Why Should the US be in NATO?

[jwoodie]

The original intent of NATO was to place Western Europe under the protective nuclear umbrella of the US. From that perspective, the US was stating that it would destroy the USSR if it attacked a member country. With the development of the USSR's nuclear capability in the 1960s, this idea morphed into a Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) deterrent to Soviet attack.

Now that the USSR has broken up, is this line of thinking still relevant? Western Europe now has twice the population and ten times the GDP of Russia, and at least two of its countries possess their own nuclear deterrents. Why should the US still be responsible for Europe's defense when the reverse is certainly not realistic? It seems that NATO is little more than an excuse to drag the US into foreign conflicts.

If Western Europe really feels threatened by a Russian invasion, its has more than enough resources to defend itself. Why doesn't it?

 

[Donald H]

Nato is used as a tool to legitimize US wars of aggression.

 

[Thunk]

Same reason we got involved in WW2.

If you let evil take over half the world...it will eventually become too powerful to stop. Especially when they decide to strike us!

 

[Oddball]

We shouldn't....Europe can deal with its own defense.

 

[Dante]

The original intent of NATO was to place Western Europe under the protective nuclear umbrella of the US. From that perspective, the US was stating that it would destroy the USSR if it attacked a member country. With the development of the USSR's nuclear capability in the 1960s, this idea morphed into a Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) deterrent to Soviet attack.

Now that the USSR has broken up, is this line of thinking still relevant? Western Europe now has twice the population and ten times the GDP of Russia, and at least two of its countries possess their own nuclear deterrents. Why should the US still be responsible for Europe's defense when the reverse is certainly not realistic? It seems that NATO is little more than an excuse to drag the US into foreign conflicts.

If Western Europe really feels threatened by a Russian invasion, its has more than enough resources to defend itself. Why doesn't it?

Only if NATO changes the name to:

North AMERICAN Treaty Organization

 

[White 6]

The U.S. is in NATO to ensure collective defense and security among member nations, which helps deter threats, particularly from adversaries like Russia. Additionally, NATO provides the U.S. with reliable allies and strengthens its global leadership position.
The Conversation americanprogress.org

1. NATO gives the US reliable allies

Militarily and economically, the U.S. is a hugely formidable power. It has the largest nuclear arsenal on earth and continues to be the largest economy in the world.

Yet, without its allies in Asia, and above all without those in Europe, the U.S would be a much diminished superpower.

NATO provides the U.S. with a leadership position in one of the strongest military alliance networks in the world. This leadership goes well beyond the security realm – it has profound and very positive political and economic ripple effects. For instance, most Western countries purchase their arms and military equipment from the U.S.

2. NATO provides peace and stability​

NATO provides a blanket of protection and mutual security for all its members, helping explain why the vast majority of countries in central and eastern Europe clamored to join NATO after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Why the United States needs NATO – 3 things to know

Donald Trump has threatened to not defend some NATO countries if Russia attacks them. But the US also benefits from the power that NATO gives it, as well as the stability it helped create in Europe.

theconversation.com

Here's why the United States needs NATO

US President Donald J. Trump sent ripples through the transatlantic community after sending letters to NATO allies demanding that they spend more on their own defense. Trump’s stance appears to stem from the belief—shared by many in the United States—that European allies have long taken...

www.atlanticcouncil.org

 

[Dante]

We shouldn't....Europe can deal with its own defense.

Geopolitics 101 -- from the Home schooled

 

[DGS49]

Thinking as an "America-First MAGA Republican," there is no benefit to the U.S. being a member of NATO. The relationship ledger is ALL costs and ZERO benefits. When you add to that the fact that few NATO member states give the U.S. anything other than scorn, especially now that we have disappointed them by electing a populist President who truly and emphatically doesn't give a fat fuck what they think.

It is actually funny that so many Americans, including high level Leftists, have been clutching at their pearls with every new comment from The Donald, ridiculing NATO defense spending, questioning our commitment to the mutual protection agreement.

JDV has articulated much of what the American Right thinks about our allies in Western Europe, and one suspects that he is the only significant outsider willing to point out the fantastic stupidity of their immigration policies of late. Not to mention the likely fact that his comments reflect the feelings of the common people in those countries.

As with the U.N., it would be vulgar if we actually withdrew, but it is good that Trump lets them know that we are not willing to act against our own best interests to keep them satisfied.

 

[gtopa1]

Only if NATO changes the name to:

North AMERICAN Treaty Organization

Why include Mexico and Canada??

I quite like "The TRUMP OPTION Inc".

Greg

 

[Zincwarrior]

Nato is used as a tool to legitimize US wars of aggression.

You should stop what you are smoking, its a bad batch.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Thinking as an "America-First MAGA Republican," there is no benefit to the U.S. being a member of NATO. The relationship ledger is ALL costs and ZERO benefits. When you add to that the fact that few NATO member states give the U.S. anything other than scorn, especially now that we have disappointed them by electing a populist President who truly and emphatically doesn't give a fat fuck what they think.

I would submit now would be a good time to sunset our NATO membership. Say five years to get their defense up? Also I would sell a slew of theater levels nukes to Poland and the Baltic states.

 

[Concerned American]

The original intent of NATO was to place Western Europe under the protective nuclear umbrella of the US. From that perspective, the US was stating that it would destroy the USSR if it attacked a member country. With the development of the USSR's nuclear capability in the 1960s, this idea morphed into a Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) deterrent to Soviet attack.

Now that the USSR has broken up, is this line of thinking still relevant? Western Europe now has twice the population and ten times the GDP of Russia, and at least two of its countries possess their own nuclear deterrents. Why should the US still be responsible for Europe's defense when the reverse is certainly not realistic? It seems that NATO is little more than an excuse to drag the US into foreign conflicts.

If Western Europe really feels threatened by a Russian invasion, its has more than enough resources to defend itself. Why doesn't it?

I don't have a problem with the alliance if it is funded and directed as originally intended. The member states should not be delinquent in their payments. As for the support from the US. The US is dependent on that alliance as well as we could not support a major conflict by ourselves---Iraq and Afghanistan are good examples.

 

[okfine]

The U.S. is in NATO to ensure collective defense and security among member nations, which helps deter threats, particularly from adversaries like Russia. Additionally, NATO provides the U.S. with reliable allies and strengthens its global leadership position.
The Conversation americanprogress.org

1. NATO gives the US reliable allies

Militarily and economically, the U.S. is a hugely formidable power. It has the largest nuclear arsenal on earth and continues to be the largest economy in the world.

Yet, without its allies in Asia, and above all without those in Europe, the U.S would be a much diminished superpower.

NATO provides the U.S. with a leadership position in one of the strongest military alliance networks in the world. This leadership goes well beyond the security realm – it has profound and very positive political and economic ripple effects. For instance, most Western countries purchase their arms and military equipment from the U.S.

2. NATO provides peace and stability​

NATO provides a blanket of protection and mutual security for all its members, helping explain why the vast majority of countries in central and eastern Europe clamored to join NATO after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Why the United States needs NATO – 3 things to know

Donald Trump has threatened to not defend some NATO countries if Russia attacks them. But the US also benefits from the power that NATO gives it, as well as the stability it helped create in Europe.

theconversation.com

Here's why the United States needs NATO

US President Donald J. Trump sent ripples through the transatlantic community after sending letters to NATO allies demanding that they spend more on their own defense. Trump’s stance appears to stem from the belief—shared by many in the United States—that European allies have long taken...

www.atlanticcouncil.org

The tards haven't figured out what power in numbers means.

 

[Zincwarrior]

I don't have a problem with the alliance if it is funded and directed as originally intended. The member states should not be delinquent in their payments. As for the support from the US. The US is dependent on that alliance as well as we could not support a major conflict by ourselves---Iraq and Afghanistan are good examples.

4% GDP and every member state with a dozen fusion bombs would scare the absolute crap out of Putin.

 

[Deadstick]

The original intent of NATO was to place Western Europe under the protective nuclear umbrella of the US. From that perspective, the US was stating that it would destroy the USSR if it attacked a member country. With the development of the USSR's nuclear capability in the 1960s, this idea morphed into a Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) deterrent to Soviet attack.

Now that the USSR has broken up, is this line of thinking still relevant? Western Europe now has twice the population and ten times the GDP of Russia, and at least two of its countries possess their own nuclear deterrents. Why should the US still be responsible for Europe's defense when the reverse is certainly not realistic? It seems that NATO is little more than an excuse to drag the US into foreign conflicts.

If Western Europe really feels threatened by a Russian invasion, its has more than enough resources to defend itself. Why doesn't it?

NATO has been two things a foreign legion for the US Global hegemony and a pyramid selling scam for the Industrial military complex, that's it, it shouldn't even exist, it's nothing to do with defence.

 

[Concerned American]

4% GDP and every member state with a dozen fusion bombs would scare the absolute crap out of Putin.

Sure, just give nuclear capability to a Zelensky. SMH, you didn't think that out very well. I don't ever want to see nuclear weapons proliferate anymore than they already have.

 

[Deadstick]

The U.S. is in NATO to ensure collective defense and security among member nations, which helps deter threats, particularly from adversaries like Russia. Additionally, NATO provides the U.S. with reliable allies and strengthens its global leadership position.
The Conversation americanprogress.org

1. NATO gives the US reliable allies

Militarily and economically, the U.S. is a hugely formidable power. It has the largest nuclear arsenal on earth and continues to be the largest economy in the world.

Yet, without its allies in Asia, and above all without those in Europe, the U.S would be a much diminished superpower.

NATO provides the U.S. with a leadership position in one of the strongest military alliance networks in the world. This leadership goes well beyond the security realm – it has profound and very positive political and economic ripple effects. For instance, most Western countries purchase their arms and military equipment from the U.S.

2. NATO provides peace and stability​

NATO provides a blanket of protection and mutual security for all its members, helping explain why the vast majority of countries in central and eastern Europe clamored to join NATO after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Why the United States needs NATO – 3 things to know

Donald Trump has threatened to not defend some NATO countries if Russia attacks them. But the US also benefits from the power that NATO gives it, as well as the stability it helped create in Europe.

theconversation.com

Here's why the United States needs NATO

US President Donald J. Trump sent ripples through the transatlantic community after sending letters to NATO allies demanding that they spend more on their own defense. Trump’s stance appears to stem from the belief—shared by many in the United States—that European allies have long taken...

www.atlanticcouncil.org

When was Nato ever used for defence?

 

[0311]

Same reason we got involved in WW2.

If you let evil take over half the world...it will eventually become too powerful to stop. Especially when they decide to strike us!

The U.S. became "Involved in WW2", when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

 

[Deadstick]

4% GDP and every member state with a dozen fusion bombs would scare the absolute crap out of Putin.

It would scare the shit out British pensioners who would be freezing to death in winter to pay for it.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Sure, just give nuclear capability to a Zelensky. SMH, you didn't think that out very well. I don't ever want to see nuclear weapons proliferate anymore than they already have.

Zelensky is not in NATO.