So, just how useless are the European NATO members?

[regexcellent]

Those are just to make the poor suckers stuck on tin cans feel useful.

Subs are a much better tomahawk platform anyway.

[Elok]

I don't know anything about the state of Europe's armed forces, but it does somewhat irritate me, as a Yank, that when we use our military we are nasty warmongers, but when we refrain from using our military we are shirking our responsibilities as world leaders. I realize that these are different groups of people saying these things. But it's still aggravating.

[Hauldren Collider]

The Royal Navy is going through a period of renewal with plenty of new ships and submarines having been commissioned or coming soon.

In terms of submarines the Astute class is replacing our older Trafalgar submarines.

The Type 45 Destroyers are very modern indeed and a significant upgrade.

In a few years time the Queen Elizabeth II aircraft carriers will be up and running and should (fingers crossed) make the Royal Navy more capable than ever.

Of course many of us would like the Royal Navy to be larger, but I certainly don't see how that the Royal Australian Navy can be considered to be growing into a more powerful entity than the Royal Navy now or in the near future. You'd need to explain that.

Because unlike the RN, the RAN actually has money to put its ships to sea.

[regexcellent]

Although it submarines are a still an awful trainwreck. Ditto Canada.

[Dauphin]

Is a trainwreck worse than a shipwreck?

[kittenOFchaos]

Because unlike the RN, the RAN actually has money to put its ships to sea.

Many of our ships are at sea. What easy to refute nonsense is this? Embarrassing really.

Just one of many current deployments...

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2014/august/27/140827-hms-bulwark-amphibious-deployment

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2014/october/01/141001-royal-navy-task-group-rendezvous-with-french-allies

Not to mention that since 1969 we've always had at least one submarine armed with nuclear missiles on patrol. Has Australia? Will it ever?

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/operations/global/continuous-at-sea-deterrent

[Colonâ„¢]

I don't know anything about the state of Europe's armed forces, but it does somewhat irritate me, as a Yank, that when we use our military we are nasty warmongers, but when we refrain from using our military we are shirking our responsibilities as world leaders. I realize that these are different groups of people saying these things. But it's still aggravating.

Ir irritates me that when we call you yanks we're liable to get nagged to that only northerners are yanks, but it's perfectly alright for you to call yourselves yanks when you're referring to the whole US.

[Dr Strangelove]

You realize that half of Russia's land based ICBM's are old fashioned liquid-fueled models and the rest are sitting ducks mounted on trucks? Their SSBN's are noisy ancient models. Their early warning system is in shambles. In all seriousness a first strike to neutralize their strategic forces is quite feasible. Russia's really nothing to worry about, their commanders know that you have the muzzle of the gun resting on their temple and all you have to do is pull the trigger. If Russia's nothing to worry about, then who is?

[Elok]

Ir irritates me that when we call you yanks we're liable to get nagged to that only northerners are yanks, but it's perfectly alright for you to call yourselves yanks when you're referring to the whole US.

Are you familiar with the N word, and who may or may not use it?

[regexcellent]

Nuclear war isn't a serious possibility anymore. Mutually assured destruction as a policy depended on a number of prerequisites that no longer exist. For example, if in the Cold War we didn't have a massive NATO presence on the inner German border, Russia biting off bits of West Germany or some other NATO country would not have resulted in nuclear war. At no point in that game would ending the world have made sense as a policy and it wouldn't have been a credible threat. So we had conventional troops in order to respond appropriately. 3 to 1 superiority of numbers is the rule of thumb requirement for attacking a defensive position. The only way the Soviets could have achieved the necessary local advantage would have been with tactical nuclear weapons. The same was true in reverse, i.e. NATO attacking Warsaw Pact positions. That would inevitably lead to an all-out world-ending strategic nuclear exchange, so nobody ****ed with each other.

Fast forward to today, and we no longer have the conventional forces in position necessary to counter a conventional threat to peripheral NATO members. Since, now as then, ending the world over one slice of Europe doesn't seem to make sense, our nuclear deterrent is not credible.

[Hauldren Collider]

Ir irritates me that when we call you yanks we're liable to get nagged to that only northerners are yanks, but it's perfectly alright for you to call yourselves yanks when you're referring to the whole US.

Elok is a Yankee though. (Or are you from the more "southern" part of Maryland, Elok?)

[Elok]

Born in DC, raised in PGC, of Pittsburgh and New Yorker parents. Make of that what you will.

[kittenOFchaos]

Nuclear war isn't a serious possibility anymore. Mutually assured destruction as a policy depended on a number of prerequisites that no longer exist. For example, if in the Cold War we didn't have a massive NATO presence on the inner German border, Russia biting off bits of West Germany or some other NATO country would not have resulted in nuclear war. At no point in that game would ending the world have made sense as a policy and it wouldn't have been a credible threat. So we had conventional troops in order to respond appropriately. 3 to 1 superiority of numbers is the rule of thumb requirement for attacking a defensive position. The only way the Soviets could have achieved the necessary local advantage would have been with tactical nuclear weapons. The same was true in reverse, i.e. NATO attacking Warsaw Pact positions. That would inevitably lead to an all-out world-ending strategic nuclear exchange, so nobody ****ed with each other.

Fast forward to today, and we no longer have the conventional forces in position necessary to counter a conventional threat to peripheral NATO members. Since, now as then, ending the world over one slice of Europe doesn't seem to make sense, our nuclear deterrent is not credible.

This post doesn't make sense - to me at least. There is certainly insufficient explanation to justify the statement that nuclear war is no longer possible.

Additionally, during the Cold War it was NATO and not the USSR that lacked conventional forces in central Europe and required tactical nuclear weapons to address the balance.

[kittenOFchaos]

You realize that half of Russia's land based ICBM's are old fashioned liquid-fueled models and the rest are sitting ducks mounted on trucks? Their SSBN's are noisy ancient models. Their early warning system is in shambles. In all seriousness a first strike to neutralize their strategic forces is quite feasible. Russia's really nothing to worry about, their commanders know that you have the muzzle of the gun resting on their temple and all you have to do is pull the trigger. If Russia's nothing to worry about, then who is?

Just because Russia still has out-dated systems doesn't mean that it isn't something to worry about. They are still developing and upgrading their nuclear arsenal.

Additionally, those mobile launchers aren't sitting ducks. If Iraqi scud launchers were difficult to track down, what chance tracking down Russian launchers on her own soil given her SAMs, air force and forests.

Whilst a first strike would limit Russian retaliation it is hard to envisage when a US President would do this in the case of a conventional war in Eastern or even Central Europe because Russia has the means to retaliate.

[regexcellent]

This post doesn't make sense - to me at least. Additionally there is insufficient explanation to justify the statement that nuclear war is no longer possible.

Additionally, during the Cold War it was NATO and not the USSR that lacked conventional forces in central Europe and required tactical nuclear weapons to address the balance.

We had a disadvantage in ground forces but an overwhelming advantage in air forces and in order to make progress on the offensive the Soviets would not have been able to succeed without chemical and nuclear weapons.

edit: in retrospect the assertion that nuclear war isn't possible/plausible is too strong. Still I think that the likelyhood we would go nuclear over the Baltics or even Poland isn't all that high unless we also have a lot of troops there.