The end of NATO and what it could potentially mean

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Bagor

I don't think they can do that.
What are they going to do. Place outposts, early warning systems or whatever on Canadian territory without permission?

No you're right about that however, what they can do is similar to what they said with the missile defense in that interception of nuclear missiles could happen over Canadian soil. The American's could basically and simply say that in the case of a suspected attack on America they would basically invade Canadian airspace to secure the threat and say something similar in terms of coastal waters.

They could also stop sharing intelligence and electronic intelligence with the Canadian Forces.

They would also remove Canadians from the Norad Command structure and evict Canada from Norad bases on US soil.

[CliffFletcher]

The whole military spending thing is a bit misleading. There are no rivals to U.S.-NATO military spending. Not even close. The U.S. spends 3x as much as China and Russia put together. NATO Europe spends $240 billion a year on defence. Russia spends $47 billion. The UK alone ($55 billion) exceeds Russia in spending.

American politicians won't admit it, but one of the reasons for their massive military spending is as a government subsidy to key industries, and to divvy out pork barrel spending to congressional districts. The reason they spend so much has nothing to do with protecting other countries.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by blankall

The US is sick of being portrayed as the constant bad guy and is certainly pushing towards isolationism.

That turned out well last time.....


As Cliff said, NATO is not perfect, but I believe it is a damn better option than not.

[Cube Inmate]

I don't know much of anything about geopolitical alliances, but why let that stop me?

NATO formed in an environment of two distinct, obviously competing ideologies. It was easy (easy for me to say, at least) to join one of those "teams" despite any other differences in language, culture, race, etc., because the alternative ideology was so utterly terrifying. The doctrine that "an attack on one is an attack on all" made sense when it was Commies attacking the "free world."

That said, NATO was originally very much culturally homogenous alliance -- they might have spoken different languages, but it was mostly a bunch of white-majority, Christian-majority countries as members. The integration of more diversity since 1999, combined with the loss of an easily identifiable, common enemy (communism!) has (IMO) made member nations commitment to "the team" ebb to virtual nothingness.

If I were 20 years old, would I enlist in the army to defend Turkey from Armenia? No flipping way. And this, on a larger scale, is how enlarging the alliance can weaken it.

[CliffFletcher]

Turkey joined NATO in 1952. And for most of the history of NATO, it was far more likely that a 20 year old Turk would die fighting to defend the alliance than a Canadian, seeing as Turkey has conscription and shared a land border with the USSR.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The whole military spending thing is a bit misleading. There are no rivals to U.S.-NATO military spending. Not even close. The U.S. spends 3x as much as China and Russia put together. NATO Europe spends $240 billion a year on defence. Russia spends $47 billion. The UK alone ($55 billion) exceeds Russia in spending.

American politicians won't admit it, but one of the reasons for their massive military spending is as a government subsidy to key industries, and to divvy out pork barrel spending to congressional districts. The reason they spend so much has nothing to do with protecting other countries.

I thought Russia spent 66 billion on defense last year. or 5.4 % of their GDP. The UK did spend 55.5 billion last year on defense but looking at their budget its a pretty misleading figure as they lump a whole bunch of things under defense that have very little to do with their defense. Also they are slated to cut their defense spending by nearly 9 billion this year to 45.5 billion of which only 34 billion will be actual defense spending.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk...ending_30.html

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Turkey joined NATO in 1952. And for most of the history of NATO, it was far more likely that a 20 year old Turk would die fighting to defend the alliance than a Canadian, seeing as Turkey has conscription and shared a land border with the USSR.

Which will be somewhat ironic if NATO dissolves having only used article six once; in defense of the US.

Meanwhile in Europe, attitudes towards nukes are changing:

2007

Seeing as they were discussing the benefits of all things atomic, the French president continued, he had another suggestion as well: Because the French nuclear umbrella protected France’s neighbors as well as La Grande Nation itself, perhaps the Germans would consider taking a political stake in the French atomic arsenal?

Both the chancellor and her foreign minister were speechless. The idea of possessing nuclear weapons is taboo in Germany. Sarzoky’s predecessor Jacques Chirac cautiously brought up the issue 12 years ago, but he quickly realized it was pointless to pursue it.

Now

Given the country’s long-term support of nuclear disarmament, a debate about a possible German nuclear deterrent is virtually unprecedented. So far, these voices represent an extreme minority view—currently, neither the government nor the vast majority of German experts is even considering the possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons—but with continued uncertainty about Trump’s commitment to Europe, this could change during the coming years.

THE PRO-NUCLEAR ARGUMENTS

Just three days before the U.S. elections, an op-ed in Germany’s largest left-leaning news outlet, Spiegel Online, mused about the possibility of Germany pursuing its own nuclear weapons if NATO were to break up in the aftermath of a Trump administration’s withdrawal from the alliance.

Two weeks later, Reuters quoted Roderich Kiesewetter, a senior member of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union and a high-ranking member of the Bundestag (national parliament), saying that “if the United States no longer wants to provide this [nuclear] guarantee, Europe still needs nuclear protection for deterrent purposes.” Given Trump’s earlier statements, Kiesewetter continued, “Europe must start planning for its own security in case the Americans sharply raise the cost of defending the continent, or if they decide to leave completely.” His suggestion: a Franco-British nuclear umbrella for Europe, financed through a joint European military budget. Under such a scheme, Germany would have to contribute a large amount to the overall costs of such a European deterrent. Further clarifying his remarks, Kiesewetter later pointed out that Europe does not need additional nuclear powers.

On November 28, Germany’s most influential conservative newspaper, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, opened with an op-ed by one of its publishers, Berthold Kohler, preparing Germans for “the unthinkable.” Continued Russian and Chinese attempts to expand their spheres of influence, coupled with a possible retreat of the United States, would amount to a “continental shift,” the author argued. According to Kohler, the stern implications for Berlin, which for many years relied on the approach of “Frieden schaffen ohne Waffen” (“build peace without weapons”), would be obvious: if Germany wants to successfully bargain with the Kremlin, he implies, it has to be able to credibly defend its allies (which is an interesting hint at the changed power relations in Europe). Kohler concludes that this could mean increased defense spending, a return to conscription, the drawing of red lines, and an indigenous nuclear deterrent. He is quick to insinuate that the French and British arsenals are currently “too weak” to take on Russia and China.

[jeffporfirio]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Which will be somewhat ironic if NATO dissolves having only used article six once; in defense of the US.

Meanwhile in Europe, attitudes towards nukes are changing:

2007


Now

I think you mean article 5.
Invoked only once after the 9/11 attacks.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by jeffporfirio

I think you mean article 5.
Invoked only once after the 9/11 attacks.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The whole military spending thing is a bit misleading. There are no rivals to U.S.-NATO military spending. Not even close. The U.S. spends 3x as much as China and Russia put together. NATO Europe spends $240 billion a year on defence. Russia spends $47 billion. The UK alone ($55 billion) exceeds Russia in spending.

American politicians won't admit it, but one of the reasons for their massive military spending is as a government subsidy to key industries, and to divvy out pork barrel spending to congressional districts. The reason they spend so much has nothing to do with protecting other countries.

Its by the way Cliff easy to make statements like this however its with a misunderstanding of the mission that each Military has to take.

The US Military is the most global of all the militaries in the world. The American Military was designed to fight 2 major ground wars, a holding action and multiple peace keeping missions at the same time. As well they due to a lot of treaty obligations have bases on every continents and fleets and air force assets in nearly every body of water. So of course their military spending is high. Because their mission is unique and huge and diverse and complex.

Russia doesn't have the same mission. They're concerned simply with the defense of Russia and their coast line. The movement into Syria represents a change for them and its likely that they're getting paid by Syria. China defends their nation and their one coast line, they do very little on an international scale. They have what is mainly a frigate navy that doesn't really have the ability to project power. But they're spending nearly half of what the US is spending and most of that is on changing their military to aggressively project power in their part of the world.

Also you can't merely say that the NATO nations are outspending Russia and expecting that suddenly NATO is going to have the military strength or assets on the ground to stop the Russia's from pounding Eastern Europe. Those nations combined might spend $240 billion, however very little of that goes to NATO in terms of equipment or men or currently even training time.

Probably if America did say screw it, we're bringing all of our troops home, we're going to concentrate our spending on the defense of America and we will not deploy for NATO or anyone else. We're going to bring home our navies in the Indian Ocean and the Med and the Seas off of Japan and leave the defense of those to those local countries. Oh and if anyone attacks the American mainland we have 5000 nukes that we're not afraid to use as part of our primary offensive strategy. They could certainly shorten supply lines and do what China and Russia do which is have less troops that they lavishly spend on they could probably cut their defense budget significantly.

However it wouldn't take long for Chaos to break out in the areas that America would abandon.

[Jacks]

I doubt he has any real intention of pulling out of NATO, I'm sure he'll use it as a negotiating tactic to get others to start paying the bills though. The US debt and deficit is pretty much out of control, they can't afford to be paying all the bills anymore.

He'll probably adopt the mob model, pay us for protection. "It would be a shame if there was a fire or something else bad happened to this fine establishment"

[killer_carlson]

I get so uncomfortable at the thought of Trudeau being anywhere near the negotiation with the US on any point, including Nato or NORAD

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

I get so uncomfortable at the thought of Trudeau being anywhere near the negotiation with the US on any point, including Nato or NORAD

"Hey! Both our names start with T-R-U!!"

[CaptainCrunch]

The thing is that I think that the negotiations with the US are going to be completely different from the international norm, or from the possible tenor of the Obama administration, though I tend to think that Kerry was a complete disaster as a secstate.

But I tend to think that Trump is going to instruct his diplomats to take a stronger more demanding position and Canada has to be prepared for that. Trump is going to want and needs concessions to help boost his message of Make America Strong again.

[White Out 403]

The only thing I'll contribute is NATO should be ashamed of themselves that they allowed Russia to annex Crimea. Ukraine agreed to give up the nuclear weapons with guarantee that if Russia invader her, NATO and it's allies would intervene.

A disgrace.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

"Hey! Both our names start with T-R-U!!"

"Why is the valet speaking to me?"

[Lanny_McDonald]

If NATO is dissolved, or Trump tries to change the rules mid-stream, it will just be yet another step in the collapse of the American empire and American hegemony. If Trump tries to play hardball with NATO member nations I can see them looking at the value NATO membership brings and pulling out themselves. At that point they can tell the US to GTFO and close American bases in their countries. The ability for America to project military power around the globe will be crippled and this will greatly affect its ability to influence in all spheres. I would love to see the reaction of my fellow Americans, and Canadians, as Trump shoots the country and military in the foot and sees their power reduced dramatically. Back to 1890 we go.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The US Military is the most global of all the militaries in the world. The American Military was designed to fight 2 major ground wars, a holding action and multiple peace keeping missions at the same time. As well they due to a lot of treaty obligations have bases on every continents and fleets and air force assets in nearly every body of water. So of course their military spending is high. Because their mission is unique and huge and diverse and complex.

Yeah, I get that. As the global hegemon and primary upholder of the global economic order, it has to project power all over the world to ensure that order's security. Before WW2, Great Britain had the same role, and spent enormous sums on a navy the protected the world's trade while other countries (like the U.S.) got to sit back and enjoy the benefits.

But the U.S. today doesn't do this out of the tenderness of its heart - just as Great Britain didn't either. It does it because it's a trading nation that has commercial interests around the globe that it needs to protect.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Probably if America did say screw it, we're bringing all of our troops home, we're going to concentrate our spending on the defense of America and we will not deploy for NATO or anyone else. We're going to bring home our navies in the Indian Ocean and the Med and the Seas off of Japan and leave the defense of those to those local countries. Oh and if anyone attacks the American mainland we have 5000 nukes that we're not afraid to use as part of our primary offensive strategy. They could certainly shorten supply lines and do what China and Russia do which is have less troops that they lavishly spend on they could probably cut their defense budget significantly.

However it wouldn't take long for Chaos to break out in the areas that America would abandon.

Americans who cling to that isolationist dream are in denial about how much they rely on a secure global trading environment for their prosperity. Fortunately, the wealthy and powerful who have the decisive influence in U.S. politics are not in denial. Who do you think pushed the enormous expansion of American military capability post-WWW2 in the first place?