"America Unprepared for Cold War 2" Topic

Given the actions in Crimea, and possible threats to other areas (Moldova and the Baltic states), this is certainly an interesting, and thought provoking little article:

link

Especially for anyone interested in Cold War Goes Hot type scenarios, with ultramodern kit.

Anyone know how many divisions and aircraft we have left in Europe, and their types?

US unprepared?

How many tanks, helicopters, drones, artillery etc would they need to be "prepared"? They have more overseas bases and forward projection capability than the rest of the world put together (this is not an exaggeration, they literally have more aircraft carriers, landing craft etc than all the rest of the world).

The US already spends a ridiculous amount of its budget on "defense" for a country in no risk of being invaded. On a budget that is not in risk of balancing.

If they listen to the hawks then they will never spend enough. Well, until it literally brings them down, as it did the USSR when they listened to0 much to their hawks. You can't be prepared for every war all the time, it's not possible. At a certain point you have to accept that you can't win every possible war with ease.

Actually the upcoming Cold War would be Cold War III, not II. Cold War I, from 1947 – 1962, began with the Berlin Airlift and ended with the near-catastrophe of the Cuban Missile Crisis, which ushered in a cooling-off period ('detente' or easing of tensions) from 1962 – 1979. Proxy wars like Vietnam and the Israeli wars of '67 and '73 occurred during this period, but there were little threat of nuclear confrontation and the two superpowers more-or-less behaved themselves.

Cold War II occurred between 1979 – 1985, a period which included the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, a new arms race culminating in 'Star Wars,' the renewed specter of nuclear war hanging over us all, the threat of the Soviet Union and her Warsaw Pact allies pouring through the Fulda Gap into West Germany and, of course, lots of saber-rattling and rhetoric between Reagan and Thatcher on one side and Brezhnev/Andropov/Chernenko on the other until it ended with Gorbachev and Glasnost/Perestroika.

So the title of this article should be changed to "Pentagon Not Ready for Cold War 3"

"Eisenbach Gap"? Methinks you're confusing a board game series with fictional geography as the real thing.

Main three likely axis of WP advance into WG: North German Plain, Fulda Gap, Danube River Valley.

Regarding the jingoistic saber-rattling over Crimea/Ukraine, we are nowhere close to a Cold War II, no matter how much the chickenhawks are squawking.

Corrected. I thought the board game used real geography.

"Corrected. I thought the board game used real geography."

Not a problem, and honestly not the first time I have seen people refer to it as real. It's just annoying as Lock'n'Load has a great rules set, and top-notch production, but decided to take the absolute lazy route. Some simple research could have produced a series with accurate geography and OOB's that would have been a much welcome addition to modern Cold War gaming. A greatly missed opportunity IMHO…..

The US haa decided by political process that less is more… I recently saw a quote (maybe here on TMP?) that you can call a horse's tail a leg, but that doesn't really give you a five legged horse. The US seems to believe in five legged horses these days…

Thank you Mr. Mark Plant.

The political process:

BIG SMILE!

I don't think anybody is ready for another Cold War, no matter what iteration …

I'm with Mr. Plant.

Mr. Plant has very neatly summarized the U.S.'s situation.

The core of a nation's security is the strength of its economy, and the education of its citizens.

Neither of which the US are really excelling at present. When will people get over the ridiculous notion that world security is based on mere possession of weapon systems. Warfare, or the lack of it, is driven by simple human calculation. The Cuban Missile Crisis arose because of perceived weakness, similarly this crisis is driven by similar reasons, one side senses an opportunity and takes it.

The US, with it's current obsession with simplistic West Wing solutions, has given Putin his opportunity. He's taken it, why is anyone surprised?

Thanks Milites.

Now, I'm even more worried…….

Sorry, so am I. Areas of the Ukraine, close to Crimea will start to fall. Sorry! Welcome their Russian 'saviours', it's inescapable logic. Smug, liberal self-satisfaction, is being given a brutal wake-up call by centuries old real-politic. The reaction to sanctions, a display of military muscle and a tip-off for Putin's buddies to dump their shares.

As they say, the route of all authority is force, we seem to have dismissed that idea as quaintly old fashioned and are paying the price.

"Smug, liberal self-satisfaction, is being given a brutal wake-up call by centuries old real-politic."

I think smug self-satisfaction in foreign policy got its clue as to the real nature of the world we live in, when our troops invading Iraq were not greeted as "liberators" by the locals.

Since then, it's been all downhill for the interventionist mindset. I'm staying home, you can go intervene in the Crimea if you want.

All downhill eh? Tell that to Putin, Georgia and now the Crimea, seems intervensionist policy works pretty well for some countries. Still, lets reset our relations with Russian and get them to help broker a deal with Iran, what could go wrong?

You would not have to intervene if the other guy thought you'd do more than run to the UN and demand sanctions, didn't you read my first post. This situation has arisen simply because one side has sensed weakness, perhaps the US dithering over Syria breaking red lines might have caused that impression.

Some said NATO should be disbanded … based on what is happening now … I think NATO should stay around … always did …

Moldova next and then where next, on Putin's reunification tour?

"Moldova next and then where next, on Putin's reunification tour?"

Anyone remember where the US got Alaska?!? – LOL

Exactly how does Russia get troops to Moldova?

Given they'd have to fly over ukraine or Romania to get there…

Given that the US have for the past few months, according to our local news, been developing plans to close Mildenhall and Lakenheath, it does look as if the US is actively unpreparing for Cold War II.

"Exactly how does Russia get troops to Moldova?"

"Given they'd have to fly over ukraine or Romania to get there…"

FLY

What's to stop them!

Alaska, now that's a thought. Just to help you Stu, straight from the 'warmongers' mouths. Just keep on telling yourself it won't happen…till it happens.

link

"Speaking on the Andrew Marr Show, Vladimir Chizhov (Moscows ambassador to the EU) maintained that there was no intention for Russian troops to march into Ukrainian territory outside Crimea".

Said all along, they are not really worried about Russian (speaking) people, it was an opportunist action to secure Crimea, for strategic military purposes. The rest of it is a bit of old school Soviet style posturing as a show of strength, and possibly tie up any potential military response as they can't try to retake Crimea if they are defending the (very long) border.

Can the Tartars now vote for independence within Crimea? Apparently it doesn't need to be constitutional and you you only need a majority vote of those who vote. :-)

A lot of this talk about Crimea seems to actually be about the dialogue of partisan politics in the US. I mean the whole 'PR question' about 'is Obama weak and not a proper hawk and yada yada yada…' is one thing but actual US military preparedness is another. As has been mentioned already, the US is incredibly well prepared for nearly any war anywhere at anytime. They as a nation by sheer spending are arguably the most militarily prepared state in the world if not of all of history. From an outside (Canadian) perspective you see these political discussions in America and go;'What more could the US military machine possibly need, some sort of Dr. Strangelove-esque doomsday machine!?' And as for posturing believe me to those outside the US, its 'rep' as an 'aggressive' or 'tough' polity is on par with Rome, the Mongols and/or early modern France.

Basically, I think the Yanks are going to be just fine. Provided they don't get drawn into some interventionist nonsense.

The question is what the heck is Putin playing at? Sure this could be seen as a bit of real politik, but the amount of alienation it's causing versus the pay off? It doesn't seem to add up. Really, all he's done is remind all the former WARPAC states of the bad old days and risks pushing them away towards western Europe and NATO. This is all of course IMOHO.

If you want to see a truly toothless response look no further than the Canadian PM and Minister of Foreign Affairs. They've been strenuously condemning Russia for a while now, the PM's even visiting the Ukraine. All as if Putin gives a tinker's cuss about what Canada thinks or that he even knows who the heck they are.

Where were the Americans when their little buddy Georgia was getting beat up?

Sure the Georgians stuffed up but the Americans let them get thrashed. And the Georgians had deployed their best troops in Iraq at the time (at least the Americans flew them back)!

Seems to me like partisan politics too. Obama is viewed as a soft touch internationally and this is his chance to prove the Republicans wrong.

And if it results in WWIII then that'll show the Republicans who is an international bad ass.

"And if it results in WWIII then that'll show the Republicans who is an international bad ass".

Putin, of course.

I think the US and Europe are unprepared in terms of diplomatic strategy.

In every instance in recent times, other players are far more on the ball than the West be it Russia, China, the Arabs etc.

Even in Libya where NATO effectively became the Air Force of Al Qaeda in Maghreb and whose collapse resulted in a flux of weapons and militants to Mali and elsewhere.

Or Syria where Obama nearly blundered into another war for no real reason than needing to back up a "crossing a line" comment.

The West is on the back foot. There's lots of bluster but no real action where required and clearly no goals.

And Putin's gambles are far less dangerous than the West's indecisiveness and focus on ad hoc decisions without thinking them through.

Putin invading the Ukraine/Georgia is small fry – Russia basically reclaiming an old chunk of territory and sorting out the mess created by the break up of the USSR.

The West is right now so unpredictable and directionless that they might decide WWIII is the best option.

How psychologically prepared is the western fighting man for a cold war gone hot? Will he feel that western values are worth defending or that it isn't worth his life to bring gay marriage, open borders, feminism, consumerism, and crony capitalism to the east?

I am not pro-Putin. I think this is an important question in relation to the preparedness of our forces.

Putin has claimed that the majority of people in western countries support his "traditional" values over progressive doctrine. I don't know if a majority of western people support traditional values. But portraying Putin as the defender of traditional values is bound to create supporters in the west.

How did Putin get such a positive spin in western media as a pro-traditional, patriotic, tough guy? Putin jails many people in Russia for political activity, yet only trivial cases – like Pussy Riot – or oligarchs, get much of a response from our media. We aren't playing our hand very well in the propaganda war.

Look at the above cartoon which was kindly brought to us by Solzhenitsyn. People who hate western leaders are invited to worship Putin. Don't you find it strange?

On a tangent, my favorite Solzhenitsyn quote:

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.

Days are long gone when the US or anyone else puts on their shiny white knight armor and rides to the rescue, ie. Georgia and Crimea/Ukraine and decades before Hungary and and Czechoslovakia … The US has tried to learn the lessons of the Powell Doctrine, only get involved if it is clearly in America's interest … Or to go old school, is it worth the "blood & treasure ? The US stumbled when the media flooded the air waves with tragic pictures of starving fly covered children in Somali … and if you note … new pictures of more starving 3d World children continues … The 1st Gulf War was because of the threat to the oil flow, the 'stan for 9/11[which I totally agree with] and the 2d Gulf War [regardless of what some say] was the threat of the use of WMDs, threat to oil supplies, violations of UN sanctions and terrorism links … So as sad, as it sounds to many … very few Americans want to risk the loss of their sons and daughters in a conflict in the Ukraine. As it really does not affect the US even a little indirectly … Sad but yes, in many cases US involvment today has something to do with economics/captialism … Save for if you attack Americans at home or abroad then "let slip the dogs of war !" Don't ask me what doctrine was in play with what happened in Libya. With the ambassador and his retinue getting slaughtered … But in many cases "politics" trumps everything else … all else … period …

Don't ask me what doctrine was in play with what happened in Lybia

At a guess.. Qadaffi, terrorist training camps, Al Qaeda, UN sanction (without Russia/China veto)… "Oil reserves in Libya are the largest in Africa and the fifth largest in the world" may have had something to do with it as well. Keeps a bit of market force pressure on Saudi and Russia if you have an option to buy elsewhere.

Yeah … but the US government should never have let their men die … However, again, politics trumps everything …

"Don't ask me what doctrine was in play with what happened in Libya".

I could tell you, but then I'd be doghaused, and it'd get censored anyway, so I won't bother.

25% cut in our troop levels, and cutting the following weapons systems in the near future are on the table:

1. delete all the A-10 Warthog squadrons (if you want to keep them, then mothball/scrap most if not all of your B-1B bombers, leaving only a few 65 year old B-52 designs and a handful of B-2s; and/or mothball/scrap 350 F-16s);
2. delete the Perry class of frigates, without any suitable replacements available;
3. put 50% of your cruisers into drydock for "upgrades" (not sure they'll ever come out);
4 and 5. and scrap the cruise and Hellfire missiles, despite no suitable replacements coming on line for the next 10 years, or so for them (just heard about this today on the news).

I suspect you can read between the tea leaves, and make your own independent judgment on the matter.

To put it bluntly 'Its the budget, stupid!'. Face it, with the axe of sequestration swinging wide and long, the DoD is just plain stuck. (And if you want to blame someone, blame the geniuses who came up with it). It'd be better if we could afford to keep the forces we have and invest in their replacements. But thanks to the money pits called Iraq and Afghanistan (aka, 'The War on Terror'), a slumping economy and the 'brilliant' aforementioned sequestration, it ain't happening. So get used to it….

Wait wait I know we could do a Kickstarter !!!!!!

With additional theatres of operation for stretch goals.

Then Facilebook would make a bid and the US Gvt would make a profit, it worked for Oculus!

Kyotobluer than blue,

Why would the Marines want anything that would jeopardise their Holy Grail F-35B.

The Marines are avoiding F/A-18E/Fs so as to not jeopardise F-35 production.

They're even avoiding EA-18G EW aircraft as an EA-6B replacement so as to not jeopardise F-35 production even though F-35 electronic warfare equipment is on hiatus.

The Army on the other hand would be happy with A-10s. However they'll never get them. The USAF stripped their brand new C-27Js transports from them recently and then retired them.

US military is a bunch of fiefdoms who spend a lot of time protecting their turf even if it's at the expense of actual capability.

Or even when it's dangerous – e.g. USAF holds on to nuclear deterrent role but invests no money into equipment or training and thus somehow critical nuclear components get shipped to Taiwan by mistake, nuclear weapons are accidentally loaded onto a bomber by mistake etc etc.

And with budget crunch and decline over last 20 years, the emphasis on fiefdoms has increased.

More Admirals than bases and ships…More Army Generals than battalions, and Air Force Generals all over the Pentagon…

That is why nothing gets done and why the budget will never get adequately to fund the services, "too many Chiefs and not enough Indians" was the saying once.

The General officers will do nothing except to protect their own positions

But the Marines always get the hand me downs……

Shouldn't that be the Marines always get the gold plated, stupidly complex, stupidly expensive bit of kit.

After all the MV-22, F-35B and cancelled EFV and even upgrades of UH-1 and AH-1 are generally more complicated (and expensive) than the other branch's equivalent programs.

Marines don't even want F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Nothing but the most expensive and complicated for the Marines.

I think that one could make the case for stripping the USAF of all but its strategic mission, and splitting the remainder up between the Army, Navy, and ANG. Ground-support goes to the Army, TACAIR to the ANG, and the remainder to the Navy or whoever wants it. Hell, you could give the nuclear mission to the Navy and do away with the Air Force altogether. It wouldn't be a bad thing, if you ask me…

Southern Phantom I agree.

Another thing that needs to be consolidated is special forces.

Currently USN, USAR, USAF and CIA all have their own special forces which duplicate and even triplicate functions.

Merge them all into one new Branch and then downsize using economies of scale.

I'd also withdraw all permanently based units from Europe.

About time the Europeans paid for their own defence as opposed to relying on Uncle Sam.

Asia's a bit different due to growing strategic importance and often poorer nations.

But even these poorer countries often have larger forces than most European ones.

>But even these poorer countries often have larger forces than most European ones.

Last week a Brigadier told me that there are 150 Brigadiers in the Bangladesh army. I said that seemed like a lot, but he pointed out that they have 170,000 troops. Pakistan have equivalent forces and, the Brigadier told me, more brass. UN missions keep that ball rolling.

>About time the Europeans paid for their own defence as opposed to relying on Uncle Sam.

and more generally pulling out of engagements that don't help, or actively harm, US interests.

The EU is desperate to justify itself. So it may welcome the opportunity to form a large European army. Whereas the national governments all seem to be down sizing their forces. I guess that whatever force fielded after the US pulled out wouldn't be very effective. But the Soviets *ahem* Russians are no longer what they were at the height of the cold war. Plus there is now more of a buffer between them and western Europe.

Hey, I've got an honest question. It's been nagging at me throughout this Crimea "thing", and Solzhenitsyn succinctly demonstrated it in his post above (thanks S-man! Love ya!). Why is it that the right-wingers always seem to get such over the authoritarian, head-thumping, shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later-maybe types? Well, as long as they're white, anyway. I mean, you don't see Idi Amin and Kim Jong-Il gettin' no luv, but that just goes without saying. But I mean, the Putins, Assads, Netanyahus, Bothas, Milosovics and of the world all seem to garner such breathless admiration. What is it? Daddy issues? I'm really not trying to insult or accuse anyone, I just want to know. If it truly is some sort of psychological issue, as I've heard suggested, I can understand it and won't judge over it.

Altius, Matthew 7:3-5 is your answer.

Nice evasive tactic, usually reserved for those times when you don't have an adequate answer. Why don't you have an adequate answer, ?

Matt. 7:7, .

"Don't ask me what doctrine was in play with what happened in Lybia"

The overthrow of a government, leading to chaos in a major oil producing state, as well as a likely second civil war coming up soon, and it would have all been worth it, if it led to Americans being able to spell "Libya".

Unfortunately, thousands of battle deaths later, and the American public is still not there.

At least we are all spared from the public screwing up the spelling of "Qadhafi"; that's an unexpected bonus of the Colonel's demise.

Shoots that whole theory of, "we're just there for the oil" theory all to hell, doesn't it.