Does NATO need the USA?

[TragicMonkey]

Do we really need two kidneys? Let's not find out. Not everything ought to be tested empirically.

 

[shemp]

Just two kidneys? I want a third kidney. One can never have too many backup organs.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Just two kidneys? I want a third kidney. One can never have too many backup organs.

Are you suggesting we invite China to join NATO? I'd love to witness Putin's immediate reaction to that. It actually is medically possible to drop dead of sudden shock.

 

[Ziggurat]

Who else would mount an invasion?

Invasions aren’t the only security threat. Do you know when the last time article 5 was invoked? It wasn’t for a Russian invasion.

If Russia nukes Warsaw, maybe not. But to conquer Europe, Russia needs to also conquer the UK and France.

Somehow I don’t think Poland will be satisfied with that answer.

No, but the point is that NATO could defend itself against Russia without the USA

I don’t disagree. But I think NATO wants more than that. I think NATO really, really wants the USA to remain as part of it, and with good reason.

 

[SpitfireIX]

NATO responds with strategic strikes into Russia. Russia retaliates with a nuclear strike against France and the UK. The French/UK deployed nuclear arsenal is entirely submarine based*. With no more than 6 total submarines being deployed at any given time. How many of them are able to even launch before Russian attack subs sink them? Following a nuclear exchange Russia makes it out far better than France, and the UK.

*OK yes France also has some bombs, but no realistic means of delivering them on targets in Russia.

Britain and France only have one SSBN on station at a time. There may be a second boat on the way to or from its patrol area; in any case, a second one could most likely be surged in the event of a major threat. However, the Russians don't have any subs that can find and sink a Vanguard or Triomphant; in fact, the two classes are so quiet that the two lead boats once collided because each was completely unaware of the other's presence.

 

[theprestige]

I think NATO's biggest problem right now is its recent signals that it is reluctant to do anything that might trigger Moscow to launch nukes. Presumably Putin* would not try to conquer all of Western Europe at once. He'd adopt a "just the tip" strategy of incremental gains, and dare NATO to make it existential for Moscow. Without the US, NATO members would be stuck in much the same brutal grind as Ukraine. With certain advantages, sure. But without the vast air air and ground forces of the new world, and without that vast industrial base to tap.

Of course Moscow's biggest problem right now is that it doesn't seem to have an army capable of even that kind of war. But for sure it would cost a lot more German and French and Polish and British and blood and treasure. Costs the brunt of which the US would bear, under the current arrangement. Why wouldn't Western Europe want the arsenal of democracy on their side? Why on earth would Western Europe want to antagonize the arsenal of democracy, with the always hungry bear always on their border?

Trump is jackass with no idea of America-centric realpolitik, but if he's elected I would hope that European governments will quickly recognize which side of their bread has the butter.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I don't think America has done an imperialist invasion in living memory. But go off, I guess.

Well, apart from Vietnam. And Iraq. Plus Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Cuba, the overthrow of Iran's government in the 1950s, the bombing of Laos and Cambodia, the current actions in Yemen, actions in Sudan and Libya....
So, yeah, you're right. If we don't count all of the times the US has launched imperialist military actions, then they haven't launched any.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Strange question. Does NATO need the USA? No, of course not. It could take its licks and nurse it's wounds all by itself if a member country/ies were to be attacked, probably losing some cities and significant population before it was over.

Or, you know, have a major global superpower on your team and not have to worry too awful much about invasion. I bet an American dollar that Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if the latter was a member of Team NATO.

There is another side to this, which is that America is doing such a grand job of alienating large chunks for the world, that an alliance with that country may well act as a provocation for attack, as much as a defence from it.

 

[steenkh]

I say, from what we see in Ukraine, that Russia could not get that far into Europe if there was a full scale invasion.

Full scale invasion is not the only option for Russia. Putin’s stated goal is to restore the tsarist empire, and the Baltic states are obvious targets. They are small, shallow countries with their backs to the sea. How will NATO react if the Russians manage to take most of the countries in the first onslaught?

I doubt that NATO will start an invasion of Russia from Poland, and I also doubt that the nuclear missiles will start flying.

It is possible that US presence in the Baltics will be the best deterrent, but I am not sure; particularly if the US is led by an isolationist like Trump.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... Why on earth would Western Europe want to antagonize the arsenal of democracy...?

"What 'arsenal of democracy'?" is the question the Trump-leery free world now asks. 'Arsenal', yes, but given its heavy misuse since Reagan, or 'Nam if you like, it is exactly what Eisenhower warned it would be, a self-perpetuating monster serving its own interests; namely, wealthy interests; not principle, not law.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Eastern Europe is where Western Europe outscored a lot of it's industry to, especially automotive.
Just because of that, Western Europe has a strong incentive to defend the East.

And it's entirely within the nuclear doctrine of France to send a small nuke into Russia in response to a French owned factory being destroyed in the East.

 

[Lplus]

Eastern Europe is where Western Europe outscored a lot of it's industry to, especially automotive.
Just because of that, Western Europe has a strong incentive to defend the East.

And it's entirely within the nuclear doctrine of France to send a small nuke into Russia in response to a French owned factory being destroyed in the East.

Really? and invite a small nuke on Paris perhaps?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Really? and invite a small nuke on Paris perhaps?

and get one back on Moscow, etc. ?

French doctrine calls the launch of a small nuke as a deterrent to make it clear that a line has been crossed, and will lead to all-out nuclear war if there is no de-escalation.
And like the UK, they have submarines, so there is no way for Russia to prevent a secondary strike.

you can argue with the logic of this, but it is what Russia would have to consider before starting an invasion if Europe.

 

[Lplus]

and get one back on Moscow, etc. ?

French doctrine calls the launch of a small nuke as a deterrent to make it clear that a line has been crossed, and will lead to all-out nuclear war if there is no de-escalation.
And like the UK, they have submarines, so there is no way for Russia to prevent a secondary strike.

you can argue with the logic of this, but it is what Russia would have to consider before starting an invasion if Europe.

I doubt the destruction of a french owned factory in say Romania would be that line, given the likely effect the tit for tat would have on the French themselves.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I doubt the destruction of a french owned factory in say Romania would be that line, given the likely effect the tit for tat would have on the French themselves.

it's a question of escalation/de-escalation.

Europe is intensely aware of the threat of a "salami-tactic" of the USSR slowly swallowing Europe bit-by-bit in a way that every single step would in itself never warrant a nuclear response.

hence the need to Escalate to De-escalate, a strategy that also Russia subscribes to: if France waits until Russia starts invading French territory. it's too late.

 

[Olmstead]

I don't know why we're discussing French-owned stuff in Romania. Romania is in NATO. The expected response to any act of war against a member is for NATO to effectively defend that member. The moment that doesn't happen, NATO ceases to exist, and that can't be allowed to happen.

 

[Lplus]

I don't know why we're discussing French-owned stuff in Romania. Romania is in NATO. The expected response to any act of war against a member is for NATO to effectively defend that member. The moment that doesn't happen, NATO ceases to exist, and that can't be allowed to happen.

The discussion re France was specifically re nuclear use and whether destruction of French property in a NATO country would invoke it.

I don't think there was any doubt that a conventional response to a conventional attack on a NATO country would occur.

 

[Ziggurat]

Really?

Yes. French nuclear strategy is different than basically every other nuclear power. They explicitly state that they consider limited nuclear weapon "warning shots" on military targets.

and invite a small nuke on Paris perhaps?

A French "warning shot" would not be on a capital city, or any major city. Striking Paris would be a major escalation, which would invite a massive French nuclear retaliation. I don't think most adversaries are interested in that sort of escalation.

 

[lobosrul5]

Yes. French nuclear strategy is different than basically every other nuclear power. They explicitly state that they consider limited nuclear weapon "warning shots" on military targets.



A French "warning shot" would not be on a capital city, or any major city. Striking Paris would be a major escalation, which would invite a massive French nuclear retaliation. I don't think most adversaries are interested in that sort of escalation.

Yeah, France putting even one nuke on Russian soil would be just asking to be completely annihilated from the face of the earth. Wrt the Ukrainian war I'm possibly the most hawkish person on this forum... and even I think that'd be idiotic on their part.

 

[theprestige]

My impression is that the French doctrine is to use "small" air-launched nukes to blunt an enemy invasion force, hopefully thus dissuading their counterparty from actually going through with the invasion.

I am also almost completely certain that France would not go straight to civilian targets with its nuclear deterrent. The whole point of their doctrine is to deter, not escalate. MAD doctrine uses the credible threat of immediate and total escalation as the deterrent. French doctrine looks more like NUTS.

 

[theprestige]

Well, apart from Vietnam. And Iraq. Plus Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Cuba, the overthrow of Iran's government in the 1950s, the bombing of Laos and Cambodia, the current actions in Yemen, actions in Sudan and Libya....

None of which were or are imperialist in nature.

So, yeah, you're right. If we don't count all of the times the US has launched imperialist military actions, then they haven't launched any. : rolleyes :

Your definition of "imperialist" seems very idiosyncratic to me.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Does NATO need the USA to defend Europe, or could Europe defend itself from the Russians?

I say, from what we see in Ukraine, that Russia could not get that far into Europe if there was a full scale invasion. Poland has a stronger armed force than Ukraine, the Finns could dig themselves in and bog down any Russian advance and Turkey poses a significant southern challenge. Russia could not cope with a full scale invasion and European combined forces could stop it.

The Russian nuclear threat is cover by the UK and France.

When Trump states he would

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...a-to-attack-nato-countries-who-dont-pay-bills

"he would “encourage” Russia to attack any of the US’s Nato allies whom he considers to have not met their financial obligations."

I say it is time to say goodbye to the USA in NATO and we should not be too concerned about that making us vulnerable to Russian invasion.

The EU needs a proper defensive military system. As we've seen in the last few decades NATO is not it, and probably never was.

NATO was conceived as a way to keep US armies in Europe against a Soviet "threat" that never really materialised. Now even the shadow of that threat is gone, a better system needs to be created.

 

[lobosrul5]

The EU needs a proper defensive military system. As we've seen in the last few decades NATO is not it, and probably never was.

NATO was conceived as a way to keep US armies in Europe against a Soviet "threat" that never really materialised. Now even the shadow of that threat is gone, a better system needs to be created.

Such as?

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

HA HA Ha, Russia is huge, as a geopolitical entity it could absorb the combined fire of France and the UK and still leave the UK and most of northern France a smoking hole whilst obliterating every capital city in western Europe. The USA is needed simply for nuclear deterrence, even if the entire ground fight was resourced from Western Europe.
And all this because the blowhard is blowing hard about financial obligations. Perhaps the Europeans should actually meet those obligations eh?

No it couldn't. While Russia is geographically huge, it's population centres are based in a few small tightly packed areas on the western edge of the country. Plus it's borders on this western edge have been completely denuded to invade Ukraine and cannot be easily replenished.

If any of the EU military powers wanted to, they could go in and decimate Russia in the morning. And this time it would be a special military operation that lasts only three days.

 

[theprestige]

The EU needs a proper defensive military system. As we've seen in the last few decades NATO is not it, and probably never was.

Intended as a defense against Russian aggression, NATO seems to have been an incredibly successful and fit for purpose defensive system.

What's your definition of "proper defensive system" if not "works fantastically well over decades, at defending its members against naked aggression, and shows no sign of faltering in that respect"?

NATO's biggest failure to date was not deterring the Taliban from supporting Al Qaeda's attack on a NATO member. And that was more because the Taliban were double stupid, than because NATO is a bad system. The Taliban were just a better grade of fool.

 

[Nessie]

Full scale invasion is not the only option for Russia. Putin’s stated goal is to restore the tsarist empire, and the Baltic states are obvious targets. They are small, shallow countries with their backs to the sea. How will NATO react if the Russians manage to take most of the countries in the first onslaught?

I doubt that NATO will start an invasion of Russia from Poland, and I also doubt that the nuclear missiles will start flying.

It is possible that US presence in the Baltics will be the best deterrent, but I am not sure; particularly if the US is led by an isolationist like Trump.

Hopefully Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are stocking up on drones, ammo, anti-tank weapons and mines. That is now proven to be sufficient to stop a Russian invasion.

Remember, it is the fight in the dog, not the dog in the fight, that is most important.

 

[lobosrul5]

No it couldn't. While Russia is geographically huge, it's population centres are based in a few small tightly packed areas on the western edge of the country. Plus it's borders on this western edge have been completely denuded to invade Ukraine and cannot be easily replenished.

If any of the EU military powers wanted to, they could go in and decimate Russia in the morning. And this time it would be a special military operation that lasts only three days.

St Petes and Moscow urban areas combined account for only 16% of Russia's population. They have major industrial areas further east. And of course Russia now has some client, or allied states too.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Hopefully Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are stocking up on drones, ammo, anti-tank weapons and mines. That is now proven to be sufficient to stop a Russian invasion.

Sufficient to slow a Russian invasion. Russia's still in Ukraine, isn't it?

Remember, it is the fight in the dog, not the dog in the fight, that is most important.

Most important how? For the eulogy at the weaker dog's funeral? A chihuahua isn't going to win a fight with a pitbull no matter how scrappily heroic. Unless the pitbull rips off the chihuahua's head and chokes to death on it.

 

[lobosrul5]

Sufficient to slow a Russian invasion. Russia's still in Ukraine, isn't it?



Most important how? For the eulogy at the weaker dog's funeral? A chihuahua isn't going to win a fight with a pitbull no matter how scrappily heroic. Unless the pitbull rips off the chihuahua's head and chokes to death on it.

Yeah the Baltics might put up a heroic effort, but theres no way they are going to hold out forever. They'll just slowly get ground down by 152mm artillery. See: Finland in 1939-40.

 

[Brainster]

NATO made a lot of sense in the post-WWII era, when the fear was the Russians would roll right through war-torn Western Europe. It continued to make sense in the early years of the nuclear era, as nobody wanted to give the Germans the bomb (which is properly seen as the ultimate defensive weapon).

Does it make sense today? I don't see a lot of value there for the US; I can imagine that the Baltic states might disagree. And why exactly is it unacceptable to ask these countries, which are requesting us to provide their defense, to pay their dues? It's certainly undiplomatic to put it the way Trump did, but let's be real here; his fans love it that he doesn't mince words.

About the best argument for NATO is that it has kept the Western Europeans from going to war among themselves; the current peace has actually lasted nearly as long as the Concert of Europe.

 

[lobosrul5]

NATO made a lot of sense in the post-WWII era, when the fear was the Russians would roll right through war-torn Western Europe. It continued to make sense in the early years of the nuclear era, as nobody wanted to give the Germans the bomb (which is properly seen as the ultimate defensive weapon).

Does it make sense today? I don't see a lot of value there for the US; I can imagine that the Baltic states might disagree. And why exactly is it unacceptable to ask these countries, which are requesting us to provide their defense, to pay their dues? It's certainly undiplomatic to put it the way Trump did, but let's be real here; his fans love it that he doesn't mince words.

About the best argument for NATO is that it has kept the Western Europeans from going to war among themselves; the current peace has actually lasted nearly as long as the Concert of Europe.

Its 100% in the United States' interest to not allow a Russia/Chinese led authoritarian hegemony of Eurasia. I can get into details on why that is if you'd like. I would however agree that as bad as that would be for us, its vastly worse for Europe. And the Europeans of this thread arguing they don't need us, and even that the US is some sort of imperialistically minded empire* like Russia is quite sickening. Makes me almost want to say OK, we'll leave NATO, and any other treaty obligations. We'll go back to the Monroe Doctrine. Anything outside of the American continents is fair game... almost not quite.

*including for strikes against the Houthi's

 

[arthwollipot]

None of which were or are imperialist in nature.

...

Your definition of "imperialist" seems very idiosyncratic to me.

I actually agree with theprestige here. Militarily, America is not an imperialist power. It likes throwing its military power about, but it's generally not interested in taking other peoples' territory and adding it to their own.

 

[Ziggurat]

I actually agree with theprestige here. Militarily, America is not an imperialist power. It likes throwing its military power about, but it's generally not interested in taking other peoples' territory and adding it to their own.

Indeed. We are not an empire, we are a hegemon.

 

[arthwollipot]

Indeed. We are not an empire, we are a hegemon.

Like I said - culturally, America is definitely imperialistic. The entertainment industry aggressively markets overseas in order to flatten the pop culture environment and make it all more American. Some of us make an effort to stand in the way of the behemoth, but results are mixed at best.

 

[crescent]

.... I can imagine that the Baltic states might disagree. And why exactly is it unacceptable to ask these countries, which are requesting us to provide their defense, to pay their dues?

You do understand that the Baltic country actually do pay their fair share? Right?

Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland all above the recommended 2% threshold. Sweden's not on that map but they're at 2.1%. Among nations with baltic coastline only Germany and Denmark are below 2%.

 

[theprestige]

You do understand that the Baltic country actually do pay their fair share? Right?

[qimg]https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1487&pictureid=13938[/qimg]

Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland all above the recommended 2% threshold. Sweden's not on that map but they're at 2.1%. Among nations with baltic coastline only Germany and Denmark are below 2%.

Germany and Denmark not pulling their weight and safeguarding their allies. What up Germany?

 

[lobosrul5]

Germany and Denmark not pulling their weight and safeguarding their allies. What up Germany?

Scholz is trying.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germanys-scholz-pledges-meet-2-nato-spending-target-2024-02-12/

 

[dudalb]

Russia will make it into an attritional war, with threats of nuclear annihilation if there is any strategic response.

Will the people of the major western states of NATO accept the costs of defending the east? Both in money and manpower.

IMHO, No..until it is too late.

 

[dudalb]

I never suggested dismantling NATO. I only suggest that if the USA was no longer part of NATO and say, under Trump, refused to be part of assistance if Russia invaded, that there is enough military power within Europe to successfully defend itself.

You are wrong.

 

[dudalb]

I think Trump is incredibly evil and wrpong on Nato, but seeing the amount of venom against the US by some Euros in this thread, I can see the emotinal appeal of a "To Hell With Europe" attitude.