4 ms·
Given the US has army bases all in and around Europe, more than any European country, I bet the US wouldn't comply. It's rarely talked about, but you gotta ima
by marricks 4y ago
Given the US has army bases all in and around Europe, more than any European country, I bet the US wouldn't comply.
It's rarely talked about, but you gotta imagine, the fact the US controls most of the land and sea is a big factor in how diplomatic issues are resolved.
I don't think this is a great thing, btw.
- johnywalks 4y ago> US controls the land and seas of most of the Earth They do so with the help of allies which they seem to forget.
- bombolo 4y agohttps://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisi_di_Sigonella https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisi_di_Sigonella In the 80s USA sent troops in italy to kidnap a terrorist that had surrendered himself to italy. They had to call up all the available carabinieri on the island to counter the USA troops. Not one has in mind with "allied nation".
- StanislavPetrov 4y agoIn 2003 we (USA) kidnapped Abu Omar off the street on Italy and shipped him off to Egypt where he was tortured for years. We have vassals and client states, not allies. https://www.icij.org/investigations/collateraldamage/clerics-abduction-italy-cia-all-left-calling-card/ https://www.icij.org/investigations/collateraldamage/clerics...
- LAC-Tech 4y agoGiven the US has army bases all in and around Europe, more than any European country, I bet the US wouldn't comply. That's been declining: 430,000 US troops in Europe in the '50s, and about 60,000 at the beginning of this year. https://www.boisestate.edu/bluereview/troops-in-europe/ https://www.boisestate.edu/bluereview/troops-in-europe/
- dragonwriter 4y ago> That’s been declining: 430,000 US troops in Europe in the ’50s, and about 60,000 at the beginning of this year. That’s been increasing, up to over 100,000 in June of this year. https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3078056/fact-sheet-us-defense-contributions-to-europe/ https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/307805...
- LAC-Tech 4y agoAll there to coerce France and Germany, no doubt!
- pessimizer 4y agoOnly if they want to have pipelines.
- anigbrowl 4y agoNumbers like that don't mean anything out of context. Military deployments are best estimated in terms of firepower; a cruise missile battery may have a greater strategic impact than 1000 troops. Likewise, the strategic situation in the 1950s, along with its recent past and foreseeable future, was vastly different from that of the present.
- mihaaly 4y agoYou think that the US could play the army card against countries (allies) with troops in when the most spectacular failures of armed conflicts after WWII belong to the US (not least because how the US population relate to conflicts abroad, here including WWII as well)? Just to forget about the economic ties for a moment. We are talking about a sub-set of security instruments and preventions, one of the many available, are we sure that an armed conflict - or just threat - would worth the trouble?
- marricks 4y agoI don’t think they’d ever play it, directly. I imagine it’s more like the tip of the iceberg in terms of regional influence the US has.