Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-19-2018, 10:28 AM
 
7,489 posts, read 4,950,618 times
Reputation: 8031

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer View Post
Trump has said that the U.S. needs to spend much less on NATO than it currently does. So, this may be what's coming in the future. If European countries can eventually defend themselves and Russia is so weakened that they are no longer a credible military threat to Europe, then the U.S. presence should be diminished.

But Russia remains the world's biggest nuclear power, and I think most EU countries still see them as a threat.
Why all the focus on Europe? Canada is part of NATO and if the USA wants to rely on Canada in the event there is another attack on the USA, then the USA better remain part of NATO.

The USA has relied on the NATO relationship with Canada in the past, so it's more likely that the USA will need Canada's help again in the future. If the USA wants to continue with the isolationist path, have at it, but be careful to consider all the consequences and not just the whiney Trump propaganda.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-19-2018, 11:46 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
27,146 posts, read 13,434,325 times
Reputation: 19446
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCbaxter View Post
Thank God, someone else sees the true picture. If NATO closed up shop or it the US left NATO we would be screwed.


NATO is of mutual benefit to all involved including the US.

The US would find it difficult to operate in a lot of regions beyond Europe without NATO, and NATO has backed the US in it's war on terror.

Landstuhl and it's state of the art replacement are a case in point -

Quote:
Originally Posted by Regional Health Command Europe MEDDAC Landstuh

Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (LRMC), Germany, is the only forward-stationed medical center for U.S. & Coalition forces, Department of State personnel, and repatriated U.S. citizens.

LRMC is the largest U.S. hospital outside the United States where it serves as the sole military medical center for more than 205,000 beneficiaries throughout Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

Regional Health Command Europe MEDDAC Landstuhl

New US Military Hospital, Weilerbach - CDM Smith



Furthermore the same can be said in relation to a range of roles and a diversity of tasks that help keep the US safe and help the US project power beyond Europe in order to secure it's interest on the global stage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2018, 12:15 PM
 
18,069 posts, read 18,806,193 times
Reputation: 25191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
It was agreed in 2014 at the Wales Summit that NATO guidelines should be put in place for 2% GDP spending for NATO Countries by 2024.

Furthermore these are guidelines and not legally binding stipulations.

The US Spends 5% of it's Defence Budget on NATO, and does not pay for 70% of NATO, nor does it get a bad deal, as the US Brookings Institute points out.

What Trump gets wrong on allied burden-sharing - Brookings Institution
They were suppose to be spending 2% decades ago. Yes they are guidelines, but the concept of collective defense is that everyone can actually contribute. It would not be fair for you to take up boxing and judo lessons seven days a week, and everyone else barely manages a judo lesson once a month, for your collective defense.

NATO has direct and indirect assets. NATO revolves around each country's ability to contribute to a collective defense, not maintain a NATO flag army that is the sole response force. At that, there are infrastructure/bureaucracy items needed to establish/maintain as direct NATO assets for the collective defense to work efficiently. Also part of US costs comes when they assign something a "NATO duty" though this duty is transparent to about everyone involved other than the people sitting in an office somewhere. If a NATO plane lands for refueling at a US base, all costs associated with that will be put under "NATO" and people even stationed at the base could be qualified for medals due to support of the preparation of that NATO plane depending what that plane is doing.

The US contributes far above the 2% guidance, and contributes a disproportionate share of the NATO costs.

This has been a complaint by the US for some time now, long before Trump.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2018, 12:18 PM
 
18,069 posts, read 18,806,193 times
Reputation: 25191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post


NATO is of mutual benefit to all involved including the US.

The US would find it difficult to operate in a lot of regions beyond Europe without NATO, and NATO has backed the US in it's war on terror.

Landstuhl and it's state of the art replacement are a case in point -



[/b]Furthermore the same can be said in relation to a range of roles and a diversity of tasks that help keep the US safe and help the US project power beyond Europe in order to secure it's interest on the global stage.
The US would have zero difficulty operating without NATO. Matter of fact, it does so frequently. Those bases could be established and maintained regardless if NATO existed or not, as numerous other global bases are.

NATO is an organization without a mission.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2018, 12:26 PM
 
Location: Great Britain
27,146 posts, read 13,434,325 times
Reputation: 19446
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus View Post
They were suppose to be spending 2% decades ago. Yes they are guidelines, but the concept of collective defense is that everyone can actually contribute. It would not be fair for you to take up boxing and judo lessons seven days a week, and everyone else barely manages a judo lesson once a month, for your collective defense.
Europe was spending three or four percent and most of Europe had military conscription during the Cold War which lasted through to the early 1990's.

It was at this point that there was talk of a peace dividend and defence budgets started to decline.

Russia wasn't seen as a problem umtil the Georgia invasion in 2008, however it wasn't until the annexation of Crimea by Russia and more recent events that alarm bels really started to go off, hence the 2014 agreement.

In terms of the US as already explained 95% of the US Defence Budget is not committed to NATO, only 5% is and the same is true of active US Military personnel posted to Europe, so talk of the US spending 70% of NATO is complete nonsense as this would include the entire US Defence Budget.

It also should not be forgotten that at the same time Trump calls Europe freeloaders, over 900 European Service Personnel have died in Afghanistan on a NATO Peacekeeping operation. The operation in Afghanistan has also seen numerous life changing injuries due to IED's and has cost Europeans tens of billions of dollars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus

NATO has direct and indirect assets. NATO revolves around each country's ability to contribute to a collective defense, not maintain a NATO flag army that is the sole response force. At that, there are infrastructure/bureaucracy items needed to establish/maintain as direct NATO assets for the collective defense to work efficiently. Also part of US costs comes when they assign something a "NATO duty" though this duty is transparent to about everyone involved other than the people sitting in an office somewhere. If a NATO plane lands for refueling at a US base, all costs associated with that will be put under "NATO" and people even stationed at the base could be qualified for medals due to support of the preparation of that NATO plane depending what that plane is doing.

The US contributes far above the 2% guidance, and contributes a disproportionate share of the NATO costs.

This has been a complaint by the US for some time now, long before Trump.
In terms of NATO other than the Headquartes and a few other commands that amount to a couple of billion there is no centra defence pot we all chip in to and no debt owed. The US Contributes 22% towards NATO Administration and Command functions but this is only a fairly minor expense.

The US can decide it's own defence budget, and can spend what it likes on defence, as can other countries, however again it should be noted that less than 5% of the US Defence Budget goes towards NATO, and thew US does not contibute a a disproportionate share of the NATO costs.

As for a NATO duty, no US base in Europe belongs to the US, the American forces are classed as US Visting Forces. and we certainly aren't going to pay the US for landing planes at our own base nor is there any possibility of some NATO duty, although we do pay for services for US Personnel such as childrens education. and local services.

The alternative is for the US to leave NATO and have to ask permission for it's ships to use European ports, it's military aircraft to fly over European countries, and to have no support functions in Europe. This would leave a big gap in areas such as intelligence, logistics/supply, medical support, medical support and numerous other functions, and it would end up costing the US more to project any future military force without European bases, whilst the loss of such bases would also massively diminish the US status as a world power at a time when China (which now has a close friendship with Russia), is spending vast sums on expanding it's gobal influence.

Last edited by Brave New World; 07-19-2018 at 12:44 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2018, 12:32 PM
 
7,489 posts, read 4,950,618 times
Reputation: 8031
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus View Post
They were suppose to be spending 2% decades ago. Yes they are guidelines, but the concept of collective defense is that everyone can actually contribute. It would not be fair for you to take up boxing and judo lessons seven days a week, and everyone else barely manages a judo lesson once a month, for your collective defense.

NATO has direct and indirect assets. NATO revolves around each country's ability to contribute to a collective defense, not maintain a NATO flag army that is the sole response force. At that, there are infrastructure/bureaucracy items needed to establish/maintain as direct NATO assets for the collective defense to work efficiently. Also part of US costs comes when they assign something a "NATO duty" though this duty is transparent to about everyone involved other than the people sitting in an office somewhere. If a NATO plane lands for refueling at a US base, all costs associated with that will be put under "NATO" and people even stationed at the base could be qualified for medals due to support of the preparation of that NATO plane depending what that plane is doing.

The US contributes far above the 2% guidance, and contributes a disproportionate share of the NATO costs.

This has been a complaint by the US for some time now, long before Trump.
The USA contributes 3.6% of GDP to NATO peacekeeping. If the USA is unhappy with that contribution, the USA should reduce it to the 2% guideline. Problem solved.

Making false claims and use of bully tactics should be beneath the White House, but it isn't.
Why don't people in the USA have higher standard for the White House?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2018, 12:35 PM
 
7,489 posts, read 4,950,618 times
Reputation: 8031
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus View Post
The US would have zero difficulty operating without NATO. Matter of fact, it does so frequently. Those bases could be established and maintained regardless if NATO existed or not, as numerous other global bases are.

NATO is an organization without a mission.
Great! The USA should withdraw from NATO. The USA has no bases in Canada, and Canada will do just fine without the USA as part of NATO.

However, the consequence will be that the USA will have to find some other country to rely on next time the Middle East attacks the USA. If the USA is not part of NATO, Canada can simply ignore those cries for help from the country to the South.

By the way, the purpose of NATO is peacekeeping.

It's rather amusing that the USA is mouthy as can be regarding NATO and Europe, and silent as a mouse regarding past reliance on NATO partner Canada.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2018, 12:39 PM
 
18,069 posts, read 18,806,193 times
Reputation: 25191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
Europe was spending three or four percent and most of Europe had military conscription during the Cold War which lasted through to the early 1990's.

It was at this point that there was talk of a peace dividend and defence budgets started to decline.

Russia wasn't seen as a problem umtil the Georgia invasion in 2008, however it wasn't until the annexation of Crimea by Russia and more recent events that alarm bels really started to go off, hence the 2014 agreement.

In terms of the US as already explained 95% of the US Defence Budget is not committed to NATO, only 5% is and the same is true of active US Military personnel posted to Europe, so talk of the US spebding 70% of NATO is complete nonsense as this would include the entire US Defence Budget.
And what conference, summit, etc was there to commit to a different spending level? Or did they just decide to drop their levels so they could divert elsewhere without any mutual agreement? What about Afghanistan? That started in 2001, yet since then hardly any still contributed the minimal requested? Or even better, since the break up of the USSR, NATO has been involved in four engagements, yet none during the USSR. So even with actual military activity, NATO members felt the need to reduce funding?

And seems you are not understanding NATO and its collective defense; NATO is not an actual, separate military force, it is a collective defense which has a minimal allocation for maintaining the infrastructure and bureaucracy for it to run, and has assets designated for specific NATO missions, like a destroyer will be for missile defense, aircraft tending for Balkan operations, etc, and will have a few personnel designated to the NATO command. Operationally, the entire military can be used to contribute to the collective defense, that means everything down to the last missile and bullet. So it is disingenuous to say "95% of the defense budget is not committed to NATO" when in fact under collective defense, the entirety of the US military can be contributed to the collective defense.

Look at Libya for example, the US assets used were not "part of NATO" other than being US assets and defacto a NATO asset. Those assets were part of the US military, assets that the US decided to participate in the NATO campaign in Libya.

It seems you are confusing direct assistance with indirect, in which the collective defense leans on all forms of assistance, whether that asset is at Aviano or sitting at Polk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2018, 12:42 PM
 
18,069 posts, read 18,806,193 times
Reputation: 25191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lieneke View Post
Great! The USA should withdraw from NATO. The USA has no bases in Canada, and Canada will do just fine without the USA as part of NATO.

However, the consequence will be that the USA will have to find some other country to rely on next time the Middle East attacks the USA. If the USA is not part of NATO, Canada can simply ignore those cries for help from the country to the South.

By the way, the purpose of NATO is peacekeeping.
The US attacked Iraq, Iraq was not a NATO mission. The US has attacked Iraq twice now, both time it was not a US mission, yet plenty of countries participated. Believe it or not, you can have a coalition.

In Afghanistan, plenty of non-NATO countries participated, and nothing prevents Canada from joining the fight, just as Canada joined the Iraq war.

NATO's purpose is not peacekeeping, unless you mean the Orwellian concept of peacekeeping which means to make war.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2018, 12:51 PM
 
7,489 posts, read 4,950,618 times
Reputation: 8031
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus View Post
The US attacked Iraq, Iraq was not a NATO mission. The US has attacked Iraq twice now, both time it was not a US mission, yet plenty of countries participated. Believe it or not, you can have a coalition.

In Afghanistan, plenty of non-NATO countries participated, and nothing prevents Canada from joining the fight, just as Canada joined the Iraq war.

NATO's purpose is not peacekeeping, unless you mean the Orwellian concept of peacekeeping which means to make war.
Not everyone views NATO through the USA lens.

Lester B Pearson (Canada)

"With a long list of accomplishments as Canadian Prime Minister and an international diplomat, Lester B. Pearson was a pioneer who helped shape world politics. He played a key role in drafting NATO’s founding treaty and received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957 for helping to resolve the Suez Crisis. He is considered the father of the modern concept of peacekeeping and was also one of the “Three Wise Men” who drafted the report on non-military cooperation in NATO, which stressed the importance of political consultation between Allies."

Mr Dean Acheson (USA)

The reality lies not in the common pursuit of a material goal or of a power to dominate others. It lies in the affirmation of moral and spiritual values which govern the kind of life they propose to lead and which they propose to defend, by all possible means, should that necessity be thrust upon them.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/d...ied_137725.htm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:26 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top