Dissolve NATO and let the EU create a European Defense Force.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by aaronvan, Jul 3, 2016.

  1. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #1
    Well, why not? If the EU is this fantastic trade organization it should make a great defense organization, too. In fact, a European Defense Force wouldn't necessarily fall under the the auspices of the EU. Why the hell should the United States spend billions and billions of dollars protecting a bunch of small principalities who won't even spend 2% of their own GDP to defense themselves?

    If Europe wants to stack forces on the border with Russia have at it. But the U.S. taxpayer should not pay for it.
     
  2. unlinked macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Location:
    Ireland
    #2
    Are you taking about some sort of usexit from NATO?
     
  3. DearthnVader macrumors 6502

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #3
    While we're at it, let's pull out of the UN, WTO, and NAFTA.
     
  4. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #4
    The Brexiteers were threatening that the UK would be sucked into a mythical EU Army, and now that they want to go, some are saying it is not possible to rely on NATO anymore, and are suggesting it for real.
     
  5. KALLT macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    #5
    A European army would have been a reality a long time ago if France did not block it at the time (this was long before the UK joined the EEC). I do not see why it is such a bad idea, given that most EU countries (including the UK) do not seem to be willing to sustain military spending and not all EU Member States are NATO signatories either. There is ample cross-border cooperation in many areas already, it makes sense to formalise it at some point.
     
  6. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #6
    The Swiss Air Force (non-NATO) would fly 9 to 5 and outsource to the French and Italian outside office hours until an airliner hijacking happened not long ago resulting in a generalized outrage.
     
  7. Snoopy4 macrumors 6502a

    Snoopy4

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    #7
    Oh heck yeah.
    --- Post Merged, Jul 3, 2016 ---
    This too. So done with the globalists.
     
  8. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #8
    Isreal would crap on itself if that happened.
     
  9. Snoopy4 macrumors 6502a

    Snoopy4

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    #9
    They'd have our direct support. Not a thing to worry about.
     
  10. impulse462 Suspended

    impulse462

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    #10
    Oh but of course, we must still protect them at all costs and have them influence all our elections without giving anything in return.
     
  11. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #11
    They'll still own the U.S. Congress.
     
  12. unlinked macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Location:
    Ireland
    #12
    Is Israel not basically a US anti missile test base?
     
  13. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #13
    We live in a globalized world. The US has advantages in being (and paying into) NATO. The US military is (by far) the biggest in the world- so they need something to do. Does being in NATO cost the US a bunch of money? Yes. Does anyone look at what we might get in return?
     
  14. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #14
    I think calling it a Defense Force is a bit of an understatement when you see what the French have.
     
  15. unlinked macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Location:
    Ireland
    #15
    The US spends 600 billion a year on defence. NATO costs 1.5 billion a year. The US pays a portion of that cost.
    I don't foresee giant cost saving as a result of pulling out of NATO.
     
  16. vrDrew, Jul 4, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2016

    vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #16
    This is one of the silliest ideas I've heard in quite a while. Sort of along the lines of Trump's Wall; but with a specious idiocy all its own.

    Quick question: If the US pulled out of NATO, how many aircraft carrier battle groups would we scrap? How many combat brigades could we disband? Do you think it will lead to less recruitment for the National Guard or Reserves?

    The answer is, of course, that the US would probably not reduce the size or cost of its armed forces at all. The Pentagon makes its force and equipment estimates on the basis of a global requirement to be able to conduct two major regional conflicts simultaneously. That tells the Generals and Admirals how many armored brigades and artillery batteries we need. How many Field Hospitals to have on hand. How many 2nd Lieutenants it needs to commission each year. And so on, down the line, for pretty much every nickel the DoD spends.

    The fact that we have some forces in Europe is actually saving us money. Because the Europeans provide us free bases and training grounds. The let us work with their forces in cooperation exercises. If we pulled out of Europe, we'd simply have to find someplace else to conduct those exercises, and house those troops.

    Edit
    Actually, if we pulled out of NATO; the Pentagon would probably tell Congress it needed more troops. Because we still have to plan on the contingency that one of those "major regional conflicts" might be in Europe. And, as a NATO member, we can count on the support of all those nice German and British and Italian forces fighting by our side. Because they are bound by treaty to do so. But if we aren't in NATO anymore, then we can't really expect the Krauts and Brits to come and fight by our side, can we now?

    If you want to reduce the amount the US spends on its military, go right ahead and tell the DoD to scrap the "two major regional conflicts" planning standard. Maybe make it "one and a half", or "a bit of a scuffle with Russia and hold the line in the Pacific." Just don't expect too many politicians to go along with the idea. Because it really would be risking the National Security of the United States.
     
  17. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #17
    The USA is the only nation on the planet capable of fighting a two front war. This in turn creates a hell of a lot of stability in the world and tends to keep people chill.

    I don't like that some nations treat the USA military as outsourced muscle, while they invest in schools, healthcare, and infrastructure because they have barely any defense budget at all.
     
  18. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #18
    Thank you for the stability you have created in Europe this century.
     
  19. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #19
    My father was drafted for WWII and my grandfather for both WWI and WWII. Luckily neither saw actual combat. However, weakening Europe by leaving NATO, thereby virtually inviting Russia to fill the power vacuum has to be one of the most counter-productive ideas I have heard all day (for both the US and Europe). Europe has been at peace (mostly) since the forming of NATO (and indeed EU) - why risk having to send yet another US generation to a European war provoked by Russia?
     
  20. smallcoffee macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #20
    I agree.

    I used to be kind of anti-NATO but what I realized was that I wasn't anti-NATO as much as I was anti-"US pays or everything while European defenses languish". Right now I feel like the U.S. is being taken advantage of. Yes there are benefits to being Team America World Police but I'm not sure those benefits outweigh the costs.
     
  21. DearthnVader macrumors 6502

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #21
    The US spends 3.7% of it's GDP on Military spending, while only 4 of the other 27 NATO nations are meeting the 2% of GDP requirement.

    Given that 2% of the US GDP is a hell of a lot more money than 2% of any other NATO nation, we'd still be putting out more for the common defense, so you would think the other nations could, at least, meet the 2% requirement.

    [​IMG]
     
  22. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #22
    I agree that Europe should pay more for its own defence, but I think therein lies the problem. Europe is not paying for the US's defence, as per the terms of the treaty. The problem needs to be addressed by Europe realising that the US faces very real threats on two fronts, not just Europe, and that European countries need to step up to the plate while the US adjusts to the new threats in the Pacific. July 12th is coming....
     
  23. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #23
    If the US burns a ton of money in things like F-35, it does not mean the rest have to copy it.
     
  24. DearthnVader macrumors 6502

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #24
    No one said they had to throw their money away, but they are bound by treaty to spend 2% of their GDP on Military spending, and 23 nations are not doing it.

    Why should the US be picking up the tab for these nations defense?
     
  25. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #25
    What is the effective US contribution to NATO if it is throwing money away?
     

Share This Page