Should the US pull out of NATO?

[tupac chopra]

The U.S. is supposed to take the lead and risk itself over something that is purely a European affair? One that can only be bad for the U.S.? And at the risk of nuclear conflagration? As far as any commitments honored, the U.S. has honored it since the end of WW2. That's going on 60 years. It's enough.

The problem is that the US thinks it is gods chosen people. It is deep in their psyche. But it's in every word you say too. Every thing you say seems to be predicated upon the USA being some kind of master race.
Seriously...read what you yourself wrote.

 

[tupac chopra]

It depends. Europe can handle its own problems if it comes to military confrontation. The U.S. has been there long enough.

Of course we'd have to have the resolve to not go back in once they started killing each other on a grand scale again. Only under the hand of U.S. military might has Europe managed to behave itself for the first time in 15 centuries or so.

And the U.S. could recoup some of its losses by bringing its navy home. The entire world benefits from it so maybe they can begin to police their own waters. It would be fun to sit back and watch as Europe and Asia began to crumble under the weight of having to handle their own defense and trade protection, and all the conflicts that would break out from that. But like a huge pile of dogshit flung from the world's largest catapult, it would definitely land in North America and splatter all over us.

With all the wars that would break out, the U.S. could make ten times the amount it already makes in arms sales. Fuckin' A. Bring our military home.

Like the much admired (for who the fuck knows why) Swiss, the U.S. has the Atlantic on one side, the Pacific on the other. We'll just become the world's next gigantic Switzerland and claim total neutrality.

It won't happen but damn it would be nice.

Is there a special class of Americans that do this? Or are you all endowed with this gift?
Could you do it...or would we need to call on some other Americans to do it?

 

[dystopian]

Per soldier contribution does not have to be equal.
I mean look at american "soldier" on B2 bomber and soldier from Netherlands who probably ride bicycles.

...First of all, soldiers don't fly bombers. Secondly, Dutch soldiers ride in everything from pzh2000 howitzers, To Fenneks, to CV90 IFV's; Boxer AFV's, Fuch's APC's, and freaking Mercedez-bens luxury SUV's. We've got technical capabilities that even the Americans don't have, just like they have abilities we don't. That is one of the main benefits of NATO and one that American military leaders have recognized for decades; force multiplication through having an international alliance with partners having divergent technical capabilities. Getting rid of NATO would actually mean the US would have to pay EVEN more in order to maintain its full range of military options.

Back on topic; I do agree that European countries need to meet the 2% of GDP defense spending norm; something we've not been doing. It does seem, however, that the political winds here are changing in that regard. Even if things weren't about to change though, it's no excuse for the Americans to pull out. It's not in their best interest to do so, especially not so long as they still have ambitions beyond their own borders (which isn't going to change anytime soon). Even if they were to represent even more of NATO spending, the force multiplier effect of having European allies is something no American military leader would want to give up if they don't have to; much less risk turning the biggest economy in the world against them at some point in the future. Yes, if the US backs out of NATO, the EU will find itself forced to increase its own defense spending (and likely create a common EU army) and the US will free those resources up for whatever. Hurray for you. The flipside of this, of course, is that if the EU spent as much as a percentage of GDP on its military as the US did, it would then quickly become a bigger military power than the US, and it would have zero reason to play nice with you and plenty of reasons to take a more antagonistic stance towards you. The US can ill-afford to live in a world where it is not friends with the EU, because the idea that it can isolate itself again like in the past, without serious negative consequences back home, is naive to the extreme.

 

[Togo]

I guess the US could back out of the entire international scene. They'd have to give up on their oil contracts, their position on the security council, intelligence sharing (meaning they'd have little idea of what was actually going on in the world), their ability to intervene abroad (so next time a terrorist attacks, you can just sit there and take it), military bases in 250 countries worldwide, the Monroe Doctrine, and so on. European responsibilities would have to be sorted out by Europe, The Far East by China (bye bye Taiwan), The Middle East by Europe, Russia and the Arab League, the Caribbean by Europe and Russia, Central America by Russia, and South America by Europe and whoever else can.

International trade would probably be ok. The worst places for pirates and theft are the straights and peninsulas. India would probably keep the route to Singapore open, China would probably do the same for much of the South Pacific, and Europe and the Arabs already handle the red sea and Suez. However, areas that mainly feature US trade, such as Cape Horn (South America), Cape of Good Hope (South Africa) and Panama (central America), would be in more trouble. Prices of goods would probably rise.

You'd also need to retool the military for a more defensive role. The US military is very much geared around assault troops and assault generally - hence the huge contingent of marines, the emphasis on air superiority fighters, and air craft carriers, all of which are largely useless if you don't go abroad. Instead you'd need to an army skilled in holding defensive positions and building fortifications - the best in the world for that would probably be... the Dutch.

I don't see that it's a terribly good idea. It would probably good for Europe, and maybe even for the world, but if you're Korean, Taiwanese, Israeli, anywhere on the border with Russia or within striking distance of China, it's kinda a disaster.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

How do you figure? Do you think less need for the US military would somehow translate into less US military spending? You have eleven aircraft carrier groups. You're mothballing thousands of tanks because there's no need for them and yet still building more tanks no matter how loudly the Pentagon insists they don't want or need them in order to keep cushy government jobs. You're deploying anti-missile systems despite those systems not even passing the beginning beta tests. The list goes on and on. It's not like your country employs some kind of sane metric which matches military spending to what you're going to be doing with the military.

Well, if we pulled out of Europe, Japan, Korea, etc. We wouldn't have to worry about that now, would we? We could take the same posture as China: a decent sized army and the guarantee that if you try to nuke us, we can do the same.

Don't worry Canada, we share a common border. We'll totally back you if Greenland tries to take Baffin Island (or Newfoundland--my geographical knowledge of Canada is a little rusty).

At any rate, what it all adds up to is that if Europe is going start yet another conflagration resulting in tens to hundreds of millions of deaths, we don't want any part of it. At least I don't.

Ya, you could do something like that. It would make sense to do something like that. Your military procurement and funding departments, however, don't appear to be talking to your military strategy and needs departments. Just because you pull your forces out of various areas of the world doesn't mean this will translate into your spending less on military hardware.

Also, the only army we're worried about is yours. There's nobody else who's a potential threat.

 

[Bronzeage]

Why is it that Americans always talk a big talk about international order and their commitment to it when things are easy for them, but the moment it seems like that talk could lead them to having to fight a strong enemy they start getting isolationist again? I seriously doubt this would even be a question for anyone other than the lunatic fringe if it wasn't for the current geopolitical situation. If America wants to pull out of NATO it should have done so in the 90's, not now that there's a madman in the kremlin. If a real war broke out in the world today, it'd be the world wars all over again; the US sitting back to let Europe do all the groundwork, then swoop in at the last moment to try and take credit when they realize that 'oh, actually it could be real bad for us depending on who wins'. No, fuck that. You guys committed to NATO, that means you have obligations; expectations to meet. Reneg on that in the middle of a geopolitical crisis, and the US would be utterly alone in the world; with dire long-term consequences for its prosperity. But hey, who am I to stand in the way of Americans wanting to slowly self-destruct without realizing it?

The US pulling out of NATO now would be the equivalent of having 'friend' who goes up to the outlaw biker dude at the bar to tell him you said he's an asshole, then going back over to you and goading you into committing to the fight while promising you that he has your back only to then disappear when glasses start flying: cowardly and dishonorable behavior. Oh, and then afterwards you find out that he hacked your cellphone and is sharing your girlfriend's naked pictures with his brothers.

If there were any substantial reasons, the shortness of European's memories would be one of them.

 

[SimpleDon]

Maybe if Europe paid it's fair share we could afford a cushy welfare state like Europe has.

How do you figure? Do you think less need for the US military would somehow translate into less US military spending? You have eleven aircraft carrier groups. You're mothballing thousands of tanks because there's no need for them and yet still building more tanks no matter how loudly the Pentagon insists they don't want or need them in order to keep cushy government jobs. You're deploying anti-missile systems despite those systems not even passing the beginning beta tests. The list goes on and on. It's not like your country employs some kind of sane metric which matches military spending to what you're going to be doing with the military.

You are slipping Tom. Reading your post I kept expecting the cynical punch line.

But treating it as a serious comment and not a misfiring joke I have to say that you are right, that the main purpose of all of the US's defense spending is as a poorly disguised welfare, make work program benefiting the corporations, the rich and the upper middle class primarily, in pretty much that order. It wouldn't do to openly admit that, but wink, wink it is understood. Welfare and running the printing presses overtime to pay for it is bad, defense of the nation and taxing the poor and middle class to provide it is our honorable duty. .

 

[dystopian]

If there were any substantial reasons, the shortness of European's memories would be one of them.

Oh, I can assure you, ours isn't the short memory. It sometimes seems we're the only ones who remember that the US sat back for as long as it possibly could, only to come in at the last minute to pretend they were there from the start. Just because Americans have been indoctrinated by an idealized story about their involvement in WW2 and everything after doesn't mean the rest of us are similarly inclined.

 

[SimpleDon]

Maybe if Europe paid it's fair share we could afford a cushy welfare state like Europe has.

http://www.thestate.com/2014/07/08/3552102/nato-head-europeans-must-pay-more.html





View attachment 717

Maybe you are just getting rolled by your suppliers.

According to the NATO report that appears to be the source for the figures in your graph, the USA spends roughly the same proportion of its defense budget on each major category - personnel, equipment, infrastructure and 'other' as the United Kingdom; and according to table 6 in that report, the US gets 1,440,000 active duty personnel for their money; the Europeans plus Canada get 2,000,000 active duty personnel for their dough - so while the USA may spend 70% of the total cost of NATO, that expenditure only provides 41% of the forces.

To put it another way, to get the same total of 3,440,000 men under arms, at the prices paid by the non-US members of the alliance, would cost only 55% of the current NATO budget.

The US pays more, not because it contributes more troops, but because it pays vastly more money for each troop it contributes than the other members of the alliance. I suspect that the take-home pay for soldiers doesn't vary by anything like enough to make all of the difference; but it wouldn't shock me to discover that corporations who supply the armed forces with everything from vehicles to uniforms, and from weapons to rations, make a shitload more profit per unit sold to the US than they do in sales to other NATO member states.

If the USA took its 72% of the money and went home, the rest of NATO would need to find only twice what they currently spend, in order to keep a similar number of similarly equipped troops ready to fight.

The US spends more on weapons development and procurement than other NATO members as is required to maintain our nation's primary economic goal, which is to make the rich richer and the poor and middle class poorer. And the US maintains a larger, much more expensive navy, required because we are an ocean away from most possible conflicts.

The defense establishment has noted the waste of money that the high personnel costs represent. Money that could be transferred to the wealthy.

I read that the quadrennial defense planning report that was due to be released two days after 9/11 recommended reducing personnel in the military so that the money could be diverted to weapons development and procurement, the basic transfer mechanism of government expenditures to corporations and the rich. The report was withheld after 9/11 because, embarrassingly, there wasn't a single reference to terrorism in it.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

How do you figure? Do you think less need for the US military would somehow translate into less US military spending? You have eleven aircraft carrier groups. You're mothballing thousands of tanks because there's no need for them and yet still building more tanks no matter how loudly the Pentagon insists they don't want or need them in order to keep cushy government jobs. You're deploying anti-missile systems despite those systems not even passing the beginning beta tests. The list goes on and on. It's not like your country employs some kind of sane metric which matches military spending to what you're going to be doing with the military.

You are slipping Tom. Reading your post I kept expecting the cynical punch line.

But treating it as a serious comment and not a misfiring joke I have to say that you are right, that the main purpose of all of the US's defense spending is as a poorly disguised welfare, make work program benefiting the corporations, the rich and the upper middle class primarily, in pretty much that order. It wouldn't do to openly admit that, but wink, wink it is understood. Welfare and running the printing presses overtime to pay for it is bad, defense of the nation and taxing the poor and middle class to provide it is our honorable duty. .

Ya, it wasn't a joke. The US military spending is actually that fucked up. It should be based on the Pentagon saying what they need and then the Congress approving or not approving the funds for those things. Instead, the Pentagon says what it needs and then Congress may or may not take any of that into account as each congress member bases funding decisions on what will continue to funnel money into his or her district or to the people who've given them the most campaign contributions that week.

 

[SimpleDon]

All the funding disparity shows is that NATO is merely a fictional organization and is actually a subsidiary of the U.S. government. Governments contribute to these alliances in proportion to how important they are to them. Extremely low European contributions indicate that NATO is in the interest mainly of the U.S. Yes, the U.S. should dismantle this worthless and inefficient organization that periodically attacks 3rd world countries, but really isn't that like asking if the royalty in England should abandon their meal tickets. In other words, how can the U.S. leave itself?

You are almost as cynical about this as I am. Be careful, it is a lonely, dark path to take.

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

You guys did not complain when NATO supported you in Afghanistan. Ingrates.

We weren't asking NATO to take the lead and pay for, both in lives and gold, the situation in Afghanistan. The U.S. took on the vast majority of military action and expenditures. And besides, the U.S. could have done the same thing without any UN support because we've been the world's reviled policeman since the USSR ceased to exist as a threat. But now that the Russians are back (even in a much diminished form), suddenly the U.S. owes, owes, owes, and owes some more to a continent that if personified would be an ancient evil idiot retard with severe incontinence issues.

 

[rousseau]

Only if it doesn't want to get NATO pregnant.

Ba-dum-ch.

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

It depends. Europe can handle its own problems if it comes to military confrontation. The U.S. has been there long enough.

Of course we'd have to have the resolve to not go back in once they started killing each other on a grand scale again. Only under the hand of U.S. military might has Europe managed to behave itself for the first time in 15 centuries or so.

And the U.S. could recoup some of its losses by bringing its navy home. The entire world benefits from it so maybe they can begin to police their own waters. It would be fun to sit back and watch as Europe and Asia began to crumble under the weight of having to handle their own defense and trade protection, and all the conflicts that would break out from that. But like a huge pile of dogshit flung from the world's largest catapult, it would definitely land in North America and splatter all over us.

With all the wars that would break out, the U.S. could make ten times the amount it already makes in arms sales. Fuckin' A. Bring our military home.

Like the much admired (for who the fuck knows why) Swiss, the U.S. has the Atlantic on one side, the Pacific on the other. We'll just become the world's next gigantic Switzerland and claim total neutrality.

It won't happen but damn it would be nice.

Is there a special class of Americans that do this? Or are you all endowed with this gift?
Could you do it...or would we need to call on some other Americans to do it?

Is there a way that you could produce a coherent response and subsequent question? I have this problem with people who write things that don't make any sense.

See, when I say that I want America to stay the fuck out of Europe's problems it has nothing to do with exceptionalism. It has to do with history and the fact that Europe is by far the most violent continent to have ever existed in the history of humanity. Only since the U.S. has been there to watch over them have they managed not to continually war with one another or with nations far away from their borders.

Well guess what: I'm sick of it. I want the U.S. to bring its troops home and adopt an non-interventionist foreign policy just like China has done; and just like the Swiss have done. Both of those nations are much admired here, so why should it be any different for the U.S.?

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

If there were any substantial reasons, the shortness of European's memories would be one of them.

Oh, I can assure you, ours isn't the short memory. It sometimes seems we're the only ones who remember that the US sat back for as long as it possibly could, only to come in at the last minute to pretend they were there from the start. Just because Americans have been indoctrinated by an idealized story about their involvement in WW2 and everything after doesn't mean the rest of us are similarly inclined.

I'm sorry. We should have been there holding your hands after Duke Ferdinand was shot, trying to prevent the first European inspired global war. And then we should have been there to prevent Hitler from doing all the things he did.

Yes, European death camps are the fault of the U.S.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Oh, I can assure you, ours isn't the short memory. It sometimes seems we're the only ones who remember that the US sat back for as long as it possibly could, only to come in at the last minute to pretend they were there from the start. Just because Americans have been indoctrinated by an idealized story about their involvement in WW2 and everything after doesn't mean the rest of us are similarly inclined.

I'm sorry. We should have been there holding your hands after Duke Ferdinand was shot, trying to prevent the first European inspired global war. And then we should have been there to prevent Hitler from doing all the things he did.

Yes, European death camps are the fault of the U.S.

Well, when you let your allies spend a couple of years dying before you bother to wander over into the thing, you can't then go ahead and portray yourselves as the heroes of it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Merkel says Germany will start spying on GB and US
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ca-for-the-first-time-since-1945-9627178.html

Start??

Major powers spy on major powers. Period.

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

I'm sorry. We should have been there holding your hands after Duke Ferdinand was shot, trying to prevent the first European inspired global war. And then we should have been there to prevent Hitler from doing all the things he did.

Yes, European death camps are the fault of the U.S.

Well, when you let your allies spend a couple of years dying before you bother to wander over into the thing, you can't then go ahead and portray yourselves as the heroes of it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!! This is almost as funny as the Everything Is Obama's Fault conservative bullshit.

So how about this: let's figure out how Napoleon's invasion of Russia was something that should have been pre-empted by the U.S. Same with the 100 Years War (both of 'em). Let's figure out how irresponsible the U.S. was for allowing Europe to bring the slave trade to the Americas.

And what would have become of western Europe had the U.S. not invaded France? I don't know, but I think the word "comrade" might still be in vogue. Play it down all you want, but Europe does indeed owe its post WW2 prosperity to the U.S. Or Canada. Yeah, probably just Canada.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

OK, that weird derail got overly creepy fast.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I agree with the idea that the USA should stop pushing itself all over the globe, and a more isolationist USA would be nice to see. I do laugh at anybody who would suggest that the domineering busybody nature of current USA foreign policy has anything except USA's paranoia and greed behind it though. Nobody asked USA to be "policemen" of the world and it would be great if that ended.