Has Trump made it necessary to disband NATO?

[Argus]

1 hour ago, paxrom said:

Okay okay so why don't you canadians just apply for american citizenship

And take on all that debt!? Are you crazy!?

[Queenmandy85]

Regarding the Monarchy, I look at the many men elected to government by the people over the last 250 years. I see a lot of duds, liars and crooks. All I ever hear is what a bunch of lying crooks they are. As a Christian, I have a lot more faith in a leader elected by God. In the last 1000 years we have had a few duds. Richard the Lionheart, Edward II, Richard II and George IV. The heritic Cromwell replaced Charles I and look how that turned out. While all US Presidents have been men, among our greatest Sovereigns three of them have been women. I will take our system over any republic, whether they elect Yeltsin, Mugabe, Chavez, Adams or President Trump. 

[Queenmandy85]

President Putin has made it neccessary to maintain NATO. NATO can get by without the US, but US participation makes it even more effective and the deterrence it provides is in the American interest. It is telling that commentators occassionally slip and refer to the Soviets instead of the Russians.

[Army Guy]

14 hours ago, Argus said:

And take on all that debt!? Are you crazy!?

AHHH, the budget will balance itself Argus….we'll just print more money....

[Machjo]

On 7/12/2018 at 10:14 AM, turningrite said:

While watching CNN last night and listening to a segment on Trump's antics at the NATO summit, the redoubtable Christiane Amanpour noted that following the collapse of the Soviet bloc there was a movement to form a European security force to replace NATO although the ideas was apparently opposed by the Americans who wanted to maintain the alliance. I've read elsewhere that the U.K., which often seems to view its "special relationship" with the U.S. as equally or perhaps more important than its European connections, has also opposed a solely European security system. But, given Trump's harrumphing and bullying, is it time for the Europeans to go it alone, and perhaps time for Canada, too, to cut the apron strings? We recently found out that the Americans have no intention of defending us from a missile attack, despite our NATO and NORAD connections. So, is it worthwhile to grant Trump any further leverage or should we all call his bluff and tell him to stuff it and wave goodbye (maybe with a specific finger held high)?

Canada is surrounded by the Pacific, Arctic, and Atlantic Oceans, Alaska, Greenland, the continental US, and Saint Pierre and Miquelon (of France).

There are basically three ways for a country to deter another country: militarily (by having a more powerful military force), economically (by making themselves economically interdependent so that to attack it would hurt the attacker's economy itself), and culturally (by allowing freer movement, international marriages, etc. so that an attack on that country would be an attack on the attacking country's own families).

If Canada leaves NATO, it clearly could not defend itself against the US militarily, so it would need to adopt one or both of the other policies. For example, Canada could adopt a policy of unilateral free trade with the US while still negotiating common product standards with it and maybe even allowing US citizens to study, work, and do business in Canada visa-free.

Such a policy would encourage extreme economic and cultural integration between the two states so as to make it difficult for the US to attack Canada without hurting itself in the process.

It's either that or Canada bankrupts itself through military spending.

[bush_cheney2004]

8 minutes ago, Machjo said:

If Canada leaves NATO, it clearly could not defend itself against the US militarily,

 

Canada could not defend itself against the U.S. even with NATO, militarily or otherwise.  

The United Kingdom and France learned this during the Suez Crisis in 1956.

[Machjo]

5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Canada could not defend itself against the U.S. even with NATO, militarily or otherwise.  

The United Kingdom and France learned this during the Suez Crisis in 1956.

To be honest, I'm not entirely against Canada leaving NATO as long as we're realistic about it. In other words, Canada would need to adopt policies to so integrate our economies and cultures as to essentially make any US attack on Canada an attack on its own economy, families, and culture.

 

You also bring up a valid point about Canada being unable to defend against the US even within NATO. This raises the question of whether NATO effectively protects Canada anyway. In theory, no one country within an alliance should be more powerful than the combined strength of the others.

With that in mind, it might in fact make sense for Canada to leave NATO but to aim to integrate the North American economies and people as a far more effective defense strategy in our case.

Edited July 14, 2018 by Machjo

[bush_cheney2004]

10 minutes ago, Machjo said:

To be honest, I'm not entirely against Canada leaving NATO as long as we're realistic about it. In other words, Canada would need to adopt policies to so integrate our economies and cultures as to essentially make any US attack on Canada an attack on its own economy, families, and culture.

 

I don't think such a strategy would constitute a viable defence....Canadians already rail against domination by American culture and enterprise as an "attack".

History tells us that the U.S. government has no qualms about using military and/or economic force to achieve objectives against adversaries in or out of country.

NATO would become more balanced and less U.S. centric if deadbeat members had more skin in the game.

Edited July 14, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Machjo]

5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

I don't think such a strategy would constitute a viable defence....Canadians already rail against domination by American culture and enterprise as an "attack".

History tells us that the U.S. government has no qualms about using military and/or economic force to achieve objectives against adversaries in or out of country.

NATO would become more balanced and less U.S. centric if deadbeat members had more skin in the game.

Or we could just add more members.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Machjo said:

Or we could just add more members.

 

NATO has already done that....hasn't shifted the balance of power at all.   

NATO was created to "Keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down".

If NATO is not militarily viable without the USA as a member, then it is not viable at all.    Trump is only pointing out the obvious in a very undipolomatic way.

[Queenmandy85]

The way Canada would have to deal with an invasion from the US is to absorb the invasion, and then make the enemy want to get out.  Humiliate them with water balloons filled with sewage, cube vans parked suspiciously loaded with balloons. Nothing makes better comedy than a tean of UXB specialists or special forces machine gunning a van full of balloons when the doors suddenly fly open. Headline in the Guardian..

                                                               " US Sprcial Forces Scared Of Balloons."

 

If that doesn't work, make them bleed out. The US Army sometimes has difficulty deaing with little countries like Viet Nam. Iraq etc.

[Queenmandy85]

Just to be clear, I like Americans. The comment above is only in the unlikely event they came here uninvited and overstayed their welcome.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Just to be clear, I like Americans. The comment above is only in the unlikely event they came here uninvited and overstayed their welcome.

 

Canadians routinely overstay their welcome in the United States, but Americans do not attack them.

[Queenmandy85]

Americans have never overstayed their welcome since the War of 1812. Always welcome, because they are friendly and they don't come here with any hostlie intentions. 

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Americans have never overstayed their welcome since the War of 1812. Always welcome, because they are friendly and they don't come here with any hostlie intentions. 

 

No, not always welcome.   Internal conflicts about what to do about America's economic, military, and cultural domination was a major reason for British colony Canada's confederation in 1867.  It has continued to this day (e.g. NAFTA, NATO, etc.).

 

 

[paxamericana]

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

NATO can get by without the US

Say wut? Sure.... If NATO can get by without US support then I'm sure Ukraine would of never been invaded....oh wait.... Obama's lack of defense spending and predictability lead up to Ukraine. Even then Obama did more then rest of NATO dead beats who much prefer to pay nothing for defense whilst ripping Americans off on trade and asking to be protected. Is this how you treat allies? Hmmm "with allies like that you don't even need enemies" a popular claim Europeans like to make on Trump when he's only asking for what's fair. 

But, everyone recognizes the important role NATO plays in peace keeping so unless we all give up on each other and allow malign forces to dictate our lives then chip in your buck o five. 

Edited July 14, 2018 by paxrom

[paxamericana]

2 hours ago, Machjo said:

Such a policy would encourage extreme economic and cultural integration between the two states so as to make it difficult for the US to attack Canada without hurting itself in the process.

We're already integrated... but Canadians love to point out that they're not Americans. So if that's the case then why not pay for your own defense...relying on America's deterrence?

Edited July 14, 2018 by paxrom

[Queenmandy85]

36 minutes ago, paxrom said:

Say wut? Sure.... If NATO can get by without US support then I'm sure Ukraine would of never been invaded....oh wait.... Obama's lack of defense spending and predictability lead up to Ukraine. Even then Obama did more then rest of NATO dead beats who much prefer to pay nothing for defense whilst ripping Americans off on trade and asking to be protected. Is this how you treat allies? Hmmm "with allies like that you don't even need enemies" a popular claim Europeans like to make on Trump when he's only asking for what's fair. 

But, everyone recognizes the important role NATO plays in peace keeping so unless we all give up on each other and allow malign forces to dictate our lives then chip in your buck o five. 

Do you seriously believe a conflict between Russia and NATO would be soley conventional? With Ukraine, NATO made the calculation that Crimea was not worth a nuclear exchange. The conventional forces on the ground in Europe are not the main deterrent. It is the nuclear forces that provide the deterrent. The problem is, would anyone use it?

 

[paxamericana]

Just now, Queenmandy85 said:

Do you seriously believe a conflict between Russia and NATO would be soley conventional? With Ukraine, NATO made the calculation that Crimea was not worth a nuclear exchange. The conventional forces on the ground in Europe are not the main deterrent. It is the nuclear forces that provide the deterrent. The problem is, would anyone use it?

 

America fields the world best conventional force but obama wasn't willing to use it and putin knew. The euro have no will or capability.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Do you seriously believe a conflict between Russia and NATO would be soley conventional? With Ukraine, NATO made the calculation that Crimea was not worth a nuclear exchange. The conventional forces on the ground in Europe are not the main deterrent. It is the nuclear forces that provide the deterrent. The problem is, would anyone use it?

 

 

Nope....nuclear weapons would not be used for conventional military conflict because of escalation risk and threat to European cities/economy.  

The Ukraine is not a member of NATO...purposely so.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, paxrom said:

America fields the world best conventional force but obama wasn't willing to use it and putin knew. The euro have no will or capability.

 

Well, as has often been said...if the Europeans don't care enough to defend themselves, why should the Americans pay for it ?

Most American military forces do not chop to NATO command, only a small portion.    Trump should cut back those commitments to the NATO member average to press his point home.

[Queenmandy85]

1 minute ago, paxrom said:

America fields the world best conventional force but obama wasn't willing to use it and putin knew. The euro have no will or capability.

I do not believe a Russian invasion of western Europe would be conventional. Even if the the Russian Army did not open its offensive with a barrage of tactical nuclear weapons, which would be a major diviation of doctrine, NATO would certainly respond with an all out nuclear retaliation, or put up the white flag.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I do not believe a Russian invasion of western Europe would be conventional. Even if the the Russian Army did not open its offensive with a barrage of tactical nuclear weapons, which would be a major diviation of doctrine, NATO would certainly respond with an all out nuclear retaliation, or put up the white flag.

 

No, this is false...not going to happen unless NBC weapons are used first by the Russians.

 

[paxamericana]

33 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I do not believe a Russian invasion of western Europe would be conventional. Even if the the Russian Army did not open its offensive with a barrage of tactical nuclear weapons, which would be a major diviation of doctrine, NATO would certainly respond with an all out nuclear retaliation, or put up the white flag.

Actually theres been talk in russia to use low yield nuclear weapons. The strategy is to escalate and then de-escalate. This is why we are re arming our nuclear force for low yield as well.

https://www.npr.org/2018/05/07/609180810/pentagon-wants-to-deploy-low-yield-nuclear-weapons-to-deter-russia-from-similar-

 

Edited July 14, 2018 by paxrom

[Jimwd]

Putin’s goal is to destroy NATO, so of course trump is trying. Just following orders,

Edited July 14, 2018 by Jimwd