I suspect you’re mistaking Russia for Iraq.
[/QUOTE]
With F-35s, F-22s and Eurofighter Typhoons, air superiority would probably be quite achievable.
Tanks? Abrams and Leopards vs. T-series Russian tanks, a closer fight.
So Obama ended the Cold War? You’re a few decades confused.
But yes, I agree–it’s a good thing that in the modern world the United States would simply do nothing if its NATO allies were invaded and conquered. We should have given the USSR West Germany and whatever else it wanted during the Cold War, as the freedom of Germans and other Central Europeans was of no value to the United States. There is never a good reason to stand up to aggression if it means there might be a nuclear exchange, and thus nuclear weapons should be viewed as a carte blanche that gives the possessor power to do whatever they please.
I agree entirely. I don’t see any good reason to head for Moscow. But if we did you know what would happen.
Without air superiority it’s going to be a long ugly war. I don’t know our chances of destroying or driving out their tanks that got there before us.
I suspect we could put at least 2 infantry divisions on the ground within a week (the 82nd Airborne and 101st Airmobile), with the Atlantic Fleet USMC contingent following as fast as they could steam into the Baltic.
On top of that, we could have significant air assets in place in a matter of days, beyond the 2-3 fighter wings and several airlift wings already in place in Europe, and whatever the USN could move into the area via the Atlantic Fleet carriers.
On top of that, some active duty units could be shipped from the US to Europe in a matter of weeks; we still do maintain some pretty impressive fast naval transport capabilities, although I’m unsure exactly how many BCTs we could actually transport in a hurry.
An interesting thought is that the most effective contribution the US could make might well be the fast transport of US logistics and transportation units to enable the local European forces to do the actual fighting. From what I understand, the Europeans tend to have neglected their expeditionary capability, so while a given unit may have several combat ready divisions, they can’t actually get them anywhere in a hurry, or supply them once they’re there.
Maybe… depending the number after the “T”. Anything less than a T-80U would probably be a pretty unequal fight.
However, most telling would probably be the deployment of all the capable anti-tank systems developed during the Cold War for the express purpose of destroying scads of attacking Russian tanks. Stuff like sensor-fused weapons (skeet submunitions), Apache gunships, etc… would be very effective in this situation.
You’re kidding on this, right?
I hate to say it, but President Obama would try and find a way out of taking military action. He’d give a speech or something, maybe even a particularly harsh one with some kind of really big red line, and then do nothing.
But I do think that this type of invasion would make Europe take notice, with Germany and the UK pushing France and the others to action. That would force the US to support military action. It’s hard to me to see Europeans in the back yard of Russia just wishing this away.
It is ridiculous and laughable to predict that NATO would simply allow one of its members to be overrun by Russia with mere strong statements and displeasure being expressed. Just thoroughly disconnected with reality in any way.
If Estonia were overrun, the pressure on all NATO members to bring an overwhelming military response to oust the Russians would be impossible for any head of state to resist. Just think about it for half a second: of Estonia were invaded, the rest of the Baltics would be screaming bloody murder. Poland, Slovakia, and Hungary would be as scared as a long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs. The pressure on Germany, France, and the UK not to have a Chamberlain-like “peace in our time” moment would be enormous.
And some of you seriously think that Obama would simply say, “This aggression will not stand… but if it does, you can find me on the golf course!”
Seriously, let me buy you a bus ticket back to reality.
No, I’m pretty sure he’s not kidding:
And let’s not forget Captain Phillips, and the present air strikes against ISIS.
The interesting thing is that – as also noted in that article – conservatives continue to regard Obama as some kind of peacenik, while he’s managed to piss off many liberals for being a warmongering hawk.
I’m not going to derail this thread, but virtually all of that is comprised of baseline operations that the US military does under every President.
He killed bin laden? The US had been after him for years. What was he going to do, call off the search?
And he rescued Captain Phillips. Killing three pirates in international waters makes you a hawk now??
My God we’ve lowered the bar on what forceful foreign policy is.
Ignoring all the strategic realities of why we wouldn’t repudiate a treaty commitment we’ve held for sixty years, you’d think the Obama bashers would at least be acknowledge the advantages a war would hold for Obama. Haven’t any of these guys heard about wagging the dog? Why would Obama try to avoid a chance to be a war president? Beating the Russians as the leader of a global alliance - that’s the kind of opportunity presidents secretly dream about.
Absolutely. Until Obama goes after ISIS in their Belgian bases (where i’m assured they are weeks away from completing a mighty armada of balsawood drones of death) he’s just a chickenshit.
The NATO response would be the USA’s response. The other NATO countries do not have the ability to project military power much of a distance at all.
Honestly I am not sure of what the USA response would be.
The German inevitable thumping by “Mother Russia” certainly fits the common storyline. While it’s been a while since I seriously looked for scholarship refuting Stolfi’s “Hitler’s Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted” I was quite convinced when I read his analysis. (A good summary paper ishere.). Dithering about strategic goals, failing to listen to the military that made Moscow the strategic goal, and diverting combat power away from that goal probably did more than the Soviets or “Mother Russia” for producing the “thumping” the Germans got. Stolfi submits with detailed analysis that taking Moscow was clearly achievable and strategically decisive. The Germans were on pace and on plan with adequate resupply and force ratios to achieve decisive results in a single campaign. We might still be joking, in German, about Napoleon being an incompetent hack. Yaa Hitler for screwing that one up!
The bigger lessons probably have more to do with NATO’s weaknesses as an alliance. Imagine the challenges for NATO in both finding the political will and setting sound strategic goals for their forces in the field. Could clarity of purpose for a diverse multinational alliance be achieved? I have doubts for a strategic offensive against Russia. It’s more likely for a strategic defensive. Could it happen given the current US political environment without decisive early leadership from one of the key European members to drive the discussion? I have serious doubt.
If Russia invaded a NATO country, NATO (including the US) would immediately (or after a very short ultimatum) declare war on Russia. That’s how treaties work. To violate this treaty would invalidate every treaty the US has signed – everyone would recognize that if the US can’t stick to NATO, then no other treaty is worth anything at all.
So there’s no question NATO would respond as the treaty dictates.
Your political views are showing. Obama campaigned in 2008 on sending more troops to Afghanistan, which most certainly was not the “baseline” of operations under President Bush. The use of drones has apparently increased compared to the “baseline” of operations under President Bush. Obama sent military advisers to Africa to combat the Lord’s Resistance Army, and that mission has been growing for several years. Obama ordered military attacks to overthrow Qaddafi, when the Libyan civil war clearly posed no threat to the US or NATO countries. He’s ordered military operations to snatch Al Qaeda-affiliated leaders from Libya, which is certainly daring an unusual. He sent troops into Syria to try to free the Americans that ISIL had kidnapped. He threatened to bomb Syria last year, which Congress freaked out about and basically rejected the idea; and is now bombing Syria at this moment (which most Presidents would likely do, granted).
You have a funny conception of “baseline.”
Now your political views are showing. 
His efforts to get Congressional support for his request to bomb Syria were lame at best, and Congress helped him do what he really wanted to anyway which was nothing. And all this only after he was taken to task by virtually all for his “red line” fiasco.
There can certainly be an honest discussion on Obama’s foreign policy. In many ways I think it’s not all that bad. But I’m really surprised that you are both defending the characterization of him as a ‘hawk.’
End of (my) hijack.
For the record, I didn’t think the proposal last year to bomb Syria was a very good one.
Err yeah…about that:
I have no idea what any of that is supposed to mean. Truly.
Are you saying that the Bush Administration called off the efforts to find him? Is that it? Because saying that we won’t be obsessed with bin Laden isn’t the same thing as saying we aren’t after him.