Britain should leave NATO?

Watch
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
It has been my view for some time now that the UK should leave NATO and increase defence spending to £70 billion a year. The UK should stop all regular deployments east of the Suez canal and concentrate its assets and strategy on dominating the waters around Britain. If Britain ever wants to be an independent geopolitical power again it must dominate the Irish sea, English Channel, North sea and Norwegian Sea. Then use this domination to gain manipulation over the lesser powers which share these waters Norway, Denmark, Ireland, Iceland, Faroe Islands and Greenland. Britain must also take steps to limit German and French manipulation over Belgium and Holland using its domination of the English channel and North sea.
This was the basis for Britain becoming the Pax power after the Napoleonic wars. It is the only way Britain can regain its power. Using this domination as the base point for projecting power into the Mediterranean, North Atlantic, Caribbean and South Atlantic as economic and political interests warrant and not before. Britain must not trying and increase its power for the sake of having more power. It can't afford to get involved in engagements that short term mean Britain has influence. Influence that will be short lived, that will come and go. It must base its actions on interests be they economic, political or strategic.
Britain also must be willing and able to start and win wars when its interests are threatened, it must be aggressive and unpredictable. While making sure not to annoy the US or threaten its interests, as doing so would mean Britain being forced into alliances to counter the US, this would constrain Britain's ability to operate independently and protect is interests.
0
reply
Aj12
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
I hate to break this to you, but such a foreign policy went out of fashion just after the Second World War. What would be the point of any of this? Bar crippling our economy through hiked defence spending and irritating our allies and trade partners.
6
reply
VladThe1mpaler
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
Yes we should, but not for any of the absurd reasons you have listed.
0
reply
_Fergo
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
OP you should write a book. That's some imagination you've got there!

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
(Original post by william walker)
It has been my view for some time now that the UK should leave NATO and increase defence spending to £70 billion a year. The UK should stop all regular deployments east of the Suez canal and concentrate its assets and strategy on dominating the waters around Britain. If Britain ever wants to be an independent geopolitical power again it must dominate the Irish sea, English Channel, North sea and Norwegian Sea. Then use this domination to gain manipulation over the lesser powers which share these waters Norway, Denmark, Ireland, Iceland, Faroe Islands and Greenland. Britain must also take steps to limit German and French manipulation over Belgium and Holland using its domination of the English channel and North sea.
This was the basis for Britain becoming the Pax power after the Napoleonic wars. It is the only way Britain can regain its power. Using this domination as the base point for projecting power into the Mediterranean, North Atlantic, Caribbean and South Atlantic as economic and political interests warrant and not before. Britain must not trying and increase its power for the sake of having more power. It can't afford to get involved in engagements that short term mean Britain has influence. Influence that will be short lived, that will come and go. It must base its actions on interests be they economic, political or strategic.
Britain also must be willing and able to start and win wars when its interests are threatened, it must be aggressive and unpredictable. While making sure not to annoy the US or threaten its interests, as doing so would mean Britain being forced into alliances to counter the US, this would constrain Britain's ability to operate independently and protect is interests.
hmmm even to a layman like me this appeal to the Napoleonic Wars does not hold water.
0
reply
blondelocks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
NATO shouldn't even exist.
0
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by Aj12)
I hate to break this to you, but such a foreign policy went out of fashion just after the Second World War. What would be the point of any of this? Bar crippling our economy through hiked defence spending and irritating our allies and trade partners.
No it went out of fashion in Britain after WW2. Since then Britain has went from being the 3rd most powerful country in the world to 8th and dropping. The 4th most powerful country in Europe. So why not recreate a strategy that worked for 70 years after the Napoleonic wars?

Well it would mean improving relations with Ireland, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Greenland and Fareo Islands. In doing so increasing Britain's economic, political and strategic interest in these country to create a British sphere of influence to block Russia and Germany, and protect the British sphere. This gives Holland and Belgium a different strategic option than France or Germany meaning they are stronger. So the point is it would improve Britain's and the smaller countries in the regions position.

It really depends where you are spending the defence money. If you are just hiring people giving them limited training and low tech equipment then yes defence spending wouldn't be an economic benefit. However if you are using the money on procurement, R&D, creating a highly trained force which has excellent logistical capabilities and experience it is a gain for the economy.

Countries don't have allies or trading partners they have interests. Britain's interest are no helped by being in NATO and because of it we are losing influence.
1
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by VladThe1mpaler)
Yes we should, but not for any of the absurd reasons you have listed.
What is absurd about my list?
0
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#9
(Original post by *Stefan*)
OP you should write a book. That's some imagination you've got there!

Posted from TSR Mobile
What am I imagining?
0
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by the bear)
hmmm even to a layman like me this appeal to the Napoleonic Wars does not hold water.
Why has geography changed since the Napoleonic wars?
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by william walker)
Why has geography changed since the Napoleonic wars?
it is the geopolitical map which is important. although there have been some superficial changes due to coastal erosion, mudslips etc.
0
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by the bear)
it is the geopolitical map which is important. although there have been some superficial changes due to coastal erosion, mudslips etc.
Yeah so geography hasn't change and the strategy from the Napoleonic wars still holds water.
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(Original post by william walker)
Yeah so geography hasn't change and the strategy from the Napoleonic wars still holds water.
No, no it doesn't Flashman.
0
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by the bear)
No, no it doesn't Flashman.
Why doesn't it?
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by william walker)
Why doesn't it?
the world has moved on from the musket and sabre. instead of relying on semaphore and signal fires to communicate we have the interweb and social meeja. instead of Czars and Dukes it is all about democracy nowadays. you might as well say that the Roman empire would make a great model for the European Union.
0
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by the bear)
the world has moved on from the musket and sabre. instead of relying on semaphore and signal fires to communicate we have the interweb and social meeja. instead of Czars and Dukes it is all about democracy nowadays. you might as well say that the Roman empire would make a great model for the European Union.
So geography hasn't change then just the way we interact within it. You make the mistake of thinking technology can overrule geography, this is the most basic mistake people make when talking about geopolitics. We create technology to fit our geographic constraints.

No it isn't about democracy at all, it is still about the most basic things love, death, children and power.
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by william walker)
So geography hasn't change then just the way we interact within it. You make the mistake of thinking technology can overrule geography, this is the most basic mistake people make when talking about geopolitics. We create technology to fit our geographic constraints.

No it isn't about democracy at all, it is still about the most basic things love, death, children and power.
the biggie is nuclear weapons. they definitely can overrule geography. in the Napoleonic era the most devastating weapon could kill perhaps 200 people in one go...
0
reply
Aj12
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by william walker)
No it went out of fashion in Britain after WW2. Since then Britain has went from being the 3rd most powerful country in the world to 8th and dropping. The 4th most powerful country in Europe. So why not recreate a strategy that worked for 70 years after the Napoleonic wars?

Well it would mean improving relations with Ireland, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Greenland and Fareo Islands. In doing so increasing Britain's economic, political and strategic interest in these country to create a British sphere of influence to block Russia and Germany, and protect the British sphere. This gives Holland and Belgium a different strategic option than France or Germany meaning they are stronger. So the point is it would improve Britain's and the smaller countries in the regions position.

It really depends where you are spending the defence money. If you are just hiring people giving them limited training and low tech equipment then yes defence spending wouldn't be an economic benefit. However if you are using the money on procurement, R&D, creating a highly trained force which has excellent logistical capabilities and experience it is a gain for the economy.

Countries don't have allies or trading partners they have interests. Britain's interest are no helped by being in NATO and because of it we are losing influence.

Yes the UK as a world power has slipped down the rankings. That has little to do with the strategies we pursue and more to do a shifting in the world order due to economic factors that we have little control over and the rising of other powers such as the US and China. Our national interest changed because we could not afford to pursue the policies of pre WW2, perhaps even pre ww1. It worked for 70 years in vastly different political and economic circumstances ,it would not work today.It stopped working as of 1918.

Ireland would no doubt pursue a neutral/pro EU (German/French) course of action rather than British. Stop acting as if these nations have to choose between being in one sphere of influence or another, they don't. That ended with the rise of the EU and NATO and will not be reversed by the actions of one power.

To a point yes it is a gain for the economy, however there are much better ways to do that. However you will still make a net loss on defence spending, and plenty of areas of it won't stimulate the economy. We're already in dire financial straights. Now is not the time for an arms race.

Your plan is bizarre and strange, why can't you comprehend the world has changed since the Napoleonic era?
0
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by the bear)
the biggie is nuclear weapons. they definitely can overrule geography. in the Napoleonic era the most devastating weapon could kill perhaps 200 people in one go...
No they haven't because they are a negative asset. They can only be used to threat others, not incentivise. They of no tactical military use and are very costly. Second only to aircraft carriers. So the major powers have them or could quickly get them. In reality they change nothing geopolitical or geographical.
0
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by Aj12)
Yes the UK as a world power has slipped down the rankings. That has little to do with the strategies we pursue and more to do a shifting in the world order due to economic factors that we have little control over and the rising of other powers such as the US and China. Our national interest changed because we could not afford to pursue the policies of pre WW2, perhaps even pre ww1. It worked for 70 years in vastly different political and economic circumstances ,it would not work today.It stopped working as of 1918.

Ireland would no doubt pursue a neutral/pro EU (German/French) course of action rather than British. Stop acting as if these nations have to choose between being in one sphere of influence or another, they don't. That ended with the rise of the EU and NATO and will not be reversed by the actions of one power.

To a point yes it is a gain for the economy, however there are much better ways to do that. However you will still make a net loss on defence spending, and plenty of areas of it won't stimulate the economy. We're already in dire financial straights. Now is not the time for an arms race.

Your plan is bizarre and strange, why can't you comprehend the world has changed since the Napoleonic era?
We have no control, but nobody controls the economic trends. What they have done and we must do is manipulation the trends to our benefit. The past has gone the strategy we followed was good, but things have changed. We don't have to counter balance between two super powers. We need to realise we are living under an American Pax and try to limit American manipulation over Britain. We are living in a world where Britain is the major power in Northwest Europe, an area where the US has few interests, where we can gain power without annoying the Americans and weakening our other threats Russia, Germany and France. We have been trying since the end of the Cold war to counter US power by going into the EU to gain influence as a link between the two. However this influence has never lead to increasing interests or power, just to Britain forsaking its interest and power for influence. The strategy is wrong and hasn't working. We have dropped from being the main European power in the late 1990's to being the 4 European power today because of the strategy of counter balance.

No our interests don't change, our ability to protect those interests did. So we gave them up. It stopped in the 1880's when British government policy became not enforcing the Pax, but rather Globalisation. However with the population boom coming to an end the economics will change from capital shortage to labor shortage, this will mean countries will look to give immigrants incentives to come to their countries and companies will start moving back to the first world where the labor is. The era of Globalisation is coming to an end. I am trying to think ahead at what's going to happen.

What can Germany and France offer Ireland if Britain has good relations with Ireland. They don't need to seek a counter against Britain and any attempt to do so could mean they lose the benefits from good relations with Britain. We must use positive means to manipulate Ireland, in doing so we limit what France and Germany are able to offer and make it more costly for them, constraining them in other area's. No I am saying currently these countries have no choice they are part of the Franco-Germany sphere, they are weakened because of it. I never said Britain leaving NATO could end NATO or the EU. However it would weaken them as Britain set about the strategy I set out.

So defence spending is for protecting interests, not economic growth. I was just pointing out that parts of the spending will be a gain economically. We aren't in dire straits financially we have a debt 1/7 of our nation net worth. Anyway if we really want to cut government spending there is 500 billion in the budget that wouldn't go on defence. There wouldn't be an arms race much of the 70 billion would be spent on R&D, logistics and operational train exercises. The aim would be to gain domination through logistics and training, being able to maintain squadrons and ships all year round, rather than redeploying ships.

Because the world hasn't changed since the Napoleonic wars, geography doesn't change. Russia, France, Germany and US are the main powers Britain still has to compete with.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What factors affect your mental health the most right now?

Anxiousness about lockdown easing (102)
5.16%
Uncertainty around my education (296)
14.99%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (209)
10.58%
Lack of purpose or motivation (276)
13.97%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (86)
4.35%
Impact of lockdown on physical health (112)
5.67%
Loneliness (174)
8.81%
Financial worries (71)
3.59%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (87)
4.41%
Exposure to negative news/social media (92)
4.66%
Lack of real life entertainment (108)
5.47%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (175)
8.86%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (187)
9.47%

Watched Threads

View All