To be honest, we can probably cut spending levels for most members anyway. The primary antagonist of NATO, Russia, has an economy in the toilet and even at around 7% GDP defense spending can only come up with a tenth of what the US alone spends.
@beckyromero Probably the standard NATO contingency. Blockade the Baltic, Norwegian, and Black seas, sever the pass at Bucharest, bombard the ports at Kaliningrad and Crimea, and pack the NEP with armor and air support for starters. The Russians would probably be ready for a counter offensive against Moscow, so if it is to be done it would have to take a form that is unexpected, or impossible to defend againtst, but more likely we'd just feint on several front to distract them and prod for weaknesses. Last Intel I saw suggests that while Russia has invested in a handful of modern and sophisticated military programs, the bulk of their forces, while likely competent, aren't as effective. They tend to tolerate losses though, so decisive victories over infrastructure are more valuable than just eliminating troops and weapons. This isn't even to mention any transarctic or Pacific operations.
@Xuan12 [quote]Probably the standard NATO contingency. Blockade the Baltic, Norwegian, and Black seas, sever the pass at Bucharest, bombard the ports at Kaliningrad and Crimea, and pack the NEP with armor and air support for starters.[/quote]
Blockade the Baltic Sea? To stop at most a dozen minor Russian Navy ships at Baltiysk and Kronshtadt from putting to sea, if they didn't already sortie before the invasion of the Baltic countries?
Much of the Russian naval strength in Europe is based in two places:
(1) Severomorsk and various bases around Murmansk and (2) the Black Sea
It's the RUSSIANS who would be conducting sea interdiction in the Norwegian Sea and the GIUK gap. Not NATO. They would be trying to stop troops and materials from getting to Europe from North America, just as the Germans tried to do so in two World Wars. With their submarine force.
[quote]...sever the pass at Bucharest...[/quote]
Have you overlooked that Romania is now [b]IN NATO[/b]? Better you prepare for the next war, not the one that was never fought. 🙄
[quote]bombard the ports at Kaliningrad and Crimea[/quote]
Doing that at Kaliningrad might be possible. Crimea not so much.
You are overlooking how shaky Turkey would be as a member of the NATO alliance in such a conflict.
[quote]pack the NEP with armor and air support for starters[/quote]
Yeah, Romania is in NATO, so severing the pass should be quite accomplishable, yes?
Also, blockades don't just prevent leaving, they can prevent entering too!
And why bother with the GIUK gap when all you really need to caver is from the coast of Norway to the sea ice? Sure subs could go around, but not surface ships. And if they choose to use icebreakers instead they be limited to about 10 knots speed.
@beckyromero We do actually have 5 carrier groups in the Atlantic. One in the Mediterranean, and one in the Red Sea, among the total of 11 US Carrier Groups. Add in the NATO European Carrier groups and the Total comes to 15 NATO Carrier Groups to Russia's 1. NATO also operates about twice over the number of open water submarines. And it's not like the pass isn't being monitored, it's Surrounded by NATO bases in Norway, the UK, and Greenland. And you don't need be right up in their faces to accomplish this either. Modern weapons can hit their target from hundreds of miles away.
And no, it doesn't defend the Baltic nation's, it defends their allies. Should we just not protect everyone else? I mean the Whole point of expanding NATO even after we said we wouldn't was to deter and contain Russia. If detterence has failed, we move to containment. The Baltic states are liberated when Russia can no longer afford to fight. Which probably won't take long considering their economy being as deep in the can as it is.
@Xuan12 [quote]We do actually have 5 carrier groups in the Atlantic. One in the Mediterranean, and one in the Red Sea, among the total of 11 US Carrier Groups. Add in the NATO European Carrier groups and the Total comes to 15 NATO Carrier Groups to Russia's 1.[/quote]
There were 15 aircraft carrier battle groups during the Reagan years.
5 in Atlantic 5 in Pacific 1 in Japan often 3 in the Med/Gulf 1 under going modernatization
[b]15[/b], as opposed to 11 now (with one of those undergoing modernization)
As for NATO, the British in the 80s had two or three, France had one.
Right now, the Royal Navy has one, the French one.
What other NATO allies have are not true aircraft carriers, but more like helicopter or small short take-off and vertical landing aircraft carriers, not much different than what those same navies had in the 80s, just with modernization.
And you're making the mistake of comparing the number of carriers to the Russians'.
The Russians have LAND-based aircraft that can attack our ships at sea. Their war would be one of sea-DENIAL. To prevent us from getting more troops and equipment to the European continent.
[quote]A new report from the Rand Corporation warned that NATO would be overwhelmed by superior Russian firepower in the event of war in Eastern Europe, despite years of trying to strengthen its forces in the region.
If war were to break out, the report warns, Russia could quickly overrun the Baltic region and use “brinksmanship to attempt to freeze the conflict,” according to lead author Scott Boston and colleagues.
While the report does not suggest that Russian aggression in the region is imminent, it argues that the growth of Russian military capability and its willingness to use force to achieve its goals must be met with “a more robust posture designed to considerably raise the cost of military adventurism against one or more NATO member states.”
The report says NATO has around 32,000 troops in the Baltics, compared with Russia’s 78,000. NATO is also outnumbered 757 to 129 in tanks, for which the wide, flat plains of Eastern Europe are a perfect hunting ground.
Russia “has retained a combined-arms force that emphasizes mobility and firepower and trains to conduct larger-scale combined-arms operations,” the report explains. “This gives Russian forces an important advantage in conflicts between mechanized forces close to their border.” [/quote] http://www.newsweek.com/russia-would-overrun-nato-european-war-report-warns-835146
[quote]The Baltic states are liberated when Russia can no longer afford to fight.[/quote]
