Replies

And I take issue with the argumentation that because they can’t deal with some aging hippies who foiled their perfectly suited “bombodrome”, they should get US territory. Why don’t they ask other allies like Canada (NATO) with even larger and more remote areas, or Australia? Australia (although non-NATO) especially is suited to test Afghanistan like conditions, unlike freezy Alaska.

I am aware that Germany is doing it’s (albeit comparetively small) share on global security matters... but it’s in little relation to what the US had done and is doing, not only for Germany but all of Europe. There can be hardly a denial that the US is bearing the overwhelming brunt of responsibility, costs and casualites.

During the cold war the Bundeswehr had countless tanks aimed at stopping the Russian invasion of Europe, which became mostly useless after the end of the cold war (many were sold or given as military aid to Poland). Everyone knew the Russian plans, namely that in the event that the cold war got hot, Germany would become a radioactive wasteland and the Bundeswehr cannon fodder. After the German reunification nobody wanted Germany as the foremost military power in Europe and I don't believe anyone wants a militarily assertive Germany today.

And I take issue with the argumentation that because they can’t deal with some aging hippies who foiled their perfectly suited “bombodrome”, they should get US territory.

Nobody is asking for US territory. Alaska was mentioned as an example of a sparsely populated region. In Germany there isn't really a region where you don't have NIMBY problems, because even in - by German standards - rather empty regions, there are always towns and villages nearby and lawsuits due to the noise etc.

In the end it's just a question of money, of working out a deal among friends, just like the problem of ammunitions waste on former US installations in Germany could be worked out. If it makes financial sense to both parties, what's the harm? Then they'll start negotiations and there will be a mutually agreed upon contract. And if it doesn't, they'll find another place. Or not. Or whatever...

This here is much ado about a by-line, which basically states the obvious: that Alaska has a 600 times lower population density than central Europe.

Why don’t they ask other allies like Canada (NATO) with even larger and more remote areas, or Australia? Australia (although non-NATO) especially is suited to test Afghanistan like conditions, unlike freezy Alaska.

Right now they haven't asked anyone, including Alaska. And if they decide to go down that road, they'll probably ask Canada and Greenland as well (Australia is on the opposite side of the world, that's probably a no-go.).