Trump Thread

[Furunculus]

Nice.

The bottom line is that the White House (Trump, and his administration) is not a coherent or rational actor, so a standard analysis in terms of institutional Courses of Action and risk calculi is neither descriptive nor predictive of observed behaviors (going back to the beginning).

For all we can speculate Trump did this because he wanted to, in his mind, look tough compared to Jimmy Carter. That is, with no consideration of how this would affect any larger strategy toward Iran because there is no Iran strategy, just a series of "hyperreal" media events.

For reference: i do not disagree with anything said by adam - or condone the hit - merely point to the process that evolves the potential of a legitimate target before it is presented as an option to the CINC.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

To distract everybody from the impeachment ruckus?

Possibly. Though to be fair, this individual would have been considered a legit target at any time by our leadership and the strike package was in position. Moreover, the current NCA is not known for waiting for all aspects of a choice to be parsed out prior to making a decision, and there would have been clear pressure to act before the situation changed.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I do not think we have the "smoking gun" needed for an article 5 against Iran. We'd have to show Iranian material support for a terrorist organization that directly attacked one of the member states. Such evidence might exist, but...

Has there been any evidence that that will happen? I suppose if Iran makes Sol go supernova, then it would count as affecting North America and Europe too.

Also, isn't NATO a defensive alliance?

That's the thing about escalation, you can't necessarily tell where it's going to lead.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51004218

Iran rules out attacks on British targets saying "we are not idiots".

Separately, Britain warns America that attacks on Iranian cultural heritage would be war crimes.

[Greyblades]

"we are not idiots" says the nation that keeps poking the bear.

To distract everybody from the impeachment ruckus?

probably not, Trump's making a fair bit of political hay out of pelosi's hesitation.

[Pannonian]

That's the thing about escalation, you can't necessarily tell where it's going to lead.

You're the one speaking up for backing the Americans in this. Whether there's escalation or not, the Americans began this, so they can deal with it however they want, without our support. If you support tacking us to their military adventures whatever they decide, I will bring back your arguments against the EU. If sovereignty was a good enough argument to take us out of the EU, a solid demonstration of our lack of such will be good enough to take us out of NATO.

[Greyblades]

Considering this was done in retaliation for the iraq embassy attack, one in a tit-for-tat chain reaching back somewhere around about the formation of israel, the first one not the modern spiritual successor or the crusader knock off, I dont think it can be said with confidence who began this.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You're the one speaking up for backing the Americans in this. Whether there's escalation or not, the Americans began this, so they can deal with it however they want, without our support. If you support tacking us to their military adventures whatever they decide, I will bring back your arguments against the EU. If sovereignty was a good enough argument to take us out of the EU, a solid demonstration of our lack of such will be good enough to take us out of NATO.

Speaking up for?

Where did I say war with Iran was a good idea?

As for comparing NATO and the EU - they're a world away from each other.

[Montmorency]

Technically correct, the man was however the most influential 2 star general in the revolutionary guard; the equivalent of the SS or comissariat, politically second only to the ayatolla. I also get the impression the Quds are also the only part of the Iranian millitary with recent combat experience, much of it supporting groups that are currently making american forces lives difficult.

Combined with personally taunting the god emperor (Gee, could it be I'm joking?) the man must have known he had a target on his forhead, making it foolish he was personally running about near a bagdad airport.

He wasnt some well intentioned diplomat, he was the coordinator of shia insurgents and millitias in the middle east, many of which are outright terrorists.

He's been doing this - business as usual - for decades, and knew he could die at any time from enemy bombs or bullets while abroad. Performing a dangerous job is not inherently foolish. Or if it is, the same applies to Coalition soldiers serving in the area.

This isn't a question of whether Suleimani was a good guy. He certainly wasn't. But he was a major general and a government official, a formal agent of the Iranian state in the same way a CIA director is for the USA, openly assassinated by a state party in broad daylight by massive explosion on the state property of another country, against the wishes of that country's government, while participating in diplomatic liaisons with that government.

The matter here is of an American act of war against at least one country, and the consequences. This was in fact the first time since WW2 that America has killed a major military leader of a foreign country.

For reference: i do not disagree with anything said by adam - or condone the hit - merely point to the process that evolves the potential of a legitimate target before it is presented as an option to the CINC.

More on this:

Pompeo first spoke with Trump about killing Soleimani months ago, said a senior U.S. official, but neither the president nor Pentagon officials were willing to countenance such an operation.

For more than a year, defense officials warned that the administration’s campaign of economic sanctions against Iran had increased tensions with Tehran requiring a bigger and bigger share of military resources in the Middle East when many at the Pentagon wanted to redeploy their firepower to East Asia.

Trump, too, sought to draw down from the Middle East as he promised from the opening days of his presidential campaign. But that mind-set shifted on Dec. 27 when 30 rockets hit a joint U.S.-Iraqi base outside Kirkuk, killing an American civilian contractor and injuring service members.

On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president’s private club in Florida, where the two defense officials presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior U.S. officials said.

Trump’s decision to target Soleimani came as a surprise and a shock to some officials briefed on his decision, given the Pentagon’s long-standing concerns about escalation and the president’s aversion to using military force against Iran.

One significant factor was the “lockstep” coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same class at the U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed the decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida.

“Taking out Soleimani would not have happened under [former secretary of defense Jim] Mattis,” said a senior administration official who argued that the Mattis Pentagon was risk-averse. “Mattis was opposed to all of this.

Trump, too, sought to draw down from the Middle East as he promised from the opening days of his presidential campaign. But that mind-set shifted on Dec. 27 when 30 rockets hit a joint U.S.-Iraqi base outside Kirkuk, killing an American civilian contractor and injuring service members.

On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president’s private club in Florida, where the two defense officials presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior U.S. officials said.

Trump’s decision to target Soleimani came as a surprise and a shock to some officials briefed on his decision, given the Pentagon’s long-standing concerns about escalation and the president’s aversion to using military force against Iran.

One significant factor was the “lockstep” coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same class at the U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed the decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida.

“Taking out Soleimani would not have happened under [former secretary of defense Jim] Mattis,” said a senior administration official who argued that the Mattis Pentagon was risk-averse. “Mattis was opposed to all of this.

[...]

At every step of his government career, Pompeo has tried to stake out a maximalist position on Iran that has made him popular among two critical pro-Israel constituencies in Republican politics: conservative Jewish donors and Christian evangelicals.

NB Pompeo (promoted from Trump's CIA director to Secretary of State) is an apocalyptic evangelical Christian who believe a final conflict in the Middle East will bring about the Rapture.

Theoretically the Iranians would be licensed to assassinate him.

"we are not idiots" says the nation that keeps poking the bear.

'It all started when the Iranians hit us back.'

[Montmorency]

Speaking up for?

Where did I say war with Iran was a good idea?

As for comparing NATO and the EU - they're a world away from each other.

FYI we rejected the League of Nations in large part due to Article X, which provided for mutual defense against external aggression. This was considered an abrogation of Congressional sovereignty.

[Pannonian]

Speaking up for?

Where did I say war with Iran was a good idea?

As for comparing NATO and the EU - they're a world away from each other.

Is that your way of ensuring that your arguments are only applicable as far as you want them to be? "It's completely different, so the general philosophical argument that was universally applicable when I put it forward without need for specific examples is now completely inapplicable."

1. When the EU tells us to make sure that we comply with mutually agreed laws, it is an intolerable infringement on our sovereignty.
2. When the US tells us to send troops to their foreign adventure without even informing us beforehand, it is just a fact of life.

At least with the EU we knew the rules beforehand. With the US, we learn about it on the news.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...At least with the EU we knew the rules beforehand. With the US, we learn about it on the news.

Nope. Twitter.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Is that your way of ensuring that your arguments are only applicable as far as you want them to be? "It's completely different, so the general philosophical argument that was universally applicable when I put it forward without need for specific examples is now completely inapplicable."

1. When the EU tells us to make sure that we comply with mutually agreed laws, it is an intolerable infringement on our sovereignty.
2. When the US tells us to send troops to their foreign adventure without even informing us beforehand, it is just a fact of life.

At least with the EU we knew the rules beforehand. With the US, we learn about it on the news.

That was never my argument though, was it, Pan? My argument was that the EU was specifically aiming to create a European Superstate without the consent of the governed peoples (not the plural) and that the ills of the EU has come to out-way the economic benefits.

In the case of NATO I think it's fair to say that with European disarmament we rely on the US for our safety against Russia. If the US continues to elect Trump and we rearm that calculation might change - but Trump can only be elected once more and we aren't likely to rearm.

[Greyblades]

He's been doing this - business as usual - for decades, and knew he could die at any time from enemy bombs or bullets while abroad. Performing a dangerous job is not inherently foolish. Or if it is, the same applies to Coalition soldiers serving in the area.

The coalition soldiers dont have the entirety of the nations armed forces abroad relying upon their continued leadership, he had subordinates he could use as intermediary, the iranians have diplomats; needlessly exposing himself to the enemy's air superiority was foolish simply as evidenced by the red smear he became. It is doubly so for the void in command his death left and that iran now is attempting to fill.

This isn't a question of whether Suleimani was a good guy. He certainly wasn't. But he was a major general and a government official, a formal agent of the Iranian state in the same way a CIA director is for the USA, openly assassinated by a state party in broad daylight by massive explosion on the state property of another country, against the wishes of that country's government, while participating in diplomatic liaisons with that government.

Fairly sure sulemani didnt have diplomatic status/immunity, the western media would be raving it about if he did.

The matter here is of an American act of war against at least one country, and the consequences. This was in fact the first time since WW2 that America has killed a major military leader of a foreign country.

Baghdadi and Bin laden didnt count apparantly. Is it the stable borders that makes this millitary leader special or the fact they got the bullet instead of the Tomohawk missile?

As much as I doubt that it has been so long since the US has killed a millitary leader (the CIA would probably dispute such) is it so because the US has some chivalric code or is it because this guy is the first one foolish enough to personally poke his head into american controlled airspace?

'It all started when the Iranians hit us back.'

Funny you should say that when currently it is the iranians who are crying about being hit back.

[edyzmedieval]

For the record, let us remember where all of this started - the 1953 Iranian Coup.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_I..._d%27%C3%A9tat

ttps://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/690363402/how-the-cia-overthrew-irans-democracy-in-four-days

[Greyblades]

No it all started in 632 when noone could agree on who should be calif.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No it all started in 632 when noone could agree on who should be calif.

Any historical "start point" to the current state of affairs is arguable. The current government of Iran was promulgated in 1979 following the White Revolution. That could be used as a start point. As could the first change in power under that constitution following the death of Khomeini. Or, quite validly, the 1953 coup pushed by the USA and UK that returned autocratic power to the anti-communist shah displacing the elected prime minister as head of government. Again, one could start the story in 1941 with the Soviet occupation of Tehran to support the removal of the father of the 1953 coup's power recipient -- who had himself seized power in 1921. Or you could date if from the period of Ottoman rule, or the impact of the Mongol invasion, or -- yes -- the dispute over the succession to the Prophet Mohammed. Heck, you could even make a case for the lasting impact of Megos Alexandros' absorption of the Persian empire by the classical "West" following Gaugamela in the 4th century BCE.

As there are enough of those still alive from the 1953 event to tell the story, and the first generation of those raised as children by those impacted by 1953 are often the ones in power at present, it is a pretty reasonable start point to explain the thinking underpinning the current set of events.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Any historical "start point" to the current state of affairs is arguable. The current government of Iran was promulgated in 1979 following the White Revolution. That could be used as a start point. As could the first change in power under that constitution following the death of Khomeini. Or, quite validly, the 1953 coup pushed by the USA and UK that returned autocratic power to the anti-communist shah displacing the elected prime minister as head of government. Again, one could start the story in 1941 with the Soviet occupation of Tehran to support the removal of the father of the 1953 coup's power recipient -- who had himself seized power in 1921. Or you could date if from the period of Ottoman rule, or the impact of the Mongol invasion, or -- yes -- the dispute over the succession to the Prophet Mohammed. Heck, you could even make a case for the lasting impact of Megos Alexandros' absorption of the Persian empire by the classical "West" following Gaugamela in the 4th century BCE.

As there are enough of those still alive from the 1953 event to tell the story, and the first generation of those raised as children by those impacted by 1953 are often the ones in power at present, it is a pretty reasonable start point to explain the thinking underpinning the current set of events.

1953 is an important index point but I think 1979 is probably more important to modern Iranians, even the older generation - of course that's our fault too.

As regards the assassination, my understanding is that the general was in the country to meet with non government militias - militias which tend to undermine the credibility of the elected government. This is not to excuse the fact the general was assassinated but Greyblades is right - this is basically the same as the assassination of Bin Laden (that was a kill or capture missions, note kill comes first).

[Greyblades]

Any historical "start point" to the current state of affairs is arguable. The current government of Iran was promulgated in 1979 following the White Revolution. That could be used as a start point. As could the first change in power under that constitution following the death of Khomeini. Or, quite validly, the 1953 coup pushed by the USA and UK that returned autocratic power to the anti-communist shah displacing the elected prime minister as head of government. Again, one could start the story in 1941 with the Soviet occupation of Tehran to support the removal of the father of the 1953 coup's power recipient -- who had himself seized power in 1921. Or you could date if from the period of Ottoman rule, or the impact of the Mongol invasion, or -- yes -- the dispute over the succession to the Prophet Mohammed. Heck, you could even make a case for the lasting impact of Megos Alexandros' absorption of the Persian empire by the classical "West" following Gaugamela in the 4th century BCE.

As there are enough of those still alive from the 1953 event to tell the story, and the first generation of those raised as children by those impacted by 1953 are often the ones in power at present, it is a pretty reasonable start point to explain the thinking underpinning the current set of events.

Forgive me, I forgot for the upteenth time to indicate my glibness.

In more serious terms I would point to 1901, where the 60 year term oil concession was signed that would lead to the foundation of the anglo-persian oil company, as being the starting point.

The perception of that concession being unfair was the motivation behind a renegociation in 1935 and mossadegh attempting to renege on the agreement in 1951, which provoked the british to embargo iran. Mossadegh proceeded to spiral in an (ironically considering he was persian) roman fasion; getting emergency powers through popular pressure against the shah, making massive societal reforms with said powers.

This ended up losing him support in parliament as his increasingly dictatorial actions alienated parts of his ruling coalition, combined with the british and american campaign of bribery put the kibosh on his ability to govern without the emergency powers. Faced with an increasingly shakey position he called a referendum, seeking popular approval to dissolve parliament and further extend his emergency powers, this he won in a remarkably corrupt fasion (seperate polling booths for yes or no, "suprisingly" ending up with 99% approval).

This display of amazingly bad politics combined with the economic depression the embargo had plunged iran into ended up turning everyone against him and pretty much handed the CIA the means of coup on a silver platter.

These details tends to be deemphasized in popular recollections of the event, or even left out completely. For some reason.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

1953 is an important index point but I think 1979 is probably more important to modern Iranians, even the older generation - of course that's our fault too...

Not entirely. Events in real life are democratic in that all parties to them get a 'vote' in the outcome. Certainly actions and inactions taken by the USA at the time played a major role, but the Khomeini and others were their own agents in enacting events too. Not all of their behavior or choices were simply reactive to those actions and decisions made by the West.

Though I tend to agree that the events of 1979/80 and their aftermath are the most salient for understanding the current state of affairs.

[Csargo]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51028954

Missiles fired at US military bases in Iraq.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51028954

Missiles fired at US military bases in Iraq.

Reasonably proportionate response, overall.

[Montmorency]

That was never my argument though, was it, Pan? My argument was that the EU was specifically aiming to create a European Superstate without the consent of the governed peoples (not the plural) and that the ills of the EU has come to out-way the economic benefits.

In the case of NATO I think it's fair to say that with European disarmament we rely on the US for our safety against Russia. If the US continues to elect Trump and we rearm that calculation might change - but Trump can only be elected once more and we aren't likely to rearm.

Your calculation appears to be that the UK can afford to leave the EU but cannot afford to leave NATO; it seems to me more the other way around. The US and EU all have their overall interests - balance of powers, maintenance of trade, territorial integrity - aligned with each other. This is the case whether the UK is in or out of NATO. Whereas if it were not the case, NATO would be basically inoperative and irrelevant to British security.

The coalition soldiers dont have the entirety of the nations armed forces abroad relying upon their continued leadership, he had subordinates he could use as intermediary, the iranians have diplomats; needlessly exposing himself to the enemy's air superiority was foolish simply as evidenced by the red smear he became. It is doubly so for the void in command his death left and that iran now is attempting to fill.

I don't think you understand what his job was. Air superiority had never been a problem before because he was protected by his position; usually it would have been a safe bet the US wouldn't be so foolish as to strike at him. What information do you have on any void created by his death?

Fairly sure sulemani didnt have diplomatic status/immunity, the western media would be raving it about if he did.

Diplomatic immunity? He had the immunity of being a high-ranking government official. Countries don't kill those unless they're at war or are overthrowing governments. In the abstract that's why the US, when it wants someone dead, relies on local proxies for plausible deniability. We could always have bombed Castro into oblivion, for example, but that looks a little worse than funding locals who already want to kill him (as seen successfully in many Latin American coups, unsuccessfully in the Bay of Pigs debacle).

Baghdadi and Bin laden didnt count apparantly.

We were already occupying half of Syria, so killing another terrorist in Syria (who the government, and pretty much all other governments, wanted dead anyway) isn't going to raise a fuss.

Pakistani sovereignty complaints were raised in the Bin Laden raid. It has permanently damaged our relations with them.

Importantly, neither were officials of recognized governments.

As much as I doubt that it has been so long since the US has killed a millitary leader (the CIA would probably dispute such) is it so because the US has some chivalric code or is it because this guy is the first one foolish enough to personally poke his head into american controlled airspace?

Most heads are free to poke because we don't normally bomb them when they're on official business. Unless we're at war. Because killing another country's officials is an act of war. It wouldn't be a good precedent to set for the sake of our own bureaucrats. Remember that our administration says it doesn't want war with Iran.

The last time the United States killed a major military leader in a foreign country was during World War II, when the American military shot down the plane carrying the Japanese admiral Isoroku Yamamoto as revenge for Pearl Harbor.

Funny you should say that when currently it is the iranians who are crying about being hit back.

An Iraqi Shiite militia with Iranian ties killed an American, for which we assassinated an Iranian major general, a deputy chairman, a brigadier general, a major, a colonel, a captain, and various bureaucrats. Iran doesn't have to be a good actor for the United States to be a bad actor.

As there are enough of those still alive from the 1953 event to tell the story, and the first generation of those raised as children by those impacted by 1953 are often the ones in power at present, it is a pretty reasonable start point to explain the thinking underpinning the current set of events.

We're talking about American-Iranian relations here, so everything else is a distraction.

More importantly, we have all the instances after 1953 of America actively working to undermine the Iranian government and kill Iranians - even when Iran works toward a compromise. The Iran-Iraq war is the inflection point everyone currently remembers there. But after the two-punch of Bush and Trump, Iran would be crazy ever to deal with us in good faith again.

As regards the assassination, my understanding is that the general was in the country to meet with non government militias - militias which tend to undermine the credibility of the elected government. This is not to excuse the fact the general was assassinated but Greyblades is right - this is basically the same as the assassination of Bin Laden (that was a kill or capture missions, note kill comes first).

That is very incorrect on both counts. The PMF are formally part of Iraq's military organization, just like the similarly-autonomous Kurdish peshmerga, going up to the civilian leadership of the Iraqi PM; the Iraqi government is not unaware of their ties to Iran. Suleimani was first of all there to meet the Iraqi PM on matters of international politics, as I posted just recently. Osama bin Laden was not a part of any government, let alone a major figure. These are not incidental details.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51028954

Missiles fired at US military bases in Iraq.

Wow, that's it? Keeping it low-key, if there isn't something else on the pike.

[Pannonian]

That was never my argument though, was it, Pan? My argument was that the EU was specifically aiming to create a European Superstate without the consent of the governed peoples (not the plural) and that the ills of the EU has come to out-way the economic benefits.

In the case of NATO I think it's fair to say that with European disarmament we rely on the US for our safety against Russia. If the US continues to elect Trump and we rearm that calculation might change - but Trump can only be elected once more and we aren't likely to rearm.

When we joined NATO, it was a defensive bloc against the USSR and its satellites. The USSR and its empire are now gone, but NATO's remit has expanded and its advocates are now saying that we should send troops into the middle east for things that have nothing to do with its original purpose. Shouldn't we leave such an organisation that has expanded its goals so far beyond those for which we originally joined? Were we asked for our consent when it changed its goals?

[rory_20_uk]

When we joined NATO, it was a defensive bloc against the USSR and its satellites. The USSR and its empire are now gone, but NATO's remit has expanded and its advocates are now saying that we should send troops into the middle east for things that have nothing to do with its original purpose. Shouldn't we leave such an organisation that has expanded its goals so far beyond those for which we originally joined? Were we asked for our consent when it changed its goals?

Very good points.

How fortunate that we can not be forced to send troops on such deployments, do not have our laws altered by NATO to force us to do so and so allows us to maintain our national sovereignty. Might these paralells demonstrate the differences between a confederation with mutual principles and something that started out like this but expanded to force a political and economic union.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

When we joined NATO, it was a defensive bloc against the USSR and its satellites. The USSR and its empire are now gone, but NATO's remit has expanded and its advocates are now saying that we should send troops into the middle east for things that have nothing to do with its original purpose. Shouldn't we leave such an organisation that has expanded its goals so far beyond those for which we originally joined? Were we asked for our consent when it changed its goals?

Russia may not be the USSR but they still have a larger conventional military, larger population and more natural resources than Western and Central Europe combined. When we joined NATO we had the second largest battlefleet in the world, now that fleet is virtually useless for its intended purpose. When we joined NATO we had a massive airforce including hundreds of strategic bombers and the ability to single-handedly flatten most other European countries in a 1v1 fight.

NATO has become essential to our defence because we have sacrificed the ability to defend ourselves.

Unless you are suggesting we rearm?

It's not as easy as this, you know:

[Pannonian]

Russia may not be the USSR but they still have a larger conventional military, larger population and more natural resources than Western and Central Europe combined. When we joined NATO we had the second largest battlefleet in the world, now that fleet is virtually useless for its intended purpose. When we joined NATO we had a massive airforce including hundreds of strategic bombers and the ability to single-handedly flatten most other European countries in a 1v1 fight.

NATO has become essential to our defence because we have sacrificed the ability to defend ourselves.

Unless you are suggesting we rearm?

It's not as easy as this, you know:

What are we re-arming for? Why are we getting involved in these affairs? It's not as though we have a say. We had more say in the EU than you propose for our part in NATO.

Do we get to vote on whether we send our troops to this Iranian kerfuffle?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What are we re-arming for? Why are we getting involved in these affairs? It's not as though we have a say. We had more say in the EU than you propose for our part in NATO.

Do we get to vote on whether we send our troops to this Iranian kerfuffle?

I think you're being needlessly obtuse now. The point of re-armament is to be less dependent on America and therefore to not need to acquiescence to American adventurism.

At present we are, in reality, almost totally dependent on America because we has chosen to progressively disarm to the point that we are no longer able to protect our own interests. This was illustrated to great embarrassment earlier this year when Iranian was able to size a British-flagged merchant ship with impunity. On a very basic level your military needs to be large enough to make any potential enemy fighting you is more trouble than it's worth - this is how countries like Switzerland maintain their independence - not through having a huge army but through having an army large enough to act as a deterrent.

Britain should make the same calculation, except that we are an island nation dependent on international imports of basic necessities from all over the world, we need a disproportionately large Navy to be able to protect our interests. Then we need an army and air force large enough that should the Navy be defeated we can stave off invasion long enough to make it unattractive. At present we are severely under-strength against this metric in all three areas. and this is why other countries can push us around.

The mistake made by the Entente after World War I was to treat the peace as perpetual so that the Axis believed they could capture all of Europe and hold it with an acceptable cost in men an materials. As it happens, they were only wrong because Britain chose to keep fighting and out massive fleet and air-force allowed us to hold of the Axis whilst we rearmed and persuaded the Americans to join in. Even then, it was a close-run thing.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Russia may not be the USSR but they still have a larger conventional military, larger population and more natural resources than Western and Central Europe combined. When we joined NATO we had the second largest battlefleet in the world, now that fleet is virtually useless for its intended purpose. When we joined NATO we had a massive airforce including hundreds of strategic bombers and the ability to single-handedly flatten most other European countries in a 1v1 fight.

NATO has become essential to our defence because we have sacrificed the ability to defend ourselves.

Unless you are suggesting we rearm?

I dispute your figures. European Populations. European GDP. Countries by military expenditure. Countries by military size. Countries by military power (Russian not listed, but Belarus is; presuming Russia to be thrice as powerful as Belarus puts Russia on a par with Germany).

In short, Russia has numbers but not quality -- par for the course over history -- making them almost immune to conventional European aggression, but substantially less of an aggressive threat to NATO. Russia maintains and is modernizing a strategic nuclear strike force (still have some liquid fueled for heaven's sake). Barring a full-up nuclear exchange, the Russian threat to Central and Western Europe is limited.

[Greyblades]

No war today gents.