Was watching Pacific Rim last night and although a little campy it did touch on a subject that we covered (in the brief way that SNAFU does it business) on integration of weapons and I guess in particular NATO integration.
The film is like many others. The world is facing an Alien threat and the nations put aside their differences to finally unite and win the day.
That's where the theory of NATO breaks down in my opinion and at the end of the day, I believe its because of a tremendous dose of nationalism, corporatism and a fear of losing secrets.
But imagine for just one second if we could have actually done it in the fight against the Soviet Union? Imagine if we could do it in preparation for the coming war with the Chinese?
The best minds from the US, UK, France, Germany, Japan, Australia, S. Korea, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Belgium and the other countries that I failed to list all getting together to build the absolute best weapons possible at a reasonable price.
The F-22? A lower tier fighter to what could have been made...and even then it would fill the skies like the F-16. The Leopard 2A6? Standardized and built in all allied countries. Cavour? Standard light carrier NATO wide. Nimitz? Shared and manned by all nations...cost shared, multi-national crews and everyone trained to TOP GUN standards.
But it would take cost sharing that everyone would deem fair. Commitment by all to fights that the majority were in favor of, yet all would participate.
It would would take NATO being what NATO was meant to be but never achieved.
Ain't fantasy grand?
Fantasy indeed, as always the main problem are humans itself. We still think that they are Soviets, we are Europeans or Yanks, they don't like our food, we don't like theirs... we don't think as species, we think like individual persons.
ReplyDeleteHumans will unite only to face common enemy, not other humans but something that is not part of our planet. But after that we will divide again... that's the human nature. NATO was an idea, that was never for real tested.
... and even then some of the Humans will side with the Aliens.
DeleteI've always thought that any alien culture able to make it to inter-star travel level of tech will be able to manipulate humans to destroy themselves.
The fact we see fighting aliens (or anyone or thing not the same as us - race, nationality, religion) through force says a lot about us.
One of the most thoughtful stargate episodes was where aliens turned up shared all the advance tech to make earth and life better, but secretly reduce human fertility rates.
What do you have against the Abrams? Keep in mind a modern gas turbine is as fuel efficient as previous generation diesels.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it looks like everyone is going to have German gun commonality and German engine commonality.
I still can see 2 mayor problems for a turbine:
Delete- jet fuel instead of diesel (fire hazard, fuel communality)
- high fuel consumption during idle and longer start up time
Some other topics
- MTBF?
- Maintance?
What makes Abrams best tank in the world?
DeleteAbrams is simple as fck.
1. Good frontal armor -- no need for reactive and active protection systems.
2. Good pigloader -- still faster, smarter and more reliable than autloaders.
3. Good kinetic armor piercing round -- penetrates T-72(80,90) forntal armor and any kind of reactive or active protections. Reactive protection designed vs HEAT round, active protection designed vs incoming missiles and both not effective versus APFSDS -- basically a high velocity slug.
4. Best thermal optics in the world and electronics in general, which can be updated iteration by iteration without the need to develop a new tank from scratch.
Its hard to beat an Abrams tank, both in the field and in the therms of economic cuts.
Standardized weapons across NATO? It would be easier to cancel the apocalypse.
ReplyDeleteThe old adage about the purpose of NATO, to keep the Russians out, the Germans down and the Americans in, was true and it worked. The Russians rotted from within, the Germans are so adverse to use of force that they are near useless and America keeps having to step in get the young siblings to put their distrust and rivalries on the back burner (though those days are over considering how badly we've botched Afghanistan).
ReplyDeleteWithout the US, there would be no NATO because their is an inherent lack of trust and shared interest between all the members about getting caught up in some other member's mess. Why would Germany send troops to the Central African Republic? Why would Norway patrol the Turkish-Iraq border? Why would France want to worry about the Falklands?
Then you have the backstabbing between corporations like the DCNS Scorpene and the Navantia S80, there is worry about industrial base and market share i.e. jobs for citizens, that they can't set aside differences. Why would a politician from Marseille give a shit about creating jobs in Gdansk or Naples? He wants jobs created in Marseille. He doesn't care if there are corporate efficiencies or savings. And why would a CEO for Oto Melara tell his shareholders it's okay to lose a contract to Bofors?
Too many parochial interests that can't be ignored unless an external threat forces them to set aside those interests. It's why the EU's defense aspirations will never materialize.
Paralus - your first two paragraphs are spot on, but the third - how is this different from the economic 'cold war' going on in the US as politicians and states squabble over 'pork'? American still functions in a fashion.
ReplyDelete