Nato

[NBAfan]

What is the point of NATO now? There doesn't seem to be a major power threatening our friends in Europe now.

 

[Ajidica]

Point? It can serve as a place to coordinate international activities undertaken by NATO members. In many ways it is like any other geographic group, but with a larger arsenal.

 

[RedRalph]

It is a very useful tool for the ruling elites of some of its member-states. It has no geopolitical purpose.

 

[TopGearFanatic]

I believe it was originally a counter to what became the Warsaw Pact. Sorry I can't be a perfect person.

 

[GoodGame]

It's a Peace Treaty, the major unifying defense of Europe, since the EU doesn't deal with defense.


To paraphrase J. Thomas: Freedom requires vigilance.

 

[RedRalph]

I believe it was originally a counter to the Warsaw Pact.

They must have had a time-travel machine then

 

[kochman]

I believe it was originally a counter to the Warsaw Pact.

Yes, but now it just goes towards garnering goodwill between the member states and serving as a deterrent to those who would oppose them.

In other words, part of it is to make sure we can carry out police actions all over the world, like it or not.

 

[bombshoo]

It's still a deterrent. One of the main reason there isn't any real threats is because NATO exists.

 

[Ajidica]

It's still a deterrent. One of the main reason there isn't any real threats is because NATO exists.

I would argue differently. There aren't any real threats because the one group that politicians could bogeyman into appearing real threat, the USSR, no longer exists.

 

[Tahuti]

since the EU doesn't deal with defense.

Actually, it does. Especially since the new Lisbon treaty and its CSDP (Common security and Defence policy).

 

[TopGearFanatic]

I would argue differently. There aren't any real threats because the one group that politicians could bogeyman into appearing real threat, the USSR, no longer exists.

There was an article (maybe in Time?) about how NATO's purpose is gone now.

 

[SerriaFox]

I would argue differently. There aren't any real threats because the one group that politicians could bogeyman into appearing real threat, the USSR, no longer exists.

Are you saying that USSR in 1950s and 1960s was NO threat to Europe?

 

[Ajidica]

Are you saying that USSR in 1950s and 1960s was NO threat to Europe?

The threat was rather existential and was partly created by fear mongering. Yes, the USSR/Warsaw Pact could have gone to war with the soon to be NATO countries and have been fairly sucessful, but what would they have gained? Very little. The USSRs leadership saw themselves as preparing for an eventual attack by the rest of Europe and America.
The USSR knew a war would be hard to fight, which is why they generaly contented themselves with fighting in proxy wars such as Korea and giving support to Vietnam and other nations.

 

[Zack]

I believe it was originally a counter to the Warsaw Pact.

You've got it backwards. The Warsaw Pact was a counter to NATO.

 

[Ajidica]

You've got it backwards. The Warsaw Pact was a counter to NATO.

And an excuse for the RSFSR to get some more influence in its sattelite states.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

And an excuse for the RSFSR to get some more influence in its sattelite states.

A pretty decent one.

 

[Tahuti]

You've got it backwards. The Warsaw Pact was a counter to NATO.

Indeed, the NATO was founded - to put it in the words of Hastings Ismay - "To keep the Americans in, the Soviets out and the Germans down."

Today, we don't need to keep the Germans down, nor keep the Soviets out, so why would we need to keep the Americans in as well? The NATO needs to find a new goal, or be put in the trash.
Come to think of it, the NATO could have been useful to enforce UN resolutions, however, since the UN is hijacked by third world nations who direct all resolutions against Israel and not against those who deserve it (namely themselves), that isn't really a good idea as well.

 

[Ajidica]

Come to think of it, the NATO could have been useful to enforce UN resolutions, however, since the UN is hijacked by third world nations who direct all resolutions against Israel and not against those who deserve it (namely themselves), that isn't really a good idea as well.

The UN is hijacked by third world nations?
The real power in the UN is in the Security Council which has most definately not been hijacked by third world nations. The UN General Assembly hasn't really been able to pass anything of note, or is even binding.

 

[SerriaFox]

The threat was rather existential and was partly created by fear mongering. Yes, the USSR/Warsaw Pact could have gone to war with the soon to be NATO countries and have been fairly sucessful, but what would they have gained? Very little. The USSRs leadership saw themselves as preparing for an eventual attack by the rest of Europe and America.
The USSR knew a war would be hard to fight, which is why they generaly contented themselves with fighting in proxy wars such as Korea and giving support to Vietnam and other nations.

NATO is the reason it would be "too Hard" to attempt. I think the classification of Russia as a boogieman is misrepresenting the threat posed as trivial. However NATO's current War (Libya) is definitely against a boogieman.

 

[RedRalph]

NATO only exists to keep Ireland from invading, annexing and enslaving the upstart rogue nations of The Faroe Island and Iceland. I believe the Irish people want Total War, and soon we will get it. I will not rest until every last Icelander is dead.