this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2025
1393 points (99.2% liked)
Political Memes
7587 readers
3921 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
EU countries need to start making plans to remove us bases by force and destroy any US forces if necessary.
Why do Americans always think in violence. The American people put a bunch of nazis into power, now you want Europe to fix it with a full out war. It's like the US is full of toddlers. Idiocracy was a meant as a comedy, not a manual.
Because the US is NOT a democracy and every single right we have was only won through violence. Civil rights? Malcom X and the Black Panthers had to resort to violence. Gay rights? Please see the Stonewall riots. The right to unionize? Workers had to take up guns and fight the police and military multiple times for the mere right to unionize.
You could've just voted for Kamala and there wouldn't be any need for violence. The US isn't a democracy because Americans prefer violence over democracy.
Trumps America is truly what America has always been without the squeaky clean public relations veneer of respectability. He takes it two steps above where the dems do. America has needed an uprising since before I was born and its the moderate liberal like you cheerleading for team blue standing in the way.
Joe Biden didnt fix the problem and neither would Kamala. They are the new wheels and a coat of paint on the orphan grinder and trump is a new grinding wheel. The problem is the machinery and you cant fix that with a vote for team blue.
Have you ever considered that the Democractic party isn't 100% aligned with your views because there's more people out there that disagree with you than agree with you? That's part of democracy, accepting that the will of the people may not be the same as what you want and accepting that you need to convince others of your views.
If most people don't agree with you, and you want to use violence to impose your will on others, then you're just an authoritarian. You aren't going to accomplish anything through violence when you're incapable of convincing anyone through peaceful means. Even if you get power through violence you'd just be another tyrant that people would need to destroy to be able to live in a society they want to live in.
Instead of romanticizing revolutions, maybe try studying the ones that have happened in history and apply some critical thinking. Wanting to end democracy to get your way makes you a fascist no matter how much you tankie rationalizations you try to paint it over with.
Tell that to France. I think they’re doing quite well. They refused to put up with 1789 oligarchs.
I am well aware that their consent has been manufactured successfully, and also that a fascist machine can never be allowed to prevail regardless of its veneer of democracy or legitimacy. Do you honestly look at the American government and see democracy?
Is your advice to the civil rights movements of the past that they should have never pursued direct action because the majority had not deemed it necessary to afford them rights?
The 8 hour workday wasnt worth fighting for? Stonewall should have just stuck to catchy slogans? Your response perfectly encapsulates the danger of the white moderate and the downfall of respectability politics.
Revolutions are made necessary by boot licking sycophants who hold order over justice. In a society that abandons justice there can be no order without authoritarianism**. I dont believe authoritarianism is valid when it has been voted for, it should be met with the same violence it wields against others. **
I see America becoming more fascist every day because both the right and left have been conditioned by social media to hate democracy.
You may feel like you're better than those that support MAGA, but you really aren't. You're the ones falling for catchy slogans like "late stage capitalism" and "genocide Joe" which have "radicalized" you (another way of saying you've turned off your brain) to turn against democracy. You're just as narcissistic as Trump, just you want to be the one imposing your will onto others instead of Trump. Tankies claim to dislike MAGAs but are incapable of seeing they are the exact same kind of people.
By abandoning democracy, the Tankie crowd is just as complicit as the MAGAs in the suffering that will result from fascism. Just got scammed by a different of authoritarian grifters, but the result is the same. Nobody will respect a movement that did nothing while their country became an fascist shithole, and they certainly won't be making you the authoritarians in charge. The "late stage capitalism" narrative was a scam and you fell for it just as hard as MAGAs fell for Trump telling them he'd bring about a golden age for America.
There are no shortcuts for progress, and you're currently moving backwards because internet algorithms have made you willing to trade democracy for a fantasy golden age just like the MAGAs.
A whole bunch of assumptions and no substance. Just an elitest lib Pearl clutching because the left wont abandon their principles for diet fascism.
If we had actual direct consensus based democracy I would have a different opinion, but we have an oligarchy in America, an electoral college, closed primary systems with arbitrary rules and super delegates. America is not a democracy.
I concede that revolution is an authoritarian act, but I believe revolution against a tyrannical government is self defense and not only justified but a moral imperative.
I am not even a tankie, and to water down my presumed ideology to feed your sense of superiority is exactly what I expected from you.
But but Genocide but but her emails… but but he’s old but but…
The last time trump lost they stormed the Capitol.
I can't imagine they'd be more peaceful a 2nd time around.
So voting him into office is the better option? Come on now.
How have fascists typically been successfully handled by the international community in the past?
There's only two methods.
Plan A: Isolate the country and after a while the people of that country will be tried of being pariahs and work to get themselves out of being fascist. This worked on Franco's fascist movement in Spain. But this method can take a long time (generations) but it's the preferred method since there's less bloodshed and that is limited to be within the fascist country. Problem is, the fascist country may attack another country which necessitates going to Plan B.
Plan B: All out war. Populations are mobilized, nations become entirely focused on war. Cities bombed to rubble, millions dead. Only after extreme hardship people in a fascist country will accept they aren't superior to other countries (as the propaganda told them they were) and agree to unconditional surrender. This allows other countries to restructure their political system, and for participation in the fascist movement be prohibited.
I dunno if Franco's Spain is a good example. Post-WW2, the US and its western allies mostly let him be. He was a reliable anti-communist, after all.
The regime ended when he died.
Yes, I mentioned it takes a long time - generations. And if by "let him be" you mean nobody went to war with Franco, then yes, that's why it's Plan A, the option that doesn't involve all out war.
Are you looking for an option where the US can quickly end it's fascist movement? Unless you have a time machine and can go back in time and convince more people to vote for Kamala Harris, then I got nothing for ya. Best case is, the US is Franco's Spain and it's going to suck for decades. Worst case the US is WWII Germany, and it's going to really suck, though for a much shorter period of time.
And both of those options require removing us bases from foreign countries lmao
Look at Germany, education is the answer.
edit: I was wrong, I don't know the answer also I learned America is not a democracy.
I love Germany, but Germany is a democracy. The US isn't. 70%+ of Americans want universal healthcare, but "our" politicians shit on us and laugh. Most Americans want free college, but again, we get zero representation. We want unions, but companies freely fire workers for organizing and our politicians don't care. South Dakota voted to legalize marijuana but the governor told the people they were too stupid to know what they voted for so she had one of the judges she appointed overrule democracy.
I could go on and on and on. Anyone who thinks the US is a democracy is extremely ignorant on the issue. Merely voting isn't a democracy. A representative democracy is only a democracy if the representatives serve the will of the majority.
So get back to me when German politicians start ignoring everything the voters want and start gutting all of their public programs instead and then when politicians who promise to help get elected but do absolutely fucking nothing to help you
Education can only be used, when there is a side willing to learn. When they disregard history as fiction, there is no point in educating them. You can also see this with the right Shift in rhetoric in German Media and politics with parties Like AfD, BSW and partly CDU, who are straight Up ignoring history or downplaying it.
Germany is your example of a fascist state that didn't require violence to bring under control?
I am not American. I don't want Europe to try and 'fix' the US, my suggestions are merely for the EU to avoid being taken over by the US.
Since the US has put a bunch of nazis into power it's possible it will come to violence or threats of violence. It's better to be prepared. It's also better to act first if you know violence is inevitable.Or you could just acquiesce to any demand when threatened. Tariffs, give your natural resources to US companies, ban gays, ban 'communism' etc.
But Europe knows that appeasement works against a violent invader. They proved that was a good strategy in the 1930s.
It was a call that plans may be required, and honestly that's probably a good idea. The administration has repeatedly declined to rule out violent invasion when explicitly asked about how far they would go for their stated aspirations for Panama, Greenland, and Canada.
If you have a neighbor that keeps talking about how they want your house and they need to give up your house to them, and they have a whole bunch of weapons that they keep waving at your property while saying that they'll do "whatever it takes" to have your land, then you don't just wag your finger at them and say that's bad and ignore the situation.
It's not saying EU needs to do first strike, but they need to be prepared to defend their interests from violence as seems possible to be started by the US, which is an insane prospect I never would have imagined being a real thing in my life.
I’ve had Americans say to me that the only thing foreigners understand is violence.
Lol, coming from people living in a country where school shootings are normal, who've been in wars 222 of the past 239 years, who threaten to invade Greenland, Canada and Panama, who commit crimes against humanity and has slavery in its incarceration system, who has the largest military budget of the world by far, who had the strongest military force out there...
And the only thing foreigners understand is violence?!?
Oh the fucking irony.
Don’t forget their police who don’t have any kind of proper training so precincts have to find training on their own, which often leads to some pretty fucked up stuff. Themes will likely include making cops feel less like community protectors and more like “warriors” who are closer to Batman than real, engaged community support. Also those same cops have one helluva rate of domestic violence.
And then they’ll see people say stuff like that and start calling out corrupt police in some of the worst places on Earth as if the “greatest country” should be proud of clearing the lowest bar. It’s maddening because you can’t even talk to them without them getting hyper-defensive and angry.
Because it is. And like toddlers they have shat the bed and expect someone to clean up after them.
Yeah, because open warfare with the US is a great geopolitical move that will end super well for everyone except russia. 100% no russian victory in fomenting that particular brand of chaos. nope.
If they US is not planning on using military force against the EU, they will simply withdraw from EU territory peacefully when asked.
Chaos will be when US troops attack us from withing while Russia attacks from the east.
Are you from the EU?
Originally, I live in the US now. While I'm all for EU countries breaking military ties with the US, no really that is a super important move, open warfare with American forces would be suicide. The US has been the lynchpin of NATO for decades, and is tied in to every layer of the EU military apparatus. There isn't parity with the american military in any way with respect to this, and it's the kind of strategic disadvantage that can't be overcome without legislative reform and many years of buildup. At the moment, especially with trump helming this shithole, any government asking the US to vacate it's bases will need to do so with the understanding that they only have economic resources to fall back on if the US just says "no".
You are making an assumption that the US will not attack or threaten to attack to get concessions from the EU unless the EU asks them to withdraw.
I am not saying the EU should take action today, it should prepare as much as it can first, but it needs to have plans to do it even today because it could be forced to.
Open warfare with the US in Europe is not suicide despite the US military being significantly bigger and capable compared to EU armies. Invading across an ocean is hard, you need to be able to move significant forces in or nearby before hostilities start or face no resistance in the initial landing.
Which is why EU armies need to have plans to quickly overwhelm US forces already in the EU, it can be done, they are not significant at present. Of course if you are unwilling to do so they can simply demand to increase their presence making the problem more difficult in the future.
It also needs to make sure the US have as few allies as possible that could help them stage from against it. Thankfully the UK at the moment does not seem to embrace Trump's foreign policy but that could change in the future.
This is also why adding Canada to the EU at this point, when the main concern is security, is foolish, we cannot protect Canada, we probably cannot prevent an occupation of Greenland or any weird islands ex-imperial powers have god-knows-where.
The EU needs to implement a lot of changes to guarantee it's safety and independence, some will be hard (unpopular, expensive).
It needs to increase military spending, massively It need to de-tangle EU military equipment from US dependencies, including US parts required for EU manufactured equipment. This could trigger a US reaction. It needs to replace NATO structures for interoperability of EU armies with EU ones, replicating as much as possible(personnel, procedures, equipment) It needs to make sure there are no outside loyalties in it's armed forces which is going to be difficult after decades of NATO. Those are more dangerous than the existing US forces. It should implement some kind of conscription/reservist training force to have a bigger trained overall force. This is in addition to increasing regular professional forces. It needs to reduce US dependency in non-military sectors as well. Could also trigger a US reaction.
(It is late and I am tired, so I apologize if this comes accross as rude or similar. I'm really not trying to be.)
This isn't WWII though, opposed landings aren't something anyone still does. Besides that, in this hypothetical scenario everyone has nukes. It's really just an exercise in how much aggression each side will tolerate before someone escalates to that point.
Look I'm not disagreeing with the broad sentiment that the EU needs to get it's shit together and divest from the US militarily -- the US has been practically begging for that since clinton, hell obama, biden and trump all warned against this exact fascist-takeover america-unreliable scenario. I also for sure am not assuming the US will not be the aggressor. I mean, we're even threatening the EU with annexation right now. I seriously doubt it'll get to that point, but it's by no means ruled out.
Things like adding canada to the EU are excellent strategic moves, since it not only gives the EU an ally with many friendly airbases across the ocean but, waaaaay more importantly, it gives them economic strength with which to batter the US and bolster their own economies. This is an economic war, and the US probably won't win it. Hoorayyy?
I am confused though, if you understand that the US cannot invade despite their superior military why do you think it's suicide for the EU to take military action against the limited US forces in the EU's own territory?
The US has never before pushed for EU divestment from the US. Quite the opposite it has repeatedly pushed for more EU investment in military defense, a part of which would go to US industry. It has reduced it's presence when the SU fell but it still maintained bases in Europe and while military action would not be in the table other forms of coercion would come into play if the EU demanded a complete US withdrawal from EU territory.
I am also confused about who you think Trump warned the EU against? His own America? He just wanted the EU to pay more to US industry.
Adding Canada to the EU is not adding an ally to the EU it's adding a member. It creates a security obligation which the EU cannot fulfill towards Canada. At the same time it could provoke the US to attack Canada. Of course if the US attacks Canada the EU should try and provide as much help as possible but at the moment or the near future that won't really be much.
I do believe CETA is being provisionally applied reducing tariffs even if the arbitration stuff is not (nor should it really). There is no 'economic' war to be won, the US is putting arbitrary tariffs on anyone but Russia, they will obviously be hurt more than any of the individual economies they target.
Ah man... Point by point breakdowns are usually the death knell of a discussion. It just spirals into longer and longer posts with less and less substance. For example:
Where did I say that the US can't invade? Ukraine has shown that nuclear deterrence is an extremely complicated subject. Would France actually be willing to end the world to save the Dutch? Nobody knows!
Yes exactly. Trump isn't good at this. His arguments are too small to get his fat little body off the ground. Trump, of course, says them anyways. Trump doesn't care what humans think.
What's the problem? Canada is aware of this going into it, so is the EU. It's clearly a move that bolsters economies and not the respective militaries, at least in the near term, which is what is currently under threat. Long term, economic and military partnership between the EU and canada is blah blah blah longwinded nobody cares blah
But but but... That's divestment. That's doing divestment.
Etc.
Isn't that just... miserable? All I'm doing is picking your nits, and that doesn't really further anything because at no point does it address your thesis. I'm just batting at your arguments like a fat cat who wants you to stop bonking into it with the mouse but is too lazy to actually move off the mousepad. It doesn't add anything, except incentive for this to turn into another boring internet slap fight. Honestly this feels like either we're agreeing but not realizing it, or you have no experience with the military at all but don't want to admit that (and I really do not think it's the second option!).
Okay, here, how about I say: "Current US forces in the EU are not and never have been an occupying force - they could be casually sidelined by parking a big truck in front of the gates and stopping the beer delivery" and you please try to believe me. Not even joking, like, you're right and it's 100% true, I promise, and I have not argued anything else at any point. The forces the US stations in Europe (with the possible exception of some of the air assets at German-hosted bases like Ramstein) have no significant conventional defensive ability, they're all sigint, liaison and a guard for the nukes. They could be rolled over by a determined enough girlscout troop (probably not by the boyscouts, though...).
Everyone knows that.
If you cross cancel the nukes from both sides in this hypothetical scenario (because it's no fun to speculate when the end state is "absolutely everyone dies forever") you're left with a coalition of economically and culturally extremely powerful countries that just utterly lack a response to realities like "seven carrier strike groups" or "more than a thousand F35s". Any hypothetical US occupation of the EU would obviously devolve into the exact kind of guerilla/insurgent warfare the US absolutely sucks at, but that doesn't matter if this lunatic admin decides to have ROEs that are really relaxed about things like 'civilians'. You just cannot win a war of attrition with the US right now, it's pretty doubtful even the other superpowers could (that's why they're going the election interference route...) and provoking one by attacking US tripwire bases would be suicidal.
I feel like I should point out here that I do not like this. I'm not proud about this shit, honestly I'm too busy worrying about the "my country is burning down around me and I haven't even got a bucket with which to staunch the flames" thing. But, the good news is (not for me I admit) that any significant mobilization to invade the EU will trigger a civil war in the US. To say that the idea 'is as popular as giving children syphilis' is to do a disservice to hyperbole. So I guess take heart that they'd have to roll over a great many americans (including me) before they ever get off the mainland.
...
Well, okay, these fuckers would happily do that (honestly they'd probably consider it a bonus), but the tree of moral victory is watered with the blood of martyrs. And fertilized with the paste their corpses have been ground into. And probably guided on a trellis made from what few bones weren't ground into powder.
...
Or something, idk. This is getting dumb. I just really hope there'll never be a chance for me to be proven right.
The reason the US cannot (successfully) invade is not due to nuclear deterrence but the difficulty in bringing over enough heavy equipment (MBTs, artillery) if you don't have a foothold (ports, airfields). Seven carrier groups are not going to be able to secure you that even if they amounted to more than a 1000 F-35s, which they don't.
Canada cannot join the EU legally. It will take amendment of the treaties to remove the geographical requirement and still Hungary would veto the ascension anyways. You can scoff at this and argue that we should ignore the treaties and Hungary but this will weaken the EU as an institution. It already is obviously less cohesive than a nation state.
It's also not necessary for Canada to join the EU for us to support them militarily. The issue is that we can't really do so in the near future.
EU military spending was already not going 100% to US products, therefore not all of the increased spending benefiting US companies is not divestment, it's actually investment. The US after all marketed the F-35 to EU members.
I salute your strategy of the great wall of rambling text, it truly is demoralizing at this time. I do not think the best EU can do is rely on Americans waging a civil war on it's behalf.
Apologies, lemmy is having a day. One moment while I sort this out...
(My point exactly. And, since I lack even a shred of self awareness, here have six more paragraphs! I really tried to keep them on just one topic, at least)
Disclaimer
I've had to rewrite this a couple times, because I keep veering into being excessively sarcastic and you really don't deserve that. So, and with my complete and honest sincerity, I say this: I need you to know that your understanding here is very flawed. It's that flaw that's keeping you from being as abjectly terrified as every non-fascist US natsec dickhead is right now (this very much includes me). There's a serious danger here, and it's not that you're going to personally kick off a war with the US, nor that I might not win an argument on lemmy, but that the imperialist powers currently salivating at the idea of extending their influence over EU countries (and this includes the USA) are eagerly attempting to exploit your ignorance of this subject to their own ends. As someone living through the hell of what that technique can do, I want you to be as prepared as possible to spot this kind of misinformation in the future. So please, please hear me out.
First, let me say that you are correct on several points - you cannot have a land invasion or launch an occupation with air and naval assets alone. You're also 100% correct that the US Navy does not have 1,100 F-35 Lightning II Cs, that was not what I meant to imply (afaik there are only ~105 F35Cs). Now obviously, to occupy conquered ground, you have to... occupy, the ground. This is very simple thing which, unfortunately, boats are famously ill suited to. Planes are, also, just garbage at it. I will make no attempt to deny these patently obvious facts, which I happily will cede to you without contest. Admittedly, this is a serious problem for my hypothetical invading army to overcome. Because unfortunately, the easiest way to transport large numbers of that really cool military stuff we all love, like tanks and rockets and red-blooded American heroes with red bandanas on their heads and plot armor a mile thick, is inside big planes or on big boats.
So lets just... ignore that problem. It's inconvenient.
A nuclear supercarrier is a massive strategic asset, both physically and metaphorically. It lets you project force over a huge area that your mainland based assets simply do not have and that is absolutely invaluable in the geopolitical world. It lets you power small cities for disaster relief. And they are the most densely packed logistical hubs ever conceived. That last thing is why they're valuable, really. Obviously they can service, fuel, coordinate and re-arm their compliment of aircraft and that alone is amazingly useful, but see, in this hypothetical invasion scenario, the most useful thing they could do would be to just...
Sit there.
No, really. Park a strike group out in the middle of the atlantic, run a tube over to an oiler, and you can keep a flight of air tankers circling overhead 24/7. Think about that, seriously, because this is what I think you've failed to understand the implications of. The US doesn't particularly have the hardest troops or some innate superiority at warfare, but they are so far beyond the logistical capacity of any other nation that it's genuinely scary.
Putting a carrier out there, a long long way away from harm, isn't glamorous. But by doing so it enables the mainland US air assets to launch directly on missions, without a need for a forward air base. We do this all the time, too - every mission flown by a B2 Spirit takes off and lands at Whiteman Airforce Base (ranked #1 for "airbases with the most mask-off names"). Any strategic bomber is the same. So with one carrier, suddenly all ~900 of those 5th generation stealth multirole aircraft can be deployed for anything from interdiction to close air support. The limit becomes how much meth the pilot can handle and how many bombs can be strapped to one of those damn things.
THAT is what makes the US military a threat. I had a bunch more, explaining how the IRF and CRG can set up an Expeditionary Airbase in 24hrs and then just drop in C5 galaxies and what are you gonna do from there? And a bit about how most of the EU member states still use Gulf War era anti-aircraft systems, and those got merc'd by the damn F117. And a reaaaally boring bit about how the US's Strategic Airlift capability is super duper astounding (seriously, a C5 can haul two abrams at once) which has been removed in editing, you're welcome.
But... I honestly don't think I need any of that. That the US can project it's mainland-based assets into any arbitrary theater is already unbelievable. That a LCAC can carry an abrams to shore, that 24hr expeditionary airbases include utilities and fast food restaurants, that there is no EU counter to the B52's standoff payload delivery, that the US has a damn paradrop conference table? Those are all a pale second to the reality that the US can bomb every last scrap of infrastructure you have, level your whole town, and the pilots that did it will be going home to their cliche Missouri family a few hours later. It's the refinement of banal evil to the point that combat becomes, you know, a job. There's nothing else like it, and it should terrify the fuck out of you because it sure as hell does me.
(I'm just ignoring everything about canada (because I'm just too tired) and what divestment means (because holy fuck nobody cares, not you, not me, nobody))
Your post boils down to US has insanely more logistics capacity than anybody else and is more advanced than anybody else. Which I never disputed.
However, logistics are not measured against your oppositions logistics, they are measured against the logistics requirements of your task. A significant advantage in logistics can be counteracted by having to operate across an ocean vs overland. EU still needs to improve logistics but it does not have the same hard requirements (when we are discussing strictly the defense of continental EU).
An actual air tanker fleet would help, mostly with time on airborne rather than range, EU aircraft but it is an absolute necessity for the USAF and USN. A C5 grade air transport would also help but it is not necessary.
I will also address the invest/divest issue because it's not a red herring. You have misrepresented USA's push for more EU military spending as being motivated by a desire for EU independence from the US, it was motivated by US commercial interests.
Then we have a lot of small inaccuracies that together paint a misleading overall picture.
Carriers are massive force multipliers, they allow you to project air power (and light land power) in areas where you could not at all (so they multiply by infinity in some cases). This obviously comes at a premium and drawbacks.
The same amount of money spent on a land based airforce will yield significant more air power. A Nimitz would cost about 11 billion 2023 USD, an F35C costs ~100 million so you get around a 100 extra modern planes for a carrier. Also the F35A that is not carrier capable costs ~83 million USD so you could get buy four get one free, or more realistically cover (easily) land based logistics the carrier would provide. The cost of the escorts accordingly should go to land based SAM systems.
And of course all that airpower being on a single ship makes them much more vulnerable than being based even on a single air base, which can have groups of aircraft physically separated from each other and/or the runway and/or the ammo depots etc.
They also do not have dedicated air tankers, they can use buddy transfer systems with fighters but this cuts down on the fighters they can use for fighter task. Usually it's the USAF that refuels navy and marines aircraft since they have the dedicated air tanker fleet.
It's theoretically possible for the USAF to refuel fighters operating from continental USA to strike at Europe, after all they conduct ferry missions often. Of course in combat missions tankers need to hold back from the combat zone. In any case the F-35 were never intended to fight over the atlantic. This leaves the B-2 which is both stealth and meant to operate over oceans. It also has a payload to do significant damage, though there are 21 of them. While it's certainly stealthier than F-117 it remains to be seen whether they can consistently penetrate inflict significant damage and get out to have coffee at Missouri.
The F-117's only interactions with SAM was getting shot down by 1970s Soviet SAM in Serbia. In Gulf war the F-117 did not have loses to SAM but was only operating at night, Iraqi air defenses failed to shot down any type or aircraft at night, even the A-10 that practically was banned from daytime operations. SAMs were actually dealt with by F4/F16 SEAD/DEAD packages (during daytime). Needless to say Gulf era Iraqi SAM systems (and practices) were not up to contemporary Soviet or European standards and of course even less comparable to today's EU SAM systems.
Yes, I am certain the IRF can build an expeditionary air base in hostile Europe, in 24 hours. One wonders why they would bother instead of conquering the rest of EU by themselves. It's obviously not happening when facing enemy resistance which will have heavier equipment than an airborne troop.
You might just as well try to take over an existing airfield and land planes there but it's also an impossible task. Anything from fighter jets, armor, artillery, mortars, manpads can spell disaster for your reinforcement and therefore you.
LCAC can carry an Abrams, thus USN can deliver 90 Abrams if all ships with LCACs were part of an assault. Impressive, but still not enough even if they all manage to land.
As for terror and evil and all that. Historically war has been a job, it's not something new or special to Americans, if anything there is more romanticizing with all that fighting for freedom or even with vile ideologically rationalizations (racism/nazism).
I'm not going to waste your time by expounding at length on this but dude:
Just... stop.
Looking stuff up on wikipedia (et al.) and drawing what are, to you, reasonable sounding conclusions works really well sometimes. But there's painfully fundamental errors in there, many that don't even make sense in context. This thread is old, and it's just the two of us here, and it is really clear you're learning this on the fly. Which, not to discourage you from doing that! Please do, it's super important to be versed in the subject given the slant of modern geopolitics.
Seriously, you've hit the point in the subject where you can't easily guess the right answer no matter how clever you may be. Your guesses are good, too! Like there are some reasonable extrapolations and a few that, for unreasonable reasons, just aren't correct. Really, with a bit more exposure I think you'll be very good at this. But I get that I'm annoying, and that you have sunk a whole bunch of your identity into this being an accurate representation, and that america does not have anything like monopoly on patriotism. I do.
From one idiot on the internet to another, blah blah blah heartfelt sentiment, patronizingly phrased in that uniquely american way, slightly smug tone, sincerity, blah.
...
(divestment is a three letter word)
The only thing I looked up in Wikipedia is the costs and the amount of Lcacs or whatever the US can deploy. Had I not provided numbers I am sure you would take issue with that and reject my reasoning as baseless.
That naval aviation is expensive and less cost effective if you do not require (or can't afford) power projection is well known by anyone with even a passing interest in military aviation in Europe, not something I need to look up on Wikipedia. I also don't need to look up Wikipedia that Lcacs didn't play any significant role in major US deployments. Or about the level of 1990 Iraq air defenses vs modern EU. There are more in depth sources than that.
You should try looking stuff up instead of providing your own imaginary, and laughably wrong, examples of carrier benefits. Or spam drivel, call your opponents wrong, without of course correcting specific mistakes. I am sure it actually works at convincing people who also don't know much about the subject matter.
You are nothing remarkable.
I'm... not entirely sure how to respond to this one. First I guess I should clarify; are you actually asking me to break this down point by point? Because you complained about how long and "demoralizingly rambling" it was the last time I did that. These mixed signals, they're difficult to decipher. Additionally: I mean, okay fair enough I suppose, claim I did whatever you need, I'm not going to blame/judge you for it. This isn't a particular hardship for me, and I have no ill-will towards you because of this. I will say though, and only out of impish self-indulgence, that It's A Little Weird how the only capabilities I have claimed an aircraft carrier bestows are things... you've also agreed they can do.
Add in that they can provide emergency power to shore based systems (no clue if they've ever done this, but it's for sure in the design spec) and I think that's actually it for things I have claimed about aircraft carriers. Did I miss something? Is all this vitriol really just predicated on a misunderstanding about naval aircraft that are fitted for mid-air refueling commonly being called 'tankers'?
Errata:
Absolutely correct! Nobody does opposed landings, or even just regular naval landings. They're an incredibly outdated concept, even russia hasn't been desperate enough to try it in their Ukraine invasion (Edit: actually I think they might have used landing craft when they tried to take Mariupol in the very first days of the invasion). I can't think of a situation where LCACs would be deployed for anything except disaster relief. I only mentioned them to serve as an example of how utterly ridiculous US military hardware can get, there is a reason I explicitly glossed over them.
This is a shorthand for "and all the others", I did not mean you literally looked this all up on wikipedia (though, I mean, it's a very good source)
Yes, this is not hard to believe. There are actually two points here, the first is "What are the various EU countries holding in their anti-air inventory besides potentially US-corrupted defenses" and the second is "I really think you should, it's actually quite fascinating! The Iraqi army was considered to be peer or near-peer to the US prior to the invasion, and their anti air capabilities were, on paper, extremely formidable."
(Buddy I am the entire box of markers. Crayons too, probably.)
Smoooooth.
In general fighters with buddy refueling are not called air tankers. You are going to cry semantics, it's not. See you claimed that with one(!) carrier you can get 900 fighter aircraft able to launch missions from continental US to Europe. Also claimed that this is what allows strategic bombers to reach Russia from the US.
But that's not possible, fighters do routinely travel across the Atlantic for repositioning. They are refueled multiple times along the way by purpose build tankers (based on airliners) that carry multiple times more fuel and are themselves not efficient. It's obvious you can't support hundreds worth of fighter missions with carrier borne fighters (that number less). The capability exist so the Navy can operate on it's own if needed (cutting into it's attack/defense capability). When the US conducts major operations Navy jets refuel from land based air tankers.
Obviously strategic bombers don't refuel from F-18s, they also have much bigger range (without refueling) than fighters since they were actually designed to operate over oceans.
I unfortunately do not believe there was a misunderstanding on terms such as 'tanker' but a purposeful misrepresentation.
In regards to landings: I never said there was no use for them in the modern battlefield. I've argued that you cannot, having no previous foothold, successfully invade a continent that also has tanks and air force, artillery etc. Not all wars are against such opponents (after all the US never planned to invade Western Europe, it shouldn't have to). In particular islands usually do not have heavy equipment (tank, artillery) because it is difficult to move them elsewhere if needed. Or in a scenario where you already have forces or allies fighting the enemy landing a force that can move quickly in a location that doesn't have to be a port/airbase can be a huge advantage.
Russia certainly pondered the airlift into enemy airbase in Kiev the very first day. The takeover operation went well, the didn't actually go through with the airlift because the main "blitz" push to Kiev trafficked jam into itself. I doubt even if the aircraft came, they could have a serious effect, maybe they could evacuate their initial force, they didn't even do that.
In regards to EU air defenses vs Iraqi ones.. Iraq used Soviet equipment, European forces used US and EU made equipment, I suppose some later EU countries have had Soviet/Russian equipment though most of it must have been given to Ukraine by now. I remember criticism of not employing tactics correctly (no shoot and scoot) compared to say Serbians later on. Also AAA was a big factor.
There is no way Iraq could be considered a peer to the US, it had a big army but was completely outclassed and outnumbered in the air offering no resistance.
The latest in long range EU SAM is Aster missile based systems, there are also smaller ranged new systems based on Mica, IrisT (those are derived from A2A missiles). And of course air defense is also a task of fighter jets.
You know, in pulling up sources for this I ran across this utterly absurd UK operation which may be the single most british thing I've ever read about. So much logistical expenditure to inflict damage that was so minimal it was repaired in 24 hours. What a sublime metaphor for the collapse of the empire. (The HP Victor was such gorgeous plane, though. My god, roll-down windows in the cockpit? How can you not love it.)
It's a neat example though, because it shows what doing something like this would actually look like, and the summary is "Stupid. It'd look stupid." I don't think, in any world, this is a strategy the US would employ to do anything except flex on some children hiding in caves or something. The only reason I bring this up is because you've handwaved away every other logistical capability of the US (like the establishment of FABs, the capturing of strategic assets like airports, carrier-based invasions, opposed landings (which are still dumb, no arguing), the elimination of EU air defense, seaborne shore transport, etc...) as non-viable because of a bunch of reasons, most of which boil down to "the EU also has armies". And you know what? That's completely fair! I am 100% willing to toss every single one of those potentially effective (except opposed landings) (the USMC would be so mad at me if they could read) techniques in the bin! Because I think we've finally arrived at an effective approach entirely within US capabilities that even you haven't handwaved away yet.
Sure, It's a stupid stupid strategy that would never be used in reality, but staged refueling of mass aerial assets enabling standoff strike missions via the arctic circle are at least completely and demonstrably within the capabilities of the US military. Personally, were I the one planning this, I'd prefer something like: the utilization of carrier-based assets to deny air supremacy to either side while coordinating seven IRF and three CRG deployments to establish strategic air staging points across a broad swathe of terrain, then use the incredibly popular mid-air refueling to enable rapid transit of air superiority fighters like the F22 which then base from the expeditionary air bases (I hope they want burger king). Or something more simple, like the elimination of strategic targets using combined carrier-based SEAD operations to disrupt the quite formidable EU AA operating in concert with submarine based near-shore under-envelope cruise missile strikes. Or combined naval and aerial saturation of the AA capabilities present in the theater using things like the B52 to force constricted operating times, eliminating the need for DEAD operations nearly entirely.
Or you know, the US could keep things simple, stick with tradition. Invade poland. Then just expand out from there.
Listen, the original point here was that anyone trying anything right now would leave them and the rest of the EU seriously vulnerable to Russian aggression. That's what this whole thing was about, and I'm pretty damn sure THAT point has been exhaustively made by now. Even depleted as they are by the war in Ukraine, they are still a serious threat. And for what it's worth, Russia failed to take Hostomel via a combination of ridiculously poor logistical planning (not accounting for delays in capturing the airport was the real death knell, if 2nd VDV group had been inbound earlier they would have taken it) and a ton of bad luck in the form of 3rd SpO, the most tenacious and underestimated bastards I have ever encountered. But the point here is that ruzzia was about an hour away from taking Kyiv, one of the best defended cities in Europe, and with the lessons learned they could pull a similar stunt on any of the border countries.
I don't know that it would succeed, but do you want to risk that?
Errata:
Look you're just wrong about this one, I'm very sorry friendo.
Sorry, I can see how that could be interpreted ambiguously. I meant that B-2 and B-52 missions are carried out without a forward air base, that is something done with casual frequency. From the B-2 Spirit's wikipedia page, "[...] and can fly more than 10,000 nautical miles (12,000 mi; 19,000 km) with one midair refueling." I do believe that's far enough to hit russia, it's certainly far enough to fly missions in Iraq/Afghanistan. (And the B-52's operational range is even further than the B-2s. The B-1 Lancer though, it only counts as a strategic bomber because it can carry nukes, it's operational range is dinky.)
This is absolutely true in hindsight! But (and you can just go and look up reporting at the time on this subject) the world collectively didn't understand what modern warefare had become. It put tremendous stock in ideas like the relevancy of dogfighting, and spectacularly overestimated how impactful the Iraqui army's then-recent experience would be. They flew several of the best dogfighters at the time, they had extremely good air defenses, ones that had been repeatedly demonstrated to be highly effective. Without knowing any better, they looked like they were in a very strong position to hold out against coalition forces until the political will to continue ran out.
(I am getting so tired of explaining to americans that it's not
[some random band] ft. Babymetalbut, in fact,Babymetal ft. [some random band]. Apropos of nothing I know, but still. Americans, man. We suck.)ROFL kid, I will answer you properly later.