Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's a question I've been grappling with for some time...

On the one hand, you have this institution that helped preserve peace during the Cold War,

but on the other hand, the Cold War is over, the Soviet Union is long gone, and with it, the WARSAW Pact...

What prompted this debate?

Well recently, I was watching Hardtalk (a current affairs programme on BBC television, youtube video below)

and the person interviewed was Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, Commander, US Army in Europe.

It was an interesting interview, but it did get me thinking about the threat of Russia and NATO's role in the 21st century.

Now, I'll play devil's advocate here. I'm under no illusion about the Putin regime in Russia, it's an autocracy, and not a very pleasant one, but the West deals with dodgy regimes the world over, Saudi Arabia springs to mind.

And yet, the threat of Russia starting a new 'Cold War' is a reason that is often cited for NATO's existence...

Now, continuing the devil's advocate theme, here's my problems with this premise, and here's some reason why I think NATO should go...

1) NATO is desperately searching for a purpose now that the Cold War is over, a reason to exist. Nowhere is this more clear than it's role in Afghanistan, which at the time, I found to be very strange...

2) Is Russia really a threat? Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia, has surrendered hundreds of thousands of square miles of territory. Hardly an example of an expansionist policy, and hardly the justification to keep NATO.

3) With regards to the Ukraine, Russia is only acting like a 'normal 'country by protecting its spheres of interest. The eastward expansion by NATO and the EU, could be seen to be a direct threat to Russia for obvious historical reasons, and of course, the double standards at play. the USA invades Iraq - that's protecting democracy, Russia intervenes in Ukraine, that's a new Cold War...

It could, therefore be argued, that NATO is engaging in a self fulfilling prophecy,and that by its actions, it makes war more likely, not less.

4) It's undemocratic - by locking countries into the alliance, it robs them of freedom of maneuver when it comes to foreign relations and diplomacy...

5) It's not working against terrorism. The attacks in France, and the rise of ISIS has shown NATO to be highly ineffective against this new threat. You can argue that NATO was never about combating something like this, and it would be a good point, but the focus on this old alliance robs nations of innovation and the ability to adapt to face the new threats of the 21st century...

6) China. Geopolitics has well and truly shifted to the East in the 21st century, so given the rise of China, and given the focus on Asia and the Pacific in the 21st century, an alliance that was formed to prevent war in Europe, has become somewhat obsolete...

To be honest, I'm really not sure if we need NATO or not. When it comes to Russia, I've long advocated realpolitik being the best course for dealing with Russia. As for the new challenges of the 21st century, the cornerstone of NATO, the USA, will probably be shifting its focus to Asia, leaving Europe to sort itself out...

We, in Europe, may need something new...

Here's the youtube link. Very interesting interview in my opinion.

NATO as a counterbalance to the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact obviously has long since passed. Even as an anti-Russian force, that's a somewhat less striking imperative than it once was, and even that was fading rapdily until Ukraine put the brakes on. Nobody thinks Russia is going to come through the Fulda Gap and dump 300 divisions into central Europe anymore, it's about ensuring that Russia can't do to Latvia or Romania what it did to Ukraine.

What NATO is today is a security cooperative of economically, culturally, socially, and politically linked nations acting in concert, an international armed force that can respond anywhere in the world. It serves as a stabilising and reassuring force amongst nations that once slaughtered each other by the millions. Anti-terrorist activity is at least as much, if not a greater, priority than conflict with Russia or any conventional conflict. From this perspective, NATO absolutely makes sense, and was why the concept of inviting Russia to join NATO was even floated at several points in the past.


NATO serves a purpose today, just not primarily the one it was originally intended to serve.

 Vaktathi wrote:
NATO as a counterbalance to the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact obviously has long since passed. Even as an anti-Russian force, that's a somewhat less striking imperative than it once was, and even that was fading rapdily until Ukraine put the brakes on. Nobody thinks Russia is going to come through the Fulda Gap and dump 300 divisions into central Europe anymore, it's about ensuring that Russia can't do to Latvia or Romania what it did to Ukraine.

What NATO is today is a security cooperative of economically, culturally, socially, and politically linked nations acting in concert, an international armed force that can respond anywhere in the world. It serves as a stabilising and reassuring force amongst nations that once slaughtered each other by the millions. Anti-terrorist activity is at least as much, if not a greater, priority than conflict with Russia or any conventional conflict. From this perspective, NATO absolutely makes sense, and was why the concept of inviting Russia to join NATO was even floated at several points in the past.


NATO serves a purpose today, just not primarily the one it was originally intended to serve.

But I'm arguing that NATO can be seen to be part of the problem. It's intervention in Libya helped create the mess we have today, its Afghanistan intervention was bizarre to say the least, and its eastward expansion, aided by the EU, could be argued as militarism.

Far from keeping the peace, it could be siad it's helping to destroy the peace!

Something to keep in mind is that NATO is untested in times of war...The treaty itself quarantees pretty much NOTHING as it basically just requires to give support but WHAT support is up for country.

There's people in Finland claiming we should join NATO as a insurance against Russian but even if we were member NATO members could simply decide reprimand of Russia is appropriate support and that would fulfil requirements of contract...Maybe throw in some medical aid as an added bonus.

It's somewhat telling even USA didn't try to call in for that NATO article after 2001 even though they could have and went for other route to get military support they wanted...

It absolutely can be part of the problem in many instances. That said, even if NATO didnt exist, constituent nations may have acted on their own in Libya or any one of many other conflicts. The constituent nations can also act as a brake on each other as well within the NATO structure.

At the same time, I'll also take the problems of NATO over the butchery the constituent nations committed on each other in the past. Small scale conflicts on Libya is unfortunate, but it's better than reliving another Verdun.

tneva82 wrote:
Something to keep in mind is that NATO is untested in times of war...The treaty itself quarantees pretty much NOTHING as it basically just requires to give support but WHAT support is up for country.

There's people in Finland claiming we should join NATO as a insurance against Russian but even if we were member NATO members could simply decide reprimand of Russia is appropriate support and that would fulfil requirements of contract...Maybe throw in some medical aid as an added bonus.

It's somewhat telling even USA didn't try to call in for that NATO article after 2001 even though they could have and went for other route to get military support they wanted...

You have to remember that NATO goes from the Superpower that is the USA and all its might, to tiny Luxembourg with an army of only 1,000 men, which is probably smaller than most American police forces

So obviously, the support varies from country to country.

Finland is an excellent example of a country that borders Russia, but which doesn't have any problems with Russia. One of the justifications of the Baltic states being in NATO is that it deters Russian aggression, but Finland seems to do fine. Perhaps the Russians still remember the Winter War, and the stubborn Finnish resistance?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
It absolutely can be part of the problem in many instances. That said, even if NATO didnt exist, constituent nations may have acted on their own in Libya or any one of many other conflicts. The constituent nations can also act as a brake on each other as well within the NATO structure.

At the same time, I'll also take the problems of NATO over the butchery the constituent nations committed on each other in the past. Small scale conflicts on Libya is unfortunate, but it's better than reliving another Verdun.

Given the nature of Western European societies, and given the destructive power of modern weapons is common knowledge, it's extremely unlikely we'll ever see another war in Western Europe, and thank God for that.

Plus your own country has too many business interests in Europe, and would soon put a stop to any trouble that threatened them...

The focus of the 21st century is shifting east IMO, and the West needs to adapt to that.

NATO as a anti-Warsaw Pact is dead and done, but especially with so many people worried about a resurgent Russia, and Middle Eastern Terrorism, it's not hard for NATO to find something else to occupy its time and budget with. Outside of its military value, it has diplomatic and economic value by building ties between countries, so it's not even strictly military. It's kind of a moot point. The question will never be "is NATO needed" but "does NATO do anything useful." So long as the later is true the former is true enough (or the answer just doesn't really matter).

Plus your own country has too many business interests in Europe, and would soon put a stop to any trouble that threatened them...

Just saying, this is the logic people had about Europe in 1913; that the economic ties and growing bonds between countries made war less likely. Then 1914 happened.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Finland is an excellent example of a country that borders Russia, but which doesn't have any problems with Russia. One of the justifications of the Baltic states being in NATO is that it deters Russian aggression, but Finland seems to do fine. Perhaps the Russians still remember the Winter War, and the stubborn Finnish resistance?

Finland is of much lower strategic value. The baltic states are in the path of the meatgrinder from both sides and has much more recent memories of what they would consider occupation. Finland is not in such a path and is ruinous to traverse and supply through, there's very little to be gained in mucking about in Finland.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
It absolutely can be part of the problem in many instances. That said, even if NATO didnt exist, constituent nations may have acted on their own in Libya or any one of many other conflicts. The constituent nations can also act as a brake on each other as well within the NATO structure.

At the same time, I'll also take the problems of NATO over the butchery the constituent nations committed on each other in the past. Small scale conflicts on Libya is unfortunate, but it's better than reliving another Verdun.

Given the nature of Western European societies, and given the destructive power of modern weapons is common knowledge, it's extremely unlikely we'll ever see another war in Western Europe, and thank God for that.

Right, but NATO also plays a part in shaping those societies so that conflict is no longer seen as an option, and all those modern weapons were created by NATO nations and shared amongst each other and standardized upon. NATO plays a strong role in those factors.

Plus your own country has too many business interests in Europe, and would soon put a stop to any trouble that threatened them...

many of the same arguments were out forth on the eve of WW1. In most cases I would agree however, but NATO is also one of the best tools for resolving any such trouble amongst members.

The focus of the 21st century is shifting east IMO, and the West needs to adapt to that.

And it has been, the middle east hass seen large amounts of NATO activity, and increasingly we see it in the Pacific as well.

 LordofHats wrote:
NATO as a anti-Warsaw Pact is dead and done, but especially with so many people worried about a resurgent Russia, and Middle Eastern Terrorism, it's not hard for NATO to find something else to occupy its time and budget with. Outside of its military value, it has diplomatic and economic value by building ties between countries, so it's not even strictly military. It's kind of a moot point. The question will never be "is NATO needed" but "does NATO do anything useful." So long as the later is true the former is true enough (or the answer just doesn't really matter).

Plus your own country has too many business interests in Europe, and would soon put a stop to any trouble that threatened them...

Just saying, this is the logic people had about Europe in 1913; that the economic ties and growing bonds between countries made war less likely. Then 1914 happened.

Should have mentioned this point in my OP, but what about your own nation?

Trump has started a debate about NATO, and whatever your opinion of Trump is the fact that this debate was started is important.

Personally, I detect a slight weariness with NATO in the USA. There's grumbles about other countries not pulling their weight, and of course, the pivot to the Pacific is an important geo-political shift for the USA...

I'm not saying the USA isn't interested in NATO anymore, but it could taek its eye of the ball, and NATO's importance may slowly be eroded in American eyes...

Whoops I voted yes by mistake, you should really title it should nato be disbanded to match the poll instead of pulling the old bait and switch

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Trump has started a debate about NATO, and whatever your opinion of Trump is the fact that this debate was started is important.

Trump didn't start anything. Lots of people have questioned NATO over the years. There's nothing new about it.

There's always been a branch of American politics that equate any international agreement with "global conspiracy taking over mah country!" Loonies have been doing it with the UN for more than half a century. NATO just wasn't usually a target because that same branch of politics expects the US to be the biggest and strongest boy in the war band. If that sound stupid, it is. This particular branch of US politics has never been very intelligent, so its hardly surprising that Trump would cash in on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:
Whoops I voted yes by mistake, you should really title it should nato be disbanded to match the poll instead of pulling the old bait and switch

I did the same thing lol. A lesson about reading the poll before assuming that the poll question will be the same as the thread title eh

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Finland is an excellent example of a country that borders Russia, but which doesn't have any problems with Russia. One of the justifications of the Baltic states being in NATO is that it deters Russian aggression, but Finland seems to do fine. Perhaps the Russians still remember the Winter War, and the stubborn Finnish resistance?

Finland is of much lower strategic value. The baltic states are in the path of the meatgrinder from both sides and has much more recent memories of what they would consider occupation. Finland is not in such a path and is ruinous to traverse and supply through, there's very little to be gained in mucking about in Finland.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
It absolutely can be part of the problem in many instances. That said, even if NATO didnt exist, constituent nations may have acted on their own in Libya or any one of many other conflicts. The constituent nations can also act as a brake on each other as well within the NATO structure.

At the same time, I'll also take the problems of NATO over the butchery the constituent nations committed on each other in the past. Small scale conflicts on Libya is unfortunate, but it's better than reliving another Verdun.

Given the nature of Western European societies, and given the destructive power of modern weapons is common knowledge, it's extremely unlikely we'll ever see another war in Western Europe, and thank God for that.

Right, but NATO also plays a part in shaping those societies so that conflict is no longer seen as an option, and all those modern weapons were created by NATO nations and shared amongst each other and standardized upon. NATO plays a strong role in those factors.

Plus your own country has too many business interests in Europe, and would soon put a stop to any trouble that threatened them...

many of the same arguments were out forth on the eve of WW1. In most cases I would agree however, but NATO is also one of the best tools for resolving any such trouble amongst members.

The focus of the 21st century is shifting east IMO, and the West needs to adapt to that.

And it has been, the middle east hass seen large amounts of NATO activity, and increasingly we see it in the Pacific as well.

Even though I spent the last 6 months arguing the opposite, you could argue that the European Union did a hell of a lot to preserve peace in Europe, and it wasn't just a NATO thing.

It really hurt me to say that

On a serious note, having been interested in foreign policy, military history American politics etc etc and having watched that interview, I am slightly concerned about the cutbacks in the US military.

Obviously, its an American issue, but if Congress or the DoD, or the military, or whoever, keep the cutbacks, the US military may not be able to fulfill all its oversees commitments. and might say, lets focus on Asia.

The obvious solution is for other comments to pull their weight, which I support, but here in the UK, we're cutting back big time as well. People might argue, if the USA is cutting back, we'll cut back, and so you get this spiral of erosion.

That's not new in history, but you could see NATO die of neglect. We are, after all, going through a recession...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:
Whoops I voted yes by mistake, you should really title it should nato be disbanded to match the poll instead of pulling the old bait and switch

Moscow is pleased

Russia may be an autocracy, but I can assure you it is in fact a pleasant one. Pleasant to live in, that is (unless, you have no job, than it seriously sucks).

But no, Nato is long overdue. It is a relic from the days of the Cold War, and its warmongering and expansionism in efforts to "stay relevant" has become a huge liability for peace and security in Europe. Dissolving NATO would bring some much needed stability as Russia would sleep a bit better at night (Russia is seriously paranoid about being invaded by NATO)

Besides, nowadays NATO is mostly just the US. Most European countries in it are barely contributing anything anymore.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Russia may be an autocracy, but I can assure you it is in fact a pleasant one. Pleasant to live in, that is (unless, you have no job, than it seriously sucks).

Unless you're LGBT, then you might get beaten up in the street and discrimination against you is legal.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Russia may be an autocracy, but I can assure you it is in fact a pleasant one. Pleasant to live in, that is (unless, you have no job, than it seriously sucks).

Unless you're LGBT, then you might get beaten up in the street and discrimination against you is legal.

Or a member of a church that is not the "state" church.

 kronk wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Russia may be an autocracy, but I can assure you it is in fact a pleasant one. Pleasant to live in, that is (unless, you have no job, than it seriously sucks).

Unless you're LGBT, then you might get beaten up in the street and discrimination against you is legal.

Or a member of a church that is not the "state" church.

Or a non slav

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/10/why-russia-is-growing-more-xenophobic/280766/

 kronk wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Russia may be an autocracy, but I can assure you it is in fact a pleasant one. Pleasant to live in, that is (unless, you have no job, than it seriously sucks).

Unless you're LGBT, then you might get beaten up in the street and discrimination against you is legal.

Or a member of a church that is not the "state" church.

Well, I am a member of the protestant church, and live is still pretty pleasant here
But you guys, apart from lacking any serious knowledge or experience of Russia, are also seriously taking this off topic. On the first page that is...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:



Even though I spent the last 6 months arguing the opposite, you could argue that the European Union did a hell of a lot to preserve peace in Europe, and it wasn't just a NATO thing.

It really hurt me to say that

oh absolutely it has, without a doubt, but NATO is deeply entrenched within that system as well. No one thing can be pointed to as the sole stabilizing factor, but both NATO and th EU have played enormous roles in that regard, and are intertwined in many ways.

On a serious note, having been interested in foreign policy, military history American politics etc etc and having watched that interview, I am slightly concerned about the cutbacks in the US military.

Obviously, its an American issue, but if Congress or the DoD, or the military, or whoever, keep the cutbacks, the US military may not be able to fulfill all its oversees commitments. and might say, lets focus on Asia.

The bigger issue is allocation. The US military has no problem with raw funding. In fact, it could probably lose 13 digits worth of funding and still be capable...*if* the money was put where it was needed. The problem with funding quite frankly is one of graft, waste, and inefficiency.

The obvious solution is for other comments to pull their weight, which I support, but here in the UK, we're cutting back big time as well. People might argue, if the USA is cutting back, we'll cut back, and so you get this spiral of erosion.

That's not new in history, but you could see NATO die of neglect. We are, after all, going through a recession...

always a possibility, but not likely any time soon methinks. The big issue there is the US internal politics have gone full slow.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Russia may be an autocracy, but I can assure you it is in fact a pleasant one. Pleasant to live in, that is (unless, you have no job, than it seriously sucks).

well, also unless you're active in political opposition, they have a habit of ending up dead or in jail.

But no, Nato is long overdue. It is a relic from the days of the Cold War, and its warmongering and expansionism in efforts to "stay relevant" has become a huge liability for peace and security in Europe. Dissolving NATO would bring some much needed stability as Russia would sleep a bit better at night (Russia is seriously paranoid about being invaded by NATO)

I think this goes both ways, there are people and places that are still certain that the Red Army is going to come swooping in as soon as it gets the chance, and Crimea only confirmed those fears, putting the brakes on the long decline of European armies. Both sides have history to fear each other. That said, I'm not sure a dissolution of NATO would solve anything, especially as a replacement organization would almost certainly arise with most of the same partners and each constituent nation would feel the need to expand their forces and arsenals without the US to count on.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Russia may be an autocracy, but I can assure you it is in fact a pleasant one. Pleasant to live in, that is (unless, you have no job, than it seriously sucks).

But no, Nato is long overdue. It is a relic from the days of the Cold War, and its warmongering and expansionism in efforts to "stay relevant" has become a huge liability for peace and security in Europe. Dissolving NATO would bring some much needed stability as Russia would sleep a bit better at night (Russia is seriously paranoid about being invaded by NATO)

Besides, nowadays NATO is mostly just the US. Most European countries in it are barely contributing anything anymore.

This is a NATO thread for NATO members only!

Any criticism of a dakka member who lives in a NATO country, is considered a criticism of every dakka member who lives in a NATO country

Only joking.

I'm not a supporter of Putin's Russia by any stretch of the imagination, but Russia's foreign policy, makes sense.

Russian interests in the Ukraine are threatened, Putin intervenes. Russia's ally, Syria is threatened, Putin intervenes.

You may not agree with it, but it's rational from a realpolitik perspective.

NATO and the EU on the other hand, seem to be floundering about looking for a role.

This might not be popular, but if it were up to me, I'd defuse the whole Ukraine situation between NATO and Russia by having both sides come to a deal that sees Ukraine become non-aligned, much like Austria was during the Cold War. This gives Russia a 'buffer' and in return, NATO and the EU get guarantees from Russia not to interfere in the Baltic and the Ukraine.

Ukraine won't get to join NATO as a result, but it's free to trade equally with the EU and Russia.

Everybody sleeps easy at night.










Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:



Even though I spent the last 6 months arguing the opposite, you could argue that the European Union did a hell of a lot to preserve peace in Europe, and it wasn't just a NATO thing.

It really hurt me to say that

oh absolutely it has, without a doubt, but NATO is deeply entrenched within that system as well. No one thing can be pointed to as the sole stabilizing factor, but both NATO and th EU have played enormous roles in that regard, and are intertwined in many ways.

On a serious note, having been interested in foreign policy, military history American politics etc etc and having watched that interview, I am slightly concerned about the cutbacks in the US military.

Obviously, its an American issue, but if Congress or the DoD, or the military, or whoever, keep the cutbacks, the US military may not be able to fulfill all its oversees commitments. and might say, lets focus on Asia.

The bigger issue is allocation. The US military has no problem with raw funding. In fact, it could probably lose 13 digits worth of funding and still be capable...*if* the money was put where it was needed. The problem with funding quite frankly is one of graft, waste, and inefficiency.

The obvious solution is for other comments to pull their weight, which I support, but here in the UK, we're cutting back big time as well. People might argue, if the USA is cutting back, we'll cut back, and so you get this spiral of erosion.

That's not new in history, but you could see NATO die of neglect. We are, after all, going through a recession...

always a possibility, but not likely any time soon methinks. The big issue there is the US internal politics have gone full slow.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Russia may be an autocracy, but I can assure you it is in fact a pleasant one. Pleasant to live in, that is (unless, you have no job, than it seriously sucks).

well, also unless you're active in political opposition, they have a habit of ending up dead or in jail.

But no, Nato is long overdue. It is a relic from the days of the Cold War, and its warmongering and expansionism in efforts to "stay relevant" has become a huge liability for peace and security in Europe. Dissolving NATO would bring some much needed stability as Russia would sleep a bit better at night (Russia is seriously paranoid about being invaded by NATO)

I think this goes both ways, there are people and places that are still certain that the Red Army is going to come swooping in as soon as it gets the chance, and Crimea only confirmed those fears, putting the brakes on the long decline of European armies. Both sides have history to fear each other. That said, I'm not sure a dissolution of NATO would solve anything, especially as a replacement organization would almost certainly arise with most of the same partners and each constituent nation would feel the need to expand their forces and arsenals without the US to count on.

Let me give you the state of the British Military:

Our army has been cut from 100,000 men to 80,000 men.

Our new aircraft carriers are still being built. Our destroyers are at port suffering mechanical problems, and there's no deadline for building the new destroyers.

We have more admirals than fighting ships!!!

To cut a long story short, we'd struggle to defend Britain, never mind fulfill NATO obligations...

So when you see and hear about the USA getting jittery about NATO or defense spending, I am slightly concerned.

I know this is not fair on the average US taxpayer, but if the USA doesn't do the heavy lifting, then who will?

After being bruised by the Iraq and Afghanistan experience, I wouldn't blame America for withdrawing slightly from the world...

If that sounds like an argument for NATO, then its not meant too.

I think the Big 3 in Europe: Britain, France, Germany, need to come to a new arrangement for defence and security, and let the USA focus on the Pacific.

Hell, when we got involved in Libya, we nearly ran out of missles after 2 days, and need the US military to bail us out!

I dont think any major power has stockpiles of munitions sufficient for a large scale conventional conflict. The US ran out of cruise missiles when bombing Serbia

Quite frankly, if any war erupted with the scale of a WW1 or WW2, equipment and munitions could not be readily replaced by any party adequately. The US hasnt made a new M1 tank hull in over twenty years (new tanks are stripped and rebuilt old M1's). Replacing most aircraft would be impossible as the production lines and tooling no longer exists, and even if it did they couldnt possibly produce at the speed necessary. You just cant build an F22 in 18 hours the way we could a P51, the thing is just far too complex. Cruise Missiles cannot be produced by the millions the way old Artillery shells could. This goes for all major nations.

That said, yes the nations if Europe have drawn down heavily, but they are starting to reverse that trend, with conscription even being talked about again in Germany for instance. I dont think there is any question that European armies will have to be heavily rebuilt if they want to remain functional.

I think NATO's primary mission today is to facilitate military cooperation and coordination between member nations while also allowing for countries such as the US to maintain a "forward" posture. It also acts as a de facto foreign policy forum for the member nations.

Also, if NATO were to break up, could any of the member states outside of Germany, France, Britain and Turkey really be capable of defending themselves?Would they become victim to a similar type of bi-lateral bullying that China is practicing in the Pacific? Would a new arms race start as nations try to make up for the loss of combat power that the US provided? What destabilizing effect would this have on those countries economy's and societies?

So it would seem to me the biggest reason NATO still and will continue to exist is NATO members are ill prepared for a world without NATO.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Russia may be an autocracy, but I can assure you it is in fact a pleasant one. Pleasant to live in, that is (unless, you have no job, than it seriously sucks).

Unless you're LGBT, then you might get beaten up in the street and discrimination against you is legal.

Or a member of a church that is not the "state" church.

Well, I am a member of the protestant church, and live is still pretty pleasant here
But you guys, apart from lacking any serious knowledge or experience of Russia, are also seriously taking this off topic. On the first page that is...

Agreed, lets focus on NATO.
"Best to nuke the site from orbit. its the only way to be sure."
-Vladimir "Party Man" Putin

 Vaktathi wrote:
You just cant build an F22 in 18 hours the way we could a P51, the thing is just far too complex.

Not just that, but most countries borderline bankrupt themselves in war. Check my math on this, but a P51 was $51k (just pulled the number from wikipedia) in 1945. Adjusting for inflation, a P51 now would cost $661,000. Given the cost of a modern arsenal, who the hell can afford conventional warfare? The F22 is 150 mill, and the F35 is just under 100. Even if we math out the savings of mass production, its still gotta be a metric ton..

 LordofHats wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
You just cant build an F22 in 18 hours the way we could a P51, the thing is just far too complex.

Not just that, but most countries borderline bankrupt themselves in war. Check my math on this, but a P51 was $51k (just pulled the number from wikipedia) in 1945. Adjusting for inflation, a P51 now would cost $661,000. Given the cost of a modern arsenal, who the hell can afford conventional warfare? The F22 is 150 mill, and the F35 is just under 100. Even if we math out the savings of mass production, its still gotta be a metric ton..

That's just the thing - nobody is engaging in 'conventional' warfare these days.

In this day and age, nobody is stupid enough to take on the USA at a conventional shooting match - they'd lose every time, and they know it.

Instead, as we've seen with Iraq and Afghanistan, it's asymmetrical warfare - the drip drip drip of American casualties, for understandable reasons, upsets people back home. It worked in Vietnam, and it's worked, to an extent, in Iraq as well.

Even going forward, a country like China knows that its seaboard is vulnerable to US carrier groups going back and forth laying waste to its coastal cities, so It's adopting an area denial approach/hybrid warfare approach, as much as I can gather from my limited military knowledge.

NATO, as an institution, was obviously founded to primarily stop Red Army Tank Divisions from steamrolling through Europe, but those days are over.

In the 21st century, with terrorism being more of a threat, we need something more nimble and adaptable, and I don't think NATO fits that bill.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
You just cant build an F22 in 18 hours the way we could a P51, the thing is just far too complex.

Not just that, but most countries borderline bankrupt themselves in war. Check my math on this, but a P51 was $51k (just pulled the number from wikipedia) in 1945. Adjusting for inflation, a P51 now would cost $661,000. Given the cost of a modern arsenal, who the hell can afford conventional warfare? The F22 is 150 mill, and the F35 is just under 100. Even if we math out the savings of mass production, its still gotta be a metric ton..

aye, the cost, time, and complexity involved in building these machines and munitions is multiple orders of magnitude greater than in the past, any extended intense conventional conflict that avoided somehow going nuclear would very quickly see itself flounder relatively fast once all the vehicles start becoming casualties themselves with no effective way to replace them.

NATO is nothing more than a piece of paper. The actual organization is not contractually obligated to a specific organization. It can reorganize itself at will. NATO is no more or less capable of adapting to counter-terrorism than any other armed force. EDIT: In fact, a multinational organization is probably better than a national one, or a loose organization of national forces.

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
I think NATO's primary mission today is to facilitate military cooperation and coordination between member nations while also allowing for countries such as the US to maintain a "forward" posture. It also acts as a de facto foreign policy forum for the member nations.

Also, if NATO were to break up, could any of the member states outside of Germany, France, Britain and Turkey really be capable of defending themselves?Would they become victim to a similar type of bi-lateral bullying that China is practicing in the Pacific? Would a new arms race start as nations try to make up for the loss of combat power that the US provided? What destabilizing effect would this have on those countries economy's and societies?

So it would seem to me the biggest reason NATO still and will continue to exist is NATO members are ill prepared for a world without NATO.

These are sound reasons, but I think going forward, the three biggest likely flashpoints will be these:

1) The Middle East, and something involving Iran Vs. Saudi Arabia, or Israel Vs. somebody.

2) Russia Vs. China in Eastern Siberia. Russia gained chunks of Siberia from China through the unequal treaties, and a strong China may decide that it wants these mineral rich areas back...

3) Trouble on the Korean Peninsular...

I don't see what NATO could do in these situations, it would be hard to justify its presence, and even harder to sell the idea that NATO needs to intervene to a skeptical Western public...

NATO has served it's purpose. Like the Warsaw Pact, it's time has passed. The time to dissolve it has long past.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I dont think any major power has stockpiles of munitions sufficient for a large scale conventional conflict. The US ran out of cruise missiles when bombing Serbia

Quite frankly, if any war erupted with the scale of a WW1 or WW2, equipment and munitions could not be readily replaced by any party adequately. The US hasnt made a new M1 tank hull in over twenty years (new tanks are stripped and rebuilt old M1's). Replacing most aircraft would be impossible as the production lines and tooling no longer exists, and even if it did they couldnt possibly produce at the speed necessary. You just cant build an F22 in 18 hours the way we could a P51, the thing is just far too complex. Cruise Missiles cannot be produced by the millions the way old Artillery shells could. This goes for all major nations.

Why do you think Russia has such a ridiculous amount of artillery and tanks in storage? (more in fact, than all other armies in the world combined?)
Exactly, when the US runs out of cruise missiles and fancy aircraft, Russia will conquer the world in good old fashioned Red Army steamroller style! The weak, liberast West with its effiminate "modernisations" will feel the wrath of our so-called "outdated" armies!

But yeah, outside of the power fantasies of an overly patriotic teenager , I don't think Russia is going to invade anyone (well, maybe we'll invade just a little, like in Ukraine... ) and WW1 or WW2 style conflicts aren't very likely anymore in the current world. European armies don't need to be large (conscription would just be ridiculous), that'd just be a waste of money. What kind of threats would you have such an army fight? They just need to be able to respond to potential threats much quicker than they currently can.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Russia may be an autocracy, but I can assure you it is in fact a pleasant one. Pleasant to live in, that is (unless, you have no job, than it seriously sucks).

But no, Nato is long overdue. It is a relic from the days of the Cold War, and its warmongering and expansionism in efforts to "stay relevant" has become a huge liability for peace and security in Europe. Dissolving NATO would bring some much needed stability as Russia would sleep a bit better at night (Russia is seriously paranoid about being invaded by NATO)

Besides, nowadays NATO is mostly just the US. Most European countries in it are barely contributing anything anymore.

This is a NATO thread for NATO members only!

Russian spies are everywhere, comrade. Including in this very thread!
In fact, everyone in this thread could be a Russian sleeper agent, and we'd never know!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
NATO and the EU on the other hand, seem to be floundering about looking for a role.

This might not be popular, but if it were up to me, I'd defuse the whole Ukraine situation between NATO and Russia by having both sides come to a deal that sees Ukraine become non-aligned, much like Austria was during the Cold War. This gives Russia a 'buffer' and in return, NATO and the EU get guarantees from Russia not to interfere in the Baltic and the Ukraine.

Ukraine won't get to join NATO as a result, but it's free to trade equally with the EU and Russia.

Everybody sleeps easy at night.

That'd be a great idea. It'd be a great solution for Russia, it is exactly the buffer zone Russia is currently creating through frozen conflict, but without the effort and costs of keeping the conflict in balance. Unfortenately Ukraine and NATO are unlikely to ever agree to such a thing. And the people of Donbass would probably also like to add a few choice words to any deal that involves them having to stay in Ukraine (understandably, they don't want that anymore, after being bombed by Ukraine for so long).

NATO is still very relevant, particularly as a response and check in that part of the world. Just because there's no Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union has fallen, doesn't mean there aren't instances...insert news here...where NATO's influence and ability to respond is needed.