Sweden votes yes to controversial Nato deal

[Macaquerie]

Mooneye, obviously. If you make a decision that Mooneye dislikes...you are a criminal.

- - - Updated - - -



...
...
...

Creepy AF....

[Hooked]

Whats the point of nato if everyone is in nato?.

[PC2]

Whats the point of nato if everyone is in nato?.

To protect Northern Atlantic people!

[Shalcker]

You're saying Russia would attack a NATO country?

You're basically lighting torch near explosive substance "but we'll have best fire-fighters in the world if it will catch fire!"

This step will be seen as escalation, and neither US nor Russia are showing any signs of backing down. So you're escalating toward open conflict (because that's the logical outcome of escalation chain) and yet at the same time think doing so will somehow help you?

You would be trading chances of "conflict of Russia and Finland" (fairly unlikely) for chances of "conflict of NATO and Russia" (which is basically certain and happening right now - it's just not certain to go "hot", but getting NATO across every border increases chances of conflict going hot one way or another, both from Russian and US side, as "it takes two to tango").

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

You're basically lighting torch near explosive substance "but we'll have best fire-fighters in the world if it will catch fire!"

This step will be seen as escalation, and neither US nor Russia are showing any signs of backing down. So you're escalating toward open conflict (because that's the logical outcome of escalation chain) and yet at the same time think doing so will somehow help you?

You're trading chances of "conflict of Russia and Finland" (fairly unlikely) to chances of "conflict of NATO and Russia" (which is basically certain and happening right now - it's just not certain to go "hot", but getting NATO across every border increases chances of conflict going hot one way or another, both from Russian and US side, as "it takes two to tango").

The alternative is to tell Finland that "You're on your own" and Russia "You do whatever you want"...which is a message Putin's been hearing very well over the past few years.

[Crispin]

You're basically lighting torch near explosive substance "but we'll have best fire-fighters in the world if it will catch fire!"

This step will be seen as escalation, and neither US nor Russia are showing any signs of backing down. So you're escalating toward open conflict (because that's the logical outcome of escalation chain) and yet at the same time think doing so will somehow help you?

You would be trading chances of "conflict of Russia and Finland" (fairly unlikely) for chances of "conflict of NATO and Russia" (which is basically certain and happening right now - it's just not certain to go "hot", but getting NATO across every border increases chances of conflict going hot one way or another, both from Russian and US side, as "it takes two to tango").

Not sure you get it tbh.

What happened in Ukraine woke up the West, but we're pretty immune to Russia crying "NIET NO MORE NATO!!", as history should have told you, there is really nothing you can do short from cutting off gas "ohnoes" and turn yourself into Venezuela (lol like that's gonna happen) or invading someone (lol like thats gonna happen), that's the only 2 cards Russia has and you picked them up yourself.

But you got Crimea, and this is ofcourse the "price" you're paying.


But in the end, this plays quite well into Putin's real hands of the "NATO is surrounding us QQ" narrative that keeps him in power.

[Shalcker]

Not sure you get it tbh.

What happened in Ukraine woke up the West, but we're pretty immune to Russia crying "NIET NO MORE NATO!!", as history should have told you, there is really nothing you can do short from cutting off gas "ohnoes" and turn yourself into Venezuela (lol like that's gonna happen) or invading someone (lol like thats gonna happen), that's the only 2 cards Russia has and you picked them up yourself.

*shrug* If noone backs down it means eventual WW3. And there are no signs of anyone backing down.

But you got Crimea, and this is ofcourse the "price" you're paying.

Totally worth it.

But in the end, this plays quite well into Putin's real hands of the "NATO is surrounding us QQ" narrative that keeps him in power.

So, NATO plays into Putin's hands no matter what it does? Why would you do that? Why do you want to support Putin so much? :P

[Deleted]

How does this benefit us exactly?

I mean to be blunt, Sweden is a country very far from us, and reasonably isolated from the US's military infrastructure in Europe (the preopositioned weapons stockpiles are in the UK, Germany, Italy, the Nertherlands, Turkey, and Norway). It has "just" 9 million people. Frankly, it would be a pain the neck to defend from an American perspective. It's not like the US could easily drive tanks from Germany to Sweden.

The biggest theoretical benefit of Sweden in NATO would be the US gaining access to Gotland, but Sweden would have to independently make the decision to militarize it first (and it absolutely should). That would be a big coup for the US, but it's not like continental security is dependent on it.

Nato is not a vehicle for world domination?
Oh an in regards to the Baltics, They cannot be defended without Swedish territory in general, and Gotland in specific - Which given that the baltics are a part of Nato is a problem...

- - - Updated - - -

Whats the point of nato if everyone is in nato?.

Making the EU subsidize the US defence industry.

[Shalcker]

You've said it yourself that you view global conflict as the inevitable outcome in the future, so I'll take those "best fire-fighters in the world" over Russia's word any day of the week.

Neutrality can pay off, especially for countries out of the way of most probable action like Finland (though you'll get fallout from St.Petersburg being nuked anyway).

[Deleted]

You've said it yourself that you view global conflict as the inevitable outcome in the future, so I'll take those "best fire-fighters in the world" over Russia's word any day of the week.

The reality of the situation is that EU (and US) Russia policy has been retarded for, Well almost 25 years, but most certainly the last 10-15.
Currently its necessary to try to get rid of all the gasoline poured on the situation, while simultaneously pouring more gasoline on the situation, so as to make sure nobody dares light a match.
Yeah - Its in a bad place.

[Skroe]

Nato is not a vehicle for world domination?
Oh an in regards to the Baltics, They cannot be defended without Swedish territory in general, and Gotland in specific - Which given that the baltics are a part of Nato is a problem...

I don't think there is any illusion NATO could hold the Baltics. Not without mining the border and moving much of what is in Germany into Estonia and Latvia.

I mean, even during the Cold War, if the Red Army moved across the Iron curtain, the US, British, French and German armies would have done an organized withdrawal to the French/West German border to await American reinforcements. The withdrawl would have been covered by bombers from the UK would have dropped 25 tactical nuclear weapons across a large swath of Poland. When forces were in place, they'd respond by "counterpunching" through Southern West Germany and Czechoslovakia.




Something similar would probably be in effect now, but instead of the French/West German border, it would be Poland/Germany. NATO would withdraw, regroup, then fight back into the Baltics.

Kalingrad is a tremendously tempting target though, very early in the war. If NATO were able to seize it, it could resupply ground forces in the Baltics over a land route much easier.

Without it, Sweden is an incredibly well placed logistics hub for such a campaign.

[Deleted]

I don't think there is any illusion NATO could hold the Baltics. Not without mining the border and moving much of what is in Germany into Estonia and Latvia.

I know, i just meant that, for the purposes of defending the Baltic, you have something to gain.

[Skroe]

Nato is not a vehicle for world domination?
Oh an in regards to the Baltics, They cannot be defended without Swedish territory in general, and Gotland in specific - Which given that the baltics are a part of Nato is a problem...

- - - Updated - - -



Making the EU subsidize the US defence industry.

The EU doesn't buy a heck of a lot from the US.

They don't buy our tanks. Two best European tanks are better than the M1A2.
They don't buy our guns. Actually SOCOM likes certain European guns.
Aside from the F-35 and the C-130 Hercules (which would be the same thing if Europe built it), you really don't buy our air craft.
You don't buy our warships, because we don't sell them, which is stupid because we really, really should.
You don't buy our mid-sized strategic and tactical lift aircraft, the A400M occupying an interesting place between the C-17 and C-130 the US has no solution for.
You don't buy our bombers, because we don't sell them.
You really don't buy our missiles or bombs.
You really don't buy our integrated warfighting technology - the UK, France and Germany do not deploy Aegis-compatible systems on their ships (they have their own Euro-Aegis basically).


In fact, the opposite is true.
THe MBDA Meteor is better than the AIM-120D and will the best air to air missile in the world, probably, for another decade. Any European F-35 armed with it will automatically be better than any American F-35 armed with the AIM-120D.

The Norwegian Naval Strike Missile is pretty incredible, and we're probably going to buy it to salvage the LCS.

Airbus won the original KC-X competition because Boeing submitted the laziest bid they possibly could have while Airbus was highly innovative. The competition was, in my view highly unfairly, redecided in Boeings favor with a different entry, however (that is still less capable than Airbus' entry).

Europe makes stunningly advanced Diesel-Electric submarines. It's own destroyers/frigates. It's own mid-sized carriers. It builds the Eurofighter, which in a different world the US would buy as a stopgap to a 6th generation fighter if it decided not to restart F-22 production.

German's MEADS could very well end up replacing the Patriot Missile in years ahead.

I'm not exactly seeing Europe subsidizing the defense industry. I mean quite the countrary, Europe's problem is that every European country is subsidizing their own defense industry. Instead of one frigate/destroyer for ALL of Europe, theres like six that do mostly the same thing. We've gone through that entire list of all the ways European defense procurement is filled with redundancies before.

So in what what is Europe subsidizing the US defense industry. Because aside from a few rather modest examples (F-35 aside), you don't seem to buy much of our stuff. Your stuff is largely compatible with our stuff, but it's not like The British Navy is building Areligh Burke Destroyers (even though they ABSOLUTELY SHOULD BE, while the US buys Type 45, Aegis-ize them, and call them cruisers).

- - - Updated - - -

I know, i just meant that, for the purposes of defending the Baltic, you have something to gain.

Well what I implied earlier with my Gotland comment is there is more than one way to skin a cat, in this case.

But I suppose we also win because we put Sweden's nasty Gotland-class Diesel electric subs to work against Russia.

It's funny. The US Navy has zero interest in procuring Diesel subs (it's complicated as to why) and will never, ever do it, but they have been enthusastic about Europe producing truly staggeringly dangerous examples.

It's totally worth remembering that it's good Europe is on our side with them. It'll hysterically complicate the problem for Russia.

- - - Updated - - -

*shrug* If noone backs down it means eventual WW3. And there are no signs of anyone backing down.

Totally worth it.

So, NATO plays into Putin's hands no matter what it does? Why would you do that? Why do you want to support Putin so much? :P

You'll lose. Badly.

I'd do something about Putin before it's too late. The ball is in your court.

I mean let's just lay this out here. The whole of NATO spends about a trillion dollars a year on war, and out numbers Russia's military manpower and material strength about three to one.

I would not be expecting the side that has the advantage, the West, to back-down. We have zero reason to do so.

[Crispin]

*shrug* If noone backs down it means eventual WW3. And there are no signs of anyone backing down.

Doesnt mean "eventual WW3", noone backed down during the Cold war for decades and it did not mean war, it'll mean that the relationship between the west and Russia will be frozen, not our loss tbh tho, we're not going to invade because you arent buying cheese, and you're not going to invade because you'll gain nothing from it.

Totally worth it.

Really up to you if it is, but not sure why you're crying about NATO expansion then.

So, NATO plays into Putin's hands no matter what it does? Why would you do that? Why do you want to support Putin so much? :P

We're forced to do it and Putin knows that, our sense of security trumps Russian internal politics.

[Deleted]

The EU doesn't buy a heck of a lot from the US.

I could have /should have) put that better - While the streams of money go both ways, (obviously) slightly more money go to the US than the reverse.
Although this may not be true any more, that report is a few years old.

Aside from the F-35 and the C-130 Hercules (which would be the same thing if Europe built it), you really don't buy our air craft.

I wont start in on how much i detest the F-35.

You don't buy our warships, because we don't sell them, which is stupid because we really, really should.

Yeah and this one i don't even get - Since any ships 'sold' would actually be licensed, No one should really have a problem with it?

I'm not exactly seeing Europe subsidizing the defense industry. I mean quite the countrary, Europe's problem is that every European country is subsidizing their own defense industry. Instead of one frigate/destroyer for ALL of Europe, theres like six that do mostly the same thing. We've gone through that entire list of all the ways European defense procurement is filled with redundancies before.

have we? - I don't recall, if you remember where, i wouldn't mind reading it again - Usually i find military technobable detestable (it usually degenerates into nonsense) but you always write nice an interesting things, well mostly, you do let your jingoism shine through sometimes.
As for the other bit of that post, yeah don't get me started on the eurofighter...

So in what what is Europe subsidizing the US defense industry. Because aside from a few rather modest examples (F-35 aside), you don't seem to buy much of our stuff. Your stuff is largely compatible with our stuff, but it's not like The British Navy is building Areligh Burke Destroyers (even though they ABSOLUTELY SHOULD BE, while the US buys Type 45, Aegis-ize them, and call them cruisers).

To be honest i wonder why? - I mean, usual 'national interest superseding laws of economics sure' but ships should easily be able to be licensed and so preserving any jobs.
It cant even be exporting to the rest of the world issues (EU wanting to), because they aren't really sold anyway, maybe that is the thing and I'm just clueless?
But if so, why buy the F-35, and the market for fighter jets are vastly larger than that for modern large scale warships.

[Skroe]

I could have /should have) put that better - While the streams of money go both ways, (obviously) slightly more money go to the US than the reverse.
Although this may not be true any more, that report is a few years old.
I wont start in on how much i detest the F-35.

Yeah and this one i don't even get - Since any ships 'sold' would actually be licensed, No one should really have a problem with it?


have we? - I don't recall, if you remember where, i wouldn't mind reading it again - Usually i find military technobable detestable (it usually degenerates into nonsense) but you always write nice an interesting things, well mostly, you do let your jingoism shine through sometimes.
As for the other bit of that post, yeah don't get me started on the eurofighter...


To be honest i wonder why? - I mean, usual 'national interest superseding laws of economics sure' but ships should easily be able to be licensed and so preserving any jobs.
It cant even be exporting to the rest of the world issues (EU wanting to), because they aren't really sold anyway, maybe that is the thing and I'm just clueless?
But if so, why buy the F-35, and the market for fighter jets are vastly larger than that for modern large scale warships.

I'll be happy to do it later today. I need to get a few hours of sleep in before work.

But if you want a preview, go look at how many ~6000 displacement ships are being built in Europe at the moment or have been built in the past 10 years. It's a fucking scandal.

There is no such thing as an independent European defense whereby a country commits to buying 12 ships, faces cost overruns, and instead buys 6, and then the exact same tragedy happens to their neighbor, for a ship in the same weightclass,.

THere is a bit of history with the F-35 that makes it different actually predates it. Europeans have been buying American fighter aircraft for 70 years. The US and Europe bought the absolutely massive global F-16 fleet at pretty much exactly the same time. And if they didn't buy the F-16, they bought something roughly in that weight class. In any event, here we are, 30 years later, and everyone's F-16s got old at the same time.

The F-35 is what it is because the decision was made, to put it simply, get everyone who had an F-16 (and before it an F-4 or F-5) up to the F-35, at roughly the same time. If that didn't happen, aircraft procurement would become international disjointed and more arguably expensive and less effective.

I mean, put aside the actual F-35 for a moment, but almost all of the west buying one multirole strike fighter is actually a stupendously good idea from an industrial / production / logistics point of view. It's just that the F-35 should not be mistaken for a F-22.

THis is actually extremely interesting because there is a ton of history and international politics involved. For example, the US usually exports "dumbed down" aircraft, but not the F-35. None of them are dumbed down. The trade off is that only the US and UK have full access to the technology. Everyone else gets access to the API to build plug-and-play addons, but they don't get access to the technology behind the F-35 (which is very sensitive) and otherwise wouldn't be exported.

I'll go into greater detail later today.

[Paklaaji]

All this talk about US military... whilst ignoraing that defense spending under President Clinton/Trump will decline even more radically. There`s no room for more defense spending.

[Deleted]

All this talk about US military... whilst ignoraing that defense spending under President Clinton/Trump will decline even more radically. There`s no room for more defense spending.

Us Defence spending is unlikely to be cut, because neither candidate are saying they want to do that? (also, because its not up to them)

[Paklaaji]

Us Defence spending is unlikely to be cut, because neither candidate are saying they want to do that? (also, because its not up to them)

Congress shows no interest in raising it or at the very least, maintaing current levels (and that`s why B-21 and all other projects are bound to enter death spiral).

[Skroe]

All this talk about US military... whilst ignoraing that defense spending under President Clinton/Trump will decline even more radically. There`s no room for more defense spending.

LOL Yeah okay.

https://news.usni.org/2016/04/29/wra...pending-levels

Wrapup: HASC Passes FY2017 Defense Bill With Reagan-Era Spending Levels

The House Armed Services Committee this week passed a bill that gave the Navy and Marine Corps virtually everything they wanted in their procurement accounts – plus an additional $5.9 billion in a separate account – creating a Reagan-era defense bill for their Senate counterparts to accept or reject.

HASC left the Navy and Marines’ procurement requests almost entirely in tact, only taking money away from the Remote Multimission Vehicle (RMMV) program due to an upcoming restructure, deeming MH-60R production line shutdown costs “early to need” and trimming a paltry – by Pentagon standards – $9.5 million from a ship missile support equipment program.

In a separate section called Procurement For Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) For Base Requirements, though, the committee added $1.4 billion for 14 Boeing F/A-18E-F Super Hornets; $540 million for four carrier-variant F-35C Joint Strike Fighters, two each for the Navy and the Marine Corps; $254 million for two Marine-variant F-35Bs; $150 million for two MV-22 Ospreys; $415 million for four C-40A transport planes, two each for the Navy and Marine Corps; and more, for a total of $3.2 billion in aircraft procurement spending outside of the base budget. The OCO-for-Base account also includes $2.3 billion in incremental and advance procurement funding in the shipbuilding account which, along with weapons and other spending, totals $5.9 billion in Navy and Marine Corps spending in this account.

The section uses OCO money, which is not subject to the defense spending caps set in the Bipartisan Budget Act, and therefore gets the military around the low congressionally mandated spending levels that officials have for years said is hurting military readiness.

“Platforms deployed well beyond their intended useful life, inadequate supplies of high demand assets, outdated technology, and equipment that is too expensive to maintain all exacerbate the readiness crisis. The Chairman’s Mark makes key investments to accelerate the transition to new, more effective, and more reliable platforms, and provides additional high-demand assets to reduce the stress on the force,” HASC Chairman Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) wrote in a summary of the bill, noting the importance of restoring readiness to the force this year.

“Delivery of new equipment is essential, but Congress must make vital maintenance investments not included in the President’s budget to ensure that next-to-deploy units are mission capable. In addition to funding maintenance accounts, the Chairman’s Mark grants direct hire authority to depots in order to alleviate their critical manpower shortages. The Chairman’s Proposal increases Navy Ship and Aircraft depot maintenance and afloat readiness by $530 million and Air Force depot maintenance by $430 million, while also including $160 million for Navy Cruiser modernization and $67 million for Marine Corps logistics. Each of these investments was identified as a critical requirement by the military services; none of them were fully funded in the President’s Budget Request.”

HASC seapower and projection forces subcommittee chairman Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) said in a statement ahead of the bill markup that “this mark increases shipbuilding to $20.6 billion, $2.3 billion more than the President’s budget, and the highest level of shipbuilding funding since the Reagan-Lehman era, adjusting for inflation. It also rejects the administration’s plan to layup 11 cruisers once more, and prevents the disestablishment of one of 10 carrier air wings. With this legislation, we are rejecting further budget cuts, bending the curve lines, and making a down payment on the 350-ship Navy we need for national defense.”

As generous as the procurement section of the bill is, though, the personnel and the operations and maintenance sections are funded only through April 30, 2017. Thornberry said in remarks before the bill markup that “there will be a new president, who undoubtedly will review the operational activities proposed by President Obama as well as the funding levels for them. And the new president and the new Congress will have the opportunity to make adjustments.” Thornberry noted that this happened in FY 2009, when a “bridge fund” was passed to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in the early part of the year and another supplemental funding package was passed once the Obama administration was in place.

Overall, the committee allows for $610.5 billion in spending despite a $574-billion limit in the House Budget Committee’s FY 2017 plan through balancing spending between the base and OCO accounts. The full House of Representatives will have to vote to pass the bill, and the Senate Armed Services Committee will go through the same process to pass its own bill later this spring. The House and Senate will have to merge their two versions and the president will have to sign the legislation before these spending items become law.

The defense bill, in addition to laying out spending authority, also sets policy – this year’s bill is chock full of reforms on defense acquisition, Pentagon organization and military personnel benefits – and also indicates future potential actions through a section of “directive report language.”

The Vote by the way, passed 60-2.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/m...age-/83631266/

The entire House voted 277-147
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/m...ions/84573238/

The Senate Vote for a similar bill passed 30-0
http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...ding/84976260/

The whole Senate vote will be soon. After conference, the bill will be sent to the President, who will sign it with a signing statement expressing his displeasure. But he won't win a fight with Congress. Not when they're voting 60-2 and 30-0.

Massively increasing defense spending in America is bipartisanly popular. The only problem is Barack Obama, who has trying to engineer an "East of the Suez" moment. He is the only problem. And the problem goes away for good in 237 days. And then it's back to the good old days. Hopefully starting with moving the ORP to it's own budget, accelerating carrier production to a 4 year build, and restarting F-22 production. Just like Reagan did with the B-1B (and F-16 exports) when Carter was sent home.

The FY2017 defense budget is a rejection of the Age of Obama and his teams crazy/stupid foreign policy. .