Is there any point in keeping NATO around?

[Timsup2nothin]

What is the American method of problem solving? I see you have no problems with Canada and Mexico and do have problems.

Exploitation through superior firepower. It isn't ethical, but at least it isn't pointless.

 

[Tahuti]

Exploitation through superior firepower. It isn't ethical, but at least it isn't pointless.

Would you say you are doing that to us?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Would you say you are doing that to us?

To the best of my knowledge Europe is too resource poor to be bothered with, so no.

 

[Tahuti]

To the best of my knowledge Europe is too resource poor to be bothered with, so no.

What's the point of having troops at us then? You don't need our soil as launching platform for any invasion do you?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

What's the point of having troops at us then? You don't need our soil as launching platform for any invasion do you?

Because if we force you to arm up to 'protect yourselves' from the [evil neighbor of choice] the next time you resolve your differences in typical European fashion you might pollute the entire planet with the fallout. Much better to promise to defend you from each other and not have to deal with that.

 

[Tahuti]

Because if we force you to arm up to 'protect yourselves' from the [evil neighbor of choice] the next time you resolve your differences in typical European fashion you might pollute the entire planet with the fallout. Much better to promise to defend you from each other and not have to deal with that.

Honestly, I don't see how taking up arms against a nuclear armed state on behalf another nuclear armed state who is supposed to be our big father, apparently, will help prevent the situation you described. We are getting closer to it than we otherwise would have been.

EDIT: The very point of NATO was to weaken Germany and to present a bullwark against Russia. Both are silly reasaons to keep an alliance alive nowadays. We are not supposed to be as dependent on the US as we are nowadays.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Honestly, I don't see how taking up arms against a nuclear armed state on behalf another nuclear armed state who is supposed to be our big father, apparently, will help prevent the situation you described. We are getting closer to it than we otherwise would have been.

EDIT: The very point of NATO was to weaken Germany and to present a bullwark against Russia. Both are silly reasaons to keep an alliance alive nowadays. We are not supposed to be as dependent on the US as we are nowadays.

You will note that I'm not the one complaining about European states not 'carrying their weight'. I'm against you guys having anything more dangerous than sticks. Give you BB guns you'll probably put each other's eyes out, and we'll be stuck leading you around.

 

[Ajidica]

Honestly, I don't see how taking up arms against a nuclear armed state on behalf another nuclear armed state who is supposed to be our big father, apparently, will help prevent the situation you described. We are getting closer to it than we otherwise would have been.

EDIT: The very point of NATO was to weaken Germany and to present a bullwark against Russia. Both are silly reasaons to keep an alliance alive nowadays. We are not supposed to be as dependent on the US as we are nowadays.

I would challenge the idea that one of the points of NATO was to keep Germany weak. Rather, as I understand it, NATO and the European Coal and Steel Community were designed to allay French concerns about German rearmament/reconstruction and ensure that Germany could be strengthened while still keeping it under enough control to prevent any potential of them causing a WWIII.

 

[ArguCa]

Greece still spending money on military? Can't be serious...

 

[Arwon]

Pretty much.

There have been, and are, plenty of nations prone to conquest. I even live in one. But for 'hey let's start a war we can't win just because we have the tools' you need to find a European state.

Usually. But also Uganda and Paraguay I guess.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Usually. But also Uganda and Paraguay I guess.

There are the occasional experimenters, admittedly enough.

 

[Tahuti]

I would challenge the idea that one of the points of NATO was to keep Germany weak. Rather, as I understand it, NATO and the European Coal and Steel Community were designed to allay French concerns about German rearmament/reconstruction and ensure that Germany could be strengthened while still keeping it under enough control to prevent any potential of them causing a WWIII.

If bashing Russia is the only prime aim of the NATO, then it is even more doomed. More irony, the European project has largely been in Germany's favour. It forms essentially a Franco-German empire.

 

[Hygro]

What's the point of having troops at us then? You don't need our soil as launching platform for any invasion do you?

We have to guard our German manufacturing and Dutch chemical plants.

 

[Tahuti]

We have to guard our German manufacturing and Dutch chemical plants.

We should guard our chemical plants ourselves. You guys will save money. We will have sovereignty back AND boost the economy with military spending!

 

[Hygro]

We should guard our chemical plants ourselves. You guys will save money. We will have sovereignty back AND boost the economy with military spending!

Yeah but instead we can keep your domestic demand down and thus have room increase our effective domestic demand at no cost to ourselves with cheap imports purchased by printed money and enforced with our European military bases Meanwhile your country remains relatively poorer, weaker, and dependent on ours.

America's imperialism runs deep.

 

[Kyriakos]

Tbh Nato would be relevant if there were no nukes around.
As things stand it is not likely that sides both having nukes will ever go to actual war. I mean it is pretty obvious that if they were, and they were losing, they would just threaten to use the nukes and return to the situation prior to the war.

As things stand Nato mostly is asked to exist in Europe from the baltic countries, which for whatever reason fear Russia.
Even in a case where there would (hypothetical) be a different war, eg Russia vs Turkey, i really doubt that Nato would or could do much (also due to nukes).

 

[Phrossack]

The Baltic states have excellent reasons to fear Russia.

 

[Yeekim]

Tbh Nato would be relevant if there were no nukes around.

By the same logic you could claim that having any conventional military is redundant.
For some reason, both US and Russia are still sinking vast amounts of money into it.

 

[Kyriakos]

By the same logic you could claim that having any conventional military is redundant.
For some reason, both US and Russia are still sinking vast amounts of money into it.

But surely not so as to go to war against other nuclear powers.

Given we are always nearing Westeros state of fubarness, you could liken conventional military to kingdoms there having all the reason to keep soldiers, but not if they are up against a side with massive dragons.

 

[Flying Pig]

Greece still spending money on military? Can't be serious...

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.