Armed Polite Society

Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MillCreek on June 10, 2011, 01:12:43 PM

Title: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: MillCreek on June 10, 2011, 01:12:43 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43351604/ns/world_news-europe/

Some very nice remarks from Secretary Gates on some of the NATO members getting a free ride and that the patience and pocketbook of the USA is not infinite.  You have to wonder about the continued relevance of NATO now that we cannot realistically expect Soviet tanks to come roaring through the Fulda Gap any time soon.
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: kgbsquirrel on June 10, 2011, 02:37:59 PM
No kidding, was pondering that back in '06.

(From memory so I may be off.)

US:
27 ground unit divisions
11 super carriers
9 big deck amphibs (the size of, or slightly bigger than a standard carrier)

Rest of NATO:
19 ground unit divisions
1 Fleet Carrier
1 STOVL Light Carrier/Amphib
4 STOVL Light Carriers


Somewhere something has gone very awry.

Edit: Corrected the carriers.
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: roo_ster on June 10, 2011, 03:10:12 PM
No kidding, was pondering that back in '06.

(From memory so I may be off.)

US:
27 ground unit divisions
11 super carriers
9 big deck amphibs (the size of, or slightly bigger than a standard carrier)

Rest of NATO:
19 ground unit divisions
2 carriers, one of which no longer carried FW aircraft


Somewhere something has gone very awry.

Addendum.
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: HankB on June 10, 2011, 03:22:30 PM
In reference to carriers . . . Britain and France will apparently be sharing a carrier.

Sharing.

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/britain-and-france-to-share-aircraft.html

What next - will soldiers share rifles?  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: kgbsquirrel on June 10, 2011, 03:36:50 PM
Well, there was this one time in Stalingrad....  [tinfoil]
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: mtnbkr on June 10, 2011, 03:49:02 PM
Well, there was this one time in Stalingrad....  [tinfoil]

Beat me to it.

Chris
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 10, 2011, 04:09:29 PM
Well, there was this one time in Stalingrad....  [tinfoil]

No, there wasn't.
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 10, 2011, 04:12:48 PM
No kidding, was pondering that back in '06.
Rest of NATO:
19 ground unit divisions
2 carriers

There's a bit more carriers in NATO countries than two. Italy operates two aircraft carriers, Spain has one more. But yes, you're right in general.
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: roo_ster on June 10, 2011, 04:31:27 PM
There's a bit more carriers in NATO countries than two. Italy operates two aircraft carriers, Spain has one more. But yes, you're right in general.

Their larger carrier is of hte pocket-type and can only accommodate VSTOL FW aircraft.  I don't know if their smaller carrier can even manage VSTOL FW aircraft.  Anyone know?
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 10, 2011, 04:43:50 PM
Their larger carrier is of hte pocket-type and can only accommodate VSTOL FW aircraft.  I don't know if their smaller carrier can even manage VSTOL FW aircraft.  Anyone know?

Both of them carry Harriers.
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: kgbsquirrel on June 10, 2011, 04:47:24 PM
 :facepalm:  I was only thinking of the French and British carriers, stupid of me considering my ship tied up next to Spain's in '03. I was on a Wasp-class amphib and it literally towered over the Spanish carrier. Ski-jump bow and only a single aircraft elevator at the stern. AFAIK it could only operate Harrier's and only carried a dozen and a half or so.



UK:
Illustrious - 22,000 ton (STOVL)

France:
Charles De Gaulle - 42,000 ton

Italy:
Giuseppe Garibaldi - 17,200 ton (STOVL)
Cavour - 27,000 ton (STOVL)

Spain:
Principe De Asturias - 17,200 ton (STOVL)
Juan Carlos I - 27,000 ton (STOVL, Amphib)

US:
Enterprise - 93,500 ton
Nimitz (x10) - 101,000 ton
Tarawa - 39,400 ton (STOVL, Amphib)
Wasp (x8) - 40,500 ton (STOVL, Amphib)


Total Tally
US:
11 Super Carriers
9 STOVL Carriers/Amphibs

NATO:
1 Fleet Carrier
1 STOVL Light Carrier/Amphib
4 STOVL Light Carriers


Edit: Personal note, the Charles De Gaulle really is an excellent modern carrier. Nuclear powered, angled landing deck, catapult launched aircraft. It's just slower and "mid-sized" hence Fleet Carrier instead of Super Carrier. After that I'd rate the Admiral Kuznetsov of Russia as the next best, about 20,000 tons heavier, but 10-15 years older, conventionally powered, and STOBAR.

STOVL = Short Take Off, Vertical Landing (exa. AV-8B Harrier's, F-35B Lightning II's)
STOBAR = Short Take Off, But Arrest Landing (exa. Sukhoi Su-33 Flanker-D)
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: Northwoods on June 10, 2011, 10:43:32 PM
Last I thought I'd heard the Charles De Gaulle was not sea worthy.
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: longeyes on June 10, 2011, 10:51:52 PM
Europe spends more money per year on coffeemakers than warmaking materiel.  This surprises anyone?
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 10, 2011, 11:11:54 PM
Europe spends more money per year on coffeemakers than warmaking materiel.  This surprises anyone?

One would hope so.

Caffeine is the fuel of industrial civilization.
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: 41magsnub on June 11, 2011, 12:02:54 AM
Last I thought I'd heard the Charles De Gaulle was not sea worthy.

Per Wikipedia :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_Charles_de_Gaulle_%28R91%29

Deployed to the Med in March to support operations in Libya so I assume it is still there.
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: SteveT on June 11, 2011, 12:36:12 AM
Don't we have something like 90,000 soldiers in Germany?   Why for God's sakes?   

When people realize it's a choice between their SS and Medicare and defense, the US military is gonna downsize big time, real fast.
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: Northwoods on June 11, 2011, 12:43:04 AM
Don't we have something like 90,000 soldiers in Germany?   Why for God's sakes?   

Because, for all their whinging about American arrogance/meddling/etc they really don't want to loose the boost to their economy that all those soldiers and associated support activities provides.  Plus, if we're there, they don't have to spend their own money on defending themselves so they can afford their soclialism.
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: roo_ster on June 11, 2011, 10:35:54 AM
:facepalm:  I was only thinking of the French and British carriers, stupid of me considering my ship tied up next to Spain's in '03. I was on a Wasp-class amphib and it literally towered over the Spanish carrier. Ski-jump bow and only a single aircraft elevator at the stern. AFAIK it could only operate Harrier's and only carried a dozen and a half or so.



UK:
Illustrious - 22,000 ton (STOVL)

France:
Charles De Gaulle - 42,000 ton

Italy:
Giuseppe Garibaldi - 17,200 ton (STOVL)
Cavour - 27,000 ton (STOVL)

Spain:
Principe De Asturias - 17,200 ton (STOVL)
Juan Carlos I - 27,000 ton (STOVL, Amphib)

US:
Enterprise - 93,500 ton
Nimitz (x10) - 101,000 ton
Tarawa - 39,400 ton (STOVL, Amphib)
Wasp (x8) - 40,500 ton (STOVL, Amphib)


Total Tally
US:
11 Super Carriers
9 STOVL Carriers/Amphibs

NATO:
1 Fleet Carrier
1 STOVL Light Carrier/Amphib
4 STOVL Light Carriers


Edit: Personal note, the Charles De Gaulle really is an excellent modern carrier. Nuclear powered, angled landing deck, catapult launched aircraft. It's just slower and "mid-sized" hence Fleet Carrier instead of Super Carrier. After that I'd rate the Admiral Kuznetsov of Russia as the next best, about 20,000 tons heavier, but 10-15 years older, conventionally powered, and STOBAR.

STOVL = Short Take Off, Vertical Landing (exa. AV-8B Harrier's, F-35B Lightning II's)
STOBAR = Short Take Off, But Arrest Landing (exa. Sukhoi Su-33 Flanker-D)

KGBS:

Thank you very much for that summary.

(I just read that the larger Italian carrier totes a grand total of <drumroll> eight Harriers.)

IOW, just our USMC has more force projection power than all of Europe.  It is time to remove the training wheels.

Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: zahc on June 11, 2011, 10:47:49 AM
Since I'm a dumb kid, I don't really know anything about NATO or what it is, thus I can't understand this thread. Can yall please indoctrinate me?
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: Tallpine on June 11, 2011, 11:45:40 AM
Since I'm a dumb kid, I don't really know anything about NATO or what it is, thus I can't understand this thread. Can yall please indoctrinate me?

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Formed after WW2 to counter the Soviet threat.
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: Northwoods on June 11, 2011, 12:54:52 PM
North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Formed after WW2 to counter the Soviet threat.

Originally contained the USA, and most western European countries (e.g. West Germany, France, UK, etc).  Since expanded to include nearly every EU country plus Turkey maybe some others (not sure).

Countered by the Warsaw Pact nations including the USSR, Poland, East Germany, etc.
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: longeyes on June 11, 2011, 12:56:47 PM
One would hope so.

Caffeine is the fuel of industrial civilization.

Okay, I'll give you that one, but don't forget tobacco and chocolate.  Without the neuroceuticals and the coffeehouses we wouldn't have this forum today.  =D
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 11, 2011, 12:58:34 PM
I ain't even joking. It's a serious opinion of several academics that the routine consumption of caffeinated drinks helped spur the Industrial Revolution.
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: cosine on June 11, 2011, 01:01:14 PM
I got it right away.  =D

I work at a company that makes large industrial control systems. I start each day with several large cups of joe, and I'm not the only one.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: MechAg94 on June 11, 2011, 01:06:59 PM
Don't we have something like 90,000 soldiers in Germany?   Why for God's sakes?   

When people realize it's a choice between their SS and Medicare and defense, the US military is gonna downsize big time, real fast.
Our bases in Germany and many of the others allow us to project force around the world.  I'm not sure we could do what we are doing in the Middle East and Afghanistan without those European bases.
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on June 11, 2011, 01:09:44 PM
Our bases in Germany and many of the others allow us to project force around the world.  I'm not sure we could do what we are doing in the Middle East and Afghanistan without those European bases.
Also, the medical place in Germany (starts with an 'L'?) is vital for saving the lives of seriously wounded personnel who might not survive a trip all the way to the US.
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: longeyes on June 11, 2011, 01:10:31 PM
I ain't even joking. It's a serious opinion of several academics that the routine consumption of caffeinated drinks helped spur the Industrial Revolution.

I didn't think you were, any more than I was joking about the rise of the Enlightenment and its close alliance with "stimulants."

Then there was our Revolution, fueled by rum, hard cidar, and, yeah, tea...
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: Northwoods on June 11, 2011, 01:42:22 PM
I ain't even joking. It's a serious opinion of several academics that the routine consumption of caffeinated drinks helped spur the Industrial Revolution.

Given that caffeinated drinks largely replaced alcoholic drinks for many people that's hardly surprising.  The introduction of tea to England caused QE 1 to change her breakfast drink from ale to tea.  The reduction in alcohol intake was probably more responsible than the addition of caffeine.
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: SteveT on June 12, 2011, 12:48:25 AM
Our bases in Germany and many of the others allow us to project force around the world.  I'm not sure we could do what we are doing in the Middle East and Afghanistan without those European bases.

Two points:

1.  Exactly.   Please can we stay out of the Middle East?   They hate us, we hate them.   Our being there enrages them (this I can understand) and makes them attack us.   Yes, I know I'm channeling someone.   

2. Do we need 90,000 troops to man these bases?   I think by bases you mean US controlled airstrips.
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: SteveT on June 12, 2011, 12:51:14 AM
One would hope so.

Caffeine is the fuel of industrial civilization.

Do you speak a language besides English, MB?   I've never known anyone who uses "One" as a subject who didn't.

 :O
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: makattak on June 12, 2011, 12:51:55 AM
Given that caffeinated drinks largely replaced alcoholic drinks for many people that's hardly surprising.  The introduction of tea to England caused QE 1 to change her breakfast drink from ale to tea.  The reduction in alcohol intake was probably more responsible than the addition of caffeine.

Most likely. Encouraged intake of water that had been purified (boiled) without knowledge of the reasons for that boiling. Previously alcohol was FAR better than drinking water, despite most of Europe being under some level of the influence of alcohol anytime they weren't asleep.  
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 12, 2011, 02:12:43 AM
Do you speak a language besides English, MB?   I've never known anyone who uses "One" as a subject who didn't.

 :O

English is only my third language.
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 12, 2011, 02:13:58 AM
Most likely. Encouraged intake of water that had been purified (boiled) without knowledge of the reasons for that boiling. Previously alcohol was FAR better than drinking water, despite most of Europe being under some level of the influence of alcohol anytime they weren't asleep.  

I think we can't discount its stimulant effects, too. Caffeine helped people to adjust to an industrial lifestyle ( which is more based on keeping specific hours, precise to the minute, than it is on vague things like "morning" or "noon").
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 12, 2011, 07:33:45 AM
Back to the OT. I am not so opposed to supporting NATO as I am to supporting the UN. We should pull our money out of that organization and tell it to find another home. How fast would it fold?  Not like it ever enforces anything anymore anyways.
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: Scout26 on June 13, 2011, 11:01:59 PM
It's not 90K soldiers in Europe, it's more like 55K and getting smaller all the time.  The "goal" is 28K. 

Right now we have the equivalent of a reinforced Divison (two Maneuver Brigades, One Airborne Brigade, One Artillery Brigade and one each MI, MP, Engineer and Aviation Brigades)

They are based mostly at Major Training Areas (Grafenwoehr and Baumholder) with Landstuhl/Ramstein/K-Town and Weisbaden being the next largest places.

We are down from over 800 installations in 112 Communities to now being just over 100 in 8 communities, having just recently closed up everything in Mannheim, Heidelberg, and Wuerzburg. 

At the height of the Cold War we had 4 Full Heavy Divisions (1st Armored, 3rd Armored, 3rd Infantry and 8th Infantry) of 3 maneuver brigades each plus an Artillery and Aviation Brigade each.  There were also 2 Forward Brigades  of one each from the 2nd Armored and 1st Infantry.  2 Armored Cavalry Regiments (2nd and 11th) which were "pocket divisions", and 2 each Artillery, Aviation, Engineer, MI, MP, and Signal Brigades along with an Air Defense Command (a Brigade plus of duck hunters).  Roughly 215K soldiers total.   

Europe does give us a forward base from which to have forces forward deployed and support operations, along with some places to train.  Since we are no longer defending them from the Russian hordes, USAREUR does serve to let everyone over there know not to screw with Uncle, nor try any of the crap that started War I and hopefully settled it to everyone's (well, at least our) satisfaction in War II.
Title: Re: Gates has dim view of NATO
Post by: mtnbkr on June 13, 2011, 11:28:27 PM
Do you speak a language besides English, MB?   I've never known anyone who uses "One" as a subject who didn't.

Now you do.  I use "one" as a subject, but only speak English...and not that fluently.

Chris