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.

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..... :D

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?

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.

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.

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?

Don't you just love geo-politics?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Oh, by the way...
 

Had a passing thought while typing up the last post Dragoon: The lack of a proper avatar for you here: So, being the nice guy that I am (You in the back, shut it..;) ) I dug around my drive and found your patch. Though I also thought it would be lightly amusing to see others who have served stick the patches of the units they identify most with as well. (Not that its likely, but its amusing none the less)

And that my friend is the $1,000,000 question!!!

I s[pent most of my time in the 82nd, but I like my dog firing a minigun better -- I love dogs and I never personally got to fire a minigun. I'd love to find a version of that picture with a black lab instead of german shepard.

My thanks for the patch, now....just how do I apply it as an avatar?

Go and click on the User CP up on top of the screen and click on edit avatar. Should be a option to upload an Avatar, and there you go.

In my personal opinion, based upon what I have read in places like Barrons, the WSJ, and other such periodicals, is they are attached to reality, and won't make the mutual suicide play. What they will do though is more along the lines of a little pain for them, a lot of pain for us. And - not trying to start a political discussion here - with our current efforts to destroy our own business environment in the name of "fairness", it would be a lot of pain. They would most likely redouble efforts to influence Africa and SE Asia, give NK and Iran much more assistance, and along the lines of a little pain for them, sink the value of the Yuan. That would make Chinese imports significantly cheaper, and make it very difficult for us to get our own manufacturing/business house in order. The could also - and with a perfectly straight face - spike the price of oil into low earth orbit by being willing to pay good money for Oil, which they do desperately need to support the expansion of the chinese economy, and subsidize the price of oil domestically. Again, a little pain for them, massive pain for us as long as we remain one of the most expensive countries in which to do business in. This is factual: take the top ten tax rates in the world, and US states take up 7 of them, including 4 of the top 5 - France, the usual suspect for having the highest, places lower than most of those seven, with Denmark placing first. Being that I am currently in the DC area on business, so I don't have the article handy that lists them, but it was posted on the WSJ website about a year or so ago for those that can search their opinion pages over the past couple of years.

Random observation of the day:

Is it just me, or is there something just plain wrong that a M1 tank can completely hide behind an AAVP7? :)

ROFL! Never fails to surprise me just how big the AAVP7 really is.

Sorta of like a T-55 can hide behind an M-60A1...

Interesting factiod of the moment:

In Djibouti a new Air Force base was built in order to support multinational efforts against piracy. The owning nation is basing aircraft there to provide air support to the efforts, and has even based troops to provide security. The thing that makes it notable?

The fact that the flag flying over the base is white with a red meatball in the centre.

First time since the end of WW2 the Japanese military has been based outside the home islands.

Question for the fellow gunnuts of the forum: Have a PS90, love it. Great little round in the 5.7, handy as all get out, nothing really to say bad about it.


Now, It is range limited. And according to some, its hitting power is questionable, though RL experience tends to say otherwise. But in you all's opinion, is it still a decently capable firearm/chambering for what would be typical non-desert combat environments (Urban Area's, typical rural mix of forest and field and such like)? In my personal opinion, the PS90's longer barrel makes the concept at least thinkable, but.. you know what they say about opinions.

Not having fired a PS90, really can't put my two cents in, so here's my penny version (LOL)!

In talking with family members who have returned from deployments to Disneyland in the Middle East, one of the things that they all have commited on has been the less than stellar performance of the 5.56mm round insofar as the one shot-one kill role. My brother tells of one of his soldiers putting over 20 rounds into one insurgent and still getting hit by return fire. Examination of the body showed that all 20 rounds were right into the chest. And that's not the only instance that I've heard of 5.56mm not knocking its victim down and out.

I've heard of soldiers getting their hands on .45s because the issue 9mms have the same problem, too mag a mag capacity and not enough knock down power.

In the reviews I've read on the PS90, opinion is mixed, as a PDW it is certainly far better than a pistol. But the great debate is just how effective the 5.7mm round is. And based on what I'm hiring from returning soldiers, who are asking for a larger caliber......

AND on another subject....

The United States Navy and the People's Republic of Vietnam Navy are holding a series of map exercises and joint discussions in their first naval exercise.

No warships or aircraft have taken part yet, but initial reports are that the exercise has gone very well.

And yes, the reason why Vietnam took part in the exercise is due to increasing concerns over the PRC build-up of its military forces.

Came across this one in the Army Times...

A People's Republic of Vietnam Colonel will be attending the US Army's Command & General Staff School.

MY how times change!

For some reason that doesn't surprise me in the least. I've getting a serious vibe from things that I have read and seen that there is a quiet slow meeting of the minds between Vietnam and the US. Nothing solid to point at, but the vibe is there and I think with China's behavior lately this is a *very* good thing.

We definitely can learn things from the Vietnamese that will be useful in Afghanistan. I think there should be joint land exercises.