So "30" is Important, I Take It?

America wants NATO states to have 30 combat battalions, 30 aircraft squadrons, and 30 warships in the field within 30 days. Unless I miss my guess, "30" is an important feature of this proposal.

What scares me is that the readiness levels of European NATO armies, air forces, and navies is so low that picking numbers that give NATO four of a kind in the poker game with Russia is as good a starting point as any.

And just how many of those 30 will be American?

Although I can see why "1" or "180" weren't chosen.

To be fair, not meeting readiness standards doesn't mean units can't fight. Throughout history units that are under-strength or ill equipped go to battle.

As long as you are fine with the casualties and risks of defeat that doing that means, you can fight. And certainly Poland would fight regardless of how many units are deemed ready to fight within 30 days.

As for our proposal? The semi-random numbers won't be achieved. If enacted it will remain another NATO defense goal unmet by non-American states or redefined (I can hear the Germans say "so what if we define a company over-strength by 10% to be a battalion?") to technically meet the goal.

Come talk to me when 60 of each are capable of being in place within 30 days. And when the vast majority aren't American.