Help support TMP

"Norway is calling..........." Topic

21 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 Ultramodern Warfare (2009-present) Message Board

Areas of Interest


909 hits since 12 Jun 2018
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Personal logo StoneMtnMinis Supporting Member of TMP12 Jun 2018 6:11 p.m. PST
Cacique Caribe12 Jun 2018 6:34 p.m. PST

Hmm. Does the US have to be the one to fill in everyone else's gaps in NATO? Or is the US only required to do so during actual emergencies?

Or is this just a Norway thing, because they don't assign enough of their budget to their own defense?

Please help me understand. Don't all these countries keep saying that, because the Cold War is presumably over, the US is spending way too much of its budget on defense? So which is it going to be then?

The NATO countries can't have it both ways indefinitely, or can they? :)


Personal logo Private Matter Supporting Member of TMP12 Jun 2018 7:59 p.m. PST

700 troops is not an indication that Norway isn't willing to spend on its defense: by keeping a small contingent of US Marines there it acts as a deterrent to Russian aggression. Russia is less likely to send in little green men if they know there will be a swift reaction from the international community. Besides, Marines have been playing in Norway for decades.

Cacique Caribe12 Jun 2018 8:08 p.m. PST

Seriously, how is 700 a deterrent against a Russian invasion?

PS. I can understand sending them to Norway for training (our or theirs) though.

Personal logo Saber6 Supporting Member of TMP Fezian12 Jun 2018 8:19 p.m. PST

Mostly training. IIRC no troops can be stationed in Norway.

TGerritsen Supporting Member of TMP12 Jun 2018 8:24 p.m. PST

Because those 700 marines have 200,000 brothers you do not want to Bleeped text off by messing with them.

Cacique Caribe12 Jun 2018 9:35 p.m. PST


That's how we see them. But the real question is … Is that how RUSSIA sees them? That's what determines if 700 Marines are really a deterrent, or not, against an invasion by Moscow.

PS. Or am I still missing something that is obvious to everyone else but me? :)

Cacique Caribe12 Jun 2018 9:43 p.m. PST

Saber6: "Mostly training. IIRC no troops can be stationed in Norway."

Wow, I did not know that. Thanks!


PMC31713 Jun 2018 1:57 a.m. PST

It's the old 'tripwire' defence.

The Hong Kong garrison, Berlin Brigade, etc, had no real ability to hold back any actual attack by the PLA or Red Army: they'd have given them "an interesting afternoon" in the words of the CO Hong Kong Garrison. But their resistance would signal two things:

1) we're prepared to fight for this territory
2) we're going to war over this territory

Much like the Royal Marines on the Falklands, really.

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP13 Jun 2018 3:45 a.m. PST

Much like the Royal Marines on the Falklands, really.

It is true that some lunatic may test you (much like they did in the Falklands, really) but displaying resolve, carrying a big stick & staring down potential aggressors goes a long way.

The US doesn't run a hegemonic empire, after all but is a member of a mutually defensive alliance. Norway is responsible for providing its own basic defence. 700 US servicemen is undoubtedly enough.

mjkerner Supporting Member of TMP13 Jun 2018 6:04 a.m. PST

Apparently, Norway's NATO commitment is decreasing, from current 1.59% of GDP to 1.55% by 2020. In 2006, NATO nations agreed to 2% (by 2020 or 2024????). Anyway, until Norway meets the requirement (US is at 3.6% last I read) I would be hesitant to "Send in the Marines".


Personal logo StoneMtnMinis Supporting Member of TMP13 Jun 2018 6:10 a.m. PST

Unfortunately, NATO has become more of a shell than an effective deterrent. It is only after Deleted by Moderator that our "allies" are at least starting to minimally meet their requirements for membership.

Jcfrog Supporting Member of TMP13 Jun 2018 7:23 a.m. PST

Again who seriously can think of Russia attacking Norway? Why, what for, beside having a fraction of the pretended soviet time capabilities? No idea about long term, far away logistics.
Nato European countries real dangerous enemies are inside, in their population, one of the member state, and their own self destructive path.
Trump rightly wants to somehow disconnect and stop spending for the more or less useless external defense there. Was that Tucidides who said the true ramparts are the people?
The Empire needs to spend less, will soon be more independant , energy and else, looking more towards the future, which lies around the Pacific rather than Atlantic; and maybe the Empire will ceased to be, revert to pre empire needs and policies. As most of its citizens wish.

"The US doesn't run a hegemonic empire, after all but is a member of a mutually defensive alliance." well no one else has its debt paid in its own money, force others to use it as much as possible for international trade and then use it as a threat for companies to get into huge problems if they don't follow the whims of the UsA, a never ever seen abandonement of legal and policy independance by states in peace! Nothing is very neat.
Otherwise Europeans who can't manage to have any meaningful airlift capacity for example, should stop whinning and either shut up even more, or take their stuff in their own hands. But internal politics and pretence don't allow, plus the general population absolute ignorance of real life facts.

Oberlindes Sol LIC13 Jun 2018 9:57 a.m. PST

The link has a great picture of snow camouflage uniforms. Thanks.

coopman13 Jun 2018 11:16 a.m. PST

It only takes 700 Real Norwegian Men to stop the Russians.

Lion in the Stars13 Jun 2018 1:45 p.m. PST

It's basic geography.

The Russians need to knock Norway out of a fight so that the Red Fleet can get out into the Atlantic. Baltic Fleet has to get out of the Baltic Sea, and even the North Banner Fleet has to get from Arkhangelsk and Murmansk around the edge of Scandahooliga.

Jcfrog Supporting Member of TMP14 Jun 2018 1:25 a.m. PST

Their fleets ate modtly defensive ( newest corvettes?) a shadow of the size ( the actual part able for sustained ops) of the soviet fleet. Really., grand plans.
No sized base in Murmansk. Just been there. Smaller place north, Plyarnyy forbiden to foreigners ( and hell with it as museum ships and air museum in the zone!).

USAFpilot14 Jun 2018 9:16 a.m. PST

"700" is not the deterrence, "U.S. Marines" is the deterrence. The number is mostly irrelevant at this stage, it's the sending of a message that the "U.S." is here. 700 U.S. Marines sends a bigger message than if Norway could call up 7,000 or 70,000 of their own. But Dan is correct; our European allies need to pick up their fair share of a defense budget and stop relying so much on the U.S.

wyeayeman18 Jun 2018 1:33 p.m. PST

Except that of course we do. Yes you spend a lot more than we do (your choice some would say)But the bulk of your money goes on Asia Pacific or bombing Arabs or fancy aeronautic experiments. The effort that you actually contribute to the Defence of Europe (thank you, by the way) and which is the point of NATO- is more than matched by the money we spend on our own defence. Don't forget we are the ones who might be invaded- not you. Remeber Europe was bombed to Bleeped text last time we had a war we sincerely dont want another. You are lucky all your recent wars have been in other peoples countries.

Lion in the Stars18 Jun 2018 2:19 p.m. PST

@wyeayeman: The NATO treaty specified 2% of GDP for military spending for the Europeans. How many nations have actually maintained that?

Further, how can you say that you are maintaining a credible military force when Germany, for example, has less than 300 tanks in inventory? That's roughly 3 Armored Brigade Combat Teams worth, plus the tanks used for driver and mechanic training.

If the shooting starts, how long will it take before there are NO tanks left in the German Army? 90 minutes?

Similarly, Europe never buys enough ships to actually keep them at sea where they belong. Normal rotation is 1 ship at sea, one ship in the yards, and one ship getting ready to go to sea. And then you need multiples so that having 3 broken boats doesn't leave you with no ships able to go to sea. The bare minimum strength is probably 12 ships of that role (for example, US carriers).

You are correct that this isn't cheap. Having people die because they don't have the experience of normal operations at sea is much more expensive.

wyeayeman19 Jun 2018 7:38 a.m. PST

Equally do you think there will much left of the Soviet (sorry Russian) horde after meeting them? Or the Poles? The Roosians are not the same level of threat that we were scared with as the Soviets. One thing I dont buy into is this so called threat. Its one thing for Ivan to take over lands which they have some emotional claim to- I can see them willingly get involved, But Europe will be a blood bath for them,even as it stands. As to ships Putins navy is a crock of S***. Yes we pught to spend more. That was our agreement.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.