🫸🫷

  • taladar@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    People coming up with scenarios like that forget that the US would have huge supply lines to keep those bases going while the other country is literally right there. And it is not as if you would need to besiege a modern military base for months to starve them out.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      While it’s inaccurate to pretend the US would just steamroll the EU in a land war in the EU, we also shouldn’t pretend like the bases wouldn’t be problematic. Everywhere the US operates requires huge supply lines, so it’s not the absolute deal breaker it would be for most nations.
      Starting with places to land and manage supplies would be a big advantage.
      The biggest issue would be that usually they use the bases to house troops during the lengthy process of getting them into place for deployment, so there would be a lot of questions about how to actually move the people over fast enough, but getting the supplies there would be relatively routine.

      There’s no way the US could take or hold Europe without an aggreable civilian population. Given the differences in expenditures, military size, experience, and developed tools and logistics there’s also no real way any European nation is going to be able to effectively stop them. Basically a significantly worse Vietnam type situation, from the perspective of both sides.