Is The Official End Of NATO Nearing?

17,355 Views | 270 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by txags92
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
txags92 said:

Nothing says we have to leave NATO. But how about we just start taking our bases out of the countries that are opposing us and move them somewhere more friendly. Stop spending money on the others and move all of their orders for equipment and supplies to the back of the queue for purchase.

It would absolutely be simpler/easier to withdraw from nato, if Democrats weren't so aligned with the censorship/TDS/war complex in Europe that this is a non-starter legally at the time being (in congress). Still, moving our forces out of hostile countries like the UK, Spain, Germany, etc. does make an immense amount of sense.

That they are quasi-hostile trading partners doesn't belie the fact that we have no duty to station troops there/support their economies. Again, our great 'allies' the French happily kicked us out/left the military planning parts of Nato in the 60's and yet then came crawling back to 'nato' later on (mid-90's) when they saw it as advantageous again for their economic/military sales etc.

If things change, and the treaty organization still exists in our absence decades down the road (which it likely wouldn't without our supervision) , maybe it will make sense to re-join, I dunno.

Nato today protects zero American interests, period, and threatens many others.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Wow. Even for CCP-turtle facing retirement this year and unable to walk/talk, that's pretty despicable. January 2027 can't come soon enough.
Gaeilge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ok. Don't leave. Just materially change our contributions.
Eliminatus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Gaeilge said:

Ok. Don't leave. Just materially change our contributions.


Change them to what?
74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Gaeilge said:

Ok. Don't leave. Just materially change our contributions.

To what?

The US only pays 16% (~$3.5B) of NATO's annual operating budget as each country's contribution is based on its GDP.

So, only a miniscule fraction of the total US yearly military budget ($852B) is for NATO alone, the vast preponderance of funding is for US general-purpose forces used to protect all of our varied interests around the globe.

In short, if NATO disappeared tomorrow, the US defense budget would remain essentially unchanged because the global threats to our national interests would also remain unchanged.
93MarineHorn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
74OA said:

Gaeilge said:

Ok. Don't leave. Just materially change our contributions.

To what?

The US only pays 16% (~$3.5B) of NATO's annual operating budget as each country's contribution is based on its GDP.

So, only a miniscule fraction of the total US yearly military budget ($852B) is for NATO alone, the vast preponderance of funding is for US general-purpose forces used to protect all of our varied interests around the globe.

In short, if NATO disappeared tomorrow, the US defense budget would remain essentially unchanged because the global threats to our national interests would also remain unchanged.

Whatever the US pays for NATO's budget is not relevant. We pay more than every other NATO country combined to maintain a dominant military that our European "allies" rely on to thwart any aggression towards them. They bring very limited value to the relationship yet we are committed to protecting and bailing them out. They wouldn't be able to return the favor in any meaningful way.
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yet they actually did fight for us when we called for them
93MarineHorn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GAC06 said:

Yet they actually did fight for us when we called for them

Please expand on this.
Jarrin Jay
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
NATO should still exist but the USA should not be a part of it. We can still have a mutual defense pact. But NATO was formed when there were not over-the-horizon weapons and capability and it took months to move troops and supplies and weeks of planning and weapon deployment to hit a target.

That is no longer the case. We can push a button in Kansas and hit an enemy target anywhere in the world in hours, minutes if we have pre-staged weapon systems. We can be over the target and bomb Moscow, Tehran, Kabul, etc. in hours, not days/weeks/months.

But all of that is secondary to the fact that the existing NATO nations other than the US need to dig deeper and properly fund NATO and equip and train themselves and be primary bulwark against Russia. From day 1 Euro NATO should have been leading and most vocal and concerned about Russia - Ukraine, instead they sat in the corner for 18 months hoping we would do something and they could meekly and unwillingly give a feeble effort on our coattails. F that and F them.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
74OA said:

Gaeilge said:

Ok. Don't leave. Just materially change our contributions.

To what?

The US only pays 16% (~$3.5B) of NATO's annual operating budget as each country's contribution is based on its GDP.

So, only a miniscule fraction of the total US yearly military budget ($852B) is for NATO alone, the vast preponderance of funding is for US general-purpose forces used to protect all of our varied interests around the globe.

In short, if NATO disappeared tomorrow, the US defense budget would remain essentially unchanged because the global threats to our national interests would also remain unchanged.

Our overseas base sustainment costs, vastly and disproportionately weighted to Europe (vs. our real threat in China), are over $70 billion/year. Transportation, logistics, housing, training, warehousing, joint operations, all of it costs a fortune and will continue to grow as they want higher energy costs there which will make everything more expensive over time.
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
93MarineHorn said:

GAC06 said:

Yet they actually did fight for us when we called for them

Please expand on this.


One page back:

" We are the only NATO country to invoke article five. 1000+ NATO troops died fighting for us"
Eliminatus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
93MarineHorn said:

GAC06 said:

Yet they actually did fight for us when we called for them

Please expand on this.


Afghanistan 2001, and beyond
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nortex97 said:

74OA said:

Gaeilge said:

Ok. Don't leave. Just materially change our contributions.

To what?

The US only pays 16% (~$3.5B) of NATO's annual operating budget as each country's contribution is based on its GDP.

So, only a miniscule fraction of the total US yearly military budget ($852B) is for NATO alone, the vast preponderance of funding is for US general-purpose forces used to protect all of our varied interests around the globe.

In short, if NATO disappeared tomorrow, the US defense budget would remain essentially unchanged because the global threats to our national interests would also remain unchanged.

Our overseas base sustainment costs, vastly and disproportionately weighted to Europe (vs. our real threat in China), are over $70 billion/year. Transportation, logistics, housing, training, warehousing, joint operations, all of it costs a fortune and will continue to grow as they want higher energy costs there which will make everything more expensive over time.


We need to leave NATO because they won't let us use the bases.

We need to leave NATO because we don't want the bases.

Round and round we go.
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Eliminatus said:

93MarineHorn said:

GAC06 said:

Yet they actually did fight for us when we called for them

Please expand on this.


Iraq, 2003 and beyond


Some NATO countries fought in Iraq but I'm talking about the official NATO role in Afghanistan
Eliminatus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
GAC06 said:

Eliminatus said:

93MarineHorn said:

GAC06 said:

Yet they actually did fight for us when we called for them

Please expand on this.


Iraq, 2003 and beyond


Some NATO countries fought in Iraq but I'm talking about the official NATO role in Afghanistan


Aye corrected it. Phone chopped it off.

Wait, was Iraq part of the initial invoking of Article 5 in 2001? Doubting it now but can't recall from memory exactly. I don't remember if the Iraq invasion was declared under part of the continued war on terror at that point. Aside from the WMDs and Hussein needs to go thing, I mean.

Nvm, I decided Iraq was not an official NATO mission after all. I'll look it up though more thoroughly when I get back home.
93MarineHorn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GAC06 said:

93MarineHorn said:

GAC06 said:

Yet they actually did fight for us when we called for them

Please expand on this.


One page back:

" We are the only NATO country to invoke article five. 1000+ NATO troops died fighting for us"

Britain is the only country that helped in any meaningful way. Props to them. NATO is a BAD deal for the US and we should pull out. The Euros don't like us and take advantage. Time for them to stand on their own two feet. We'll be there to help them should the need arise, but it will be on our terms.
93MarineHorn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GAC06 said:

nortex97 said:

74OA said:

Gaeilge said:

Ok. Don't leave. Just materially change our contributions.

To what?

The US only pays 16% (~$3.5B) of NATO's annual operating budget as each country's contribution is based on its GDP.

So, only a miniscule fraction of the total US yearly military budget ($852B) is for NATO alone, the vast preponderance of funding is for US general-purpose forces used to protect all of our varied interests around the globe.

In short, if NATO disappeared tomorrow, the US defense budget would remain essentially unchanged because the global threats to our national interests would also remain unchanged.

Our overseas base sustainment costs, vastly and disproportionately weighted to Europe (vs. our real threat in China), are over $70 billion/year. Transportation, logistics, housing, training, warehousing, joint operations, all of it costs a fortune and will continue to grow as they want higher energy costs there which will make everything more expensive over time.


We need to leave NATO because they won't let us use the bases.

We need to leave NATO because we don't want the bases.

Round and round we go.


We need to leave NATO because we get little benefit yet we bear all the risk and burden. Europe's paltry military forces can't reciprocate in any meaningful way.
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ah yes. The other 600 NATO soldiers that died fighting our war don't count.
93MarineHorn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GAC06 said:

Ah yes. The other 600 NATO soldiers that died fighting our war don't count.

Take your cheap shots. It's all you've got. You know NATO is a bad deal for us.
93MarineHorn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GAC06 said:

Ah yes. The other 600 NATO soldiers that died fighting our war don't count.

We've lost 100s of thousands of soldiers bailing out the Euros and their wars and spent unknown billions rebuilding their economies and protecting them. THEY OWE US far more than we owe them.
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No I do not know that. What we pay for our DoD budget is largely unrelated to NATO. Pulling out would likely have major consequences that would incur major costs restructuring our bases and force posture. Good arguments have been made here explaining the purpose and benefits of NATO, to people who apparently believed we were "paying for NATO"
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

THEY OWE US far more than we owe them.


Better send them a bill then amirite?

Oops maybe Russia will too.
Eliminatus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
93MarineHorn said:

GAC06 said:

Ah yes. The other 600 NATO soldiers that died fighting our war don't count.

We've lost 100s of thousands of soldiers bailing out the Euros and their wars and spent unknown billions rebuilding their economies and protecting them. THEY OWE US far more than we owe them.


Did they need a higher body count in the GWOT? Would that assuage whatever notion of "owing us" you have in your head? Not even sure what you are arguing for here tbh.

Oh and don't think for a second we didn't profit MASSIVELY from the rebuilding of Europe. It was a huge part of our rebuilding aims. Nothing we did in Europe at that time was 100% altruistic.
Eliminatus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
93MarineHorn said:

GAC06 said:

nortex97 said:

74OA said:

Gaeilge said:

Ok. Don't leave. Just materially change our contributions.

To what?

The US only pays 16% (~$3.5B) of NATO's annual operating budget as each country's contribution is based on its GDP.

So, only a miniscule fraction of the total US yearly military budget ($852B) is for NATO alone, the vast preponderance of funding is for US general-purpose forces used to protect all of our varied interests around the globe.

In short, if NATO disappeared tomorrow, the US defense budget would remain essentially unchanged because the global threats to our national interests would also remain unchanged.

Our overseas base sustainment costs, vastly and disproportionately weighted to Europe (vs. our real threat in China), are over $70 billion/year. Transportation, logistics, housing, training, warehousing, joint operations, all of it costs a fortune and will continue to grow as they want higher energy costs there which will make everything more expensive over time.


We need to leave NATO because they won't let us use the bases.

We need to leave NATO because we don't want the bases.

Round and round we go.


We need to leave NATO because we get little benefit yet we bear all the risk and burden. Europe's paltry military forces can't reciprocate in any meaningful way.


NATO extends our potential battlefields. We need to stay in just for that alone. The other benefits are numerous and pointed out several times in this thread already.
one safe place
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eliminatus said:

Gaeilge said:




Ah. There it is. To be expected I guess. My God, it is becoming harder and harder to take this man seriously. Something, something better than Kamala. Yes, we all know that. Doesn't mean we have to be happy with these outright petulant and childish tantrums that most of us know by now are just hot air.

I swear his conduct is legitimately embarrassing/disgusting to watch not as a leader of our nation even, but as just a grown man.

Nevertheless, if it does happen the next admin will get us back in. This is all so damn pointless and if anything is just an indictment of how poorly our Iranian adventure has gone off the rails.

Well, only if the next administration is democrat. Can't you just see some limp wristed, America-hating, capitalism-hating, non-normal ne'er do well talking about how he or she wants us back in NATO, that we should never have left, lots of sucking up, while the other UN members lap it up and have already drafted what they want from the United States? And the democrat will willingly give it away.

Dislike Trump all you must, don't treat your TDS, but we would in far worse condition if any democrat, particularly Mamala (or Biden, if they hadn't kicked him to the curb) was in office.
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
GAC06 said:

Quote:

Change the mission


We are the only NATO country to invoke article five. 1000+ NATO troops died fighting for us and it wasn't against Russia.

Also Russia is currently invading a country in Europe so I'd say perhaps they're still worth some focus.


Irrelevant sunk cost.

Europe could easily handle it if they got off our teat. They have 4x the population and 14x the GDP of Russia if they are worried about them.

The fact that we just expect Europe to suck in perpetuity and to not take any accountability considering how large they are without us holding their hands is absurd. They have 100M more people than the USA. How about they start taking some action to act like it.

All I'm saying is for us to be a minor player in it going forward and not the primary player.
bobbranco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
74OA said:

Gaeilge said:

Ok. Don't leave. Just materially change our contributions.

To what?

The US only pays 16% (~$3.5B) of NATO's annual operating budget as each country's contribution is based on its GDP.

So, only a miniscule fraction of the total US yearly military budget ($852B) is for NATO alone, the vast preponderance of funding is for US general-purpose forces used to protect all of our varied interests around the globe.

In short, if NATO disappeared tomorrow, the US defense budget would remain essentially unchanged because the global threats to our national interests would also remain unchanged.

So what you are saying is that our war machine protects the world and the uncooperative NATO members have a few toys and neat uniforms.
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The point is that one: the mission isn't just Russia and two, Russia is demonstrating why we need an alliance to keep them from invading Europe.
bobbranco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
GAC06 said:

The point is that one: the mission isn't just Russia and two, Russia is demonstrating why we need an alliance to keep them from invading Europe.

Russia can't take Ukraine...
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
With major help from NATO
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
GAC06 said:

The point is that one: the mission isn't just Russia and two, Russia is demonstrating why we need an alliance to keep them from invading Europe.


And we don't have to be the primary funder of NATO for that. Europe can take the financial / resource lead going forward. They have the means to do it, if it's important enough.
AlaskanAg99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
GAC06 said:

The point is that one: the mission isn't just Russia and two, Russia is demonstrating why we need an alliance to keep them from invading Europe.


Or we force useless Europe to stand on their own two feet. There is absolutely no reason the US has to be the default backstop because they refuse to properly fund and stand up their own armies for mutual defense and to secure their own trade. Europe can defend Europe.

They are deadbeats. They have been for decades.
aTm '99
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Our "funding" of NATO is less than one percent of our defense budget
AlaskanAg99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
GAC06 said:

Our "funding" of NATO is less than one percent of our defense budget


Thats irrelevant. It has demonstrated they cannot and do not have the material or personnel for their own defense. We should not be the default 1st.move for their defense. We've already settled TWO world wars for them.

They can reorganize their budgets, cut their overly generous special benefits and spend on defense.

Time to tear up NATO and renegotiate a new pact that ties trade to defense. The existing treaty is obsolete.
aTm '99
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
They are meeting the defense spending we demanded
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.