likely he personally would be killed.

Again, this is all just pathetic Donny-boy throwing a tantrum.

 

[Wandering Monk]

It wasn't long ago that we had hundreds of thousands of US forces in Europe at the height of the Cold War. What is left today is a shadow of that and the world continues on just fine. Bring them all home I say and let Europe pick up the slack. We can use the savings for better purposes.

 

[Flankerl]

I remember back in the 80s when there were huge demonstrations in Germany calling for disarmament. There was a German anti-nuclear song that became popular in the U.S. ("99 Luftballons"). I thought it was a catchy tune, but the whole thing gave me the impression that the Germans were mostly anti-war at that time. Is there still a strong anti-war sentiment today?

Yes.

Are there any Germans who advocate for higher spending on defense and a larger military force?

Why would they? Germany is in the top 10 of military spending from all countries of the world.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm all for bringing everyone home and closing all foreign bases. Europe is more than capable of defending itself should the need arise.

Are you sure?

 

[Flame]

Are you sure?

Yes