Dr. Strangelove Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Dead on... We're not a peacekeeping force, or a deterrent, and policy makers should get a hint regarding that. The U.S. military is adept at blowing sh*t up, not making sure everyone plays nice afterword... That's a pretty simple way of viewing things. Also, saying that the US military is NOT a deterrent is completely and utterly false. In fact, our military strength is the greatest deterrent in the world (not just for ourselves but our allies as well). Placing 600 troops in neighboring countries is done for the purposes Knapp stated above. They would easily be overrun by a meaningful Russian force, however, if any are wounded/killed it would prompt an immediate response by US forces. In other words, they are an extremely low risk, low cost, high reward deterrent strategy that can keep entire countries relatively safe without a large commitment by the US. What other solution would you offer that offers the same security to the region, without a large commitment from US forces, and costs next to nothing to provide? Link to comment
walksalone Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Placing 600 troops in neighboring countries is done for the purposes Knapp stated above. They would easily be overrun by a meaningful Russian force, however, if any are wounded/killed it would prompt an immediate response by US forces. In other words, they are an extremely low risk, low cost, high reward deterrent strategy that can keep entire countries relatively safe without a large commitment by the US. What other solution would you offer that offers the same security to the region, without a large commitment from US forces, and costs next to nothing to provide? This is precisely what the blue helmets are for. If 600 U.N. troops are sitting over there, if anything happens to them, then I'm sure the Russians know that the sh*t will hit the fan... Link to comment
Dr. Strangelove Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 Placing 600 troops in neighboring countries is done for the purposes Knapp stated above. They would easily be overrun by a meaningful Russian force, however, if any are wounded/killed it would prompt an immediate response by US forces. In other words, they are an extremely low risk, low cost, high reward deterrent strategy that can keep entire countries relatively safe without a large commitment by the US. What other solution would you offer that offers the same security to the region, without a large commitment from US forces, and costs next to nothing to provide? This is precisely what the blue helmets are for. If 600 U.N. troops are sitting over there, if anything happens to them, then I'm sure the Russians know that the sh*t will hit the fan... This is a mild possibility, however, because Russia is a U.N. member (with veto power) they would block any resolution that authorizes the use of U.N. troops in a country of interest. Link to comment
walksalone Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 http://www.janes.com/article/37649/analysis-no-russian-withdrawal-from-ukraine-borders-nato-states?utm_campaign=E14%20DF%20NL%20SECURITY%2005_13_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua Link to comment
Recommended Posts