Is NATO a military dinosaur?

[.pt]

Well we all have our misperceptions regarding our allies.
We Europeans have a lot of stereotyped views of America, thanks to too much holywood films and tv shows: as well as other factors.
Americans also have a distorted view (in general ) of European culture and politics, and many times fail to grasp that Europe is a colection of countries with different views on many matters, and a lot of political confusion
But in the end our most basic security and cultural interest are similar, and therefore it is in everyones interest to cooperate militarly, hence NATO alliance.
As for learning about these differences, as LancerMC said, the best way to learn is visiting the countries. I did visit US in 1999, and it was a real eye opener for me.
.pt

 

[Waylander]

@Ths
The european problems with Germany?
Aren't we the nice guys of europe?

 

[Ths]

Waylander: Definately, but that has demanded considerable political effort since WW2. A lot of time and money has gone into making Germany European instead of Europe German - as Kohl said.
It is one of the more successfull projects of the 20th century.

 

[oskarm]

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.

1) Ukraine is not a NATO member and the Prime Minister is Janukowicz (guy who had falsified presidents election two years ago). So ... again US style, black and white optic on worlds affairs?

2) France is participating in NATO efforts in A-stan, as I remember there are something like 2 or 3k soldiers. Attack on Iraq wasn't considered as NATO effort to answer 9/11 like the A-stan mission was, so I really don't underused why you are attacking France.

3) I think, that NATO should change its "ROE" but keep it main role of defending its members. So:

- NATO should became world wailed organization, open for every democratic country, witch cares about humans rights.
- Every country should accept agreed level of GND % witch is spend on defense.
- If any member country is attacked or members countries agree to send troops for missions, then every country is obligated to sand agreed % of its forces there, without any national limitations to ROE (eg. as there is problem with Germans in A-stan).

Many members here said it already before and I really like the idea.

Why not invite Japan, Australia and NZ.
I think it is time for a global NATO (Maybe with another name ).

I Agree

 

[Big-E]

1) Ukraine is not a NATO member and the Prime Minister is Janukowicz (guy who had falsified presidents election two years ago). So ... again US style, black and white optic on worlds affairs?

The Prime Minister of Ukraine is not the head of state, that would be President Victor Yushchenko. He is eleceted by popular vote, the Prime Minister is appointed by the Rada. President Yuschenko is pro NATO, pro US and is even looking to join the EU if he can get in.

 

[Ths]

Let me be quite frank. I don't think Australian membership of Nato is in the cards - unless to give those poms a lesson with Crocodile Dundee's knoife.

Nato is in reality based on the peace in Europe and keeping the Ruskies at bay (sorry about the term).

What is in the cards is a Nato like construction, where the USA achieves its security aims and give maximum freedom to its allies. That is what makes the US a different allied: You are not seriously afraid that your allied wants to take over your country. (Sticking my neck out: Why not the US, Australia, New Zeeland and Chile???)

The out of theater operations undertaken up to now are pretty much due to the conversion of forces the Nato countries goes through - leaving them with new units on hand without an immediate demand for their services in the theater they are trained for.

 

[.pt]

Ths,

Aham, small correction, US is already a Nato member, THE founding one...
unless you are refering to a NATo type alliance including the mentioned countries. If so, in Latin America, are there not other suitable candidates?
Something like a southern hemisphere NATO?
.pt

 

[contedicavour]

The more you extend NATO to new countries outside Europe, the more you risk finishing it off or merging it with the UN ... because any mission would require consensus by an increasing number of countries, because standardization of equipment and training is already complicated as it is now...
Besides, it would also increase risks of ending up fighting wars in faraway areas because of the clause that forces you to defend any threatened fellow NATO member.
Last but not least, it would further push Russia to embrace China and create a sort of counter-NATO on a global scale.

My recommandation is to keep NATO as it is without further enlargements (except eventually some countries in the Balkans and in Scandinavia, if they want to) and try to strengthen the UN's military muscle in those rare events when there is sufficient consensus...

cheers

 

[RubiconNZ]

Something like a southern hemisphere NATO?

Yeah SEATO went down like a lead ballon though.

 

[contedicavour]

Yeah SEATO went down like a lead ballon though.

Can you refresh my memory on that one ? SEATO was the organization including Pakistan, pre-revolutionary Iran, and so on ? Given the geopolitical evolution of the Middle East, no wonder it didn't come to much.

cheers

 

[RubiconNZ]

Can you refresh my memory on that one ? SEATO was the organization including Pakistan, pre-revolutionary Iran, and so on ? Given the geopolitical evolution of the Middle East, no wonder it didn't come to much.

cheers

Yup, 1954
Founding Nations: Australia, France, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, and the United States.
It was non obligatory unlike NATO, France pulled out in '67 essentially washing there hands from the Vietnam debacle, Pakistan in 72 I believe. It was a anti domino effect Treaty that didn't work, never used though SEATO members sent troops to Vietnam (obviously) Pakistan probably got upset as well despite there half dozen scraps there was not much involment from Allied nations. So after no activations it ended in '76 or '77.

It wasn't so much needed anyway, things were formalised with the FPDA UK, NZ,Aus, Singapore, and Malaysia in 71, Aus NZ also had the ANZUS treaty

 

[contedicavour]

Yup, 1954
Founding Nations: Australia, France, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, and the United States.
It was non obligatory unlike NATO, France pulled out in '67 essentially washing there hands from the Vietnam debacle, Pakistan in 72 I believe. It was a anti domino effect Treaty that didn't work, never used though SEATO members sent troops to Vietnam (obviously) Pakistan probably got upset as well despite there half dozen scraps there was not much involment from Allied nations. So after no activations it ended in '76 or '77.

Thks for the explanation
SEATO was really a curious creature putting together so many nations with different interests !

cheers

 

[Ths]

.pt et alia.

I mean a NATO like construction:

1. Mutual commitment.
2. Unified command structure.
3. Integrated training.

There could be other than the ones I mentioned; but I find those mentioned to have synergies in Naval matters.

Conte: I agree, as I think Nato's strength is the focus on one problem.

 

[Ths]

To those who doubt the value of Nato - in the US and elsewhere:

How much is it worth to You to keep Russia in its present reduced state as a military threat? Do You really buy the argument that Russia is not going to rearm and threatned Europe given half a chance?

Let's keep the staffs doing nothing but comtemplating the dismal intelligence records of the state of the Russian army and navy. Then bicker about thing like: Will Luxembourg be able to hold the center alone???

 

[Big-E]

To those who doubt the value of Nato - in the US and elsewhere:

How much is it worth to You to keep Russia in its present reduced state as a military threat? Do You really buy the argument that Russia is not going to rearm and threatned Europe given half a chance?

Let's keep the staffs doing nothing but comtemplating the dismal intelligence records of the state of the Russian army and navy. Then bicker about thing like: Will Luxembourg be able to hold the center alone???

If the foundation of your thesis is faulty intelligence on the State of Russian Arms I must say the argument looks rather fragile. Federal forces are hard pressed to operate INSIDE their own borders much less launching an invasion of Europe. Russia as an invasion threat is rusting away just like her inventory. Everyone scoffs when mentioning a Chinese invasion into Siberia but I find the Russian threat into Europe even less real.

 

[eckherl]

To those who doubt the value of Nato - in the US and elsewhere:

How much is it worth to You to keep Russia in its present reduced state as a military threat? Do You really buy the argument that Russia is not going to rearm and threatned Europe given half a chance?

Let's keep the staffs doing nothing but comtemplating the dismal intelligence records of the state of the Russian army and navy. Then bicker about thing like: Will Luxembourg be able to hold the center alone???

Russia will be a major force to be reckoned with in the future, but what will the now present NATO members do to meet this new threat, rearm again, I do not think so, the U.S will end up taking the brunt of all armed confrontations with Russia, times have changed, the old way of doing things in Europe for the U.S must stop. Wouldnt it be something to see Russia and the U.S form a close alliance with each other, it could happen with the current world events. We in the U.S do not view Russia as a threat anymore, we are concerned with China.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Russia will be a major force to be reckoned with in the future, but what will the now present NATO members do to meet this new threat, rearm again, I do not think so, the U.S will end up taking the brunt of all armed confrontations with Russia, times have changed, the old way of doing things in Europe for the U.S must stop. Wouldnt it be something to see Russia and the U.S form a close alliance with each other, it could happen with the current world events. We in the U.S do not view Russia as a threat anymore, we are concerned with China.

I agree, I actually feel that while there may be short term pain in the relationship, Russia and the EU will move closer together in the long term and I see no reason why the US would not be included in this.

 

[Francois]

NATO’s first Secretary General Lord Ismay is reported to have quipped that it was founded “to keep the Russian out, the Germans down, and Americans in."
Still valid today.
Expansion of NATO to the East is one proof of that.

 

[Ths]

Big E: I'm aware of that and forces are adjusted accordingly.
The point being that the peace and quite is to be kept - also in 10-20 years time.

 

[Waylander]

Hehe, especially point number 2 worked very well but is for sure now a pain in the ass if I look at the crying for german combat troops for south A-stan and our ongoing peacekeeping ivory tower.