Is there any point in keeping NATO around?

[Kyriakos]

Nah, conventional military is still relevant even in counterbalance to other nuclear powers.

It allows exertion of force upon targets which are not important enough for the other nuclear state to burn for.

Let me put it this way, in the hypothetical situation that the ROC(for whatever reason) were to happen to elect a government with the party line of full and permanent independence from the PRC: do you think that a conventional-arms-poor United States would be willing to burn for Formosa if the PRC decided to push for it? No, I think the US government would decide that California and Massachusetts are more important, much less everything else in between, screw defensive obligations. I'm not entirely certain that the conventional-arms-rich US would decide to pay the price required to stand up to open confrontation with the PRC. But the fact that it could changes the equation. If it thinks it can relatively easily, that changes it more.

It's the same reason France decided that it needed to possess its own nuclear weaponry during the Cold War despite US obligations to retaliate on its behalf in the face of conventional arms inferiority on the European continent. It had decided, quite probably correctly, that the US very well might decide at the end of the day that France and all of Europe combined is probably also not worth Nebraska in a MAD situation. They wanted to possess a trigger capable of forcing the issue.

FB has it precisely. I'd only add that there's some things - reconnaissance, search and rescue, maritime law enforcement, disaster relief and so on - that you simply can't do with a nuclear weapon. War isn't all of the military's business.

I agree with what you both say, but those are other phases in a war and not an 'arms (in this case conventional) decide who will actually win'. Even if one of the nuclear sides suffered devastating defeat in its conventional arms power, the nukes would still ensure that they would not really be at risk of losing much when peace is signed.

Of course some level of conventional army is needed both in normal circumstance (eg the armies of most euro countries are pretty small) and if a nation wants to project power (something i don't like at all, but it happens anyway). But those won't win a war against a nuclear power. They can alter the degree of mayhem caused if nukes end up being used, but by that time it likely will be apocalypse already.

 

[Farm Boy]

I agree with what you both say, but those are other phases in a war and not an 'arms (in this case conventional) decide who will actually win'. Even if one of the nuclear sides suffered devastating defeat in its conventional arms power, the nukes would still ensure that they would not really be at risk of losing much when peace is signed.

Really? I think you overestimate the amount of things the major nuclear powers, when they're relatively stable at home, are willing to break out the nukes for assuming they have justified fears of nuclear retaliation.

If using the weapons is almost certain to cause existential annihilation, then any loss short of existential annihilation is an appropriate price to pay for not using them.

 

[Akka]

Even in case of direct confrontation with nuclear power, it's not a binary "fight = global nuclear war".
Conventional armies are very relevant to contain a nuclear foe, as it's very unlikely it would go nuclear to protect its invasions (while it can be expected to do it if it was seriously invaded). Being able to match your opponent on the ground for low-scale (or even mid-scale) military battles is better than being faced with "either do absolutely nothing or reduces the planet to ashes".

Saying "it doesn't win a war against a nuclear power" is meaningless, as it entirely depends on the kind of war. The Viet-Cong could openly fight the US army for years and inflict tens of thousand casualties without any nuke being launched.

 

[Kyriakos]

Even in case of direct confrontation with nuclear power, it's not a binary "fight = global nuclear war".
Conventional armies are very relevant to contain a nuclear foe, as it's very unlikely it would go nuclear to protect its invasions (while it can be expected to do it if it was seriously invaded). Being able to match your opponent on the ground for low-scale (or even mid-scale) military battles is better than being faced with "either do absolutely nothing or reduces the planet to ashes".

Saying "it doesn't win a war against a nuclear power" is meaningless, as it entirely depends on the kind of war. The Viet-Cong could openly fight the US army for years and inflict tens of thousand casualties without any nuke being launched.

Sure, but there the war was in practice only to be run without nukes, given the US could not use nukes (it did use other sorts of horrible and iirc illegal now, weapons, eg chemicals/napalm etc).

Also merely having nukes means the war can never end in an occupation of the other country. Which has the effect that it is a border issue, and about altering relatively a balance of power, but not having the existential risk to a side to be broken up if it loses.
You can also examine what kind of psychology the soldiers on the ground will have, if they are fighting against a side they know can just threaten to go nuclear and cancel any of the deaths on the field. There is no prospect of marching to victory. It is even more pointless than the machine-gun-held lines at western europe in ww1.

 

[Farm Boy]

I would say dying in pointless and hopeless situations has long been a feature of soldiering?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

FB has it precisely. I'd only add that there's some things - reconnaissance, search and rescue, maritime law enforcement, disaster relief and so on - that you simply can't do with a nuclear weapon. War isn't all of the military's business.

Most things that can't be done with a nuclear weapon can be done with a whole submarine full of them.

 

[Akka]

Also merely having nukes means the war can never end in an occupation of the other country. Which has the effect that it is a border issue, and about altering relatively a balance of power, but not having the existential risk to a side to be broken up if it loses.

Exactly. Which is what makes NATO is pretty useful : it's the non-nuclear possibility of bringing enough firepower to prevent messing with it's members borders.

Even without Russia's resurgent aggressivity, anyway, I think NATO is still positive. It gives a formal and structured military alliance and a place to discuss serious problems between members. It's actually a good tool to keep things mostly peaceful, and to be able to use force when there is enough political will behind it.

 

[kronic]

Currently, I view NATO more as a threat to security than anything else. So, no, there's no point in keeping this NATO around.

 

[Tahuti]

Currently, I view NATO more as a threat to security than anything else. So, no, there's no point in keeping this NATO around.

A precious nugget of gold in a sea filled by pro-NATO voices.

 

[Akka]

Currently, I view NATO more as a threat to security than anything else. So, no, there's no point in keeping this NATO around.

I don't really see how NATO is a threat to security ?

 

[Tahuti]

I don't really see how NATO is a threat to security ?

It pushes us into conflict with Russia, who is supposed to be our ally against Sunni Islamism. If the Eastern-Europeans that are not Russian and the Americans want push us into conflict with Russia on behalf of Ukraine, then let it be their problem.

 

[Akka]

It pushes us into conflict with Russia, who is supposed to be our ally against Sunni Islamism. If the Eastern-Europeans that are not Russian and the Americans want push us into conflict with Russia on behalf of Ukraine, then let it be their problem.

Keep your russian-reversal jokes for the Ukrainian threads where they belong, thanks.
I'm interested by what Kronic would say, not listening to another drivel of reality reinvention.

 

[Cheetah]

It pushes us into conflict with Russia, who is supposed to be our ally against Sunni Islamism. If the Eastern-Europeans that are not Russian and the Americans want push us into conflict with Russia on behalf of Ukraine, then let it be their problem.

There is no war against Sunni Islam, so no ally is needed.

Likewise, there is no conflict between NATO and Russia. There is a conflict where Russia tries to keep dominion over its former allies, whom would rather join the EU and NATO as they've decided that the grass is in fact greener on the other side.

There will be no war between NATO and Russia, at least not this time. And while the fear of Russian aggression is lessened in Western Europe, it's still very much alive in Eastern Europe.

It's less than thirty years since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Give it another thirty years, and Ukraine will probably be even more prosperous than Poland is at the moment. And by then, things should have softened up in Russia too.

 

[Kyriakos]

^The way things are going, i doubt the borders in 30 years will be that similar to those today.

 

[red_elk]

Give it another thirty years, and Ukraine will probably be even more prosperous than Poland is at the moment.

I think in 2045 Ukrainian SSR still won't catch up with Polish SSR.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Likewise, there is no conflict between NATO and Russia. There is a conflict where Russia tries to keep dominion over its former allies, whom would rather join the EU and NATO as they've decided that the grass is in fact greener on the other side.

Russia cant tolerate NATO navy in Crimea just like USA couldnt tolerate Soviet ICBMs in Cuba. If Russia is to loose access to Black sea and with it the access to other southern seas it cant effectively protect its interests there. I think even people who live in NATO countries should be glad that Russia is around becouse it can keep some half-insane political groups in West from going to fulfill their dark interest which have no trouble to disregard democracy and human rights when convenient.
These interest groups dont want cooperation with Russia as that doesnt allow them to get acces to Russia imnense resources on the their terms and are fine to use economical means to weaken and subjugate Russia. Weak and corrupted Ukraine is very good gate to keep Russia in check but Russia seems to have enough guts to fight back.
In this case Russia isnt just trying to dominate some of its former territory but its mainly fighting for its basic and vital interests which the West overlookes withs its air of of superiority attitude and almost utter disregard for lives of people living outside of it. The West has helped to make hell for many people to live either by supporting ruthless type of goverment who played into the Wests interest against the will of local population or even by bombing other functional countries into submition.
The war in Ukraine goes on becouse its supported by warmongers who do not care for Ukraine and its actual people but who see that potentialy there is some profit to be made out of this situation. Bancrupt Ukraine is spending 10 mil. dollars a day to destroy its infrastructure and kill its people....

There will be no war between NATO and Russia, at least not this time. And while the fear of Russian aggression is lessened in Western Europe, it's still very much alive in Eastern Europe.

The fear of Russia is usefull tool to manipulate people into thinking that the thing Russia needs most is more territory....

It's less than thirty years since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Give it another thirty years, and Ukraine will probably be even more prosperous than Poland is at the moment. And by then, things should have softened up in Russia too.

Poland is united nation rallied behind its cause with lots of cultural, economic and other traditions - Ukraine is the opposite. Look closer into the problem and you will see that 30 years of wishing that you live in Switzerland doesnt make it a reality.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

NATO exists to keep Europe and the rest of the world under the Anglo-Saxon authority. It is clearly an anti-Russian alliance with Russia being the only major target so far (outside the Northern Eurasia USA can do mostly whatever they want with or without the alliance).

All other reasons are excuses actually.

 

[Kyriakos]

Russia cant tolerate NATO navy in Crimea just like USA couldnt tolerate Soviet ICBMs in Cuba. If Russia is to loose access to Black sea and with it the access to other southern seas it cant effectively protect its interests there. I think even people who live in NATO countries should be glad that Russia is around becouse it can keep some half-insane political groups in West from going to fulfill their dark interest which have no trouble to disregard democracy and human rights when convenient.
These interest groups dont want cooperation with Russia as that doesnt allow them to get acces to Russia imnense resources on the their terms and are fine to use economical means to weaken and subjugate Russia. Weak and corrupted Ukraine is very good gate to keep Russia in check but Russia seems to have enough guts to fight back.
In this case Russia isnt just trying to dominate some of its former territory but its mainly fighting for its basic and vital interests which the West overlookes withs its air of of superiority attitude and almost utter disregard for lives of people living outside of it. The West has helped to make hell for many people to live either by supporting ruthless type of goverment who played into the Wests interest against the will of local population or even by bombing other functional countries into submition.
The war in Ukraine goes on becouse its supported by warmongers who do not care for Ukraine and its actual people but who see that potentialy there is some profit to be made out of this situation. Bancrupt Ukraine is spending 10 mil. dollars a day to destroy its infrastructure and kill its people....

The fear of Russia is usefull tool to manipulate people into thinking that the thing Russia needs most is more territory....

Poland is united nation rallied behind its cause with lots of cultural, economic and other traditions - Ukraine is the opposite. Look closer into the problem and you will see that 30 years of wishing that you live in Switzerland doesnt make it a reality.

+1

Things are less away by now to a "we have always beet at war with Eurasia(n union)" :\

It is pretty dangerous oversiplification to argue that the west is for democracy and all other savory things, while Russia for anything bad. And at least Russia is not known to bomb random countries and install puppets (current 'problematic democracy' Egypt is one of the saddest jokes printed in western media ) just so that it can sustain the petrol-dollar.

 

[Cutlass]

Take it away and you've not just got 100,000 soldiers or so out of a job, but everyone employed to make their kit, cook their food, sell them beer on a night out, cut their hair... there are better economists than me here, but I can't think that there are many better ways of stimulating the economy than military spending, given soldiers' general spending habits.

Greece is one of the nations that feel the need for universal male conscription. So while each soldier is paid little, there's a lot of soldiers. It produces a lot of semi-trained manpower for the inevitable war with Turkey. They probably couldn't do that a lot cheaper than they already do.

 

[Flying Pig]

I was actually talking entirely divorced from any military objective - my point was that if the government literally just wanted to give out £x billion and be sure that it was spent, they could do a lot worse than giving it out to a crowd of soldiers. That's one group you can guarantee is never going to be unduly cautious with their spending.