Fiddle's Green

[Panther Al]

From last I heard, most Bradley units are converting to Stryker: Now what happens to the Brads I just don't know.

Now, as to the other point:

Thinking that ones better equipment, coupled with the belief that it won't be needed because there is little likelihood that the international community will allow a war to happen is false.

Just ask Czech's.

So while yes, odds are against us ever having to fight against China, or any other major power, is slight, we can't assume that it won't ever happen.

[Adm.Lee]

From last I heard, most Bradley units are converting to Stryker: Now what happens to the Brads I just don't know.

Now, as to the other point:

Thinking that ones better equipment, coupled with the belief that it won't be needed because there is little likelihood that the international community will allow a war to happen is false.

Just ask Czech's.

So while yes, odds are against us ever having to fight against China, or any other major power, is slight, we can't assume that it won't ever happen.

Entirely true, but the US has a huge advantage that the Czechoslovaks didn't. If a mechanized force wants to fight the US, there's a lot of space & time that has to be crossed first, and that means (assuming there still are Bradleys lying around) there should be time to re-arm the Stryker units or call up the National Guard. Exceptions for the troops still based in Korea and Germany, granted, but that's not everyone.

[dragoon500ly]

Had this topic come up in the ole lunch room and I thought it was of intrest.

The US is considering closing the few bases remaining in Germany. Reasons are that the Germans are tired of playing host to foreign militaries, don't agree with a lot of recent US actions. The US is tired of paying high fees to the Germans to "rent" facilities.

So.....

Does the US need to maintain a presence in Europe at all

And if it does, would shifting bases to say, Poland or some other eastern european country be the best choice

Myself, I've of two minds on this. If Poland is willing to play host country, then an Air Base or two and perhaps, a forward deployed Brigade.

Or, taking a page form a Tom Clancy novel, how about basing a Brigade/Air Base in Israel

Thoughts

[Panther Al]

Actually Poland has agreed to allow the Air Force to base F16's and cargo aircraft inside Poland- and from what I read not that far from Koenigsberg, which should make the Russians real happy.

[95th Rifleman]

The USAF bases in the UK are safe for the forseable future, which gives a good radius for European operations.

Not sure if an American military presence in Israel is politcaly advisable. It would be seen in the middle east as overt support for israel and will undermine any peace efforts on behalf of America with regards to the Palestinians.

Assuming you can get israel to agree in the first place, which would be very unlikely.

[dragoon500ly]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the agreement with Poland restrict activity to direct support of NATO Its not like the agreements that we currently enjoy with the FRG which allows staging through as long as the host government is informed.

As for US bases in the middle east...to be sure, Israel would not like basing of US forces, unless there was an advantage to them allowing the basing. The last time that this came up, the Israel wanted a mutual defense pact that would require that US forces based in Israel to assist the IDF in the event of an Arab military action...and required those forces be under IDF command.

Just a bit of a sticking point.

But the US does need bases in an area of the world that is becoming increasingly important. Both the Middle East and the Indian Ocean are major areas of intrest. Diego Garcia is just to small and too far out in the Indian Ocean to sustain major forces. Its doubtful that Iraq would want any US presence. Afghanistan is very favorable right now, but the lack of harbors requires land transport (through Pakistan and with the current state of affairs...) or aerial resupply (NOT sustainable in the long run).

Would India allow a US presence, doubtful at best.

Perhaps Vietnam would allow the US to rebuild its former facilities at Cam Rhan Bay Especially with the current distrust that they have with China...and how would that rate on the irony scale

[95th Rifleman]

Perhaps Vietnam would allow the US to rebuild its former facilities at Cam Rhan Bay Especially with the current distrust that they have with China...and how would that rate on the irony scale

Don't you just love geo-politics

[Panther Al]

And you know the weird bit of it is, I'd rate the odds of Vietnam making a deal to allow US basing if asked as fair to middling: Odd as it might seem, the results of the "Police Action" *Cough* war *cough* being what it was actually helps here.

[Targan]

But the US does need bases in an area of the world that is becoming increasingly important. Both the Middle East and the Indian Ocean are major areas of intrest. Diego Garcia is just to small and too far out in the Indian Ocean to sustain major forces. Its doubtful that Iraq would want any US presence. Afghanistan is very favorable right now, but the lack of harbors requires land transport (through Pakistan and with the current state of affairs...) or aerial resupply (NOT sustainable in the long run).

A few weeks ago the Australian government announced a force structure review and that immediately sparked a couple of days of the media speculating on whether US military bases would ever be established in Australia. Once upon a time most Australians were vehemently opposed to such a thing but I think a much bigger proportion of the Australian public today supports the idea.

[dragoon500ly]

The growth of the PRC's military capability has a lot of nations in the region "concerned"

I've heard about the possibilty of building a US base in Australia, I've also heard that the Philippines is considering basing rights again.

I broached the idea of a base in Vietnam with some of the officers at lunch, and most of them rated the idea as "very possible", at least as far as air and navy go.

[Panther Al]

Actually, was thinking some more on the idea of the US getting basing rights in Vietnam, and I think I hit on a reason that would make both parties (Us and Vietnam) very happy with the deal, and better yet, put China on notice that its best that they play by the rules.

The reason:

The Spratly's. In short, a group of some 100 islets, atolls, and reefs that total only about 5 square kilometers of land, but sprawl across some 410,000 square kilometers of the South China Sea. Set amid some of the world's most productive fishing grounds, the islands are believed to have enormous oil and gas reserves. Several nations have overlapping claims on the group. About 45 of the islands are currently occupied by small numbers of military personnel. China claims them all, but occupies only 8, Vietnam has occupied or marked 25, the Philippines 8, Malaysia 6, and Taiwan one. So far we have told everyone that we are backing the Philippines, and Vietnam and China has had navel battles over them: in 88 the ChiCom navy sank a Vietnamese Troop transport that was heading to a marked Vietnamese island. The Chinese has also recently occupied (with armed troops) an island claimed by the Philippines and have told them that under no circumstances will China permit anyone to explore for oil: particularly addressed to the Philippines.

If the US went to Vietnam, and said something along the lines of "We are worried about China and what it has in mind for the future. If you allow us to base our military in Cam Rhan Bay, say Naval facilities, a few fighter wings, and perhaps (For pure shits and giggles on my part) the 101st, we will back you on your claims in the Spratly's, and assist you in developing those islands." I would be willing to bet money the answer would be "Oh, hell yes."

[dragoon500ly]

Actually, was thinking some more on the idea of the US getting basing rights in Vietnam, and I think I hit on a reason that would make both parties (Us and Vietnam) very happy with the deal, and better yet, put China on notice that its best that they play by the rules.

The reason:

The Spratly's. In short, a group of some 100 islets, atolls, and reefs that total only about 5 square kilometers of land, but sprawl across some 410,000 square kilometers of the South China Sea. Set amid some of the world's most productive fishing grounds, the islands are believed to have enormous oil and gas reserves. Several nations have overlapping claims on the group. About 45 of the islands are currently occupied by small numbers of military personnel. China claims them all, but occupies only 8, Vietnam has occupied or marked 25, the Philippines 8, Malaysia 6, and Taiwan one. So far we have told everyone that we are backing the Philippines, and Vietnam and China has had navel battles over them: in 88 the ChiCom navy sank a Vietnamese Troop transport that was heading to a marked Vietnamese island. The Chinese has also recently occupied (with armed troops) an island claimed by the Philippines and have told them that under no circumstances will China permit anyone to explore for oil: particularly addressed to the Philippines.

If the US went to Vietnam, and said something along the lines of "We are worried about China and what it has in mind for the future. If you allow us to base our military in Cam Rhan Bay, say Naval facilities, a few fighter wings, and perhaps (For pure shits and giggles on my part) the 101st, we will back you on your claims in the Spratly's, and assist you in developing those islands." I would be willing to bet money the answer would be "Oh, hell yes."

Hmmm, that's a bet that I wouldn't take! On the other hand, the Spratley Islands issue may be the major stumbling block, especially when you consider that the PRC holds most of the US debt. Any permament move into the region, you can bet just about anything that the PRC will react, not only in a military sense, but by calling in that debt and doing everything possible to cause economic troubles.

[Panther Al]

Hmmm, that's a bet that I wouldn't take! On the other hand, the Spratley Islands issue may be the major stumbling block, especially when you consider that the PRC holds most of the US debt. Any permament move into the region, you can bet just about anything that the PRC will react, not only in a military sense, but by calling in that debt and doing everything possible to cause economic troubles.

In all fairness, I don't think that they will go quite *that* far, besides, we already have our in to the whole area in that we have already told everyone that we have the Philippines back when it comes to the Spratly's.

[dragoon500ly]

In all fairness, I don't think that they will go quite *that* far, besides, we already have our in to the whole area in that we have already told everyone that we have the Philippines back when it comes to the Spratly's.

That may be true, I guess it really comes down to is just what the PRC's long term goals are

[Panther Al]

The reason I feel that they won't go quite that far boils down to less militaristic considerations than economic: yes, technically they could call the debt: but most if not all are basically treasury bonds with defined limits as to when and why they can be called ahead of the time span given to them. Also, they have to know that even should they call them that doing so would cause serious harm to the chinese economy as well. After all, if they called them it would devastate our economy: it would make 1929's crash look like a small hiccup not even worth mentioning. That in turn would destroy imports; most of which comes from china and since the vast majority of china's economy depends on exports to the US that would also destroy china's economic balance. Which isn't to say they might feel it's worth the risk, they do have that communist model that tells them it's not that big of a deal. It all depends on how connected to reality china's senior ministers are.