Should NATO be folded in favor of a European Union unified command?

[Pannonian]

What? That war was between North Korea and a force that was flying the flag of the UN, even though most of the troops were American. That war never ended.

If the north launched an invasion there would be a lot more than just the USA obligated to respond.

I thought of it as an example of one of the NATO members putting troops in the way of any potential invasion, simply so they can be attacked and thus trigger a response. PVC suggested that putting Romanian troops in the way would likewise trigger some kind of response. My argument was that (although I didn't know about the geographical restrictions), NATO would only really be obliged to respond if NATO's recognised home soil was attacked, and if a NATO member deliberately put troops outside this to try and trigger a response a la PVC, that's outside the remit of the treaty and any response would be volunteers only.

Who was that Backroomer who was traumatised by his experience of patrolling the Korean border and regarded his re-posting to Vietnam as a relief, even though he got sniped there? Kafirchobee or something.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Falklands was a cocking shock up in many ways.

1st, Had it been an "Atlantic" treaty and not a "North Atlantic" treaty, you are probably correct as to the deterrence factor.

2nd, I think we failed the special relationship. Perhaps it was wrong of us to develop the special relationship -- there are some even today who feel that Washington's Benign Isolationism and/or Monroe's Europe Keep Out doctrines would be the better way to go. Nevertheless, having entered into the special relationship, when you were attacked in the Falklands we should have issued a joint ultimatum to the Argentines and backed it up with CVNs supporting the BEF as needed. We certainly didn't impede the British effort in that conflict but we aided it a bit fecklessly.

Well, yes, but it benefited both countries in the long run. It made Britain look strong internationally, caused an RN buildup which put pressure on the Soviets.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I feel bad for forgetting to vote in the poll until now. I think when it comes to an international crisis, NATO interventions, special relationships and what have you should be reserved when an individual member state no longer feels it can proceed successfully without support. Just because the US and UK are good allies doesn't necessarily mean that we should throw our weight behind every challenge that comes to the UK, and I am sure people in the UK probably feel similarly. Was anyone really thinking that Argentina was going to win an outright war against the UK?

That being said, after trying to reflect on this seriously, I think I have to go with the poll choice on maintaining NATO as it is. If a state wishes to join, well all the merrier, but while I think Putin's Russia is a legitimate threat, we really shouldn't be trying to antagonize him by letting him create a narrative of the West circling around his borders for the kill.

[Furunculus]

In that context, is it finally time for NATO to fold, allowing the European Union to develop a unified command to replace it -- a command that is structured and focused on furthering the agenda of a united Europe.

speaking as a Brit, no, because:
1. the link to the worlds only superpower is the valuable part of NATO for the lesser members
2. the US tend to work on the same lines foreign policy wise as ourselves, so joint action strengthens rather than reduces our preferences
3. not many european nations appear to take defence seriously, as evidenced by their (lack of) commitment to the 2.0% of GDP rule

if NATO does fold then I want bilateral Defence treaty being hammered out with the US on Day 2.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

speaking as a Brit, no, because:
1. the link to the worlds only superpower is the valuable part of NATO for the lesser members
2. the US tend to work on the same lines foreign policy wise as ourselves, so joint action strengthens rather than reduces our preferences
3. not many european nations appear to take defence seriously, as evidenced by their (lack of) commitment to the 2.0% of GDP rule

if NATO does fold then I want bilateral Defence treaty being hammered out with the US on Day 2.

And it had better cover the Falklands this time!.

[gaelic cowboy]

What does America get out of an alliance with Britain in this hypothetical post NATO world?

Well to paraphrase Bremner Bird and Fortune "Its so that not all the flags on the coffins will be American"

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But in this hypothetical post NATO world, an alliance with Britain would only entangle us in a part of the world that we otherwise might not have any losses in. No stake in Europe, no American casualties in Europe. Does the UK provide any economic benefits for us? That would be more reasonable.

Very funny video. I wish I was more familiar with british television so I had some context, but still funny.

The key context is that when he says "everything I'm saying is factually true" he's breaking the fourth wall - those WERE all issues identified in Oman prior to the Iraq invasion.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Many chuckles.

I have always loved that kind of dry brit humor on things.


Gelcube, the context you are missing is almost impossible to "get" unless you watch BBC for a while. Their interviewers ask questions, sometimes tough questions, but they don't spend their time articulating their own views or pushing for the "correct" answer. The Brits actually still have some sense of impartiality in their reportage -- though Murdoch is working to bring them in line with us. Perhaps we here in the USA can pick up the page 3 tradition as well -- solely as a gesture of support for the special relationship of course.

[Flavius Aetius]

Alliances especially of a historical nature do not always have to have clearly defined benefits for either party as the assured mutual defense of each party is always of some strategic value. People within a nation state do not like to be isolated from the rest of the world, even when an isolationist policy is espoused people do not like being ALONE, they still want to feel like they have friends (also there are reasons most isolationist policies will never gain traction within modern America, they no longer fit the psyche of America. They like to consider that there are other nations which also like them and hold similar views and interests to them. The psychological benefit of the special relationship is not to be trifled with, for either the Brits or the American side. However, the US and UK special relationship holds many tangible benefits for both parties.

Britain and the US share close research bonds, close economic ties, and cultural and linguistic ties which both parties should seek to protect. Additionally both are major players on the world stage. finally a presence in Europe will be necessary until the day the 'western world' is upstaged. I fail to see why it is difficult to recognize the value of friendship and closer bonds with not only the isles but also Australia and Canada among others.

If you are someone who is a proponent of isolationist policy you have other issues than worrying about the special relationship because the principle is flawed in the 21st century.

[Strike For The South]

I'm not an isolationist, I just don't think its right that we spend absurd amounts of tax payer dollars to protect countries with a higher standard of living because they don't have to pay their fair share of the defense bill.

Is this actually true, or is it one of those things that people say a lot?

Britain and France have Nukes, Germany seems to be at the cutting edge of many land based techs, Italy has a respectable navy. Oh and by the way, America gets to park men, material, and nukes in a forward staging area, 4000 miles from our own soil.

I fail to see where the free riding comes in

[Strike For The South]

Its a hard thing to prove either way. Our contribution goes deeper than raw numbers. The long term effects of our protection are the very reason these oh so enlightened nations are the way they are.... and whether or not we would spend those hundreds of billions of dollars on raising the standard of living if European defense had never been primarily our responsibility for the last half century is quite arguable.

So its really just a rhetorical point. One I'd consider valid in principle.

One could argue America was able to focus on different things while parking our nukes on far away foreign soil. One could also say the command structure of NATO is set up to favor the US.

I mean I see you disparaging these countries but I don't really see much proof.

Quite frankly I don't really put much stock in what you consider "valid", unless you can back it up

[Strike For The South]

What is there to back up? If European defense wasn't our responsibility, where we park our nukes wouldn't matter at all. What exactly do you want proof of? We don't have any threatening neighbors, and our entire commitment from 1945-on has been incredibly generous. I'm not making radical assertions here. I'm sorry you don't like my tone, but what I'm saying is as common sense as "The Earth is round"or "You should vaccinate your kids."

No it's really not. You seem to think it is, but it's not. 4 of the next 9 top spenders on military are members of NATO. For 60 years Europe (both Eastern and Western) was the first place to go *poof* at the onset of WWIII.

I fail to see what using a continent as one big battle map constitutes as being generous. The Soviets and Americans were "generous" only in the sense that they were trying to tip the chess board. Why has the US been inching closer to the Russian border post 89? TO SPREAD GENEROSITY? HERE YOU GO ESTONIA, HERE ARE SOME F-16S AND A TOP OF THE LINE MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM, HAVE FUN WITH YOUR GLORIOUS WELFARE STATE.

You are basically spewing neo-con bullshit.

What's next, the French are all cheese eating surrender monkeys?

[Strike For The South]

Europe doesn't spend a lot compared to who?

China? Russia?

LITERALLY THE ONLY 2 COUNTRIES FRANCE, UK, ITALY, AND GERMANY SPEND LESS THAN

Taken as a whole the EU is by far the biggest spender next to America. Also, America counts things like healthcare and housing which these European countries generally have comprehensive social programs for, no doubt thanks to our generosity

[Strike For The South]

That's my whole point. Your thinking is so skewed because of the massive budget three countries pour into their armed forces

Doesn't change the fact about the EU nor the facts about the individual European countries. Unless you are going to seriously contend that America stations men and money on those frontlines for the sole....hell I give you primary.....the primary reason of protecting those helpless Europeans

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Many chuckles.

I have always loved that kind of dry brit humor on things.


Gelcube, the context you are missing is almost impossible to "get" unless you watch BBC for a while. Their interviewers ask questions, sometimes tough questions, but they don't spend their time articulating their own views or pushing for the "correct" answer. The Brits actually still have some sense of impartiality in their reportage -- though Murdoch is working to bring them in line with us. Perhaps we here in the USA can pick up the page 3 tradition as well -- solely as a gesture of support for the special relationship of course.

We have laws about it - which is why I mocked Sarmation a couple of pages ago for saying all interviews are scripted.

I'm not an isolationist, I just don't think its right that we spend absurd amounts of tax payer dollars to protect countries with a higher standard of living because they don't have to pay their fair share of the defense bill.

You're an isolationist.

We spend about as much, or less, on social care as the US - the difference is that instead of taxing your citizens you just make them pay for it.

I don't have health insurance.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Is it a coincidence that your countrymen were only truly free to enjoy the fruits of your society once you stopped Empire Building?

Well, after you crippled our trade Empire the government had thousands of out-work former soldiers who could not be "privately" supported by Regimental Foundations - after WWI a deliberate effort was made to force an impoverished aristocracy to front the bill for something they had previously done voluntarily.

After WWII - we needed to care for the broken the bleeding and the orphaned, so we created the modern Welfare State. In the US, you created the VA.

And regardless of all else, the money could simply be better spent. I'm all for economic ties with Europe, and I'm not all that offended by defensive treaties, but we don't need troops in Europe. We don't need a global force. It is nothing but a bad temptation, as the last decade can attest to. Let the implied threat of America on a total war footing and silos full of nukes be enough to deter invasions of our country-- I'm quite sure its enough.

America has a lot of fairly useless toys, the F-35 is monstrously over budget and may not even be that good when it enters service - the F-22 program is likewise and now effectively shutdown after a few hundred planes were built... Both projects required a level of British know-how just to get where they are.

Your strategic bomber force is also of limited value strategically - it's mostly used tactically to support ground troops. You also spend a lot on R&D - which you then export.

NATO provides the US access to things it would not otherwise have - including special forces and aircraft that are superior to what you currently have in service. Stationing troops oversees no only gives you greater force protection, and a bolt-hole in the event the US itself is invaded, it also allows you to maintain a larger military without the need for the infrastructure to support those bases.

[Greyblades]

Well there you have it then. Our global network of bases and our military industrial complex's love of world-shatteringly expensive programs are what we get out of NATO. I said it like its a bad thing, you said it like its a good thing.

...I think the originator of your love for stupidly expensive millitary programs is less NATO membership and more your politicians owning the companies recieving the stupidly expensive millitary contracts. Without NATO they'd just make up different excuses.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well there you have it then. Our global network of bases and our military industrial complex's love of world-shatteringly expensive programs are what we get out of NATO. I said it like its a bad thing, you said it like its a good thing.

What's worse than having an Empire?

Losing it.

In Other Words - stop complaining.

[Greyblades]

Oh totally. And NATO ( or rather the Global Force, including our NATO commitments) are like enabling friends to a drunk.

Without Nato they'd just make up different excuses and they dont seem to be lacking in those. *cough*iraq*cough*

Your government will do it either way, 'rather we enable you to pay for our collective defense than not enable you and watch you fund another stupid invasion all by your lonesome.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yeah, well my tank is better than your tank.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yeah, well my tank is better than your tank.

Actually, my tank is better - or at least I'm more likely to live through being shot by you than vice versa.

[Kadagar_AV]

Right.. because being ranked 4th or 5th matters a whole lot when the comparisons look like this:

Attachment 12759

Speaking of Neocons, even our misguided crusade to lower the global price of oil benefits Europe more than us (or would have, rather)

Yes GC, it matters a whole lot.

First of all, because of what our most recent recruit here, Flavius Aetius said. No country feels good when left on its own. You NEED friends.

Secondly, look at the chart you posted. Sure Italy alone can't do much. Sure Germany alone can't do much. But when you start to add up all of these countries, you will see that they out-budget places like China and Russia.

You don't need our help in newbie bashing, you need our help when you meet an actual opponent.

Subtract the COST of taking USAnians to fight Russia in Russia, and now again compare it it with the staple in regards to having an already established defensive line, where your allies will do most of the bleeding, paying for themselves.

If you think the US has invested in Europe because you are the cowboys in white hats, you are mislead.

My last point would probably be that that chart shows a wartime nation (USA) compared to... Well... The rest. Don't mistake Europe's half-arsed support in Iraq or Afghanistan to what Europe's support would be if it actually came to a WWIII.

oh, and as a PS: That we get better oil deals is because we have better diplomats. US also gains from this in the long run. USA is the bully in the schoolyard, Europe is USA's friend who come in afterwards, pat the victim on the back, and go "Don't worry, you don't have to give him your lunch money. Just give me half and I will make sure he doesn't harass you."

Did I just compare USAnian international politics to a school yard bully? Hmm, I think I just did

[Kadagar_AV]

What a twisted view, that somehow we decided the front line would be in western Europe. Should we have not launched D Day and let the USSR "liberate" France? Should we have promoted Operation Unthinkable?

USA ALWAYS wants its frontline abroads. Young as a nation as you are, I think the only REAL experience of war on home turf was USA against USA, no?

That is of course irregardless of the pioneers smacking away the Indians like flies.

Heck, two planes crash into buildings and it's an absolute UPROAR about it. How DARE they attack us at home just because we attack them at home!!?? Other countries have enough historical memories to know that that really, really, isn't the worst that could have happened.

Yes, I believe US strategic command decided the front line towards Soviet/USSR/Russia would be much preferable in Northern Europe. You disagree?

Really? You think NATO was founded because of USAnian goodwill?

I'm not saying Soviet was any better, I am saying that deciding between two evil empires... I for one would vote to either bugger out and fight or go with the lesser devil. Still the devil, but the lesser one.

We went with option 2.

That's why we just have every single citizen monitored by the USA. See, it could have been worse had we gone with Soviet!! They might have punched us in the balls as they did it.

[drone]

...I think the originator of your love for stupidly expensive millitary programs is less NATO membership and more your politicians owning the companies recieving the stupidly expensive millitary contracts. Without NATO they'd just make up different excuses.

I think you have that backwards.

[Kadagar_AV]

No, I'm saying we put troops in europe to defend a frontline that was already there. You're trying to paint it as a "USAnian" conspiracy. Its mind boggling. All we did was be the best damned allies any European nation has ever had. I think its time we re-negotiated the terms.

Especially if you're representative in any way of the kinds of people we have been helping.

1. When the shit hits the fan... Let's be honest about it, you are more likely the culprit compared to Europe - looking at history from WW2 and on.

2. I don't have any conspiracy thinking what so ever. Everything I wrote is pretty much commonly accepted truths. What part did you object to?

3. USA the best damn ally huh? So, you have supported us, and given us more moral legibility when starting wars... More times than the opposite? From my point of view, in both world wars you came in at the very end, when the outcome was already set. Since then you have started wars every decade or so, whereas we haven't. Remind me again, who is the best ally?

[Greyblades]

I think you have that backwards.

Actually I think it goes both ways. Either a politician gets bribed, with campaign contributions or a cushy retirement job, or the politician props up a company they own a large share of with the intent to sell at the peak. Either way the results are generally the same.

[Kadagar_AV]

What I object to is you oversimplifying the motives of a nation to fit your unfortunate world view.

Naaaaah. I tackle the question at historical face value, you however seem burdened by US propaganda.

The entire European commitment stemmed from an American sense of charity and duty.

Really? You have access to pretty much all of the internet, and this is what you come up with? We in Europe would have applauded you if you fought Germany in... say... 39? 40? 41? I don't bother to count.

Heck, even the Germans nowadays would applaud your effort had you done that. As it is, you only stepped in when you got scared that Europe would turn communistic. Remember how we opened this particular debate about US / Soviet front lines?

Everything since, even the really bad shit, has been a result of our compounded sense of national responsibility for the rest of the world.

Sorry for the slow answer, had a bathroom break.

Should we be thankful that a religiously Taliban-nation have saved the intellectual western world from being spied upon or militarily occupied by Big Brother? Uuuuuuuh...

I think the best way to avoid it in the future would be to ask Europe to take care of itself and to dump this clearly misguided sense of global responsibility.

Nah, that would be an extremely silly thing to do.

And that was my point all along, we need you as much as you need us. You seriously think USAnian foreign politics would work in the world at large, if you were alone?

Really?

REALLY?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, I'm saying we put troops in europe to defend a frontline that was already there. You're trying to paint it as a "USAnian" conspiracy. Its mind boggling. All we did was be the best damned allies any European nation has ever had. I think its time we re-negotiated the terms.

Especially if you're representative in any way of the kinds of people we have been helping.

Nah, not at all.

The Frontline should have been where NATO is now - the US had the men and material to push back against Stalin after WWII, it elected not to bother. Subsequent American policies stem from nothing more altruistic than guilt.

You know who FDR was worried about after WWII?

Churchill and the UK - there's documented evidence of that, though he apparently realised Stalin was the real threat before he died.

[Kadagar_AV]

Lolol so we're evil until we decide you do the work yourselves?! Absurd.

In '39-'41 FDR and a huge segment of the country were doing everything possible to help our European brothers, in spite of the isolationist policies we had.

Rubbish argument... Seriously.

As Sgt. in the Swedish Arctic Rangers, I as well as us know we will fight alongside you if hell breaks loose. Heck, our Ericsson communication devices are all in standard for a plug to insert to US command.

I haven't said you were evil, I said you have looked after yourself.

Don't get me wrong, you have done a lot of things that are plainly evil. But you are still the lesser devil.

You wont get any APPLAUSE for it, just a slight nod and a wink... and NATO will stand for another 5-10 years.

[Kadagar_AV]

So we should have fought the red army for you in '45? I think my work is done here.

Nooo, we are much better of having everyday citizens being spied upon by you. We love how you control the worlds monetary system, and keep it from crashing.

Do you REALLY expect an applause?