Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
NATO Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: NATO is Useless
sanman    6/23/2004 2:25:51 PM
Read this article: http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040623-102730-7970r.htm It's a perfectly good summary of why NATO has become rather useless to the United States. America needs to update its worldview and its foreign policy to reflect the changes of the post-Cold War world. If the USA doesn't stay on top of changing realities, then reality will intervene to give the USA a rude awakening.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Alexis    RE:NATO is Useless   7/5/2004 10:31:03 AM
NATO has outlived the purpose for which it was designed. The risk of Soviet troops based in Central Europe invading the Western part of Europe should not be overestimated. It's true NATO is an outdated organization, based on realities which are past. Recognizing it is such would allow everybody to let it die gently, instead of wasting time and political energy trying to maintain it afloat and find it a purpose.
 
Quote    Reply

Tercio    NATO is Useless, really?- Alexis   7/21/2004 3:32:06 AM
"NATO has outlived the purpose for which it was designed. The risk of Soviet troops based in Central Europe invading the Western part of Europe should not be overestimated. It's true NATO is an outdated organization, based on realities which are past. Recognizing it is such would allow everybody to let it die gently, instead of wasting time and political energy trying to maintain it afloat and find it a purpose.". You're right stating that NATO, as it's designed now, is outdated, since it's lay-out is still optimized to face the Warszaw Pact threat. Nevertheless I don't concur with your proposal of dismantle NATO. As you know, THERE IS a threat. This new threat's face is not showed as Red Army's armor divisions running through the Fulda gap, nor Soviet subs passing through the GIUK. The new threat is more diffuse, it can show up as terrorist opening the gates of hell in our territory (9/11, Madrid bombings,...), states with nuclear capabilities in the verge of desestabilization (as you proposed in another thread: Pakistan), potentially hostile nations developing WMD,... the list can go on for ever. We have two options: - To get rid of NATO (as you propose) and build a new alliance from scratch to face this new threat. - To transform NATO (the most successful alliance ever, IMHO), updating it to the new times (a more agile decission making is needed, more projection capabilities have to be implemented...) and taking advantage of the huge accumulated experience. I'm for option two. Tercio
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:NATO is Useless, really?- Alexis   7/21/2004 5:24:15 AM
I'm very much in agreement with Tercio. NATo is in its foundation a defensive structure, and as such not directed AGAINST anybody. This means that NATO is defending against a common threat that is unspecific. Lets illustrate it with the supposition that Al Qaida is just the WAPA under another name - a defence against cannot crumble just because the opposition use a little camouflage. If it does, the defence isn't very much worth in the first place!! Now: The composition of the western military forces are/were very much directed against at the specific manifastation of the armoured Fronts of the WAPA, and as these dissolved, naturally the NATO hardware is/was outdated in its composition AND at a much higher force level than the new situation required. But this factor is just an example of changing enviroment that any military and political force has to adapt to - no use still fighting a war that has been won a long time ago. The assets of NATO are primarely: 1 An adminstrative/political structure that can handle the coordination of very diverse needs and governments. 2 A military command structure, that will have to downsize and adapt in composition - as it always have had to do. In conclusion: Europe and USA do have common security interest, aims and differences that will have to be ironed out. NATO has so far been the best instrument or forum. The United Nations have proven useless and the European Union is not - up to now - equal to the task of forming a partner for the USA in discussions - especially concerning security.
 
Quote    Reply

Alexis    Transform NATO into CNTO, or dismantle it   12/22/2004 3:28:42 PM
"As you know, THERE IS a threat. This new threat's face is not showed as Red Army's armor divisions running through the Fulda gap, nor Soviet subs passing through the GIUK. The new threat is more diffuse, it can show up as terrorist opening the gates of hell in our territory (9/11, Madrid bombings,...), states with nuclear capabilities in the verge of desestabilization (as you proposed in another thread: Pakistan), potentially hostile nations developing WMD,... the list can go on for ever." You're making the argument of transforming NATO, morphing it into something else, rather than getting rid of it. First of all, I don't think an alliance is to be gotten rid of except if there is a specific need to do so. My comment was not about the Atlantic alliance, which useless as it is now given the absence of Russian threat does not need to be dismantle. An agreement was signed between France and Russia in 1944 so that each would assist the other in the future in case of German aggression. That agreement has not to my knowledge been abandoned, though it is about as dated as NATO, given Germany's pacific foreign policy. But the O of NATO, as you are fully aware, means "Organisation". I have two grudges against this "O" : - First an organization is generally framed for a specific purpose. It's true that it WOULD be possible to morph NATO into an anti-Jihadist / pro-stability alliance, just as an engineer like me COULD learn to be a doctor or a musician. Note the conditional tense, however... It would be far more efficient to build it from scratch. Especially given the second grudge : - An alliance is to be framed according to its purpose. There is a reason why Japan was never a member of NATO, nor was Australia. The purpose of an anti-Jihadist / pro-stability alliance would mean that it would HAVE to encompass those states which 1) are not Jihadist controlled 2) do not want to rock completely the boat of global stability. Such states include India, Russia, China, Israel, Korea, Algeria, Turkey ... the list goes on. The reason such an alliance would HAVE to include all, especially all the largest powers, goes beyond the added efficiency. It is that those powers would otherwise have every reason to suspect the REAL purpose of NATO would not be anti-Jihadism... They could fancy e.g. that NATO is nothing more than the White Alliance... Either it really is that, and then it is a threat to all those who are not White (post-, judeo-) Christians, and possibly also to all White Orthodox Christians, either it should have no trouble incorporating China in addition to Russia. The former looks much more probable to me. On the other hand, if the latter, then NATO should be renamed the CNTO, or "Civilized Nations Treaty Organisation".
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:Transform NATO into CNTO, or dismantle it   12/30/2004 7:06:52 AM
Alexis: I agree with you that it is better to start from scratch. Up to now the consideration seems to have been, wether the task of combatting terrorism was down the line of the NATO organisation. I tend to agree with you, that the streach is to far. dismantle Nato - well.... I still like to keep a safeguard against the russians, albeight at lower level than in their heyday.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics