Removing from NATO?

[Lighthouse]

There is to no surprise more fear and threatening transpiring in the wake of The Donald being elected.

Would the removal from NATO really be that big of a deal?

To me, nothing would honestly change if the US removed from NATO. European nations will still be considered allies, we would still vote on or go ahead with the conscious effort to join forces on common threats when and if they transpire. Article 5 seems to be the most concern. The US taking "action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force." Whether NATO exists or doesn't, the US would still take action as it deems necessary.

It has been proven that we have spent way too much taxpayer dollars, much more than any NATO country has. The only thing that would honestly change in my opinion would be the US saving billions of tax payer dollars to focus more on their own country where most of everything else seems like illusionary fear for change that isn't even relevant. When the US builds up their own country more with the billions saved, it will only put them in a better position to take more thorough "action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force" if a common threat arises.

Thoughts?

 

[pondsbb]

There is to no surprise more fear and threatening transpiring in the wake of The Donald being elected.

Would the removal from NATO really be that big of a deal?

To me, nothing would honestly change if the US removed from NATO. European nations will still be considered allies, we would still vote on or go ahead with the conscious effort to join forces on common threats when and if they transpire. Article 5 seems to be the most concern. The US taking "action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force." Whether NATO exists or doesn't, the US would still take action as it deems necessary.

It has been proven that we have spent way too much taxpayer dollars, much more than any NATO country has. The only thing that would honestly change in my opinion would be the US saving billions of tax payer dollars to focus more on their own country where most of everything else seems like illusionary fear for change that isn't even relevant. When the US builds up their own country more with the billions saved, it will only put them in a better position to take more thorough "action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force" if a common threat arises.

Thoughts?

Nothing to add here. You said it well, in my book.

 

[Laika]

There is to no surprise more fear and threatening transpiring in the wake of The Donald being elected.

Would the removal from NATO really be that big of a deal?

To me, nothing would honestly change if the US removed from NATO. European nations will still be considered allies, we would still vote on or go ahead with the conscious effort to join forces on common threats when and if they transpire. Article 5 seems to be the most concern. The US taking "action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force." Whether NATO exists or doesn't, the US would still take action as it deems necessary.

It has been proven that we have spent way too much taxpayer dollars, much more than any NATO country has. The only thing that would honestly change in my opinion would be the US saving billions of tax payer dollars to focus more on their own country where most of everything else seems like illusionary fear for change that isn't even relevant. When the US builds up their own country more with the billions saved, it will only put them in a better position to take more thorough "action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force" if a common threat arises.

Thoughts?

Its a big deal. It effectively means that the US has given up its position of global leadership and can no longer be counted on to enforce international law via the United Nations by active participation in the world through military and diplomatic alliances. It unravels the world institutional framework that existed since world war II and essentially ends the period of the United States as the single world power since the end of the Cold War. Basically It introduces a bit of competition and anarchy into international relations, say if China or Russia wanted global superpower status. Sympolically it also means that the US can no longer sustain the economic power to support such a military.

There aren't any decent comparisions but the league of nations failed in part because the US was not a member between world war I and II. When the USSR said it would not intervene military in eastern Europe to support their respective communist regimes- people tore down the berlin wall. Trump has threatened to scale back the US military in south korea and north korea likes that for pretty obvious reasons.

The USA leaving NATO is epoch changing stuff for international relations. Really big.

 

[Lighthouse]

Its a big deal. It effectively means that the US has given up its position of global leadership and can no longer be counted on to enforce international law via the United Nations by active participation in the world through military and diplomatic alliances. It unravels the world institutional framework that existed since world war II and essentially ends the period of the United States as the single world power since the end of the Cold War. Basically It introduces a bit of competition and anarchy into international relations, say if China or Russia wanted global superpower status. Sympolically it also means that the US can no longer sustain the economic power to support such a military.

There aren't any decent comparisions but the league of nations failed in part because the US was not a member between world war I and II. When the USSR said it would not intervene military in eastern Europe to support their respective communist regimes- people tore down the berlin wall. Trump has threatened to scale back the US military in south korea and north korea likes that for pretty obvious reasons.

The USA leaving NATO is epoch changing stuff for international relations. Really big.

I appreciate your mentality on this. Thank you for the response.

Whether the US remains or removes from NATO, how in your opinion does that make them less of a global power? We still have the same allies/relations, same common threats, and same global presence.

Much has transpired and changed since the distant past.

In my opinion, international law can be made and remain by simple cost-effective communication rather than spending billions of dollars. We have been scaling back in many areas already from the Obama administration.

 

[Laika]

I appreciate your mentality on this. Thank you for the response.

Whether the US remains or removes from NATO, how in your opinion does that make them less of a global power? We still have the same allies/relations, same common threats, and same global presence.

Much has transpired and changed since the distant past.

In my opinion, international law can be made and remain by simple cost-effective communication rather than spending billions of dollars. We have been scaling back in many areas already from the Obama administration.

NATO has 28 member states, 22 nations participating in the "partnership for peace" program and 15 countries involved in "dialogue programs" as wikipedia puts it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO

The combined defence spending of the 28 memberstates makes up 70% of the worlds total defence spending. A quick look at the table in the link below shows the USA easily makes up a third of the worlds defence spending.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

If the US leaves, it breaks up NATO reducing its combined military spending by about half and means that about a third of the worlds defence spending is being spent on a country that has withdrawn from international commitments and may even act unilaterally outside of international law.

If the US wants to start a war of aggression such as invading canada to get control of the tar sands- whose going to stop them? And at what cost? This is not an immediate prospect but its now something thats going to be more likely.

Assuming the US doesn't "go nuts", this is still pretty dangerous as it means that america's allies will be more vulnerable. By withdrawing, the US halves NATO spending with probably eqivilent effects on man power, technological capability, global range and effectiveness.

In truth, NATO did need looking at. The US isnt the economic superpower it once was and it is possible a coalition of nations could build a new international order. But international law isnt worth the paper its written on usless you've got someone to enforce it. The United Nations is extremely weak and ineffectual becaue it relies so heavily on consensus. It heavy on high ideals and not so much on results. the US has been the one to take the position of leadership that shapes and enforces the consensus that the world worjs around. Without nato as a defacto arm of the UN security council (including the US, UK, France as nato members) its going to be much harder to stop nations violating international law and keeping the peace.

Arguably the most important thing is that this implies a reshaping of the worlds values as the US will not be there to stand up for human rights, freedom or democracy (even if only in name). It is true that there are limits to what America could do (as the war in iraq proved) but stepping back and withdrawing means the shape of international law is up for grabs.

If China or Russia continues to grow economically and become a military power- will we all be forced to accept more authoritarian systems of government because of their global influence? Thats what is potentially at stake here.

Put it this way. If the US withdrew from NATO during the Cold War- the Soviets have all but won because it means America has decided it won't fight.

 

[Lighthouse]

NATO has 28 member states, 22 nations participating in the "partnership for peace" program and 15 countries involved in "dialogue programs" as wikipedia puts it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO

The combined defence spending of the 28 memberstates makes up 70% of the worlds total defence spending. A quick look at the table in the link below shows the USA easily makes up a third of the worlds defence spending.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

If the US leaves, it breaks up NATO reducing its combined military spending by about half and means that about a third of the worlds defence spending is being spent on a country that has withdrawn from international commitments and may even act unilaterally outside of international law.

If the US wants to start a war of aggression such as invading canada to get control of the tar sands- whose going to stop them? And at what cost? This is not an immediate prospect but its now something thats going to be more likely.

Assuming the US doesn't "go nuts", this is still pretty dangerous as it means that america's allies will be more vulnerable. By withdrawing, the US halves NATO spending with probably eqivilent effects on man power, technological capability, global range and effectiveness.

In truth, NATO did need looking at. The US isnt the economic superpower it once was and it is possible a coalition of nations could build a new international order. But international law isnt worth the paper its written on usless you've got someone to enforce it. The United Nations is extremely weak and ineffectual becaue it relies so heavily on consensus. It heavy on high ideals and not so much on results. the US has been the one to take the position of leadership that shapes and enforces the consensus that the world worjs around. Without nato as a defacto arm of the UN security council (including the US, UK, France as nato members) its going to be much harder to stop nations violating international law and keeping the peace.

Arguably the most important thing is that this implies a reshaping of the worlds values as the US will not be there to stand up for human rights, freedom or democracy (even if only in name). It is true that there are limits to what America could do (as the war in iraq proved) but stepping back and withdrawing means the shape of international law is up for grabs.

If China or Russia continues to grow economically and become a military power- will we all be forced to accept more authoritarian systems of government because of their global influence? Thats what is potentially at stake here.

Put it this way. If the US withdrew from NATO during the Cold War- the Soviets have all but won because it means America has decided it won't fight.

Thank you for taking the time for the long response.

NATO doesn't prevent a country from going nuts. Each country will do what they deem best regardless. If France went nuts and invaded a country for very poor reasoning, why should other countries be automatically relied upon to follow suit? What if a NATO country attacked another NATO country?

Russia and China have been military powers already and continue to grow while the US has gradually scaled back. I suppose that I do not see Russia or China as threatening, or an enemy, and would rather seek more peaceful resolution with them rather than using military might vs each other. In my opinion, removing from NATO wouldn't prevent China and Russia from doing what they will do anyhow. The better relations we have with Russia, the more Russia can influence Iran. The better relations we have with China, the better China can influence N. Korea. Work with countries, not alienate them further. NATO alienates the East and ME in my opinion.

The US already has so many financial and economic relations with countries around the world that it will not just sit on the sidelines and allow their allies to be destroyed in my opinion. We wouldn't just sit back and watch Russia or China invade Europe. (Extraordinarily far-fetched in my opinion as is.) The US would still use "action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force" if necessary regardless of being in NATO or not. Europe has a world GDP rate of like 46% and more population than the US. I doubt that they are incapable of defence, and they would love for the US to continue to be the silly ones spending the most $ and being exploited the most. It really weakens the US. It is evident that they milk the system and create this phantom dependence of the US.

There will be international law whether being in NATO or not. It will still be enforced. Rather through paper and billions of dollars, laws of war are based on a "decisions of conscience" and "trust" from any country.

 

[MD]

Putin would be happy

 

[Laika]

Thank you for taking the time for the long response.

NATO doesn't prevent a country from going nuts. Each country will do what they deem best regardless. If France went nuts and invaded a country for very poor reasoning, why should other countries be automatically relied upon to follow suit? What if a NATO country attacked another NATO country?

Russia and China have been military powers already and continue to grow while the US has gradually scaled back. I suppose that I do not see Russia or China as threatening, or an enemy, and would rather seek more peaceful resolution with them rather than using military might vs each other. In my opinion, removing from NATO wouldn't prevent China and Russia from doing what they will do anyhow. The better relations we have with Russia, the more Russia can influence Iran. The better relations we have with China, the better China can influence N. Korea. Work with countries, not alienate them further. NATO alienates the East and ME in my opinion.

The US already has so many financial and economic relations with countries around the world that it will not just sit on the sidelines and allow their allies to be destroyed in my opinion. We wouldn't just sit back and watch Russia or China invade Europe. (Extraordinarily far-fetched in my opinion as is.) The US would still use "action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force" if necessary regardless of being in NATO or not. Europe has a world GDP rate of like 46% and more population than the US. I doubt that they are incapable of defence, and they would love for the US to continue to be the silly ones spending the most $ and being exploited the most. It really weakens the US. It is evident that they milk the system and create this phantom dependence of the US.

There will be international law whether being in NATO or not. It will still be enforced. Rather through paper and billions of dollars, laws of war are based on a "decisions of conscience" and "trust" from any country.

Thanks for your reply. I disagree but that really comes down to assumptions about the stability of the international system, rather than anything else. Whilst in the short run, I may be exaggerating the dangers, the long term ramifications of this are extraordinary. Call me a pessimist but I don't take the current stability for granted or think it will survive on goodwill alone.

 

[Shad]

There is to no surprise more fear and threatening transpiring in the wake of The Donald being elected.

Would the removal from NATO really be that big of a deal?

To me, nothing would honestly change if the US removed from NATO. European nations will still be considered allies, we would still vote on or go ahead with the conscious effort to join forces on common threats when and if they transpire. Article 5 seems to be the most concern. The US taking "action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force." Whether NATO exists or doesn't, the US would still take action as it deems necessary.

It has been proven that we have spent way too much taxpayer dollars, much more than any NATO country has. The only thing that would honestly change in my opinion would be the US saving billions of tax payer dollars to focus more on their own country where most of everything else seems like illusionary fear for change that isn't even relevant. When the US builds up their own country more with the billions saved, it will only put them in a better position to take more thorough "action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force" if a common threat arises.

Thoughts?

I think the minor nations and the former Eastern bloc nations could be exposed as the only military alliance they have with the USA is within NATO. There are separate alliance treaties outside of NATO. Treaties between America and Canada, UK and America, etc. For Canada we are economically, and culturally, invested in America so regardless of NATO there is an overwhelming interest in maintaining close relations as allies. The UK and America have a long history of treaties. With Brexxit I see no reason why the relationship between the two will not maintain, or even become closer. As I pointed out it is the minor powers that could have an issue. Some of these nations could be forced to look towards other major powers for a military alliance if there is no worthwhile gain for America.

It will be a loss for NATO but not for every nation within NATO. What these nations do should be considered.

 

[Lighthouse]

Thanks for your reply. I disagree but that really comes down to assumptions about the stability of the international system, rather than anything else. Whilst in the short run, I may be exaggerating the dangers, the long term ramifications of this are extraordinary. Call me a pessimist but I don't take the current stability for granted or think it will survive on goodwill alone.

Hey, that is great. We can disagree peacefully. Perhaps there are some loopholes I may be missing, not really an expert on the field or if there are some intricate workings I am not yet aware of.

 

[Laika]

Hey, that is great. We can disagree peacefully. Perhaps there are some loopholes I may be missing, not really an expert on the field or if there are some intricate workings I am not yet aware of.

This isn't an area I understand very well either. I'm still a bit shocked its become an issue at all really.

 

[Thanda]

ts a big deal. It effectively means that the US has given up its position of global leadership and can no longer be counted on to enforce international law via the United Nations by active participation in the world through military and diplomatic alliances.

I take issue with this assertion for a few reasons. Firstly NATO is not does not exist to enforce international law - it is not a US body. It exists to exert the dominance of the US and its allies.

Secondly the US cares only about its interests and not international law. If it cared about international law it would not be in Syria as we speak.

Lastly the US itself is one of the biggest breakers of international law and yet holds itself exempt from being held accountable for it: e.g. they are not a signatory to the International Criminal Court.

 

[Thanda]

If the US wants to start a war of aggression such as invading canada to get control of the tar sands- whose going to stop them? And at what cost? This is not an immediate prospect but its now something thats going to be more likely.

Who stopped the US from conducting a war of aggression on Iraq and Libya?

 

[Laika]

I take issue with this assertion for a few reasons. Firstly NATO is not does not exist to enforce international law - it is not a US body. It exists to exert the dominance of the US and its allies.

Secondly the US cares only about its interests and not international law. If it cared about international law it would not be in Syria as we speak.

Lastly the US itself is one of the biggest breakers of international law and yet holds itself exempt from being held accountable for it: e.g. they are not a signatory to the International Criminal Court.

I don't disagree. But I take the view that international law relies at least on the threat of force given the world is still an anarchic patchwork of nation states. If it were a single world government with its own military and police it might be a different matter. But The United Nations has no standing military and therefore no power on its own (except for peacekeeping forces), so (my impression is that) NATO ends up being the arms to enforce security council decisions.

Who stopped the US from conducting a war of aggression on Iraq and Libya?

No-one.

 

[Thanda]

I don't disagree. But I take the view that international law relies at least on the threat of force given the world is still an anarchic patchwork of nation states. If it were a single world government with its own military and police it might be a different matter. But The United Nations has no standing military and therefore no power on its own (except for peacekeeping forces), so (my impression is that) NATO ends up being the arms to enforce security council decisions.

I agree that it relies on the threat of force. My argument is only that that force is not the NATO. Neither does NATO represent the Security Council. Certainly they do not represent Russia and China who are members of that council.

Lastly I prefer a world in which ultimate power is not vested in one nation or one small group. So I welcome the rise of China and Russia as a net positive for global security. Since the fall of the Russia as a military superpower America has attacked a whole host of countries with impunity, knowing it had no challengers. If it weren't for the rise of Russia over the last few decades under Putin they would surely have invaded Syria. When the world is multipolar it causes each side to think a bit more before they act. Also, for smaller countries like mine (South Africa) it means we get better deals because of the increased competition between the powers that be as they vie for our support and resources.

No-one.

Then it is a moot point that without NATO America would act unilaterally and aggressively - it already does and has.

 

[Laika]

I agree that it relies on the threat of force. My argument is only that that force is not the NATO. Neither does NATO represent the Security Council. Certainly they do not represent Russia and China who are members of that council.

Lastly I prefer a world in which ultimate power is not vested in one nation or one small group. So I welcome the rise of China and Russia as a net positive for global security. Since the fall of the Russia as a military superpower America has attacked a whole host of countries with impunity, knowing it had no challengers. If it weren't for the rise of Russia over the last few decades under Putin they would surely have invaded Syria. When the world is multipolar it causes each side to think a bit more before they act. Also, for smaller countries like mine (South Africa) it means we get better deals because of the increased competition between the powers that be as they vie for our support and resources.



Then it is a moot point that without NATO America would act unilaterally and aggressively - it already does and has.

I think thats fair.