Is NATO still viable?

Watch
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
Most people presume that NATO is the bedrock of European defence, is this a viable option?

The U.S. Presence is falling steadily- not a single US tank remains in Europe and I see no reason why this trend won't worsen. Coupled with this barely any countries are meeting their 2% target.

i think an EU army is the most logical solution to this. We already have some pan European military units such as the euro corps. A joint military would be a force to be reckoned with.

Thoughts?
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
(Original post by Davij038)
Most people presume that NATO is the bedrock of European defence, is this a viable option?

The U.S. Presence is falling steadily- not a single US tank remains in Europe and I see no reason why this trend won't worsen. Coupled with this barely any countries are meeting their 2% target.

i think an EU army is the most logical solution to this. We already have some pan European military units such as the euro corps. A joint military would be a force to be reckoned with.

Thoughts?
NATO has always been a nuclear based alliance. US forces were only ever a trip wire to allow for a nuclear response. As long as that part of NATO is viable then the organisation has a purpose. As long as Russia see's Eastern Europe as "theirs" NATO has a purpose.
1
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#3
(Original post by Aj12)
NATO has always been a nuclear based alliance. US forces were only ever a trip wire to allow for a nuclear response. As long as that part of NATO is viable then the organisation has a purpose. As long as Russia see's Eastern Europe as "theirs" NATO has a purpose.
This is true but will the U.S. be willing to pay for that deterrent indefinitely? I doubt it. Whilst I think Russia is a semi fascist oligarchy whose actions in the Ukraine are a threat to Europe I do not think it is anyway near a threat that the USSR was (which too was over exaggerated ) . Wouldn't Europe be better having its own deterrent?
0
reply
A level sufferer
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by Davij038)
Most people presume that NATO is the bedrock of European defence, is this a viable option?

The U.S. Presence is falling steadily- not a single US tank remains in Europe and I see no reason why this trend won't worsen. Coupled with this barely any countries are meeting their 2% target.

i think an EU army is the most logical solution to this. We already have some pan European military units such as the euro corps. A joint military would be a force to be reckoned with.

Thoughts?
It better be viable otherwise if we enter into a conflict with our present army then we'll be ****ed to say the least
1
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by Davij038)
Most people presume that NATO is the bedrock of European defence, is this a viable option?

The U.S. Presence is falling steadily- not a single US tank remains in Europe and I see no reason why this trend won't worsen. Coupled with this barely any countries are meeting their 2% target.

i think an EU army is the most logical solution to this. We already have some pan European military units such as the euro corps. A joint military would be a force to be reckoned with.

Thoughts?
As a whole i think not, Americans won't die for Moldova. That said, i do think that notably the Uk, France, US and Poland can trust each other to act so although there's some pretense, at least some aspect of the military alliance still exists.

I do like the idea of an EU armed forces but i would never ever vote for Britain to join it given the pacifist elements in Europe.
1
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by Davij038)
This is true but will the U.S. be willing to pay for that deterrent indefinitely? I doubt it. Whilst I think Russia is a semi fascist oligarchy whose actions in the Ukraine are a threat to Europe I do not think it is anyway near a threat that the USSR was (which too was over exaggerated ) . Wouldn't Europe be better having its own deterrent?
I don't see why not because NATO forms the basis of American reliability as an ally, something that forms a key part of their pivot to Asia. If the US is seen to allow one of it's oldest and arguably most successful alliances die then every country it is trying to line up against China will take a look and say " are they going to be there in a fight?" It would completely undermine what is fast becoming the cornerstone of US diplomacy, coalition building. I don't think the expense is that much, given the benefits.

Sure a European deterrent would be better, more tied into the local environment. But who is going to run it? There are two military powers in Europe, France and Britain. Neither has the resources to take America's place, even together. Given that Europe can barely provide a united response to a country invading another I have little faith of their ability to build a credible defensive alliance.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by Aj12)
I don't see why not because NATO forms the basis of American reliability as an ally, something that forms a key part of their pivot to Asia. If the US is seen to allow one of it's oldest and arguably most successful alliances die then every country it is trying to line up against China will take a look and say " are they going to be there in a fight?" It would completely undermine what is fast becoming the cornerstone of US diplomacy, coalition building. I don't think the expense is that much, given the benefits.
These things change in time and as you say, there are more pressing concerns than Russia which at the moment is only getting weaker- and as the EU already matches US interests more or less (liberal, democracy) and things like TTIP are only going to strengthen the relationship.

Sure a European deterrent would be better, more tied into the local environment. But who is going to run it? There are two military powers in Europe, France and Britain. Neither has the resources to take America's place, even together. Given that Europe can barely provide a united response to a country invading another I have little faith of their ability to build a credible defensive alliance.
I imagine there'd be an appointed Secretary General like in NATO but responding to maybe the high representative? Or ideally the EU would operate as a sovereign body as kart of a federal state.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by Rakas21)
As a whole i think not, Americans won't die for Moldova. That said, i do think that notably the Uk, France, US and Poland can trust each other to act so although there's some pretense, at least some aspect of the military alliance still exists.

I do like the idea of an EU armed forces but i would never ever vote for Britain to join it given the pacifist elements in Europe.
I think a lot of that supposed pacifism comes from essentially German post war guilt- acting under a pan European directive should help them overcome their past in this area I think.
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by Davij038)
These things change in time and as you say, there are more pressing concerns than Russia which at the moment is only getting weaker- and as the EU already matches US interests more or less (liberal, democracy) and things like TTIP are only going to strengthen the relationship.



I imagine there'd be an appointed Secretary General like in NATO but responding to maybe the high representative? Or ideally the EU would operate as a sovereign body as kart of a federal state.
Russia may be getting weaker, it certainly is not a super power. But then neither is Iran and it still manages to have a huge destabilizing impact on the states around it. Without an American bulwark in the way it is difficult to imagine Russia not gaining de facto control of much of Eastern Europe. Unless Poland and Germany really step up to the plate.

True it could work in those circumstances, but I think we are a long way from a federal European state, which would completely eliminate the need for NATO.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by Aj12)
Russia may be getting weaker, it certainly is not a super power. But then neither is Iran and it still manages to have a huge destabilizing impact on the states around it. Without an American bulwark in the way it is difficult to imagine Russia not gaining de facto control of much of Eastern Europe. Unless Poland and Germany really step up to the plate.

True it could work in those circumstances, but I think we are a long way from a federal European state, which would completely eliminate the need for NATO.
Yeah I agree with that.

Do you think that by the U.S. Leaving it would force European States to get serious about defence?

I notice a lot of Eurosceptics are very fond of the U.S. Continuing their major presence inneurope, do you think it's because they fear something like this occurring?
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by Davij038)
Yeah I agree with that.

Do you think that by the U.S. Leaving it would force European States to get serious about defence?

I notice a lot of Eurosceptics are very fond of the U.S. Continuing their major presence inneurope, do you think it's because they fear something like this occurring?
Doubtful, Russia invading another nation barely made a dent. If anything could cause a wake up call it'd be that. I can't imagine anything bar a local war by which time it may be too late to achieve anything.

I always get the feeling the Eurosceptics respect power and force. UKIP want to go for a military build up, as do many of their fellow travelers. Part of the reason is no doubt that they fear anything that would push European nations together.
0
reply
balanced
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Davij038)

EU army
Thoughts?
German (largely) troops around Europe, now what does that remind me of......
Let's just say that wont be a good move for the EU.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by balanced)
German (largely) troops around Europe, now what does that remind me of......
Let's just say that wont be a good move for the EU.
Keep that attitude up mate it'll do wonders for your chances of an out vote
1
reply
username2298253
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
I think it's too big and full of countries with different ideologies to be a proper alliance (e.g. Turkey)
0
reply
balanced
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by Davij038)
Keep that attitude up mate it'll do wonders for your chances of an out vote
This EU army debate is golden for the out vote, you realise. This is because it is smothering Dave's "reforms" whilst at the same time highlighting the unelected nature of the EU, what could be better?
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by balanced)
This EU army debate is golden for the out vote, you realise. This is because it is smothering Dave's "reforms" whilst at the same time highlighting the unelected nature of the EU, what could be better?
I've actually spoken to a number of people -even UKIP voters * who support an EU army- which according to polls is quite popular. How is it undemocratic if it's a policy of the most popular EU party the EPP. I think this is a famous case of the eurosceptics supporting democracy apart from when they don't like the outcome.





*whilst obviously not wanting Britain being a part of it.
0
reply
balanced
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by Davij038)
I've actually spoken to a number of people -even UKIP voters * who support an EU army- which according to polls is quite popular. How is it undemocratic if it's a policy of the most popular EU party the EPP. I think this is a famous case of the eurosceptics supporting democracy apart from when they don't like the outcome.





*whilst obviously not wanting Britain being a part of it.
Is it though? Are we voting? No. Therefore it's rather simple, it's not democratic.

Think about what you're saying here, I'll provide you with an example. If I, the supreme dictator of north korea decided that we should increase public spending and it turned out to be popular it's democratic? Is this seriously your view?

Just because it might have "support", even if it did, it does not make it democratic. Have a rethink.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by balanced)
Is it though? Are we voting? No. Therefore it's rather simple, it's not democratic.

Think about what you're saying here, I'll provide you with an example. If I, the supreme dictator of north korea decided that we should increase public spending and it turned out to be popular it's democratic? Is this seriously your view?

Just because it might have "support", even if it did, it does not make it democratic. Have a rethink.
Comparing the EU commission (who is chosen by the elected MEPs from the largest party) to North Korea- full blown ******ed.

I do support a fully elected EU president as do most federalists but this move is opposed by some elected heads of state.

If you want to be obtuse on the matter we have an unelected head of state anyway
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by balanced)
German (largely) troops around Europe, now what does that remind me of......
Let's just say that wont be a good move for the EU.
(Original post by Skeptyle)
I think it's too big and full of countries with different ideologies to be a proper alliance (e.g. Turkey)
(Original post by balanced)
This EU army debate is golden for the out vote, you realise. This is because it is smothering Dave's "reforms" whilst at the same time highlighting the unelected nature of the EU, what could be better?
Ironically Ukip's EU group (and the Tories) pretty much oppose any and all attempts to bring democracy to the process. To be expected (Farage and co are politicians after all) but it's not like Europe itself has not tried to bring in measures.

There are many reasons to oppose EU membership (i may vote out) but the lack of democracy argument is not all that strong. Hell, there are over 200 MEP's who want nothing less than full federalism.
0
reply
balanced
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by Davij038)
Comparing the EU commission (who is chosen by the elected MEPs from the largest party) to North Korea- full blown ******ed.

I do support a fully elected EU president as do most federalists but this move is opposed by some elected heads of state.

If you want to be obtuse on the matter we have an unelected head of state anyway
Comparing the EU commission (who is chosen by the elected MEPs from the largest party) to North Korea- full blown ******ed.Again, Davij, look at what I said. I was showing you how a democracy works.I do support a fully elected EU president as do most federalists but this move is opposed by some elected heads of state.Irrelevant as this isn't the caseIf you want to be obtuse on the matter we have an unelected head of state anyway
so that changes everything now? Anyway they have no real power they'd dare to use.


And still my point remains, support from the public without a vote is not democratic.
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 do you want most from university virtual open days and online events?

I want to be able to watch in my own time rather than turn up live (189)
29.3%
I want to hear more about the specifics of the course (106)
16.43%
I want to be able to dip in and dip out of lots of different sessions (58)
8.99%
I want to meet current students (54)
8.37%
I want to meet academics and the people that will be teaching me (51)
7.91%
I want to have a taster lecture or workshop to see what the teaching is like (128)
19.84%
My parents/guardians are more interested than me to be honest (38)
5.89%
Other things – I'll tell you in the thread (21)
3.26%

Watched Threads

View All