How would you redesign NATO - if at all?

Has NATO expanded too far?

  • Yes

    Votes: 19 57.6%
  • No

    Votes: 10 30.3%
  • Maybe, but it should stop where it is

    Votes: 4 12.1%

  • Total voters
    33
To redesign NATO, make it what it says on the tin, North Atlantic focussed: USA, Canada, Iceland, UK, Norway, Denmark (to get Greenland and the Faeroes) and the Netherlands. Ideally, get the USA to use its cultural affiliation to bring Ireland into the club (fat chance, but why not). Allow the other current NATO members to form the 'EU army', with France, as the 3rd current NATO member with a nuclear capability, as the pol/mil 'bridge' between the two organisations (to piss of ze Germans). Of course, unless Trump continues to run the show, the USA would never go for this, as it reduced US influence in Europe.
 
Last edited:
Are you wholly certain the US can? Availability and readiness across the board in the US is a concern to people I meet. There is no doubt the US has a significant force but they have the same challenges most Western militaries do and at a greater scale.

Latest assessment of US readiness/preparadness
We are going to send an armored division + to Europe for Defender 2020.


I would say that is a significant force.
 
We are going to send an armored division + to Europe for Defender 2020.
Well, not really, though I will give you that, numerically, it is a significant force. A bunch of bodies from different units that haven't trained together previously is hardly a combat-ready division. It also suggest that readiness across these 5 formations is not all it should be.

'The major participating units include soldiers from the 1st Cavalry Division, 1st Armored Division, 1st Infantry Division, 3rd Infantry Division and 82nd Airborne Division, according to a slide presented at the Association of the U.S. Army annual gathering Tuesday.'
 
Well, not really, though I will give you that, numerically, it is a significant force. A bunch of bodies from different units that haven't trained together previously is hardly a combat-ready division. It also suggest that readiness across these 5 formations is not all it should be.

'The major participating units include soldiers from the 1st Cavalry Division, 1st Armored Division, 1st Infantry Division, 3rd Infantry Division and 82nd Airborne Division, according to a slide presented at the Association of the U.S. Army annual gathering Tuesday.'
Well Sh*t, that is more armor than your entire army could muster up and send forth.
Our brigades are meant to be able to plug into any division headquarters and function. An entire division is not going to deploy together these days, as brigades are in different states of readiness. Those are the units that will be ready to deploy, and thus selected for the exercise.

 
An entire division is not going to deploy together these days, as brigades are in different states of readiness.
Thank you for supporting my hypothesis.
 
Thank you for supporting my hypothesis.
The US Army is never going to have all 58 BCT’s ready at any given time. It is why Divisional headquarters are able to accept other brigades from different divisions and fight like a well trained team.
 
Well Sh*t, that is more armor than your entire army could muster up and send forth.
Our brigades are meant to be able to plug into any division headquarters and function. An entire division is not going to deploy together these days, as brigades are in different states of readiness. Those are the units that will be ready to deploy, and thus selected for the exercise.

I think that, before you lambast the rest of us for cutting our forces, it's as well to remember that, back in the day, REFORGER used to deliver the whole of 3 Corps to Europe. That would suggest that the US' commitment to Europe is around 25% of what it once was.

Is NATO strong enough? Probably not. But it's not just Europe that has weakened.



Sent from my S41 using Tapatalk
 
I think that, before you lambast the rest of us for cutting our forces, it's as well to remember that, back in the day, REFORGER used to deliver the whole of 3 Corps to Europe. That would suggest that the US' commitment to Europe is around 25% of what it once was.

Is NATO strong enough? Probably not. But it's not just Europe that has weakened.



Sent from my S41 using Tapatalk
Gone are the 1980’s and the days of having the Victory Corps and Jayhawk Corp in Germany. The US is not going to forward deploy that kind of force in Europe anymore. Western Europe ain’t skint, and America has it’s own Interests in other parts of the world.
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
We are going to send an armored division + to Europe for Defender 2020.


I would say that is a significant force.
That isn't what I said? I said I didn't doubt the US had significant force but that it had the same issues with regard to readiness and availability as other Western militaries. In part that is driven by severe manning issues in most of the US forces which again mirror most other militaries.

Which goes back to, are we sure even the US can routinely support the 30-30-30-30 plan? The important word being routinely because a lot of what I see (from a lot of nations) are well planned, long established exercises that seem to take heroic efforts to pull off.
 
Gone are the 1980’s and the days of having the Victory Corps and Jayhawk Corp in Germany. The US is not going to forward deploy that kind of force in Europe anymore. Western Europe ain’t skint, and America has it’s own Interests in other parts of the world.
So you agree with me then. Good to clear that up.

Sent from my S41 using Tapatalk
 
Where it's asking Allies to get involved because it doesn't have all of the platforms and capabilities. It's helping everyone spread themselves thin!
If you wish to enjoy life as you know it, the rest of the world will have to chip in. If not,
It will cost even more to replace the American presence in parts of the world.
 
Gone are the 1980’s and the days of having the Victory Corps and Jayhawk Corp in Germany. The US is not going to forward deploy that kind of force in Europe anymore. Western Europe ain’t skint, and America has it’s own Interests in other parts of the world.
Do those interests involve losing even more wars?
 

Tyk

LE
A better way, as Skipped is pointing out, is to look at what is required and met. For example support or leading the NRF and meeting the standards needed for that. At the moment I'd say the UK and Germany (certainly Navies) both meet their commitments. What you see in the press is largely fluff.
I'm not saying it's bad, the Turks with their slightly gritty, but rocket powered stuff is astounding, the Portuguese have great tea and some nicely powerful coffee and the Yanks have all sorts of good stuff basically on tap, most of them are very civilised on the brew front and a fair few even try wine or beer if they want something off the project :)

Edit. Bugger I replied to the wrong post.... Brain on hold it seems.

As to the mil aspects of NATO there are some very obvious only there because they have to be, but the attitude of the USA lads is surprisingly much less arrogant than you'd expect (at least at the HQ sites) considering that they know just how much of the budget and projected force falls on their shoulders, most of them I've dealt with seem to take the attitude that professionalism and pride in their task is key.
 
Last edited:
How about getting rid of that white elephant that is the NATO HQ building in Brussels?

Or rent out the entrance foyer out so people can play football inside in the evenings. At least that way get some revenue back!
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top