NATO a liability to USA?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by AndyPipkin, May 30, 2006.

?
  1. Yes

    37.9%
  2. Not sure

    13.8%
  3. No

    48.3%

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. its a serious question of logistics from a 'military' perspective yes........................

    but from a international political view i think most poeple realise which military industrial complex is the liability.
     
  2. Dr Stealth

    So why are so many former Soviet bloc countries so keen to join? So they can be allies of...Italy? No, wait, Portugal?
     
  3. Hmmmm! Answer to your question, yes and no. Sorry.

    NATO is what NATO is. If anybody - journalist, academic or (US) military planner - expects NATO to do something that it cannot do, and is thus disappointed or disolutioned, then that's their problem not NATO's. Not so? NATO was designed to protect western Europe from a WP conventional attack. OK, it is now a wider alliance. But what is the prime objective of that alliance: maintaining peace and security in Europe or expeditionary operations elsewhere?

    NATO is a liability if you (foolishly) rely on it to do something that it cannot do. However, even with small deployments from most nations, a NATO force provides a degree of 'international' legitimacy and is thus a 'reliable' partner.
     
  4. No, for the Greater European Empire stretching from the Channel to the Bering Sea.
     
  5. First off why does NATO countries need heavy lift?

    NATO is for self defence in Europe not Iraq or Afghanistan or any place else (Falklands ring a bell).

    So they have no need for heavy lift. Why prop up the US air industry if you do not need to. If you need to move your troops to other places why not charter, it is cheaper (2 Queen’s came back from BATUS by Aeroflot).

    This is someone who know not much spouting drivel and not having read the NATO charter.
     
  6. Mainly they wanted (and want) to join EU. A membership in NATO is a necessary pre-condition. After the end of the Cold war NATO had lost a ground for its very existence. Diband NATO now and security of Eurppean countries would remain unchanged.

    Do you really believe that peoples in the "former Soviet bloc countries" dream about true democracy in Iraq or maybe they fear invasion?

    They wish a better life, a life as in the Western Europe.
     
  7. Nice try but crap as usual.

    Counties in EU
    Red counties in NATO and EU

    Belgium
    Czech Republic
    Denmark
    Estonia
    France
    Germany
    Greece
    Hungary
    Italy
    Latvia
    Lithuania
    Luxembourg
    Netherlands
    Poland
    Portugal
    Slovakia
    Slovenia
    Spain
    United Kingdom

    Sweden
    Malta
    Ireland
    Finland
    Austria
    Cyprus

    Counties in NATO but not EU
    Iceland, Norway, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania
     
  8. People in "former Soviet Bloc" countries loathe, fear and despise Russia, Sergey. They know that, ultimately, the USA is the only country able to guarantee their independence. THAT is why they join NATO - because it means the USA is obliged to defend them. The point of the article was - is it worth the USA's while to do this.
     
  9. Sergey. whatever Moscow's stooge politicians and a few dozen demonstrators in Ukraine say, Ukraine's future lies with NATO and soon Sebastepol will be a base of the US Navy, not the Russian:

    http://defensenews.com/story.php?F=1836376&C=landwar

    The reason is that Ukranians fear and hate Russia. Remember, the Ukranians were only too happy to help the Nazis against Russia.
     
  10. No problem with 'reds' I suppose.

    So these few EU but not NATO countries are:
    1. Economicaly wealthy
    2. Never been a part of Communist bloc.
    3. Some are traditionally neutral.

    Tukey, Bulgaria and Romania hope that namely a membership in NATO would help them to join EU. As for Iceland and Norway then they are too rich to feed this crowd of beggars in EU.
     
  11. Andy! You say 'Ukrainians' as it is something solid. Some hate, some love. Now Russia is becoming more and more rich. Ukraine is in a permanent economical crisis.

    Can we say that the Americans hate the Mexicans? Yes and no. Many hate and many are former Mexicans themselves. There are millions of ethnical Ukrainians in Russia and Russians in Ukraine. There are millions of mixed marrigies. My wife is Ukrainian. I myself is (ethinically) half-Ukrainian. Can a half of me hate other half? Interesting idea for Hollywood.

    Sabastopol? Anything is possible in our life. But real life is a very complex matter. Russia could (and very easily) block way of Ukraine into NATO by initiating of territiorial dispute about Crimea for example. To join NATO, Ukraine must resolve its territotial disputes first.

    But would be any imaginary invasion in Europe profitable for Russia? It would be very expensive but resultless. What would be a reson? Suppose that Russia invade Poland... in name of what?

    Now "former Soviet Bloc" countries fear Russian economical expansion, "gas weapon" and wish to sell their low quality "goods" on Russian market. I doubt that NATO and USA would be helpfull there.