Jump to content


Photo

Cold War, The Reimagined Series


  • Please log in to reply
7943 replies to this topic

#7761 Gregory

Gregory

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,475 posts

Posted 22 August 2019 - 0142 AM

The clown has spoken again, and the local Pavlovian dogs respond with the usual bark. :D

US threatens to withdraw troops from Germany
2 hours agoThe US says it might pull out some troops from Germany amid rifts over a naval mission in the Persian Gulf and defense spending. The remarks from the US ambassador come ahead of two presidential trips to Europe.
The United States is considering withdrawing some of the US troops stationed in Germany, with Poland mooted as a possible new deployment, the US ambassador to Germany has said.
The threat of withdrawal comes amid ongoing differences between Berlin and Washington over Germany's contribution to NATO and a current spat caused by the German refusal to take part in a US-led naval mission in the Persian Gulf.
"It is actually offensive to assume that the US taxpayer must continue to pay to have 50,000-plus Americans in Germany, but the Germans get to spend their surplus on domestic programs," US Ambassador Richard Grenell told the DPA news agency, in comments carried widely by German media on Friday.
His remarks come after the US ambassador to Poland, Georgette Mosbacher, tweeted that her country would be happy for the American troops in Germany to move there instead.
US President Donald Trump had also mentioned the possibility of moving some American troops from Germany to Poland in talks with Polish President Andrzej Duda in Washington in June, something that was also mentioned by Grenell.
"President Trump is right and Georgette Mosbacher is right, " he said, saying that requests by "numerous presidents" for Germany to "pay for its own defense" had been ignored. Now was the time for Americans and the US president had to react, he said.
[...]

https://www.dw.com/e...many/a-49959555
I've said it before - something like relocating 2nd Cavalry Regiment to Poland would actually make military and political sense if you presumed that the NATO-Russia Founding Act has been invalided by Russian action, and probably affordable by Poland if they are supposed to pay for it. The same is not true for the huge logistics and C4ISR infrastructure and its sunk cost, which benefits global US interests at least as much as German security. You could do it of course, but it would be a multi-term process with exceedingly high cost I don't see any single or combination of allies willing to pay.
I'm also not sure for which "our country" the US ambassador to Poland speaks. ;)

That’s a reasonable argument when negotiating basing cost compensation. As a reason for US to continue to provide Germany with defense guarantees it lacks certain .... moral suasion. I am afraid we are nearing a point where bipartisan consensus will be for US to de facto (if not de jure) withdraw militarily from Europe.
  • 0

#7762 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 22 August 2019 - 0208 AM

Its interesting to note how little there is coming out of Russia on the armed forces these days. There has been no posts on Russian Defence.net for months about new units being formed or reequipped. There are still the odd flyby of Alaska and Europe, there was the shooting incident off South Korea, but apart from that, nothing.  Im not sure why this is, but I doubt its because they have lost interest in reforming Divisions.


  • 0

#7763 a77

a77

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 701 posts

Posted 24 August 2019 - 0017 AM

The fact that the nuclear reactor is not exposed to the environment means that the missile flies "clean" and therefore can be launched to holding stations deep at sea or over barren terrain such as the Antarctica, without causing any radioactivity unless the missile fails or is shot down; it is a useful rung in the escalation ladder, with it being understood as a matter of course that finding new rungs in the escalation ladder is at the heart of international deterrence and strategy these days.

 

and its totaly stupid, it will be super expensive, better to build more conventional propelled nuclear tiped big cruise missiles, and ad a solid boster for rapid lunch and deploy and scatter them deep into Russia. No this is all scam, yes they are doing some R&D, but it all to look "strong"


  • 0

#7764 a77

a77

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 701 posts

Posted 24 August 2019 - 0024 AM

Launch a Tomahawk from a ground-based Mk-41 launcher.

 

https://en.wikipedia..._Cruise_Missile

 

Come back then they US deploy a modernized Gryphon, A static Mk-41 launcher will only be a target in WW3. 


  • 0

#7765 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 24 August 2019 - 0132 AM

 

The fact that the nuclear reactor is not exposed to the environment means that the missile flies "clean" and therefore can be launched to holding stations deep at sea or over barren terrain such as the Antarctica, without causing any radioactivity unless the missile fails or is shot down; it is a useful rung in the escalation ladder, with it being understood as a matter of course that finding new rungs in the escalation ladder is at the heart of international deterrence and strategy these days.

 

and its totaly stupid, it will be super expensive, better to build more conventional propelled nuclear tiped big cruise missiles, and ad a solid boster for rapid lunch and deploy and scatter them deep into Russia. No this is all scam, yes they are doing some R&D, but it all to look "strong"

 

 

I believe the word you are looking for is 'stronk', but I agree entirely. Its a works project for oligarchs to skim off the top. Russia doesnt need to replace a system vulnerable only to ABM with one vulnerable to just about everything else. That and they seem to be irradiating half of Northern Russia trying to get the damn thing to fly.


  • 0

#7766 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,254 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 25 August 2019 - 0216 AM

As Glenn pointed out, like Status 6, the nuclear powered cruise missile makes much more sense as a conventional weapon.
  • 0

#7767 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 25 August 2019 - 0229 AM

Except if its going to chuck out this kind of radioactive material every time it hits a target, it may well qualify as a WMD inviting a retaliatory response. Which lacking a nuclear engine might invite a nuclear warhead.

 

Look at the UK. If we were attacked by a large number of these weapons, the radiological footprint to the UK might not look much different from a nuclear weapon detonation. So why bother to withhold from their use that being the case?


  • 0

#7768 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,254 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 25 August 2019 - 0243 AM

You can have it drop munitions then fly to a recovery point. Let's say it carried four 250kg class guided munitions. It could deliver them essentially anywhere in the World.
  • 0

#7769 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 25 August 2019 - 0248 AM

But that still wont rule out what happens when someone shoots them down. And someone will, because how is anyone to know what is a conventionally powered cruise missile and a nuclear engined one?

 

By way of example, even our cruise missiles which have had 30 years to mature still miss and hit unintended targets.

https://en.wikipedia..._missile_strike

Seven or nine Syrian soldiers were killed,[2][3] including a general;[44] Russian military personnel were also present at the airbase at the time it was attacked.[45] According to Syrian state news SANA, nine civilians were also killed in the attack, including four children. SANA also stated that five of the civilians were killed in the village of Shayrat,[52] outside the base, while another four were killed in the village of Al-Hamrat, and that another seven civilians were wounded when a missile hit homes in Al-Manzul, four kilometers (two and a half miles) away from the Shayrat air base.[53] According to Russian defense ministry, four soldiers were killed and two soldiers were missing.[49]

 

Thats not counting the ones that were duds and fell in deserted areas.  Again, not likely in the European context.

 

The whole idea is barking mad. It assumes you can fly nuclear engined vehicles over an enemys country and not suffer reciprocal consequences when they crash or hit the wrong target. Which is part and parcel of Russian strategic thought these days I guess.


  • 0

#7770 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,254 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 25 August 2019 - 0320 AM

And how do we respond if we shoot one down over our own territory? Its basically tough luck for us, not them.
  • 0

#7771 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 25 August 2019 - 0325 AM

Take that one step further. Its a missile with a near infinite range. What if it misses the target and then heads off towards, say, China? Or circles the globe and comes back at them. Because if our state of the art cruise missiles are going to go missing targets, I guarantee theirs are. I seem to recall the ones they shot at Syria had a loss rate of something like 15 percent. Scale that up to a nuclear powered engine, and you have a serious problem, particularly if you start irradiating people you would rather keep onside.

 

There are so many problems with the application of the weapon you have to wonder what the point is. The ONLY realistic use of them I can see is a nuclear dead hand system, and I would have thought that kind of irrelevant. They already have that with the SLBM's.


  • 0

#7772 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,254 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 25 August 2019 - 0354 AM

If it lands on someone else, they'll say we jammed it. If it lands back on them, they won't care (and there is an awful lot of nothing in Russia for it to crash on).
  • 0

#7773 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 25 August 2019 - 0601 AM

Russia reciprocates with its own cruise missile 'test'. C'est tres Butch. :D

 

https://www.independ...y-a9075941.html

 

The irony is, being sea launched this would have been perfectly legal under the INF treaty anyway I believe?


  • 0

#7774 seahawk

seahawk

    military loving leftist peace monkey

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,811 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The land where time stands still

Posted 25 August 2019 - 0656 AM

 

The clown has spoken again, and the local Pavlovian dogs respond with the usual bark. :D

US threatens to withdraw troops from Germany
2 hours agoThe US says it might pull out some troops from Germany amid rifts over a naval mission in the Persian Gulf and defense spending. The remarks from the US ambassador come ahead of two presidential trips to Europe.
The United States is considering withdrawing some of the US troops stationed in Germany, with Poland mooted as a possible new deployment, the US ambassador to Germany has said.
The threat of withdrawal comes amid ongoing differences between Berlin and Washington over Germany's contribution to NATO and a current spat caused by the German refusal to take part in a US-led naval mission in the Persian Gulf.
"It is actually offensive to assume that the US taxpayer must continue to pay to have 50,000-plus Americans in Germany, but the Germans get to spend their surplus on domestic programs," US Ambassador Richard Grenell told the DPA news agency, in comments carried widely by German media on Friday.
His remarks come after the US ambassador to Poland, Georgette Mosbacher, tweeted that her country would be happy for the American troops in Germany to move there instead.
US President Donald Trump had also mentioned the possibility of moving some American troops from Germany to Poland in talks with Polish President Andrzej Duda in Washington in June, something that was also mentioned by Grenell.
"President Trump is right and Georgette Mosbacher is right, " he said, saying that requests by "numerous presidents" for Germany to "pay for its own defense" had been ignored. Now was the time for Americans and the US president had to react, he said.
[...]

https://www.dw.com/e...many/a-49959555
I've said it before - something like relocating 2nd Cavalry Regiment to Poland would actually make military and political sense if you presumed that the NATO-Russia Founding Act has been invalided by Russian action, and probably affordable by Poland if they are supposed to pay for it. The same is not true for the huge logistics and C4ISR infrastructure and its sunk cost, which benefits global US interests at least as much as German security. You could do it of course, but it would be a multi-term process with exceedingly high cost I don't see any single or combination of allies willing to pay.
I'm also not sure for which "our country" the US ambassador to Poland speaks. ;)

That’s a reasonable argument when negotiating basing cost compensation. As a reason for US to continue to provide Germany with defense guarantees it lacks certain .... moral suasion. I am afraid we are nearing a point where bipartisan consensus will be for US to de facto (if not de jure) withdraw militarily from Europe.

 

At least in Germany the threat scares nobody. The only result it achieved was that the costs paid by Germany in regard to the US troops stationed here made it into the press and the amount was not met with enthusiasm.

 

The combined costs of direct support like the pension of former civil employees of the US forces and the costs of building and the costs of building projects for US forces amounts to 720 million Euros in the last 7 years. So roughly 100 million a year for 35.000 troops - or 2850 Euro for each soldier stationed in Germany. The threat to withdraw to Poland is not so scary. especially once this had been made public.


  • 0

#7775 Daan

Daan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,089 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where both sea and skies are grey.

Posted 25 August 2019 - 0756 AM

Does Germany pay the pensions of civil employees contracted by the US to work on their bases in Germany? Do these employees not have a pension plan with mandatory monthly down payments?


  • 0

#7776 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,440 posts
  • Location:Moscow, Russia
  • Interests:Tank recovery

Posted 25 August 2019 - 0814 AM

69314040_2682101048489009_90781083831139

69105814_2682100945155686_29157174474388


  • 0

#7777 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 25 August 2019 - 0828 AM

The top one is an ex Mig-21 pilot. :D


  • 0

#7778 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,153 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 25 August 2019 - 0924 AM

Does Germany pay the pensions of civil employees contracted by the US to work on their bases in Germany? Do these employees not have a pension plan with mandatory monthly down payments?


Any cost linked to the basing of US troops are regulated by the NATO Status of Forces Agreement and the bilateral Supplemental Agreement (German version). The major batches are leaving any property needed for basing at no charge, and paying for any improvement upon it being handed back if no longer needed; paying for the planning cost of any new construction on that property under national law; waiving claims for damage caused by the visiting forces up to certain thresholds; waiving taxes on goods and services purchased by or duties on goods imported by the forces and their members.
 
Pensions of civilian employees come under Articles 13 and 56 of the Supplementary Agreement. If I read it correctly, nationals of the visiting nation are not subject to German welfare/healthcare legislation, while German nationals are - but the employer share for their insurance is paid by the German government, which is the initial payer for all domestic acquisitions and services for the visiting forces anyway. E. g., local construction companies doing work on a US base are initially paid by German authorities, which are later reimbursed by the US side for the cost applicable under the relevant agreements. Not sure how that works with social insurance.
 
Reading the government reply to the questions of the Left Party MP the quoted numbers are coming from (specifically to question 23 with tables for the various visiting nations), I do however think that the former employees in question here are in fact US nationals which were let go in the course of the post-war downsizing, but chose to remain in Germany. They would then need to be reinsured for the time they spent inside the country in foreign employ. There is a parallel with Bundeswehr soldiers who serve terms short of reaching pension age, where they would usually get a military pension without having made the usual employer payments. But as they change into the civilian system, the credit for their service years is paid to the respective public insurer by the government. Not completely sure about that either, though.
 
The whole issue of German contributions to US basing cost is difficult anyway; there is the oft-quoted RAND study saying that Germany offsets a third of the total cost, but most of that is not through direct payments but by foregoing those property cost, taxes, duties and fees, providing Military Host Nation Support etc. - i. e. money not paid by the US for goods and services in the first place. The recently-published sums for the last seven years are way too low for that however, so they obviously include only actual German payments.

Edited by BansheeOne, 26 August 2019 - 0154 AM.

  • 0

#7779 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 25 August 2019 - 1105 AM

As Glenn pointed out, like Status 6, the nuclear powered cruise missile makes much more sense as a conventional weapon.


What?! Its a weapon that once launched, at some point is going leave a pile of radioactive waste somewhere even if it works perfectly. Which, spoiler alert, it never has. How does that make any sense as a conventional weapon when Russia already has a half dozen types of cruise and semi ballistic missiles in service?
  • 0

#7780 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 25 August 2019 - 1132 AM

If it lands on someone else, they'll say we jammed it. If it lands back on them, they won't care (and there is an awful lot of nothing in Russia for it to crash on).


If you flew that thing over my country and I had control over nuclear weapons, Id nuke the launch site even if it hit nothing. Presumably the Russians are assuming someone more rational, like the current POTUS, would be in charge. :)
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users