1. #38221
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    America and other NATO states already have defence pacts with Japan and South Korea. The ones that don’t would lack the force projection to be able to honour them anyway.
    People tend to think of geopolitical distances on a flat plane as on a map.

    That's not quite how it works. The Arctic Ocean is and will be the oceanic battlefield of the 21st century. Both the Russians and the Chinese have been investing heavily in both ships capable of sailing it, icebreakers etc and submarines capable of launching ICBMs from it. Scandinavia is very relevant to that region.

    On a side note to that...It's FUCKING TIME to "renegotiate" the Svalbard Treaty and kick the Russians off of those islands, followed by putting a massive fucking NATO naval/air base on them.

    Then there's increased technology sharing, cross training etc.
    Last edited by Elder Millennial; 2024-04-19 at 11:53 AM.

  2. #38222
    Over 9000! zealo's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    9,527
    Quote Originally Posted by Elder Millennial View Post
    I mean... "North Atlantic Treaty Organization".

    Allowing Argentina in would need some serious rewriting of statues...but...it would also open up a whole new set of options...like Australia, South Korea and Japan.

    Which would absolutely give the Chinese a mental breakdown.
    Argentina won't be joining NATO as a full member anyway, becoming a "global partner" is basically just them signalling they won't be actively siding with China or Russia.

  3. #38223
    The Unstoppable Force Jessicka's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    21,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Elder Millennial View Post
    People tend to think of geopolitical distances on a flat plane as on a map.

    That's not quite how it works. The Arctic Ocean is and will be the oceanic battlefield of the 21st century. Both the Russians and the Chinese have been investing heavily in both ships capable of sailing it, icebreakers etc and submarines capable of launching ICBMs from it. Scandinavia is very relevant to that region.

    On a side note to that...It's FUCKING TIME to "renegotiate" the Svalbard Treaty and kick the Russians off of those islands, followed by putting a massive fucking NATO naval/air base on them.

    Then there's increased technology sharing, cross training etc.
    Of course, all those countries (several of which are landlocked) worried about a ground invasion in Eastern and Southern Europe, and have primed their militaries accordingly, could just go over the arctic.
    Last edited by Jessicka; 2024-04-19 at 03:13 PM.

  4. #38224
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    Of course, all those countries (several of which are landlocked) worried about a ground invasion in Eastern and Southern Europe, and have primed their militaries accordingly, could just go over the arctic.
    I was about to write an "essay" explaining how defense blocks work, what a flank is, what logistics are, but then I realized I'd be wasting my time. So I'll just sum it up as such.

    Just because fucking Czechia is nowhere near the fucking Article Circle its membership in NATO is not irrelevant to that theater just as Spain or France's membership to NATO is not irrelevant to Eastern Europe despite the fact that neither of those countries is anywhere fucking near Suwalki Gap.

  5. #38225
    The Unstoppable Force Jessicka's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    21,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Elder Millennial View Post
    I was about to write an "essay" explaining how defense blocks work, what a flank is, what logistics are, but then I realized I'd be wasting my time. So I'll just sum it up as such.

    Just because fucking Czechia is nowhere near the fucking Article Circle its membership in NATO is not irrelevant to that theater just as Spain or France's membership to NATO is not irrelevant to Eastern Europe despite the fact that neither of those countries is anywhere fucking near Suwalki Gap.
    It is, because it means spending money on military logistics and training. Money that is very much finite and better off focused where it's most likely needed. This is why Britain buys planes and ships, and Poland and Germany buy tanks, just as an example.

  6. #38226
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    It is, because it means spending money on military logistics and training. Money that is very much finite and better off focused where it's most likely needed. This is why Britain buys planes and ships, and Poland and Germany buy tanks, just as an example.
    Lord give me patience.

  7. #38227
    The Unstoppable Force Jessicka's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    21,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Elder Millennial View Post
    Lord give me patience.
    Right so the US is going to fly Polish tank divisions halfway around the world for them? Got it.

    Nothing to do with NATO being set up and its members focusing their spending to their geographical advantages as a strategic defensive alliance.
    Last edited by Jessicka; 2024-04-19 at 05:07 PM.

  8. #38228
    The Lightbringer Iphie's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Suomi/Nederland
    Posts
    3,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    Right so the US is going to fly Polish tank divisions halfway around the world for them? Got it.

    Nothing to do with NATO being set up and its members focusing their spending to their geographical advantages as a strategic defensive alliance.
    If that were true then western Europe should be focussing on asymmetric warfare, electronic warfare, etc. while east Europe should be tanks, armoured vehicles and artillery. We know this is not how it works

  9. #38229
    Over 9000! zealo's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    9,527
    The US House just now passed that long overdue aid package to Ukraine, US munitions deliveries ought to be resuming soon with that hurdle over.

    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-...ge-2024-04-20/

    WASHINGTON, April 20 (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives on Saturday with broad bipartisan support passed a $95 billion legislative package providing security assistance to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, over bitter objections from Republican hardliners.

    The legislation now proceeds to the Democratic-majority Senate, which passed a similar measure more than two months ago. U.S. leaders from Democratic President Joe Biden to top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell have been urging embattled Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson to bring it up for a vote.

    The Senate is expected to pass the measure next week, sending it to Biden to sign into law.

  10. #38230
    Bloodsail Admiral Karreck's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Beneath you. Devouring.
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by zealo View Post
    The US House just now passed that long overdue aid package to Ukraine, US munitions deliveries ought to be resuming soon with that hurdle over.

    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-...ge-2024-04-20/
    Good. About time.
    Princesses can kill knights to rescue dragons.

  11. #38231

  12. #38232
    Quote Originally Posted by Resurgo View Post
    and Ukraine has now claimed a Russian Backfire...
    https://www.businessinsider.com/ever...r-plane-2024-4
    I love Russia's excuse that the plane 'had crashed', leaving them once again in a no-win situation. Either they got shut down, or they have incompetent pilots that can't fly their planes

  13. #38233
    The Unstoppable Force Jessicka's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    21,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Odinfrost View Post
    I love Russia's excuse that the plane 'had crashed', leaving them once again in a no-win situation. Either they got shut down, or they have incompetent pilots that can't fly their planes
    Well it will crash when a wing gets shot off to be fair.

  14. #38234
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    Right so the US is going to fly Polish tank divisions halfway around the world for them? Got it.
    Yes. Yes it will.

    The US has been doing logistical support for NATO in Afghanistan, for allied forces in Iraq and Syria, supporting the French/Belgian/German/Portuguese operations in the Sahel.

    That's the entire point of Nato's logistical standardization. Munition types, calibers, crate and palet sizes etc etc.

    The US can ship a Polish Leopard or K2 tank brigade to wherever the fuck the Poles are willing to go and keep them supplied with munitions, parts, electronics etc.

  15. #38235
    The Unstoppable Force Jessicka's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    21,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Elder Millennial View Post
    Yes. Yes it will.

    The US has been doing logistical support for NATO in Afghanistan, for allied forces in Iraq and Syria, supporting the French/Belgian/German/Portuguese operations in the Sahel.

    That's the entire point of Nato's logistical standardization. Munition types, calibers, crate and palet sizes etc etc.

    The US can ship a Polish Leopard or K2 tank brigade to wherever the fuck the Poles are willing to go and keep them supplied with munitions, parts, electronics etc.
    I just had to go back to the original post I was replying to because this is getting tied in knots. My first point was that much of NATO doesn't have bilateral agreements with Asia-Pacific countries because they lack the force projection to be of any use, and that lack is down to NATOs setup which allowed them to focus on their own back yard issues: such as Iceland doesn't even have a military, others are landlocked, or others still are very small and contribute very little beyond self-defence forces, and lastly those on the Eastern flank focusing on ground capabilities.

    You came up with stuff about needing to fight in Arctic waters to defend Korea and Taiwan or something. I'm pretty confident those Leopard brigades aren't going to be needed in the waters of the Arctic circle, certainly not in summer, and that there's a very strong chance you'd want them to stay on the ground on that Eastern flank instead.

    That said, if Korea or Taiwan did want defending, it wouldn't surprise me if some of those nations stepped up under NATO anyway, as they have in other parts of the world.

  16. #38236
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    I just had to go back to the original post I was replying to because this is getting tied in knots. My first point was that much of NATO doesn't have bilateral agreements with Asia-Pacific countries because they lack the force projection to be of any use, and that lack is down to NATOs setup which allowed them to focus on their own back yard issues: such as Iceland doesn't even have a military, others are landlocked, or others still are very small and contribute very little beyond self-defence forces, and lastly those on the Eastern flank focusing on ground capabilities.

    You came up with stuff about needing to fight in Arctic waters to defend Korea and Taiwan or something. I'm pretty confident those Leopard brigades aren't going to be needed in the waters of the Arctic circle, certainly not in summer, and that there's a very strong chance you'd want them to stay on the ground on that Eastern flank instead.

    That said, if Korea or Taiwan did want defending, it wouldn't surprise me if some of those nations stepped up under NATO anyway, as they have in other parts of the world.
    You said Asia is not a relevant theater to powers that don't have conventional presence in Asia.

    I pointed out that Asia/Eastern Europe is not actually as far from a theater that is relevant to Northern/Eastern Europe, as in the Arctic, as people think. Pointing out that munitions or equipment made or stored in central or southern Europe could easily be used in a conflict in that area. Not to mention air forces of countries specifically like Poland, Finland, Norway, Sweden are very relevant to that area, just as Czech, Romanian etc air forces would be relevant to keeping the Russians in check.

    You once again brought up power projection suggesting that a country like Poland couldn't play a role in an area like Eastern Europe because the US won't ship them to that area.

    I pointed out multiple historical and current examples of the US running logistics for countries with no means or limited means to project power to far away remote areas like Sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia.

    If you're willing to go even further back you could mention the Korean War where the US was enabling power projection for as disparate countries like Greece, Colombia and South Africa to fight against North Korean and Chinese forces in Korea.

    My entire point is that you think of global geopolitical distances as a "flat plain" and also ignoring why "NATO standard" was invented in the first place, and why countries like Korea, Japan, Germany, Poland, Finland, Australia all standardized on compatible logistics.

  17. #38237
    The Unstoppable Force Jessicka's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    21,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Elder Millennial View Post
    You said Asia is not a relevant theater to powers that don't have conventional presence in Asia.

    I pointed out that Asia/Eastern Europe is not actually as far from a theater that is relevant to Northern/Eastern Europe, as in the Arctic, as people think. Pointing out that munitions or equipment made or stored in central or southern Europe could easily be used in a conflict in that area. Not to mention air forces of countries specifically like Poland, Finland, Norway, Sweden are very relevant to that area, just as Czech, Romanian etc air forces would be relevant to keeping the Russians in check.

    You once again brought up power projection suggesting that a country like Poland couldn't play a role in an area like Eastern Europe because the US won't ship them to that area.

    I pointed out multiple historical and current examples of the US running logistics for countries with no means or limited means to project power to far away remote areas like Sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia.

    If you're willing to go even further back you could mention the Korean War where the US was enabling power projection for as disparate countries like Greece, Colombia and South Africa to fight against North Korean and Chinese forces in Korea.

    My entire point is that you think of global geopolitical distances as a "flat plain" and also ignoring why "NATO standard" was invented in the first place, and why countries like Korea, Japan, Germany, Poland, Finland, Australia all standardized on compatible logistics.
    I did not say it wasn't relevant, I said they didn't have the forces or force projection to be able to do anything about it. Tell me, with or without US logistics, what the fuck Estonia and Latvia are going to do about anything happening in Japan? What purpose would it serve them to have a bilateral defence agreement?

  18. #38238
    The Lightbringer Iphie's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Suomi/Nederland
    Posts
    3,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    I did not say it wasn't relevant, I said they didn't have the forces or force projection to be able to do anything about it. Tell me, with or without US logistics, what the fuck Estonia and Latvia are going to do about anything happening in Japan? What purpose would it serve them to have a bilateral defence agreement?
    Who is between those countries? That's right, ruskieland, if russia attacks Estonia or Japan, then it's automatically pincered. Effectively russia has to spread thin to defend in multiple directions rather than just one direction.

  19. #38239
    The Unstoppable Force Jessicka's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    21,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Iphie View Post
    Who is between those countries? That's right, ruskieland, if russia attacks Estonia or Japan, then it's automatically pincered. Effectively russia has to spread thin to defend in multiple directions rather than just one direction.
    Which it’s going to do anyway in that circumstance, but in “lesser” scenarios, perhaps not involving Russia or China, what would be the point? How could they meaningfully help without leaving themselves wide open?

  20. #38240
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    Which it’s going to do anyway in that circumstance, but in “lesser” scenarios, perhaps not involving Russia or China, what would be the point? How could they meaningfully help without leaving themselves wide open?
    Again. That's the whole point of NATO. An Estonian unit can provide reconnaissance for a Polish armored united, supported by a Romanian air wing, while a different Polish air wing unit is hunting cruise missiles over the Arctic Ocean covering a British or Norwegian naval unit.

    That's why at the very beginning when you first replied to me I was advocating for even broader NATO wide cooperation with Asian and LATAM countries, possibly even directly including them into NATO, which would be my preference. NATO should be reformed to include pretty much anyone, anywhere on Earth as long as that country is both a functional democracy and has a vested interest in opposing China and Russia.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •