[Jamesbeam]

Sir, there are about 50k US Soldiers in Germany. With 80 Million Germans. If every German grabbed a stick in the morning and decided to end the "US occupation" those 50k soldiers wouldn't last until lunch.

There are also 185k German Soldiers in Germany right now.

The reason the EU leaders placate the US President is that it worked getting past his first presidency and we are all part of the rollercoaster ride that is his second coming.

The US would never pull unilaterally from NATO, they just lost massive projection power into the middle east by losing the Iran war and Ramstein Air Base is strategically the most important asset the US has in Europe.

Even if it did happen NATO is still able to beat Russia, the biggest threat in the region without the US. UKs nuclear subs can kill 80% of the Russian population on their own as Russia has highly concentrated population centers and launching nukes right of their coast line, which is extremely long and impossible to fully protect wouldn't allow them to launch counter measures on time. Mutual destruction assured usually means both sides have no interest to pull each other into a all-in conflict.

Also stay feisty, refreshing.

[godwinson__4-8]

By this logic the United States should win in Iran based on its nuclear capability alone.

Imo I just felt your reply was annoying. I enjoy spirited back and forth here but saying "I didn't see any troops here directions please" is just a low quality comment.

Your third paragraph also avoids the question. The reason they have to cope is they need the United States. This has been emphasized many times. The 50k troops are only the most obvious part of American integration into NATO. And frankly, as you sort of intimate, the least valuable.

The fact is Germany - like many European governments - could evade even their previous 2% commitments because the United States was seen as a blank check security guarantee. Now Germany and others are approaching 5%. In what world then was the previous arrangement not a subsidy?

I enjoy this site because of the quality of most of the comments. In this regard your reply stuck out in a negative light. To be perfectly honest, so does your latest one. But I appreciate you took no offense and at least offered an attempt to reply to the substantive points. Had I been able I would have edited out some of the tone in my comment, which was not necessary. Enjoy Berlin.

[Jamesbeam]

I don't feel offended the slightest, and I listen to critique. Also, I don't think you should change your tone.

I take an authentic human voice over AI-generated slop any day.

Thank you for spending valuable time out of your day to have a little argument with me.

We are two humans talking to each other so we should be able to make mistakes, and be misunderstood, and if we wanted to, yell at each other, and still wish each other a good day afterwards.

You're not my enemy because you come to a different conclusion than I do, and I don’t need to convince you of anything.

Yes, the US would win if they used tactical nuclear weapons on civilians in Iran like they did in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

The straight would be open, there would be no more resistance, and help is on its way would not be an empty promise.

Can't get murdered by the Iranian regime if you got murdered by the Trump regime. Technically, no more suffering. Practically, I hope we can agree that this is not a good solution to the problem the current US administration is trying to solve.

War in the end is just a different form of politics, it's an escalation ladder that is always won by the party who can one-up the other war party into submission.

Mutually assured nuclear destruction freezes the escalation ladder.

It's something both parties can't afford, and therefore, they consider solving their problem diplomatically, as it should be, instead of having an infinite stalemate while bleeding to death in human and other resources.

The thing with the 5% commitment is, I think we both can agree that yes, it's a kind of subsidy, the EU needs to do more on their own to be less reliant on American soldiers defending their freedom, and that the US taxpayer should not be paying for the defence of European countries is reasonable.

But the US bullying NATO into the 5% does not automatically translate into a stronger NATO.

And a strong NATO is also in the American interest because if Russia took over those countries, it would deny the US a market of 2 billion people to sell goods to .

So geostrategically, it makes zero sense what the current US administration is doing. The US needs the EU countries as much as the EU countries need the US.

https://archive.ph/nKL3g

NATO has so called STANAGs (Standard agreements) that make NATO forces interoperable. So smaller countries can pull the same weight in combat operations as their bigger neighbors.

Just throwing more money at the US defense industry to buy equipment is not translating into a better interoperability layer, which is the glue that holds NATO combat operations together.

An example. It's cool to have a bunch of F35a in Germany, great piece of technology, but if they get shot down by friendly fire because the interoperability layer between lets say polands airspace defense and Germanys Air force is not working properly, additional money is not going to help.

Had a good time with Germany winning their soccer match yesterday.

I appreciate the well wishes for my stay and likewise wish you only the best and thank you for the exchange.