Is NATO a military dinosaur?

[contedicavour]

The main problem of the Bundeswehr is that our politicians always like the idea of sending "peace troops" anywhere, anytime but if the situation becomes hot (bigger military actions, use of heavy ground weapons, etc) political back up is missed. So every action on other countrys is fullfilled with one hand tied on the back.

Oh yes and Italian politicians are also experts in competing to participate in international missions, while at the same time cutting defence budgets and fixing rules of engagement that wouldn't work even in fighting organized crime
The current centre-left government has requested to lead the mission in Lebanon with 3,000 of our elite amphibious regiments and heavy tank & helo support. Needless to say, bits of the government coalition were still screaming against our intervention in Iraq a month ago. So some sort of consensus will have to be found among the centre-left allies. It's from here that crazy ROEs are created, and that somebody will decide not to send Ariete MBTs or Mangusta attack helos because they would be deemed "offensive weapons". Of course, as soon as we'll start losing soldiers and marines, we'll send the heavy weaponry, ...

Now mix up such constraints of each EU country together and guess what sort of force the EU would send over, with what equipment and what ROE...

 

[Waylander]

You defenitely hit the point.

 

[contedicavour]

You defenitely hit the point.

That's why I'd act selfishly for once...
I'd leave France manage its former colony/protectorate on its own, ideally with the Legion Etrangere. They are neutral enough not to be considered as enemies by the Syrians, and are used to operations in unstable areas.
As an alternative, why not send troops of moderate Arab countries to help out the regular Lebanese Army ? For example, a brigade of mechanized Egyptian Army troops, plus 1 UAE regiment and 1 Jordanian regiment. They would be welcomed in Lebanon, and Israel might accept them after all.

cheers

 

[Waylander]

The question is if these arab countrys would really try to secure the area or if they just look a little bit at the other direction while Hisbollah is fortifying its positions again.

 

[contedicavour]

The question is if these arab countrys would really try to secure the area or if they just look a little bit at the other direction while Hisbollah is fortifying its positions again.

Good question. Though at least they'd be stronger than the Lebanese Army and could limit the independence of the Hezbollah mini-state in Southern Lebanon.

cheers

 

[FOXBAT MIG-25]

I think thats a great idea (ok i'm biased becaus autralian entry to NATO would really beef up our defence treaties, ANZUS being our most important). It would make NATO a truely global alliance and give beligerent nations like North Korea something to think about. i agree that Isreali entry into the alliance would be a bad idea. imagine how the arab nations woulld feel. if they wanted to take on the isrealis, which is hard enough by itself, they would have to take on NATO. And it would be a huge propaganda coup for hard line muslims who would claim that the entire west was fully supporting isreali 'opression'. i think expanding NATO out of the north atlantic, and including stable, moderate, industrialized democracies from around the globe would really change its purpose from a compleatly anti soviet/russian alliance to an counterballance to China and India (these might not be a credible threat at the moment but we have to look foreward to the next 15-20years) and a possible soloution to rouge states that are not in europe or the mid east. Your right there would be an "anglo saxon" cartell, and all the western allies in WW2 would be involved. I dont know how happy the french would be about this. But for modernizing NATO and adapting it to global threats is the only way it will still be relevant.

india is not interested in aqcuiring more territories so please keep it out of the enemy list .china at the present moment is more than a credible threat:jump

 

[FOXBAT MIG-25]

That's why I'd act selfishly for once...
I'd leave France manage its former colony/protectorate on its own, ideally with the Legion Etrangere. They are neutral enough not to be considered as enemies by the Syrians, and are used to operations in unstable areas.
As an alternative, why not send troops of moderate Arab countries to help out the regular Lebanese Army ? For example, a brigade of mechanized Egyptian Army troops, plus 1 UAE regiment and 1 Jordanian regiment. They would be welcomed in Lebanon, and Israel might accept them after all.

cheers

Israel has made it clear that not a single country which doesnot recognises it diplomaticalyshould be allowed to send forces in Lebanon:el

 

[contedicavour]

Israel has made it clear that not a single country which doesnot recognises it diplomaticalyshould be allowed to send forces in Lebanon:el

True, but if both sides don't start compromising, we should start considering letting themselves sort out their own mess
If Israel thinks European troops will more eager to shoot at Hezbollahs then Malaysian or Indonesian, they're dreaming. The UN mandate is clear and we don't want to put our troops in danger beyond the UN mandate.
Both sides have a clear interest in a stop to hostilities, so it's about time they leave some more autonomy to the UN in the organization of its peacekeeping detachment.

cheers

 

[contedicavour]

india is not interested in aqcuiring more territories so please keep it out of the enemy list .china at the present moment is more than a credible threat:jump

Fully agree on India : it is the world's largest democracy and we definitively should work on integrating it in whatever alliance should replace or complement today's NATO.

cheers

 

[RubiconNZ]

Fully agree on India : it is the world's largest democracy and we definitively should work on integrating it in whatever alliance should replace or complement today's NATO.

cheers

There's no way this can be done, sure sign a little Memo of Understanding like with Russia, but you can't do it for at least these reasons.

China: would completely go nuts if a Mutual Protection Alliance was signed

Pakistan: They may organise a state of peace however you cant bring India while there is any tension which there always will at least for the next 50 years. The events of independence the massive period turmoil with the end of British rule. (I'm glad India and Pakistan are independent don't misread my intention) A lot of hurt went on, not to mention the wars since. The closer you get to India the further you push Pakistan,

Resources: While I agree at this time India has no discernable territory expansion goals as things go along ANY country of this size realises they are a power broker and begin to push their agenda, regardless you don’t aim for a 200? ship fleet without out having serious regional power goals.

India needs to be encouraged and supported but you can't bring them into any Alliance without serious consequences, that could out weigh the benefits of bringing them into the alliance.

 

[contedicavour]

There's no way this can be done, sure sign a little Memo of Understanding like with Russia, but you can't do it for at least these reasons.

China: would completely go nuts if a Mutual Protection Alliance was signed

Pakistan: They may organise a state of peace however you cant bring India while there is any tension which there always will at least for the next 50 years. The events of independence the massive period turmoil with the end of British rule. (I'm glad India and Pakistan are independent don't misread my intention) A lot of hurt went on, not to mention the wars since. The closer you get to India the further you push Pakistan,

Resources: While I agree at this time India has no discernable territory expansion goals as things go along ANY country of this size realises they are a power broker and begin to push their agenda, regardless you don’t aim for a 200? ship fleet without out having serious regional power goals.

India needs to be encouraged and supported but you can't bring them into any Alliance without serious consequences, that could out weigh the benefits of bringing them into the alliance.

I understand your points.
Honestly the one on China is valid but it could be worth a try, especially if China turned more nationalistic or attacked its dear renegade province , which I hope will never happen of course, but just in case...
The point on Pakistan however is more delicate, since we can't do anything to weaken Musharraf and the moderate elements within their government, or we all know what would happen
My suggestion would be to start running peacekeeping operations together with joint command. Then add a India-NATO forum to agree on some more issues, then who knows

cheers

 

[RubiconNZ]

I understand your points.
Honestly the one on China is valid but it could be worth a try, especially if China turned more nationalistic or attacked its dear renegade province , which I hope will never happen of course, but just in case...

Espescially if China go all or nothing

The point on Pakistan however is more delicate, since we can't do anything to weaken Musharraf and the moderate elements within their government, or we all know what would happen

Exactly, very troublesome, who knows out thats going to work anyway.

My suggestion would be to start running peacekeeping operations together with joint command. Then add a India-NATO forum to agree on some more issues, then who knows
cheers

Thats works for me, sounds great, it brings them in while affirming their commitment to Democracy yet isn't overtly expressing favouritism or side taking.

 

[Ths]

The justification of Nato

Sorry, but I think you are adressing the wrong issue.

The core of Nato is to keep Russia from terrorising, occupying and exploiting their neighbours and allies.
We will agree that the immidiate military threat is a couple of magnitudes less than 20 years ago; but Russia reamins the area in Europe where there is a sufficient reasonably modern weapons, trained personel and command structure to cause trouble - Serious trouble.
AQ et alia are not a threat as such. This doesn't mean that bombs going off in our cities aren't uncomfortable enough; but they do not threaten our very existence neither in the short nor the long run.

Russia might do just that. Any sensible defence planning looks at a potential enemy's capabilities; not intentions, as intentions can change at the drop of a vote.

If you look at the changes Nato has done in the last 15 years there is no dinosaur in it. Nato has absorbed and integrated (an ongoing process) nations formerly occuppied by the Soviet Union. In parallel with the reduction in Russian forces the European member have steadily taken on a new case load. The threat is less, but the number of different scenarios have multiplied.
With the huge concentration of forces the US have, they are not as well suited as the local forces.

Afghanistan and Iraq are sideshows, the main thing is that we've made peace in Europe, now the task is to keep it that way! Am I planning for the next millenium? Yes very much so - and constantly revising the plan.
:|

 

[Big-E]

Sorry, but I think you are adressing the wrong issue.

The core of Nato is to keep Russia from terrorising, occupying and exploiting their neighbours and allies.
We will agree that the immidiate military threat is a couple of magnitudes less than 20 years ago; but Russia reamins the area in Europe where there is a sufficient reasonably modern weapons, trained personel and command structure to cause trouble - Serious trouble.

I think Russia would have serious problems just trying to get thru the Ukraine/Belarus alliance. Polands acquisition of F-16 Block 52s would give it a bloody nose as well. I'm sure the Luftwaffa wouldn't sit idely by. Those EFs should be able to do some damage. If you put the militaries of Europe under a common cause like defense of the EU I think Russia's inventory looks weak. much less to say actually combat effective... ie 1st Chechen War.

 

[Waylander]

Weak?
If you look at the numbers of equipment being reduced since the end of cold war in european NATO countries and than at how much equipment remains in russian service and with budget rising I would not bet on the european NATO countries being able to easily handel russia in case of a conflict.
There may be very modern equipment in europe but the numbers remain small and most countries are now full professional armies without conscriptors which are not able to multiply their strength in a short period of time.

 

[Big-E]

Weak?
If you look at the numbers of equipment being reduced since the end of cold war in european NATO countries and than at how much equipment remains in russian service and with budget rising I would not bet on the european NATO countries being able to easily handel russia in case of a conflict.
There may be very modern equipment in europe but the numbers remain small and most countries are now full professional armies without conscriptors which are not able to multiply their strength in a short period of time.

If there has ever been a paper tiger the current conventional Russian forces are it. It has been a couple years since I looked at the figures but I think it was something like 85% of all equipment is inoperable due to lack of maintenance or spares. It is the symptom of the military trying to maintain Cold-War levels on a 3rd world defense budget. The annual procurement of new systems is just sad... speaking in the dozens of tanks and air craft rather than hundreds. Given the lacking numbers of modern Russian systems they are far disparate compared to European inventories. Once JSF hits the region Russian defenses will be left sorely inadequate for any kind of operation. NATOs usefullness is dying...

 

[Waylander]

Mother russia uses a huge amount of their new money for modernizing and upgrading their conventional forces.
I agree that they are for sure not able to field all the crap that is rusting away in their backyard.
I also agree that russia would not be able to operate against europe successfull this year but they might be again in some years.

 

[Big-E]

Mother russia uses a huge amount of their new money for modernizing and upgrading their conventional forces.
I agree that they are for sure not able to field all the crap that is rusting away in their backyard.
I also agree that russia would not be able to operate against europe successfull this year but they might be again in some years.

I would agree if they would stop wasting money trying to upgrade obsolete equipment. They have advanced equipment that needs to come into service now in large numbers just to stay on par with Western nations. When they only buy a few squadrons a year the air force will be obsolete by the time they finish re-equipping.

 

[eckherl]

I would agree if they would stop wasting money trying to upgrade obsolete equipment. They have advanced equipment that needs to come into service now in large numbers just to stay on par with Western nations. When they only buy a few squadrons a year the air force will be obsolete by the time they finish re-equipping.

All of this will start to change 5 years or so down the road when Russia will start pumping major oil and natural gas into Western Europe, yes what Russia is adding and upgrading is rather dismal at this point.

I no longer see the need for America to contribute or participate at the current level that we have in the past and present, Europe needs to start taking on a bigger commitment or disban the treaty, when you have countries like France that try to have alot of say but doesn`t want to contribute more, whats the point. The U.S has new friends in this regoin who would be glad to have the U.S set up shop and share some of the wealth, countries like Ukraine and Poland are just a couple of them, and yes I know they are NATO also but new U.S partnerships can be accomplished without NATO treaty involvement.
All the U.S is for NATO is basicaly free security for future conflicts. the U.S needs to revisit the NATO treaty and play a much lesser role.

 

[LancerMc]

In my opinion NATO needs to be disbanded and then reconstituted in some different form. With so many nations wanting to join and others wanting less involvement, NATO should draw down and seperate systems should be developed. France is part of the political wing of NATO, but since they contribute little military help they shouldn't have any say at all in military decisions. NATO should be seperated in different groups like an political organization, a peace keeping and humantarian section, and a seperate military organization.