How Many American Troops Are Needed in Europe?

Personally, I'd like to see NATO and the EU stand up their own forces without us. We are enriching countries like Germany by providing their defense.

The punishment from WWII has gone on long enough...

Is the Question "How many troops in Europe" or "How many troops in Germany?" Part of the reason we are here in the first place is to stop the Inter-European Nationalist wars of conquest that have been happening here all throughout the 16th through the 20th centuries (the last two of which required our involvement to stop). The former Warsaw pact nations are making a lot of noise about wanting US Soldiers based in their countries, either on a rotational basis or as a permanent fixture. I can understand the advantage of rotational troops falling in on prepositioned equipment as a political solution- If the US-Russia political situation worsens, we use "stopping the rotations" as a bargaining chip. This is using the Army as a political pawn in a game of diplomacy, and is about the most useless way of deterring aggression I can think of. No one is fooled by this, but we spend the money and move the troops nonetheless. The way to deter aggression in Europe is by having a National interest of some kind- Populace, resources or Markets- and putting a large, well trained group of Soldiers guarding it and trained to defend it. Like in the Cold War (which we won, BTW). Having Soldiers in Germany at the present historical point is useless, unless they are here to defend the logistics base of the American war fighting capacity in Europe. We need to analyze the entire Russian Border with Europe and come up with some form of stationing plan that covers the entire border (not just protecting each countries' national interests, but those of Europe as a whole), then preposition the equipment and develop a forward basing plan for each division and corps HQs we assign to defend the "European Continent". This of course, also needs to be ratified by the European countries involved (which will never happen). In other words, we need to do it right, or stay home.

I think that the strategy to deal with the issue will be the determining factor. During the cold war, the primary reason we had that many troops there was to slow down the advance of the Eastern Block until back up could arrive from the states. In today's military, we can mobilize many troops in fairly short time frames. Also, we have better stand off weapons systems that can arrive on scene in short order (ICBM with or without nuclear payload, bombers, fighters, etc. that can arrive within hours of need. Not sure 30k would be enough, but not sure we need 300k either.

I honestly feel like 30,000 may be enough. Our response time to get to Europe is absurdly fast. That said would more hurt? Definitely not with respect to Europe, but it would with respect to the areas they would have to be taken from.

An increase anywhere right now means a decrease somewhere else. Where does the trade-off come from?

is the team looking at just the Army or how they would fit in an overall military posture? Starting from that viewpoint would seem prudent, given the joint requirement for the AOR.

30,000 U.S. troops (of all branches) stationed on the continent of Europe are not much of a credible deterrent to Russia.
On the bright side, 30,000 troops is far better than no U.S. troops in Europe.
As a side note: there are roughly 29,000 U.S. militiary in South Korea and 53,000 stationed in Japan.
NATO's future, especially considering it's post-Cold War enlargement and reforms, will have a significant role in the decisions of forward-stationed U.S. troops. A promise of a potentially rapid (and effective) response from a continent away is hardly assuring to the eastern NATO countries, especially after observing Russian aggression in Georgia and Ukraine. The United States' substantial over-the-horizon munitions delivery systems can only partially offset the need for boots on the ground, at the right times, in the right places.

Okay, lets be real. The troops we have in Europe would have to be lifted to confront Russia. Germany is not near the front line and all of our troops could be removed without an effect on security in the region or the World.

Making 30,000 feel like 300,000! We have RAF, a lot of exercises going on throughout the NATO and EUCOM AOR. I honestly believe we are doing fine. We're enabling the alliance and the U.S. Army to win wars even in a complex world. True we have ISIL to worry about also.

I think the Pacific has way to many SMs. We should balance out the force with these assignments.

It's always a surprise to me when news articles report on military planning dilemma when military leaders are obliged to implement the President's orders. What the President wants is the more important question . I suspect what he wants could be accomplished by rotating the entire force stateside.

With advances in technology more troops than 30,000 may be overkill. We're doing more with less in Europe but we're doing it well