NATO gets creative with defense

[Nottingham]

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/redir.php?jid=cde4c13e5d08b6e4

NATO gets creative with defense
Wednesday, October 8, 2003 Posted: 8:56 PM EDT (0056 GMT)


COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado (AP) -- On a high-security Rocky Mountain military base, NATO leaders worked their way through a fictitious Middle East crisis to explore ways of using a new rapid-reaction force with global reach.

NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson said afterwards that the exercise showed alliance leaders that "crises that start small can finish big," and with unexpected consequences.

It also showed that NATO lacked troops that were ready for action on short notice, he said.

"The blunt message from Colorado is going to be this: We need real, deployable soldiers, not paper armies," Robertson told a news conference Wednesday.

more....

Bottomline we Need more troops! :bounce:

And they expect trouble! :bounce:

[sleipnir]

1. Old world Dinosaurs trying to evolve

I'll give them credit, NATO is trying to change it's approach to the realities of modern conflicts, unlike the US. It sounds like an intriquing force of, multinational, combined, rapid-deploy "special forces."

Me thinks this may not be a bad idea. But, to what ends will it be used? This sorta thing could really have helped in Afghanistan, much more professional, probably would have had a lot less dead civilians. As long as it's NATO, the US can't uniliatarly order the force around, or hopefully not...as long as France and Germany are there, we're safe.

Who knows...

[happyslug]

2. Change but how????

The problem is threefold, first most countries can mass large field armies in their own territories at very little costs(For example Iraq). To overcome such forces you have to ship to those countries a massive force including tanks. Sooner or later you get to a situation where the attacker can no longer be able to bring in the almost three to one advantage any attacker needs. The costs are to high. Look at Iraq, both during Desert Storm I and the recent war the US committed almost all of its ground forces and a 1/3 of its Air and Naval Forces (With the supplies to both Air and Navy getting almost all of the supplies for the whole US Air Force and US Navy, with the Air and Naval units NOT engaged stripped a much as possible to support the forces actually being used). This is one of the great dilemma since WWII, the cost to defend are much cheaper (And easier) than the costs to attack. The fall of the European Colonial empires after WWII had more to do with this growth in the ability to defend than any desire of the European Colonial Masters to give up their colonies.

Similarly the US has the same problem today, taking and holding Iraq has maxed out the Military power of the US (It is easier to take than to hold and that has bene know for millennia). Now the US does have forces it can call up (the National Guard and Reserves) but not only does that have political costs but economic costs (Including increase taxes or deficient AND loss of tax money do to the called up personal no longer earning income in the private sector but costing money while on active duty). Any European force to match this would have to be big enough to take on any opponent with enough force to defeat that enemy. Thus the force has to be very large, either in personal or equipment (Probably both).

Second, is one of fuel. The main advantage the US Army has over any potential opponent is the great flexibility of our forces, we can move them around almost at will. No other country could move the divisions we did to take Iraq, no other country could put into places the naval and air resources to attack Iraq, no other country could support such a force once it was in combat in Iraq, but all of this come at great costs in fuel used. Cheap oil drives this force, if fuel becomes short (or expensive) this mobility dies. Europe to have a similar force will have to gain control of a reliable fuel source. That puts Europe in Competition with the US for Mid-East oil OR against US Interest with an alliance with Russia (The only two sources of oil Europe could both have access to).

Third, the above mobility is based on the use of Tracks (i.e Tanks, Armored Personal carriers and Bradley infantry Fighting Vehicles). In Iraq wheeled vehicles failed, for the same reason wheeled vehicles failed in Vietnam, lack of mobility cross country. Now Wheeled Vehicles can go on dirt or even mud roads, but true cross country mobility is restricted if you use wheeled vehicles (this was one of the reasons even Europe kept horse mounted Calvary till WWII and Russia kept it long after WWII). In Deserts without sand Wheeled vehicles can work, but once you get into soft mud, soft dirt etc, you have to go either tracked or horse drawn vehicles (With helicopters a third choice). No one views horse draw forces as a "Rapid Defense Force" so the choices are Wheeled Vehicles, Tracked Vehicles or Helicopters. Helicopters and Tracked Vehicles need constant repair and excessive amount fo fuel (which requires an extensive support element attached to such forces), wheeled vehicles use much less fuel and are easier to maintain (and go quicker and further on paved roads than tracked Vehicles) but at the costs of reduction in cross country performance.

Thus you have the post WWII dilemma, do you go for full Armor (Tanks etc) with its costs in support and fuel or do you go for something easier to move (i.e. Wheeled vehicles) but less capability? Or do you take the third choice go with Helicopters, the speed of Wheeled Vehicles, mobility of tracks (But at the costs of tracks without the heavy armor protection of tanks). Now please note Helicopters are an option but in bad whether situations they can be grounded and it is hard to hold ground if you rely solely on Helicopters (At the end of the US insolvent in Vietnam the movement was from Helicopters based units to Armor units for the Armor units greater ability to take hits with minimal loss of life AND move in bad weather).

Remember this dilemma with problem number 1, the increase combat ability of third would nations and the increase costs to get a three to one advantage when you have to move your forces to that country. The US can barely do this and the costs are bankrupting the US, will Europe come to the Collusion that it is not worth the effort?

[Nottingham]

3. kick

:kick: