Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Future Of Nato  
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3046 posts, RR: 8
Posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1343 times:

A very interesting article came out about remarks Robert Gates made about the military alliance. I more or less agree with it: NATO was created to counter the threat of a possible Soviet invasion of Europe during the Cold War. Now that the Soviet Union is no more, what is NATO's raison d'etre?

Also, while the US allots a large part of its budget to military, with the recent military conflicts (Afghanistan and Libya), it often is the one that picks up the slack when its European allies run out of munition due to smaller budget/smaller commitments.

Would the US pull a de Gaulle and withdraw its military from NATO central command? It would keep the US as a member, but if a Libya part 2 happens, the US is not obliged to respond.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43351604/ns/world_news-europe


"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinetu204 From Russia, joined Mar 2006, 1193 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1312 times:

Hopefully NATO would be dissolved. One lesser evil in the world.


I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
User currently offlineeatmybologna From France, joined Apr 2005, 412 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1304 times:

I'm for the U.S. getting out of NATO. Europe can now take care of themselves. The U.S. cannot afford to remain. Plus, the U.S. might want to concentrate more on what's going on in the Pacific (China).


Isn't knowledge more than just the acquisition of information? Shouldn't the acquired information be correct?
User currently offlinebj87 From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 448 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1293 times:

NATO is a money annihilating cold war relic. It's inefficient, almost impossible to run, outdated and expensive.

It's only use at the moment is supplying Afghanistan, Libya (after a ridiculously long debate) and working together to chase the TU-95's that Russia keeps sending to western Europe! O and I almost forgot it also serves as an AVIS rent a plane consortium.

They are going to have to cling to straws until WW3 starts or a conflict with Russia or China emerges. Until then they will downsize and search for alternate jobs like Afghanistan, TU-95 chasing, war exercises, etc

Just my   


Quoting tu204 (Reply 1):
One lesser evil in the world.

It's fitting you should say that  


User currently onlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3604 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1261 times:

I was always led to believe it was for the joint protection of it's members. I have no idea how that somehow involved Libya. Now that that has happened, it's time to cut the budget. The US should have cut way back in Europe anyway, they've had an almost free ride for too long and can handle their own defense. If the time comes they need help, then we can help.

User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7694 posts, RR: 21
Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1240 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

High time this relic of the past was put to bed. It has become some kind of world enforcer, with no valid basis to assume such a role. It is undemocratic, irrelevant, outmoded and not necessary. Time to consign NATO to the dustbin of history.


✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3046 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1229 times:

My opinion is that the US SHOULD pull a de Gaulle and withdraw from central command. On the side lines, if China and Russia are not enemies, I see no need to compete with them militarily so a pact of non-aggression can safeguard the security of the US while at the same time avoiding any escalation between the three. But that's my view...the real threat is no longer the communists or Russia; it's terrorism...


"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7948 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1225 times:

I prefer NATO over military Kleinstaaterei, just as I consider 'the west' a league that shares common interests and a conviction worth to be defended which in turn is easier and more affordable if there's something like NATO.


I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineeatmybologna From France, joined Apr 2005, 412 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1218 times:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 7):
a conviction worth to be defended which in turn is easier and more affordable if there's something like NATO.

Do you mean ..."a conviction worth to be defended which in turn is easier and more affordable if there's something like [the U.S. to pay the expense]?



Isn't knowledge more than just the acquisition of information? Shouldn't the acquired information be correct?
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7948 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1194 times:

Quoting eatmybologna (Reply 8):
Do you mean ..."a conviction worth to be defended which in turn is easier and more affordable if there's something like [the U.S. to pay the expense]?

I knew that would come, and I am grateful for the protection the American military/taxpayer provided during the cold war. I think every NATO member country needs to rethink its military budget and contribution to NATO, as well as NATO needs to rethink its strategy in a time of conflicts conducted by irregular forces (among other things).
It seems obvious to me that a unified Europe should contribute about as much as the USA.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1187 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tu204 (Reply 1):
Hopefully NATO would be dissolved. One lesser evil in the world.

Really? this from a person who lives in the nation that is supplying the Iranians with nuclear facilities?

Quoting eatmybologna (Reply 2):
I'm for the U.S. getting out of NATO. Europe can now take care of themselves.

Yeah...that's likely to be the case when Europe can't even support the wars it starts (running out of ammo in Libya is almost ridiculous..no..it's ridiculous).

Quoting mham001 (Reply 4):
The US should have cut way back in Europe anyway

Already have. Down from and entire Army (two mechanized Corps) to two mech brigades and an airborne brigade? Not to mention the reduction in AF and Naval assets.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 5):
High time this relic of the past was put to bed

Seems like the Russian reps here really don't like NATO...wonder why that is?

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 9):
I think every NATO member country needs to rethink its military budget and contribution to NATO, as well as NATO needs to rethink its strategy in a time of conflicts conducted by irregular forces (among other things).
It seems obvious to me that a unified Europe should contribute about as much as the USA.

Agreed. There is no further reason for Europe to not contribute equally, person for person, in this relationship. Their percentage of GNP dedicated to defence is rather low and dropping. Short institutional memories seem to be recurring issues when it comes to topics folks would rather forget.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7694 posts, RR: 21
Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1181 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DL021 (Reply 10):
Seems like the Russian reps here really don't like NATO...wonder why that is?

I am not a Russian rep. Interested in all things Russian sure, speak Russian, but not Russian. At all. It is a simplistic conclusion to draw, dismissing the many legitimate concerns about the relevance of NATO (or serious lack thereof) to international law and organisations. NATO was never envisaged as some kind of future world cop, and there is no basis for it to be so. Thus, I air the opinions above.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Future Of Las Vegas Tourism posted Thu Nov 19 2009 18:12:02 by 2707200X
What Is The Future Of The GOP? posted Sat Jun 6 2009 12:19:33 by Falcon84
"Nordic Model Is The Future Of Capitalism" posted Thu Mar 26 2009 02:23:40 by AverageUser
Who Will Be The Next Secretary-General Of Nato? posted Thu Mar 12 2009 06:55:01 by SKYSERVICE_330
Senator Comments On The Future Of The Sup. Court posted Mon Feb 23 2009 11:31:43 by JetBlueGuy2006
The Future Of The British Armed Forces posted Mon Feb 2 2009 05:14:31 by Elite
Who Do You Think The Future Of The GOP Is? posted Sun Jan 18 2009 23:26:05 by Usair320
The Future Of The Worlds Nations And Alliances? posted Tue Jan 15 2008 08:57:47 by DL021
Future Of The Oil Industry? posted Mon May 14 2007 23:47:27 by Mike89406
The Future Of The GOP! BTW, This Is My Las Post. posted Fri Feb 16 2007 02:02:36 by SFOMEX