US MARINES TO NORWAY

>>31721648
Training and cooperation?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbjmuENPpd4

>>31721648
Norway has a very small army since they have "selective" conscription where only the fittest are asked to serve and even then most people opt-out for alternatives. They are in every single measure ill-equipped to fend of a sudden Russian invasion. Russian northern fleet would be able to run the country while NATO generals are sitting around wondering which sandwich they'd like to have today.

Ofcourse once mobilized NATO would kick ass but that would just turn Norway a battlefield something that would destroy the countries infrastructure and cause civilian casualties.

Also there is the possibility of article 5 being a huge bluff when push really came to shove and that NATO would dissolve to indvidual nation states with their own national interests under the fear of open conflict with Russia.

>>31721648
British Royal Marines are there constantly for training, I see no reason why US Marines cannot also benefit from it.

300 Marines would be killed for no good reason, along with thousands of Norwegian 19-20 year old kids, just because my government has buttblasted every single aspect of the Norwegian armed forces since the fall of the Soviet Union.

To my best guess this sort of thing is basically a meatshield.

Basically, if the Russians start knocking the shit out of Norway, and most NATO members do what I suspect and melt away at the first sign of a real war, the US forces there are in harm's way. Meaning the US will get involved.

Basically it would force Russia to attack US forces if they wanted to fuck with Norway. Even if Putin figures he can shock most of NATO into inaction, he has to know he can't attack US forces without reprisal, and that he can't win a war against the US anywhere other than home soil.

>>31721802
Norwegian government hopes that those 300 marines would serve as a new Pearl Harbor if NATO article 5 fails for one reason or another.

>>31721802

> 300 Marines would be killed for no good reason

They would be killed for a very good reason, to make sure there's 300 American corpses between the Russian Border and Oslo. This forcing Congress to go to war because anyone who doesn't vote to "avenge the fallen marines" gets voted out next election.

300 people isn't good for anything besides a tripwire to mobilize the rest of the county. The Berlin garrison did the same thing during the cold war. They had zero chance of doing anything significant, but only to make sure that Americans will be involved in the defense of Germany.

File: guddings.png (25KB, 852x455px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 852x455px

>>31721648
nah, we don't need drunk rapemarines roaming our streets on the weekends thank you
>>31721678
we train together already, without having marines here on a permanent basis
we have troop exchanges and on top of that we have cold response every 2nd year when NATO comes to Norway and train with us.
>>31721747
we have a small population and even if we tried really hard to be militaristic, we would still be outmanned by Russia

we have always relied on NATO, even when we had a military with lots of personell (cold war levels of troops was a lot more than we have now)

But why exactly do we need a token force of Marines in our country 24/7 to get help from NATO? We don't need those marines to be a tripwire. The norwegian soldiers are the tripwire.

>>31721802
>>31721834
>>31721851
In Norway there is a tactic referred to as "glory death" where Norwegian soldiers die in such a glorious way that NATO and other allies will feel it was so unfair and undeserved to attack us, they feel obligated to help us. It will look like the soldiers tried really hard of course, and their deaths will be milked for muh sympathy.

>>31721921
What a load of shit

>>31721940
It's been discussed in the media, I'm not making this up.

>>31721891
You have entirely too much faith in NATO actually risking a war with Russia for your sake. The treaty is as strong as the spines of its signatories.

The marines getting killed would spur at least the US into action, even if everyone has leadership too cucked to do anything about it. Including Norway itself who might decide to go quisling and bend over for Putin's meat pole.

>>31721648
It's a symbol of the US/Norway alliance and a chance to rotate people though getting arctic training. These kinds of missions are quite useful and mean that if Norway ever does need help that there will be a core of people that have trained and worked there that can be used as the nucleus of a larger force.

>>31721959
>Anybody in Europe
>Afraid of Russia

Germany would love a reason to shut Russia's economy down and force them into a massively disadvantageous position for future negotiations.

France is in because Germany would be and to avoid becoming the junior partner in NATO and the EU.

China would jump in to be Russia's new Best Friend, but it would be to force a deal on cheap oil.

By the time Russia was forced out of Scandinavia the country would be a starved and broken petrol state with IAEA teams dismantling and downblending every weapon they have.

>>31721921
That's one the most idiotic strategies I've ever heard. It relies on other nations not being ruled by bunch of greedy, lying, self-serving cowards..

At least the Finnish strategy is based on the idea that if no-one is willing to help Finland with actual troops they will give Finns material help and Finnish insurgency will turn occupied Finland into Afghan war 2.0: Forests fucking suck as much as mountains and deserts.

And yes they tried to establish the same "glory death" strategy for us as well. Everyone with any understanding about international geopolitics laughed over the stupidity of the NATO enthusiasts having such naive faith in honor triumphing over national self-preservation..

>>31721959
I'm somewhat up to date on NATO news, and all they've done this time since crimea is to confirm their comitment to defending every member, no matter how small. If NATO abandoned its responsibility to defend us not only would it be a complete 180 degree turn from everything they say and work towards (like probably a hundred exercises these last couple years with the aim of defending NATO members that border Russia), but to downright refuse to follow article 5 would mean that NATO was useless and the whole organization would lose face. If they don't defend a member that is attacked then the other members will think there's no point in staying a member.
So they will defend us not only because they've signed an agreement to do it, but because NATO would literally be worthless if they didn't.
And since the current NATO secretary general is Norwegian, at least we have some leverage in NATOs leadership and decision making.
We don't need marines to trigger article 5. Killing troops of any NATO member will trigger article 5.

>>31722003
of course we have more complicated plans than just sacrificing conscripts, but it's one of the strategies

of course we also have plans for resistance, don't be absurd and think we don't

>>31721648
>Implying Norway couldn't BTFO Russia on its own
Russia can't even handle Ukraine's military that's been gutted since the 90s.

>>31721959
I don't think you understand Norways position in NATO, despite its size it is pretty relevant in NATO.

File: not enough guns.jpg (120KB, 1023x808px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1023x808px

>>31721648
>What exactly is that going to do?
Get more marines killed when Shillary puts a no fly zone in Syria after she's "elected"

>>31722015
>of course we also have plans for resistance, don't be absurd and think we don't

Sorry.

I sometimes mistake you guys for your faggy southern neighbors. Sweden is pretty much counting that Russian onslaught will lose momentum fighting Finns which is the exact same strategy that they've used for centuries. If Finns would just let Russians through the northern Finland by only Defending the southern population centers the whole Swedish strategy would fall apart. Imagine a pincer movement coming from over the Scandies and from Northern Finland? They'd be crushed in a matter of hours.

>>31721957
So either they were making it up and you believed it or you're making it up.

File: 1457381255828.jpg (301KB, 1800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 1800x1200px

>American """"""soldiers""""" in snowy conditions

laughing every laugh

>>31721921
>In Norway there is a tactic referred to as "glory death"

Absolute nonsense

>>31722065
>The joke
>Your head

>>31722058
>>31722060
Operation Glory Death comes from the most cynical and pessimistic military officers we have who enter the public debate. And yeah, they use this kind of language to provoke people but it's become a term in defense debates.

The military doesn't have an official document that is stamped Operation Glory Death. It's basically a nickname they've given Norways strategy, because it's a fitting title.

>>31722004

the marines are not planned there for triggering article 5 or anything related it

it's exactly as >>31721851 said
it's an added insurance that no one in america would try to weasel their way out in case of war
and make no mistake, the US spent itself on the GWOT and would like nothing more than to have as much time as possible to recover

>>31721940
>>31722065
google translate it if you're not Norwegian
https://www.nrk.no/finnmark/_-norge-vil-ofre-soldater-i-nord-for-a-fa-hjelp-fra-nato-1.12580448

>>31722004
And you don't think that atleast one or two NATO-nations would try to weasel themselves out. Hell the US foreign policy is already dissolving NATO by arming Kurdish rebels in Syria KNOWING they will start striking against Turkish forces sooner or later.

Read the Podesta emails. Unless they're a elaborate Russian hoax US under the Democrats is basically already destroying NATO from within.

>>31722107
Jesus Christ that is bad plan.

>>31722087
>and make no mistake, the US spent itself on the GWOT and would like nothing more than to have as much time as possible to recover
yes, but at the same time the US army has troops down in eastern europe on rotation right now, acting as a tripwire force and apparently it's their idea to send a force to Norway, so I'm not really getting the vibe from your government that you're taking a break from war

>>31722185
>And you don't think that atleast one or two NATO-nations would try to weasel themselves out.
they can, but under immense pressure to not do it and probably suffer negative political consequences later on

we couldn't even weasel our way out of Afghanistan, how will people weasel themselves out from an actual invasion, which is a much bigger deal than hunting terrorists in islamastan.

File: World-War-1-Bernard-Partridge-Cartoons-Punch-1917-10-17-271.jpg (250KB, 526x720px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 526x720px

>>31722209
pic related, just change death to war

>>31722248
Weaseling yourselves out of something like the Afghanistan isn't worth the foreign policy fallout. War against a superpower or atleast a actual military with nuclear capabilities is another matter entirely. It's all about risks and gains. By fighting some ragged tag bunch of towel headed hajis with pickup truck armed with a machinegun/grenade launcher vs. getting your cities bombarded by Russian missiles..

I think most European countries would try to weasel themselves out if it ever came to NATO vs Russia or China.

>>31722327
Yet the Poles mobilized when Ukraine got hit. Had king cuck not gotten involved we'd already be overtly fighting Russia in Eastern Europe.

>>31722327
it's unlikely they would have a choice, and NATO is still big enough that we can afford to lose a few members

but I mean, the whole premise of your scenario is that NATO crumbles because they're afraid
it's a lot of speculation, "what if", and often it's wishful thinking from Russians and Russiaboos.

Well, in our case at least, Norway has to bet on NATO. We can't beat a super power on our own.

>>31722396
Well yes the Poles.

You realize they are pretty much a nation of naive idiots who believe every promise the west has ever made to them? They also a long hatred for Russians due to Soviet oppression.

I wouldn't put it past them to act as the new Austria-Hungary in the next great war.

>>31722426
>it's a lot of speculation, "what if", and often it's wishful thinking from Russians and Russiaboos.

I don't personally consider myself a Russiaboo but I am a quarter Russian even though I don't see what that has do with this. I don't consider this "wishful thinking" I consider myself painting worst case scenarios.

What happens if putin orders troops to move 1 mile into estonia nad then just stops. If article five wans't invoked, what would happen. Im genuinly curios about this type of scenario. Sorry for the bad english :)

Are there any overtures for Scandinavia joining NATO?

>>31722327
How the fuck could Europe weasel out of that conflict when it will be literally fought on its soil?

The only way European NATO countries might weasel out on it, is by not mobilizing a large ground force and just sending equipment/materiel to the front line instead. The west has known peace for too long that every loss of life is considered one too much nowadays.

>>31722501
NATO countries would condemn Russian actions but would deem Estonian soil irrelevant for the bigger picture of European security.

Nihilistic pragmatism will always triumph over idealism in politics.

>>31721747
Doesn't Russia still have to get through Finland first?

>>31722552
Europe isn't a one monolith no matter how much EU commission and Eurocrats try to push into such a thing. It's a coalition of pickering nation states who are constantly fighting over their national interests. Didn't you see how they dealt with the refugee crisis? Everyone just basically ignored any previous agreements and opened a passage to next country inorder not to take them in them selves as agreed in Dublin regulations they all signed..

Pragmatism will always triumph over idealism.

>>31722454
as a pole can confirm mostly true

>>31722600
Naval assault followed by beaching invasion would be more practical solution considering the northern fleet is stationed right next to Norway.

Then again hell if I know. I ain't a Russian general.

>>31722626
Sure, but what's the point of taking Norway before Finland and Sweden? Do they want to take on Finland from two fronts? It seems pointless.

>>31722608
Comparing NATO with the EU is idiotic and comparing a full scale war with the refugee crisis even more

Being pragmatic is helping your European neighbors so Russia won't come to your doorstep

>>31722637
Arctic Oil. Finland isn't capable to fight Russians in any real offensive sense. Sweden even less. Neither Finland or Sweden have natural resources that would interest Russia.

>>31722650
>Being pragmatic is helping your European neighbors so Russia won't come to your doorstep

I failed to also mention that European nations are pretty much cowards. Every single one them.

>>31722555
So, would Nato be a paper tiger?

>>31722673
Based on what? History disagrees with you

>>31722660
They have land.

>>31722064
USA can't into Camo patterns

>>31722686
Modern European nations have little in common with their ancestors.

>>31722682
Yes. More than Russia? Probably no.

I think both are currently just flexing their muscles and rattling their sabres but ultimately neither is willing to be the one to engage offensive actions against the other. I'ts a global game of Texas hold'em where both parties are trying to call the other ones bluff but neither is willing to go all in.

>>31722738
Are you drunk?

>>31721648
A new way to send refugees to norway

>>31722788
No He's not and I don't know where you come from but at least the western Europe is cucked up beyond repair.

>>31722820
Take this cuck meme back to /pol/ please

I bet your country has been invaded countless of times throughout history. How does that stack up to Western Europe being "cucked" by immigrants (if that is what you mean)?

>>31722637
Norway is NATO, Finland and Sweden is not. If push comes to show in the Baltics, Russia probably would take Svalbard and Finmark (maybe even Troms and Nordland) to secure a safe passage into the Atlantic Sea. The northern fleet's headquarters is located less then 70 miles from the Norwegian border. Their SSBN also have their ports close to ther borde. They'll need a buffer to make them secure if the conflict goes hot.

>>31721648

lol stupid jarheads. You thought the desert was bad, enjoy freezing your asses off in your cammies and with a tapered regulation haircut.

>>31721648

The implication is an attack on a country where US servicemen are stationed is an attack on the US