5 ms·

But, if US citizens didn't want this then the US could clearly work with Europe to transition away from being protector of Europe. So, I'm left wondering why Am

by josho 10y ago

But, if US citizens didn't want this then the US could clearly work with Europe to transition away from being protector of Europe. So, I'm left wondering why Americans want to subsidize Europe in this regard?

pm90 10y ago
Probably because it justifies having American forces stationed in Europe and ready to deploy against Russia. While not the feared enemy of the Soviet Era, Russia remains a large geopolitical adversary of the US and is the only non-western country capable of manufacturing sophisticated armaments (although China is getting there).
monkmartinez 10y ago
I can tell by your posts that you're idealistic, probably young. If you think citizens of any country really have a "say" or "seat at the table" when it comes to big decisions, you are in for some good life lessons. That is not how the world works at this time. "Citizens" are here to provide work for the state. Voting is illusory and until the masses wake up (not holding my breath), it will remain the case.
- serge2k 10y ago
  Can I ask why you feel the need to act condescending and dismissive? Just old and bitter?
  - monkmartinez 10y ago
    Rather than get into a "feelings and perception" contest... let's talk about the facts. Citizens are allowed to vote. For the sake of this argument, lets leave out the actual process of voting. Citizens elect official. Citizens are NOT consulted for major decisions post election of said official. Citizens can bluff and buster all they want. Elected official can do as they please. Lobby groups have more access to decision making process than citizens, and way more pull as they control the purse strings to re-election and keeping elected official with a job. Therefore, I posit that it is simply naive to think "citizens" could demand the US to retreat from Europe anymore than they could demand an invasion of Europe. The world simply doesn't work that way. I am not saying it can't... it is going to take a whole lot more than electing Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump or Hillary or some horrible clown to get the power into the hands of the Citizens. The bigger question(s) are; has power EVER been truly in the hands of the masses/citizens? Why do people cling on to that as a good way forward? Leadership by committee in my experience has been horrible beyond reproach...
    - josho 10y ago
      I agree about your larger question, and would enjoy exploring that. But, for this conversation I find it most interesting and relevant that the citizens don't even see the military budget as an issue. On this issue we need not even worry about my naive belief that citizen's have power, because in fact the citizens don't even see the need to change anything as they fully subscribe to the belief--put forward by the rulers--that the military budget is essential. So, yes, citizens could stand to wake up, I agree.
logfromblammo 10y ago
I bet $1 that it has something to do with destroying long range ballistic missiles during boost phase. The image of protector of Europe is probably an illusion maintained to ensure that the US can put its forward radars and anti-missile batteries in strategically superior locations.
- josho 10y ago
  I thought that there was no defence against ICBMs, it turns out that we likely do now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile Regardless, I'm not sure why a US base is required in Europe for the sole reason of housing a defensive ABM.
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    It's actually probably more useful to have the big radars in Europe, for anything not specifically targeting that piece of the continent. Hitting a ballistic missile during boost phase is difficult, especially one launched by the US, Russia, or China, who are willing to pay for more and better ABM countermeasures on their launch vehicles. Having forward radars to detect and track the launch makes it easier to hit later. It also makes it easier to estimate the target area for each vehicle, and assign priorities accordingly. The US and best buddy Israel have developed some incredible anti-missile and anti-artillery technologies [0][1]. While really expensive, they do ensure that a very clear and obvious act of war has to occur in order to seriously damage a defended area. A handful of guys with plausible deniability can no longer just fire some rockets and mortars over the border and expect to get away, to do it again later. The projectiles that might have killed someone are destroyed in midair, and return fire is already incoming to the original firing positions. It is possible that the US has fielded systems on its own that are at least an order of magnitude more expensive than those shared with Israel and Europe, but are not known to have been tested by live fire, because of the increased difficulty and expense in firing missiles that can hit US territory. Iron Dome protects cities and towns. Whatever the US has probably protects whole states, if not the entire continent. The military certainly isn't spending all 3% of the whole US economy on individual soldier benefits. And not everything produces as much disappointment as the F-35. Sometimes the big expensive thing actually works as intended. Telemetry stations in Europe are not necessary, but they are cheaper to operate than the alternatives. And they provide the PR benefit of, "Oh yeah, I guess we can provide first-strike deterrence for your country a little bit too, while we're at it." You need only look at the recent history of the Crimean peninsula to know that your country has to have some strategic importance to the US in order for the American military (or diplomatic corps) to even attempt to defend it. The more recent additions to NATO would be wise to see to their own defenses, under the presumption that NATO is far more able to avenge than protect. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_3
zeveb 10y ago
> So, I'm left wondering why Americans want to subsidize Europe in this regard? Because Europe's wars cost us dearly in the 20th century.
- dTal 10y ago
  Hardly. By any reasonable metric of post-war success, America, Germany, and Japan were the three winners of WW2. America profited massively, enjoying an enormous economic boost from the war effort, the bill for which they handed to Britain (and which was finally fully paid off in... wait for it... 2006!) and subsidizing the development of the latter two countries through the Marshall plan. Economically, it's blatantly obvious. But it's not a perspective that's in anyone's interest to push. I have no doubt that if the eagle-boner's wildest wet dreams came true and the US had to intervene on Europe's behalf, there'd be a big fat bill at the end.
  - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
    America profited barely at all ( by law, war profiteering was like a ... firing squad offense, okay not quite but... ) - we'd run more debt than anyone thought possible at the time, consumer demand had been suppressed since 1929 and the thing just exploded. Eventually. After 1949-1950. The critical thing is all that debt and industrial capacity, presented with the prostrate markets of the world.
gozur88 10y ago
I think people are afraid of tinkering with existing security arrangements because they seem to have worked. There hasn't been a major war between two countries in Europe for seven decades. Personally, I don't see any reason to station US troops in other countries, but I'm outnumbered.
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
Because Americans used willing suspension of disbelief to transition from a nation purely interested in itself to a nation interested in the entire world. When the music stopped in August, 1945, guess who was most widely deployed, had the people and wherewithal to lead? Guess whose closest partner - the UK - was wholesale getting out of the Empire business? Disregard the industrial Golem we had. We have entire cable channels dedicated at least partly to rerunning propaganda designed for consumption by Americans for WWII to his day.

by josho 10y ago

pm90 10y ago

Probably because it justifies having American forces stationed in Europe and ready to deploy against Russia. While not the feared enemy of the Soviet Era, Russia remains a large geopolitical adversary of the US and is the only non-western country capable of manufacturing sophisticated armaments (although China is getting there).

monkmartinez 10y ago

I can tell by your posts that you're idealistic, probably young. If you think citizens of any country really have a "say" or "seat at the table" when it comes to big decisions, you are in for some good life lessons. That is not how the world works at this time. "Citizens" are here to provide work for the state. Voting is illusory and until the masses wake up (not holding my breath), it will remain the case.

serge2k 10y ago
Can I ask why you feel the need to act condescending and dismissive? Just old and bitter?
- monkmartinez 10y ago
  Rather than get into a "feelings and perception" contest... let's talk about the facts. Citizens are allowed to vote. For the sake of this argument, lets leave out the actual process of voting. Citizens elect official. Citizens are NOT consulted for major decisions post election of said official. Citizens can bluff and buster all they want. Elected official can do as they please. Lobby groups have more access to decision making process than citizens, and way more pull as they control the purse strings to re-election and keeping elected official with a job. Therefore, I posit that it is simply naive to think "citizens" could demand the US to retreat from Europe anymore than they could demand an invasion of Europe. The world simply doesn't work that way. I am not saying it can't... it is going to take a whole lot more than electing Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump or Hillary or some horrible clown to get the power into the hands of the Citizens. The bigger question(s) are; has power EVER been truly in the hands of the masses/citizens? Why do people cling on to that as a good way forward? Leadership by committee in my experience has been horrible beyond reproach...
  - josho 10y ago
    I agree about your larger question, and would enjoy exploring that. But, for this conversation I find it most interesting and relevant that the citizens don't even see the military budget as an issue. On this issue we need not even worry about my naive belief that citizen's have power, because in fact the citizens don't even see the need to change anything as they fully subscribe to the belief--put forward by the rulers--that the military budget is essential. So, yes, citizens could stand to wake up, I agree.

logfromblammo 10y ago

I bet $1 that it has something to do with destroying long range ballistic missiles during boost phase. The image of protector of Europe is probably an illusion maintained to ensure that the US can put its forward radars and anti-missile batteries in strategically superior locations.

josho 10y ago
I thought that there was no defence against ICBMs, it turns out that we likely do now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile Regardless, I'm not sure why a US base is required in Europe for the sole reason of housing a defensive ABM.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  It's actually probably more useful to have the big radars in Europe, for anything not specifically targeting that piece of the continent. Hitting a ballistic missile during boost phase is difficult, especially one launched by the US, Russia, or China, who are willing to pay for more and better ABM countermeasures on their launch vehicles. Having forward radars to detect and track the launch makes it easier to hit later. It also makes it easier to estimate the target area for each vehicle, and assign priorities accordingly. The US and best buddy Israel have developed some incredible anti-missile and anti-artillery technologies [0][1]. While really expensive, they do ensure that a very clear and obvious act of war has to occur in order to seriously damage a defended area. A handful of guys with plausible deniability can no longer just fire some rockets and mortars over the border and expect to get away, to do it again later. The projectiles that might have killed someone are destroyed in midair, and return fire is already incoming to the original firing positions. It is possible that the US has fielded systems on its own that are at least an order of magnitude more expensive than those shared with Israel and Europe, but are not known to have been tested by live fire, because of the increased difficulty and expense in firing missiles that can hit US territory. Iron Dome protects cities and towns. Whatever the US has probably protects whole states, if not the entire continent. The military certainly isn't spending all 3% of the whole US economy on individual soldier benefits. And not everything produces as much disappointment as the F-35. Sometimes the big expensive thing actually works as intended. Telemetry stations in Europe are not necessary, but they are cheaper to operate than the alternatives. And they provide the PR benefit of, "Oh yeah, I guess we can provide first-strike deterrence for your country a little bit too, while we're at it." You need only look at the recent history of the Crimean peninsula to know that your country has to have some strategic importance to the US in order for the American military (or diplomatic corps) to even attempt to defend it. The more recent additions to NATO would be wise to see to their own defenses, under the presumption that NATO is far more able to avenge than protect. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_3

zeveb 10y ago

> So, I'm left wondering why Americans want to subsidize Europe in this regard? Because Europe's wars cost us dearly in the 20th century.

dTal 10y ago
Hardly. By any reasonable metric of post-war success, America, Germany, and Japan were the three winners of WW2. America profited massively, enjoying an enormous economic boost from the war effort, the bill for which they handed to Britain (and which was finally fully paid off in... wait for it... 2006!) and subsidizing the development of the latter two countries through the Marshall plan. Economically, it's blatantly obvious. But it's not a perspective that's in anyone's interest to push. I have no doubt that if the eagle-boner's wildest wet dreams came true and the US had to intervene on Europe's behalf, there'd be a big fat bill at the end.
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  America profited barely at all ( by law, war profiteering was like a ... firing squad offense, okay not quite but... ) - we'd run more debt than anyone thought possible at the time, consumer demand had been suppressed since 1929 and the thing just exploded. Eventually. After 1949-1950. The critical thing is all that debt and industrial capacity, presented with the prostrate markets of the world.

gozur88 10y ago

I think people are afraid of tinkering with existing security arrangements because they seem to have worked. There hasn't been a major war between two countries in Europe for seven decades. Personally, I don't see any reason to station US troops in other countries, but I'm outnumbered.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

Because Americans used willing suspension of disbelief to transition from a nation purely interested in itself to a nation interested in the entire world. When the music stopped in August, 1945, guess who was most widely deployed, had the people and wherewithal to lead? Guess whose closest partner - the UK - was wholesale getting out of the Empire business? Disregard the industrial Golem we had. We have entire cable channels dedicated at least partly to rerunning propaganda designed for consumption by Americans for WWII to his day.