Ramstein AFB v fuel economy standards

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

Look, I’m pitting Ramstein vs fuel efficiency standards. The auto industry transformation is entrenched and in progress. Billions have been invested, billions are in play and billions in profits are at stake. The US first bailed out its failing auto giants, then invested in helping them catch up with the future. To pull the plug now, reason being we need to cut something to pay for FEMA disaster relief, would be kind of like shutting down Ramstein some Teusday. It is too capricious to be taken seriously, therefore WTF is the matter with the Republicans these days?

Consider, from the link:

A train line was laid out from Einseidlerhof-Kaiserslautern in a yoke shape around to the current base and back down to the Landstuhl spur in 1948 by agreement of the US and French Occupational Forces. Trainload after trainload of earth was moved over the line and spread over the base current area to raise it to its current level. The trains ran 24 / 7 for over a year. Once the ground was level, building construction could be begin. A project designed and undertaken by the French Army and the US Army Corps of Engineers from 1949 – 1952. Two bases were laid out. Landstuhl Air Base on the south side and Ramstein Air Station (station, no airstrip) on the north. From 1948 to the opening of the bases in 1953 it was the largest one spot construction site in Europe employing over 270,000 Europeans at one time.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@Grumman

At a cost of $1,500,000,000 for 10,000 jobs, the government would be spending $150,000 per job.

I have a hard time believing those jobs wouldn’t, on average, return more than $150,000 each to the economy.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

To defend Western Europe against the Warsaw Pact*, moron.

I hate it when RNATB calls me a moron :mad:

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I hate it too. Don’t make me do it again.

[Hbns]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

The US first bailed out its failing auto giants, then invested in helping them catch up with the future. To pull the plug now, reason being we need to cut something to pay for FEMA disaster relief, would be kind of like shutting down Ramstein some Teusday.

What? Where is the equivalence? GM and Chrysler nearly ran themselves into the ground, but it isn’t like they will now have to close their doors because this loan program was cut. Furthermore since Ford didn’t even need the bailout, I doubt this really amounts to more than an “ah man, that would have been sweet”.
The car companies are legally obligated to meet the new standards with or without this loan program. So presumably the money will get spent and the jobs created, however the government just won’t be able to take credit for it.

Despite how bad off the economy is today, trying to draw an equivalence to the post war European economy of the late 40’s to early 50’s is ludicrous.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Ford didn’t “need” the bailout but supported it anyway because the loss of Chrysler/GM business would have killed off many of its suppliers.

Anyway, the car companies have been legally obligated to meet increasingly stringent CAFE standards for decades and have usually avoided doing so at the eleventh hour thanks to lobbying and well-greased palms.

[Chefguy]

@NinjaChick

For perspective, we’ve still got upwards of a dozen bases in Germany, some of which are completely huge: The Ramstein/Landstuhl complex has over 50,000 Americans living there.

Keep in mind that we’re still heavily engaged in three different military actions. The support required for those is huge and very expensive, as is always the case when a country chooses to (or must) remain in prolonged combat.

[Hbns]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Ford didn’t “need” the bailout but supported it anyway because the loss of Chrysler/GM business would have killed off many of its suppliers.

Anyway, the car companies have been legally obligated to meet increasingly stringent CAFE standards for decades and have usually avoided doing so at the eleventh hour thanks to lobbying and well-greased palms.

I"d be willing to bet Ford was thinking that it sets a great precedent should they find themselves in dire financial shape at some future date. But the bit about suppliers was excellent spin.

You don’t seriously expect us to believe that today’s cars are just as polluting and inefficient as those from 30 years ago? Have a cite for that?

Am I getting this wrong?
Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Light Duty Vehicles
Passenger car (domestic)
1980=22.6
2010=32.9

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

It wasn’t spin. They’ve been trying to spin it the other way recently.

First, I said usually. Second, those figures are for vehicles sold in the US, not built in the US. Third, the fact that cars pollute less doesn’t mean manufacturers are complying on time with CAFE standards.

[Bear_Nenno]

Every seriously wounded Soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan is flown to Ramstein AFB and medivaced from there to Landstuhl. Here they receive timely, necessary emergency care and after care before being stable enough to fly back to the States.
Ramstein’s presence is responsible for saving the lives of thousands of American servicemen and women.
Put that on your Powerpoint.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

That’s great, of course, but there’s nothing preventing us from maintaining a dedicated medical facility there (or elsewhere). Hell, it would make far more sense to build a permanent combat injury care center closer to Iraq and Afghanistan, like Khasab.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@Hbns

What? Where is the equivalence? GM and Chrysler nearly ran themselves into the ground, but it isn’t like they will now have to close their doors because this loan program was cut. Furthermore since Ford didn’t even need the bailout, I doubt this really amounts to more than an “ah man, that would have been sweet”.
The car companies are legally obligated to meet the new standards with or without this loan program. So presumably the money will get spent and the jobs created, however the government just won’t be able to take credit for it.

Despite how bad off the economy is today, trying to draw an equivalence to the post war European economy of the late 40’s to early 50’s is ludicrous.

I’m sorry, I was posting in haste while my gf stepped out and did not make perfect sense. I had a couple things in mind
-I meant to say ‘pulling the plug some Teusday in 1953’. The equivalence would be to go to all the trouble of building a base (which is a LOT of trouble, it is huge) and then pulling the plug when it is 9/10ths complete in the name of budget cuts. Sure, GM and Chrysler had a hand in their own demises, but they had a lot of help from external circumstances too. The new CAFE standards are a way to make some lemonade out of all these lemons- while we’re bailing you out, how about we chip in a little extra to help you stay competitive and deal with this looming Peak Oil/global energy demand mess while we’re at it? Under the circumstances they can’t really refuse. The recession sucks but in this case it is also a unique opportunity.

We don’t fill in a swamp with trainloads of earth 24/7 for over a year if we don’t mean to complete the project. We didn’t bail out the auto companies and then help them upgrade their vast supply infrastructure only to pull out at the last minute. Is the auto project as big? shrug It does seem entirely benign and beneficial at the least. Would these companies shut down without the program? I think Ford would be ok, but frankly I think the others would end up being less relevant and slowly fall apart. Just look back at how GM got pwned by Toyota through GM’s strange resistance to efficiency and durability standards.

I didn’t mean to compare the US to post-war Europe. I do think it is telling that we can pull off such massive projects overseas (again, we have 700+ bases) but today people in Congress are threatening to cut FEMA here at home.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I hate it too. Don’t make me do it again.

Hmpf. I coulda swore you were kidding and agreeing with me, as the Warsaw Pact isn’t a threat these days. Your position is stronger than mine- that Ramstein wasn’t worth building in the first place as the Soviets couldn’t be stopped if they wanted to attack. I merely think it and the other bases have become overkill.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

Hmpf. I coulda swore you were kidding and agreeing with me, as the Warsaw Pact isn’t a threat these days.

I was taking issue with your implication that it was there to save us from Ze Germans:

I’ve asked some military people what purpose military bases in Germany serve more than 6 decades after the Nazis were defeated, and so far I have not heard a straight answer.

[My bolding]

Your position is stronger than mine- that Ramstein wasn’t worth building in the first place as the Soviets couldn’t be stopped if they wanted to attack. I merely think it and the other bases have become overkill.

I don’t think it wasn’t worth building; it would have slowed a Soviet offensive, at least, and given Britain and France longer to decide whether to push the button.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@Oliveritaly

The Germans in fact have organizations that lobby members of congress when certain installations are about to be shut down. I’ve been over here as an employee of the U.S. government since 2002 and our foot print has shrunk considerably. Everyone here is bracing for another round of cuts/consolidation in fact. I myself expect to move to Wiesbaden from Heidelberg in the next 12 to 18 months.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. What is your opinion of this trend as an insider? Are we losing something crucial or has our presence in Germany largely run its course?

From a U.S. Army standpoint we do have some very valuable partnerships with a lot of the militaries here, Germany among them. Call the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq whatever you want but many of the nations here have deployed forces alongside ours in support of those efforts. Oftentimes these forces are able to take on tasks that could be done by U.S. forces. But when they take them on they free up our service members for more critical undertakings. A lot of our partnered nations are critically tied to training Afghan forces and to operating provincial reconstruction teams. I know their numbers are small but they are utilized in, for the most part, very effective ways.

Ok, I hadn’t considered that. When asking around I got several iterations of the ‘to keep us safe’ response, and was/am stuck on the ‘safe from what?’ aspect of things. I’m glad to hear these bases are serving some purpose. Really.

Could you make the argument that these partnerships would be just as effective if we trained with our Croatian counterparts in places like NTC or at Fort Polk. Maybe but I think it’s much more effective when we do it in their country or at a place where it’s more affordable for them (such as here in Germany).

Ok, fair enough. But check out this list of army installations in Germany. We have quite the presence there, and I can only guess what it costs to maintain. Scroll down and the link also shows how many installations have been shut down over the past couple decades- and it is quite a few- but I still wonder how much of the remaining presence is necessary. I’m only picking on Ramstein because AFAIK it is the biggest, really I’m concerned about an excessive presence overall. Can we still airlift wounded troops, shuttle troops and materiel in and out and maintain relations with our allies if we shut some more of it down?

I can’t speak to how smart Ramstien is or isn’t … it’s a HUGE installation and we (the U.S. Army) have a very large installation next to that (Kaiserslautern). I know that when forces flow out of theater, it’s done through there. I’ve heard force projection and forward platform arguments but they only ‘sort of’ make sense to me.

Yes, again, force projection against what? Also, what is the status of Germany’s military? Do they have restrictions similar to Japan’s? Or can they be trusted to defend themselves and stay on our side with a robust military of their own?

Finally on the medical issue and Ramstien’s proximity to it, we have the best survival ration of any military in the world. If you survive the initial contact, odds are you’re going to live. If the docs that put this whole thing together think it’s better to evacuate a patient into Landsthule Regional Medical Center rather than to the U.S., I have to trust their record.

I believe it. I just wish sick or disaster-afflicted citizens at home could count on the same odds.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

Yes, again, force projection against what? Also, what is the status of Germany’s military? Do they have restrictions similar to Japan’s? Or can they be trusted to defend themselves and stay on our side with a robust military of their own?

Various naughty Middle Eastern states, for one.

The German military is constitutionally barred from offensive action, but it has plenty of offensive capacity. However, Germany and the Low Countries have a pretty limited sea- and airlift capacity making it essentially impossible for them to attack anything outside Western Europe without foreign cooperation.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I was taking issue with your implication that it was there to save us from Ze Germans:

Fair enough. Of course the Soviets used to be a threat. I brought up the Nazis to emphasize just how old this state of affairs is. The Soviets are getting to be quite old news too. It would’ve been more, uh, comprehensive of me to actually mention them though.

Still, I’d rather have my intellectual shortcomings pointed out by Polymathic Genius, or maybe Psych PhD d00d hur hur. Alright, enough of that…

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Various naughty Middle Eastern states, for one.

All right. Whether or not we like the wars we have, if we’re going to have them we have to be able to project force into the theaters. But how much is necessary? Iraq just doesn’t compare to the USSR, except maybe in distance. Ditto for the other theaters. I posted a list- how many bases do we need to be successful?

The German military is constitutionally barred from offensive action, but it has plenty of offensive capacity. However, Germany and the Low Countries have a pretty limited sea- and airlift capacity making it essentially impossible for them to attack anything outside Western Europe without foreign cooperation.

I meant to add- thanks for taking the time to respond!

[kaylasdad99]

Silly me. I’ve been avoiding this thread ever since Day One, because I thought it was going to be about how they do something at Rammstein that wastes a lot of gas…

[Oliveritaly]

{Edit} Try2B Comprehensive – long response follows but the BLUF is yes, I think there is value in U.S. forces being stationed in Europe. Do we have too many U.S. forces in Europe? I don’t know. Do we need to consolidate our presence here, absolutely! {edit}

Maybe I need to preface this with a few things. First I’d like to make it clear that I love living in Europe, so I’ll do my absolute best not to let that prejudice my responses. Second, as an ‘insider’ everything I’m saying here is my opinion and my opinion alone, and it’s going to generally be about the U.S. Army’s presence here as I’m not that familiar with the other services.

The presence of the U.S. Army has been drawing down here in Europe since the very early 90 due, largely, to the collapse of the Soviet Union. It’s a good thing. I once heard in a briefing, not that long ago, that every gate (access point) to every installation we have here costs $1 million a year to operate. At places like Hohenfels Germany, where the installation only has two or three operational gates at a given time that isn’t so bad. But here in Heidelberg where there are (just counting in my head, there maybe more) are eight very small installations … that’s a huge waste of tax payer dollars.

Thankfully someone smarter than I am made a decision to close down the Heidelberg military community and to relocate them to another installation. As much as I love this beautiful-German town I can’t help but agree that there is a much smarter way for us to operate here.
I think we have four combat brigades permanently stationed here at the moment. Rumors fly all the time that we’re going to drawdown to three or even two combat brigades. Looking at your map I think in 10 years you will see the following still open and operational; Kaiserslautern, Vilseck, Hohenfels and Weisbaden. Stuttgart is anybody’s guess as it’s the European command headquarters. We have a presence there but I’d bet it’s small. Garmisch will likely stay open as well now that I think about it. There’s the Marshall center and large R&R facility there that is very popular with both people stationed here and soldier’s that are on R&R from Afghanistan and Iraq.

I think that map is a bit outdated Heidleberg, Mannheim, Schwetzinger and (if I’m not mistaken) Heidesheim are closed or about to close. It’s my understanding that Mannheim is a virtual ghost town at this point.

Are we losing something crucial if we redeploy all U.S. Army forces from Europe? I think we would be honestly. The partnership with all of these nations has proved, IMHO, it’s value in both Iraq and Afghanistan. As someone else pointed out the Germany military, for obvious reasons, cannot act offensively. But they can fulfill a role as trainers, security, logisticians, you name it. Same goes for Latvia, Croatia, Slovakia, Georgia, etc …

The Army, Navy and the Air Force here in Europe were directed to transition from a four-star command to a three-star command. To my knowledge only the U.S. Army has done such at this time. I think that’s another clear signal that we are about to get smaller again.
Yes, the Germany and most, if not all of, Western Europe can absolutely be trusted. So I didn’t mean to imply that force projection was a mean to keep them in line. Rather I mean that by having our forces here they can respond to a crisis situation in say Africa or the Middle East with shocking speed if needed. Consider the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team their nearest airfield is an hour away and from there it is a very short flight to most of today’s hot spots. There is certainly an argument that the cost of our bases here is not worth the 13 hours of flight time we’re saving by not launching elements of the 82d or 101st … hell no it’s not worth that.

But as someone pointed out, after we (the U.S.) respond to a crisis the follow-on forces are very likely to contain elements of our partner nations here, fuel handlers from Poland, Provincial Reconstruction Teams from Italy for instance, they will likely utilize our faculties to move into theater.

Finally, I agree … The average U.S. citizen should have the same access to medical coverage that our service members have, but that’s a different topic all together I think.
Sorry for the long rambling replay and I PROMISE I’ll figure out how do the multiple quotes thing in the future. Is there value in having the U.S. here, yes. Do we need to shrink the number of installations that are open here, yes.