Help support TMP


"Will Trump Follow Through on the U.S. Promise to Deploy " Topic


31 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Modern What-If Message Board

Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2006-present) Message Board



1,296 hits since 22 Dec 2016
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango0122 Dec 2016 12:55 p.m. PST

…Troops Against Russia?.

"Donald Trump's actual intentions toward Russia, and whether he prioritizes improving ties with Moscow over supporting America's traditional interests, will become apparent shortly after he takes office in January, when he'll decide how to follow through on his predecessor's promise for military force.

A battalion of U.S. forces, roughly 1,000 troops, is scheduled to deploy to Poland early in 2017 as a part of the European Reassurance Initiative, a broad plan the Obama administration developed to deter Russia. The multi-billion-dollar scheme, coordinated with NATO, also involves Britain, Germany and Canada each sending equal numbers of troops to the three Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, bolstered by smaller deployments from other member states, like Croatia…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

paulgenna Supporting Member of TMP22 Dec 2016 2:02 p.m. PST

It is time for the rest of NATO to pony up the cost of defending against Russian aggression. I hope Trump holds them to his words.

ITALWARS Supporting Member of TMP22 Dec 2016 2:54 p.m. PST

i hope President Trump, in his realistic and probably honest view of international policy (including at least a choice of reliable staff ) will confirm deployment of US Troops in both Ucraina end Poland to control any possible provocations from similar states vs Russia

Personal logo Dale Hurtt Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member22 Dec 2016 2:57 p.m. PST

Why don't we wait until he actually becomes President and see?

Besides, Presidents cannot make "promises" that must be upheld by future Presidents. And any other country not aware of that fact is … well … stupid.

28mm Fanatik22 Dec 2016 3:25 p.m. PST

My guess is he'll allow it since it was scheduled by his predecessor. He probably will resist any new deployments though.

Mako11 Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member22 Dec 2016 3:32 p.m. PST

More importantly, will the EU nations?

ITALWARS Supporting Member of TMP22 Dec 2016 3:45 p.m. PST

the EU politicians…now that the wind is changed..and with theirs own angry people breathing down their necks will do nothing

Pan Marek Supporting Member of TMP23 Dec 2016 8:37 a.m. PST

I'm sorry. My service in the US military in the 80s, Putin's provocations and that some of my family members remain in Poland still have my head exploding over Trump's comments about NATO.

…… if a Dem made the same comments……

Lion in the Stars23 Dec 2016 12:40 p.m. PST

Besides, Presidents cannot make "promises" that must be upheld by future Presidents. And any other country not aware of that fact is … well … stupid.

Sure they can, those are called "treaties".

Scheduled troop deployments may get rescheduled. I hope not, since Russia needs to understand that their former client countries want NOTHING to do with Russia anymore.

But a POTUS who reneges on Article 5 will destroy the US.

kiltboy23 Dec 2016 1:28 p.m. PST

Well there are 4 Bns scheduled to deploy in the Baltics and Poland.
One is from the UK, one from Germany, one from the US and a fourth to be named.
Europe is already aware of the threat Russia poses.
Merkel lived in East Germany and knows full well how awful life is under Moscow.

ITALWARS Supporting Member of TMP23 Dec 2016 5:51 p.m. PST

"Merkel lived in East Germany and knows full well how awful life is under Moscow"..frankly is hard to believe that she feel it was "awful"..because while living in DDR she was very happy and she earn a privileged leaving working and collaborating with USSR and their Ulbricht and Hoenecker state criminals ..

kiltboy23 Dec 2016 11:06 p.m. PST

Oh no ITALWARS

"I would have loved to have become a teacher," she once reflected, according to a profile written by Ruth Elkins in London's Independent. "But not under that political system."

She also said

"My life changed completely in 1989," Merkel said once at a rally, according to Judy Dempsey in the International Herald Tribune. "I have had many opportunities in the last 15 years. I would like to give my country back what I myself have gained in terms of the opportunities from reunification."

And you forget

In 1961 the East Germans, with Soviet aid, began constructing a massive wall that divided the city into East and West, like Germany itself. East German border guards patrolled the no-man's land adjacent to the Wall, with orders to shoot on sight any trespassers. Nearly all of those who died were East Germans seeking freedom in the West instead of the strictly regulated state socialism of the East.

kiltboy23 Dec 2016 11:11 p.m. PST

And you also forget how East Germany fell. It was because thousands fled or protested the communism they were forced to endure.

In the summer of 1989, East Germany's Communist system was collapsing fast. Whole families of East Germans were fleeing west across Communist Hungary's by then porous border with Austria. Other East Germans were seeking refuge in West German embassies across eastern Europe. By the autumn of 1989, anti- Communist demonstrations were happening all over East Germany.

It wasn't until Angela Merkel and her colleagues repaired to the Old Gas Lamp, a draught beer pub, for a post-sauna drink a couple of hours later, that she grasped the full enormity of what was happening. East Germany's once Kalashnikov-toting border guards had been forced to fling open the Berlin Wall. Thousands of East Berliners had started pouring through East Berlin's Bornholmer Strasse crossing point in the Wall towards West Berlin.

Angela Merkel rushed to join the throng. She remembers following an elderly woman "who had just thrown a coat over her nightdress" and was heading West. The Chancellor's recollections of that evening are somewhat confused. Together with thousands of East Berliners she ended up joining a giant party that was under way on West Berlin's showcase Kurfürstendamm boulevard that night. Later on, she remembers, she raised a toast to the fall of the Wall with a can of beer in "some stranger's" West Berlin flat.

ITALWARS Supporting Member of TMP24 Dec 2016 9:19 a.m. PST

in " 1961 the East Germans, with Soviet aid, began constructing a massive wall that divided the city into East and West, like Germany itself. East German border guards patrolled the no-man's land adjacent to the Wall, with orders to shoot on sight any trespassers. Nearly all of those who died were East Germans seeking freedom in the West instead of the strictly regulated state socialism of the East."
i perfectly know that..i spoke , at time with quite a few good East Germans youngs..i was also there a couple of time..not only in Berlin ..to play international sport games with my team…but i also read quite interesting stff on Frau Merkel..which carry us in totally another direction from her official accounts… and his method of ruling seems really of Socialist School…

madaxeman26 Dec 2016 2:25 p.m. PST

The idea of any sort of "trump following through" really does not sound good to anyone who grew up in the UK….

Lion in the Stars26 Dec 2016 5:17 p.m. PST

Can you enlighten this Yank as to what that means, Madaxeman?

Gravett Islander27 Dec 2016 9:53 a.m. PST

Lion, in the U.K., to 'trump' can mean to break wind. Therefore, to 'follow through' after a 'trump' would require a pair of clean pants (again, in the UK, pants are underpants and not trousers).
English/American can cause a bit of confusion….anyway, I'm off to smoke a fag…..

Lion in the Stars27 Dec 2016 4:07 p.m. PST

Lion, in the U.K., to 'trump' can mean to break wind. Therefore, to 'follow through' after a 'trump' would require a pair of clean pants (again, in the UK, pants are underpants and not trousers).

Oh, you might need clean trousers, too, depending. evil grin

The US and UK, two great countries divided by a common language!

Noble713 Inactive Member27 Dec 2016 8:26 p.m. PST

Russia: 146 million people with GDP(PPP) of $3.6 USDtrillion

European Union: 510 million / $20.7 USD trillion

And between Germany, France, the UK, and Sweden, the EU arguably has a more advanced military – industrial tech base than Russia too.

So why the Hell should America lift even one finger to come to the aid of people who clearly can't/won't work together efficiently enough to ensure their own common defense? How do you tell Pvt Schmuckatelli "I want to put you at risk of getting vaporized by massed Russian artillery because the locals are either too cowardly or too stingy to do the fighting themselves."

Lion in the Stars27 Dec 2016 9:54 p.m. PST

@Noble: Because we signed a freaking treaty saying we would come to their aid.

We should probably be talking about chucking that treaty now, considering that the various signatories haven't been keeping up with the treaty-mandated defense spending levels, but as long as that treaty is valid, the US must back up the rest of NATO.

Noble713 Inactive Member28 Dec 2016 2:28 a.m. PST

The US has unilaterally backed out of treaties in the fairly recent past ( link ). We could probably pull out of NATO's legal treaty obligations at the drop of a hat and then slowly disengage from the actual day-to-day operations (so the whole thing doesn't just collapse like a house of cards and really leave the Euros in a pickle). Then the Europeans could merge some of the successful parts of NATO with the concept of EU Battlegroups and have a credible pan-European defense capability.

Lion in the Stars28 Dec 2016 12:22 p.m. PST

@Noble: The ABM treaty did allow for one deployment location, and we didn't hear screams from the Russians until we started fielding THAAD (which has a good secondary ABM capability) and SM3s.

For that matter, the Russian heavy SAMs also have secondary ABM capability, and they deploy those things all over the place.

ITALWARS Supporting Member of TMP28 Dec 2016 12:38 p.m. PST

" clearly can't/won't work together efficiently enough to ensure their own common defense? How do you tell Pvt Schmuckatelli "I want to put you at risk of getting vaporized by massed Russian artillery because the locals are either too cowardly or too stingy to do the fighting themselves."
Sorry Noble..while i totally agree with you ..i think that "the locals" have nothing to do with it..if by "locals" you're referring to EU common people…majority of us don't care a bit about Russian supposed to be danger…we really feel disturbed by EU/NATO burocrats and criminal politicians that created a virtual ennemy..Russia..to steal our money in usuless defensive (in fact agressive) expenses…the people from the nations yiu mentioned is only concerned by stopping the real invasione of illegals "dummy immigrants" on their coasts and by internal terrorism probably well known by our politicians and used as a psychological pression to mantain power .

Noble713 Inactive Member29 Dec 2016 12:58 a.m. PST

majority of us don't care a bit about Russian supposed to be danger…we really feel disturbed by EU/NATO burocrats and criminal politicians that created a virtual ennemy..Russia..to steal our money in usuless defensive (in fact agressive) expenses

I'm glad to hear that people aren't falling for the Russophobic scaremongering….but maintaining a credible defense is still the best policy, whether it's Germany's policy or Russia' policy or anywhere else. I think most of Europe has allowed its capabilities to erode past the point of "credible".

For that matter, the Russian heavy SAMs also have secondary ABM capability, and they deploy those things all over the place.

Which of Russia's deployments "all over the place" potentially enable them to interdict the US's ICBM capability and disrupt MAD? Because that's certainly been Russia's problem with the US's European ABM approach.

Apparently the US released this graphic demonstrating that ABM sites in Poland could not interdict Russian missiles launched against the US. (

picture
) I don't know enough about rocketry to crunch some numbers on this and verify.

Steve Wilcox29 Dec 2016 11:27 a.m. PST

The picture wasn't appearing for me, so in case I'm not the only one:

picture

Lion in the Stars29 Dec 2016 4:36 p.m. PST

Which of Russia's deployments "all over the place" potentially enable them to interdict the US's ICBM capability and disrupt MAD?

How about every single S-300(series) missile unit that is within protection range of a military or industrial site? And then we get to the S-400 systems. I am ignoring the ABM-treaty-compliant installation around Moscow.

Beyond that, I don't think I can say, since I did serve on missile subs.

USAFpilot Supporting Member of TMP29 Dec 2016 10:55 p.m. PST

Things change; time to rethink old world policies.

Mako11 Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member30 Dec 2016 12:20 a.m. PST

Most likely, the ballistic missiles would be fired over the North Pole as well, circumventing any interception, especially since they have multiple ICBM sites across their country, and not just in Western Russia.

Russia's SA-5s have ABM capabilities, and they are located in numerous locations across their country, and have been for a very long time.

Noble713 Inactive Member30 Dec 2016 3:19 a.m. PST

How about every single S-300(series) missile unit that is within protection range of a military or industrial site?

Wait….so your complaint is about what Russia does within its own borders? I thought you were referring to extra-territorial deployments.

There's a big difference between that and putting systems in third-party countries *right next* to your antagonist. Did we learn nothing from the Cuban Missile Crisis? If you are enthusiastic about a BMD site in Poland, would you equally endorse a new Russian installation in Cuba?

A couple of interesting reads about Boost-Phase Interception:
( link ) Note that it is from 2000. It suggests a joint US-Russian BMD site on Russian soil could protect against North Korean missiles. And check out this gem:

One of the primary advantages of a BPI system is its limited capability. The system would have zero effectiveness against ICBM launches from Russia or China since their launch sites are out of range of interceptors based either on land or at sea. Russian President Vladimir Putin has explicitly offered to discuss cooperative boost-phase intercept with the United States, specifically in the case of North Korea, although neither he nor his representatives seems to have gone beyond that simple proposition. Nevertheless, such a statement (sometimes couched with the proviso "using TMD assets") shows a readiness on the part of Russia to work with the United States in using BPI to counter the emerging ICBM threat, without destroying the 1972 ABM Treaty.

That dastardly Putin. Trying to co-operate with the US! That's bad for (MIC) business. It DOES say ground-based BPI is useless against Russia, so that supports the assertion in the image I posted (thanks Steve Wilcox for fixing the link)…but that image also demonstrates a terminal phase rather than boost phase intercept. Plus I dunno how US BMD systems evolved between 2000 and 2007 to perhaps make a BPI vs Russia feasible. We've had Mach 10 interceptors since the 70s ( link ). Material engineering and guidance improvements could make it viable for an Eastern European launch site. I dunno. Sounds like a fun subject for a research paper.

link
^This one is pretty technical but covers many of the limitations of BPI. Kinda focuses on the NorK and Iran cases.

Legion 430 Dec 2016 9:23 a.m. PST

We will just have to wait and see. His first priority or at least one of the many. Will be to do damage control for the outgoing leaderships recent geopolitical "decisions", etc., …

Lion in the Stars30 Dec 2016 3:29 p.m. PST

If we're talking about a Russian S300 or S400 system in Cuba, then I will be a little concerned about it's effect on civilian airliners flying around there. But not about a nuclear balance threat.

If Russia parked some SS-22 or -23s on Cuba, well, then I'd have some serious issues. Because those could strike US targets in less than 15 minutes from issuing the launch order. And they're nuclear-ONLY. I realize that the Russians consider nukes as just a bigger boom, but the US doesn't. A single tacnuke going off in the Fulda Gap would have resulted in the US going to a full strategic launch.

The US's deployed systems, whether Patriot, THAAD, or even Aegis Ashore, are all comparable to the Russian S300/400 systems.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.