^^^^ We've shot down plenty of SCUD and Al-Samoud * missiles over Iraq since 1990.
Have we shot down longer stuff like an ICBM? Well we did shoot down a dangerous satellite (USA 193 to be precise) on the first shot with an anti-missile missile.
Beyond that, ballistic missile usage is fairly limited in combat scenarios. (Cruise missiles which can also be intercepted by missile shields have been used in abundance since the 1960s all over the world.)
edited 7th Aug '11 3:47:34 PM by MajorTom
Actually Tom that was a missile designed to shoot down satelites. Old tech in use. That was also partially a show off to prove we could do just that with sattelites.
ABM systems that we work with now use a KKV or kinetic kill vehicle. They work in theory but we have yet to test them against a actual Ballastic Missile attack.
The patriot missile system is a powerful Surface to Air missile and as tom noted it is capable of shooting down at least tactical level missiles.
Who watches the watchmen?@Jethro: No...the NATO-Warsaw Pact conventional balance leaned heavily towards the Soviets until the late ‘80s. But by then Gorbachev’s defensive initiatives (pulling out air assault, assault bridging and some tank units, for example) were already in full swing.
Though ever since the advent of Tukachevsky’s teaching, Soviet force posturing had always been offensive; better to defeat the enemy on his territory compared to the defensive “lure the enemy into our depths and defeat him with a counteroffensive once he’s overextended” school of Aleksandr Svechin. The “smelting of fire” of 1941 had a factor to play as well. Despite that, it is difficult to conceive of a reason why the Soviets might have concluded it would be worth it to start a war with the West, as you say. They were not the aggressive red monster ready to smash through your wall at any time.
If you had a look at the bunch of guys who were sitting in the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party, you couldn’t get the impression that they were interested in world domination. A man on the street was absolutely not interested in starting a war that might end the world just because a man from Washington D.C. wasn't interested in communism.
Is today’s Russian Federation even able, or willing to conduct the offensive they were once capable of? Absolutely not.
edited 7th Aug '11 5:49:33 PM by Breakerchase
@Barkey,
Talk to me when we can afford having military bases we own. You want to sell them to the Europeans, be my guest. They should be paying for their own defense. I'm tired of hearing about how the military is stationed in places its not wanted, for reasons we don't care about, because nobody in the government got the damned memo that the Cold War is over.
@Greenmantle,
World War Two, on reflection, wasn't necessarily the mistake, World War One was. If we had never bothered, Germany would have stalemated France and Britain and they would have had to suck it up and work together. Soviet Russia would have been facing a much more unified Europe, instead of World War Two as a petty slugfest over revenge.
Citing "high military spending" is bull, seeing as the US spends 50% of the total spent by the world. I don't even care about proportion of GDP nonsense, that's too goddamned much.
Every single time the US sticks its noses in somebody else's business, we get burned. Either they hate us later, or someone else hates us even when we're actually helping. Sometimes I wish that France and Britain had fucked around with the American Civil War; then we would have had an excuse to tell the Allies to stuff it in World War One and we could have minded our damn business.
Really now, I can count the countries the US has any business helping in the world on one hand—two at most—and most of them don't need our help. Sell the damn bases to whoever owns the country in, sell them the military to run it, if they want, and let people do their own thing. If you want to have a stupidly large military to police the Western Hemisphere, I might be able to live with that, but there's no reason to interfere in the world. And Barkey, a giant military is one thing. A military that can defeat every other military on the planet combined, while you're very near default and are about to cut normal social programs—that's just wrong. Everyone should be able to pay for their own military, rather than us paying for the majority of them. People want to fight, they can do it with their own things.
Besides, we have the F-22; why is the Air Force still so big in the first place? We don't even need that many bases anymore. At the least, your idea of basically leasing them out is the bare minimum we should be doing, if not selling them outright. I cannot comprehend why, if we need a base that bad, we don't just ask the people there, instead of, you know, just keeping a base in their backyard and telling them to stuff it because we're obviously above reproach because we're a superpower. That kind of thinking is part of the reason we've fucking broke.
I am now known as Flyboy.The last simulation I saw said that the best the Russians had at the time (the SU-47 Berkut, a goddamned tech demonstrator, not even a real fighter) needed a 2-1 margin to even break even against the F-22, and we have just over 180 of them, last I checked. Between them and the F-15s, that should be plenty enough to defend the US. Of course, there's every other damned country we have to defend, too. Sell them the F-16s (and the F-35s, if we ever get the damn thing built) and some bases and let them deal with it. I see no reason why a pilot of X country is no less capable than a US pilot at defending his country.
I am now known as Flyboy.^ Training. That's the reason why US and Israeli pilots are second to none in air to air combat. They train that much harder than most (former) Soviet client states or Soviet/Chinese states themselves.
Besides, it was quietly found in the 1950s that ground based air defense systems of any kind are at an inherent disadvantage when it comes to stopping air attack. The best line of air defense is a large and powerful air force. All the bullets and missiles in the universe won't save you from a protracted air campaign if you fail to meet them in the skies.
That's comforting. We only beat the Soviets at air combat because our pilots weren't lazy, and we were willing to use We Have Reserves.
I am now known as Flyboy.It depends on how we give the deal. I imagine quite a few countries would jump at the chance to get us out... until they find out how expensive it is to run a military, but by then we should be long gone... so they might just buy the base just to get us out of the country.
I still say we don't need to be sharing bases within US borders. We need other people's help, in that regard, like we need another hole in the head—and that's a mutual lack of need, mind you, not one-way.
I am now known as Flyboy.I would protest any foreign national military presence. The US has the largest military in the world in ever aspect short of actual manpower, and if you honestly claim to me that we need any kind of help to defend ourselves I'll smack you upside the head. As for "multicultural understanding," if it honestly worked like that, Europe wouldn't dislike us so much. Of course, the ideological drift doesn't help all that much.
I am now known as Flyboy.Just a few things. First, I didn't check for other nations, but Germany at least pays for the US military presence in Europe (1 Billion maintenance cost, roughly 10% of the roughly 10 billion total cost of all the bases, or enough for the maintenance of the Ramstein Air Base) and doing some other stuff (like base guarding). It's hard (for me) to calculate how this would translate to a monetary contribution.
The US, and here I'm talking about the government, not the population does it for their force projection capability. Defense of Europe isn't an issue. Large parts of the logistics for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (wars mainly for US interests) are handled by those bases, especially the Ramstein Air Base. Doing it without those bases, would mean additional cost. The US is keeping those bases because of a strategical interest. Germany, of course, profits as well. Good relations with the American government is one thing, another is the huge impact on the local economies near the bases. (Almost) no one in Germany thinks they need the bases to defend themselves, and no one (sane) in the US-government keeps the bases to defend Europe. Using "We are not paying for your defense!" as an argument to dissolve the bases is ignoring the reasons why they currently exist.
You are free to consider whether you need those force projection capabilites or if they are too expensive, but don't blame the situation on the different people in the European nations. Most people simply don't care if there are any bases. Except maybe those profitting from the economic boost.
If you'd ask me, I'd close many of them (or use Barkeys suggestion), because you need to balance your budget. Personally, I don't think I'd miss the US force projection capability.
An interesting picture from Wikipedia, comparing the military spendings of the USA, European Union, Russia and China:
[1]
Do you really think that with those spending figures, Europe would NEED the USA to fight of Russia?
Pour y voir clair, il suffit souvent de changer la direction de son regard www.xkcd.com/386/Originally that is what they were placed for. It was for force projection against the USSR. That they are handy for projecting into the middle east currently is a bonus.
I would say go with Barkey's suggestion we can still project the power if need be but it is not critical.
Who watches the watchmen?Well, after yesterday I sure feel stupid.
Excuse me while I dunk my head in a bucket of ice water to see if I can't chill out the retardedness.
EDIT: Still though, wouldn't it make more sense to ask the Israelis and Turkish for more bases in their territory? Europe seems a little far away from the Middle east to use as logistics.
edited 7th Aug '11 10:55:58 PM by GameChainsaw
The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.For Barkey's proposal, did I just miss it, or did it not say how much of a post-change presence the US military would have in other countries?
While I admit that on occasion USAF's "fuck Europe" stance doesn't exactly disgust me* , and I would get to enjoy a bit of schadenfreude from how the economies local to the hypothetically closed bases would probably tank like a motherfucker if the US did just up and pull out of most/all foreign countries, realistically speaking as has been noted before those bases are important to logistical issues. Not all that exist currently, mind you, but enough that "shut them all down" would be an issue of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
As an aside, in regards to one post suggesting to pull out of Deigo Garcia, not only "no", but "fuck no" (assuming the local government doesn't dissolve the agreement that allows the US to base there, mind you). It's one of the biggest (IIRC) logistical staging areas on that side of the planet. If the US doesn't pull in its horns and basically tell the rest of the world to fuck off* , there's pretty much no way to support any significant military presence in southern Asia and eastern Africa in a timely manner. M-1 Abrams are shippable by the C-5 Galaxy, technically, but only one or two tanks at a time IIRC, and the C-5 fleet isn't exactly stupendously large (105 aircraft total, active/reserves/ANG, and that will be reduced as more C-17s come into service) or new (refurbishing into the current M model aside).
All your safe space are belong to Trump^
I'm not in the logistics business, so I'm not really in any position to make figures on what an appropriate drawn down presence in Europe would be.
But that being said, Diego Garcia is almost exclusively a military base. I've never been, but I know several who have, and I hear half the tiny ass island is a military installation, and the other half is a wildlife preserve. There's not exactly a ton of real estate there to give back to anyone.
edited 7th Aug '11 11:05:01 PM by Barkey

Long-range missiles and anti-missile-missiles for those long-range missiles. I'm just trying to think of who would be crazy enough to think to use them anymore.