Trump wants US to step back from NATO, at least a bit, and put more responsibility on other NATO countries. I'm not convinced by his rhetoric when it comes to certain ignored aspects, such as the fact that US has, not only the largest military in the world, but one of the largest stacks of nuclear weapons - which making they have denied from other countries on the pretext that US will handle the matter. In other words, US would have some explaining to do on restraining the rest of the world for decades and then exclaiming, "it was all their fault for having asked us to do everything and clinging on like that." Because some in the world wake up one day to wonder, "We don't have any military allies?" Next thing you know, Russia's at the door and all you can do is negotiate. The fundamental problem in NATO is not that it is useless or provoking, but that it divides the world in a counterproductive way. It doesn't save the NATO countries - except at a time of war, which so far hasn't occurred - but it excludes them from the rest of the world. NATO countries can only go to war if the NATO god says, "yes." As long as the NATO god keeps saying, "it's none of our business," nobody can do anything. And the NATO god probably decides this by nasal intuition. The only way out is for NATO to allow countries to make independent decisions on going to war - not attacking, that would be wrong - but defending others if they are so inclined. This is something that could never get to the door of the NATO god, but I don't see anything else that could save NATO from itself. Reform as you like, with the bottom fault it'll never stick together for long. Or would it?
That is not true. No individual NATO nation needs approval by the rest of the alliance to go to war. The only thing requiring NATO approval is when the alliance acts jointly.
The problem with NATO is that it is too big. Too many members. The lesson of WW2 taught in British schools is that we can't afford to be in too many alliances. That one war can then domino into a world war.
You sure you aren't thinking about World War One? And even then the British were not officially in hardly any alliances to speak of.
Can't really remember my history lessons for the causes of WW1 to be honest. We did study it. It's our alliance with Poland that brought us into WW2. A country we could never protect. A quick google gets me this.... Why did war break out in 1914? The Great War of 1914-18 began in August 1914. The causes of this war have been debated by politicians and historians ever since. One of the few things that historians have been able to agree about is that the war was the result of many different complex factors working together. These factors meant that the situation in Europe in 1914 was very tense. This in turn allowed one crisis to spiral out of control and spark off a war that killed millions. The war was fought between rival alliances of European powers: In 1879, Germany and Austria-Hungary formed an alliance (the Dual Alliance) that gave them great strength in the centre of Europe. In 1892, the French and the Russians formed their own strong alliance (the Dual Entente) that meant Germany now had an unfriendly power on each side. Soon afterwards, Germany's most powerful soldier, General Schlieffen, drew up a plan that would allow Germany to beat France very quickly in any future war. This would then free most German troops to fight Russia in the east. By the early 1900s, the alliances had developed. The Dual Alliance had become the Triple Alliance with Italy (although Italy stayed out of the war in 1914). In 1907, Britain joined Russia and France to form the Triple Entente. Britain was much less committed to this alliance than Russia or France. The advantage of these alliances was that it gave the great powers a sense of security. The downside was that if the powers stuck blindly to their alliances, then a small-scale local dispute involving one power might drag the other powers in and turn into a major war. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/greatwar/g2/backgroundcs1.htm So yes, it could be WW1 I was taught this about. Either way, that's what we are taught not to do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand_of_Austria TL;DR Scroll to bottom.
Baff, you should know that most people find history boring. And today when they do teach history it's PC revisionist history. Here's how you tell the history of WW l. If WWI was a bar fight Germany, Austria and Italy are standing together in the middle of a pub when Serbia bumps into Austria and spills Austria's pint. Austria demands Serbia buy it a complete new suit because there are splashes on its trouser leg. Germany expresses its support for Austria's point of view. Britain recommends that everyone calm down a bit. Serbia points out that it can't afford a whole suit, but offers to pay for the cleaning of Austria's trousers. Russia and Serbia look at Austria. Austria asks Serbia who it's looking at. Russia suggests that Austria should leave its little brother alone. Austria inquires as to whose army will assist Russia in compelling it to do so. Germany appeals to Britain that France has been looking at it, and that this is sufficiently out of order that Britain should not intervene. Britain replies that France can look at who it wants to, that Britain is looking at Germany too, and what is Germany going to do about it? Germany tells Russia to stop looking at Austria, or Germany will render Russia incapable of such action. Britain and France ask Germany whether it's looking at Belgium. Turkey and Germany go off into a corner and whisper. When they come back, Turkey makes a show of not looking at anyone. Germany rolls up its sleeves, looks at France, and punches Belgium. France and Britain punch Germany. Austria punches Russia. Germany punches Britain and France with one hand and Russia with the other. Russia throws a punch at Germany, but misses and nearly falls over. Japan calls over from the other side of the room that it's on Britain's side, but stays there. Italy surprises everyone by punching Austria. Austria Australia punches Turkey, and gets punched back. There are no hard feelings because Britain made Austria Australia do it. France gets thrown through a plate glass window, but gets back up and carries on fighting. Russia gets thrown through another one, gets knocked out, suffers brain damage, and wakes up with a complete personality change. Italy throws a punch at Austria and misses, but Austria falls over anyway. Italy raises both fists in the air and runs round the room chanting. America waits till Germany is about to fall over from sustained punching from Britain and France, then walks over and smashes it with a barstool, then pretends it won the fight all by itself. By now all the chairs are broken and the big mirror over the bar is shattered. Britain, France and America agree that Germany threw the first punch, so the whole thing is Germany's fault. While Germany is still unconscious, they go through its pockets, steal its wallet, and buy drinks for all their friends
You're probably right. I can't find anything to confirm nor deny that, it seems they have the right to decide. But attacking another non-NATO country could lead into losing the membership. And in the end nearly all decisions come from the United States, they even decide who NATO countries sell weapons to, what weapons and when. It looks a lot more like a theoretical right than a practical one. If one fails, out they go. There, you stripped NATO off its last option. In my view.
The NATO alliance doesn't kick in if you go to war with someone. It's a defence pact. If we declare war on Iraq, NATO members are not obliged to do the same. If Iraq invades a NATO country however, NATO allies are treaty bound to declare war.
What was the purpose of NATO ? Those who served in NATO, what were they trained to do ? Kill Soviet soldiers. Any American who served in the U.S. military from 1950 to 1991 what were they trained to do ? Kill commies. If you remember after Ronald Reagan won the Cold War the debate was what's the purpose of NATO since there's no longer a Soviet Union. Should NATO dissolve ? Bring the American troops home from Europe is what most Americans were saying. That's what it looked like what was going to happen. But back in 1992 Bill Clinton was elected as POTUS and he appointed Madeleine Albright as his Secretary of State. Now Madeleine was an interesting character. Born in Prague, Czechoslovakia in 1937 her family was forced to flee from Czechoslovakia because Hitler was on the move. Madeleine was born as a Jew but her family converted to Catholicism in 1942 for whatever reasons. By 1944 the Soviet army was on the move headed towards Berlin. The Eastern European countries like Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc. were soon to find out that the Soviet Army weren't liberators but it was worse under Soviet occupation than under German occupation. The rapes the plundering, etc. The Eastern Europeans hated the Soviets more than the Germans unless you were a Jew. Madeleine Albright growing up and hearing what was taking place in her motherland Czechoslovakia ended up with a chip on her shoulder, she just didn't hate Soviets but all Russians. PC liberals would call her today a racist if Russians weren't white skin. It was Madeleine Albright as Secretary of State who convinced President Clinton not to bring the troops home but to expand NATO by bringing new members into NATO, former Warsaw countries. Madeleine Albright wanted to continue fighting the Cold War. This would help bring Vladimir Putin into power. Soon Russia found NATO troops on it's western border, what was the original purpose of NATO ? Killing Russians.
NATO does need a reform. And a re-look at it's membership. I was thinking about that a few months ago when Turkey shot down that Russian jet. Those idiots could have easily plunged the world into a world war. The reasons for having Turkey in NATO during the Cold War were obvious, but they're not so obvious now. In fact, they are a liability and as the become more Islamic, will be more and more a problem. The alliance needs a do over.
I concur, it started over when Serbia bumped into Austria and Austria spilled his beer all over his trousers.
Not really. The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was an act of war. A simple shoot down of some war plane somewhere is not nearly as clear cut.
What kind of a do over? Turkey is the second largest military.. and much, much wiser with the Russians. Except when they crawl back to them sometimes, I don't like that.
Unfortunately no one knows just what it was.. A simple shoot down is nothing, had there been war it would have been for much different reasons, but there wasn't because those much different reasons never existed. It is a common style of Russia to provoke and lie, then attack claiming someone else started the war. It doesn't mean one has to be on their toes so they won't be blamed for the war.
It wasn't an act of war for the Germans, French, Belgians, and English. Or for the US by the way. It was a slippery slope, and that's what I'm worried about.
OK so Russia could lie and instigate an incident with Turkey which, because they are a NATO member, would plunge the US into war with Russia. OK that goes to my point then.
Trump kill NATO. He gangstsr wanting protection money. NATO nations might be too weaked willed to leave but support usa in wars? Many Americans believe Putin vs NATO? But trump kill it long before vlad. Turkey was mess. Kremlin Washington exchanging military data with air space. Washington passed on info to Turkey government who shot down plane. While Putin bombed and killed hundreds of Turks supporting Isis vs assad. But shooting down military planes at sea? No excuses. If usa ever shoots down Russian jet. Nothing to hide reality. Kremlin forced to respond. Shoot down usa jet. The spiral into nuclear confrontation.
What 'started WW I' was Wilhelm II inheriting an Empire when his Daddy died, dismissed Bismarck, and then began to rattle his sabre around at every power around him. Nothing complex about it. England studiously avoided entangling alliances on the Continent, until it was for all practical purposes forced into such alliances with France, Belgium, and Russia by Wilhelm's foreign policies. Austria-Hungary was essentially a puppet state; Ferdinand's assassination isn't what touched off the war, Wilhelm's prodding them into making ridiculous demands from Serbia after the assassination started it, even after Germany's own appointed investigator verified the assassins were not sent by the Serbian government. See Cataclysm: WW I as a Political Tragedy, by David Stevenson, for the best book available on the war. It follows the politics from beginning to end of the war. https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/articles_papers_reports/0215.html ... and more, in the interview with the author. The general German position was that they had a three year window before Russia could finish modernizing its military, according to Moltke the Younger, and the other powers Wilhelm's policies drove into consolidations and military alliances would be able to stop Wilhelm's expansionist dreams of a global empire. It was no 'accident'. The closest modern parallel will only involve NATO peripherally, and that will depend on which way Russia swings when Iran finally launches its nukes. Obama's nuclear proliferation in the ME is the most dangerous at the moment, and the alliances being formed there are somewhat similar, but then so are several others. Russia isn't much conventionally, but its still a corrupt state with a desperate dictator trying to hold on to power or face being killed, and anybody with $200 billion stashed away is ripe for starting a foreign war to keep support from patriotic Russians, even if they would be crushed. Same link as above post.
Time ran out before I could finish editing the last. I see no reason both MacMillan's and Stevenson's take on the issues can't happen together.
The First World War was one of the most stupid wars ever fought in history. It was an era of alliances between countries and an era when nations kept their honor of following those alliances. The United States had no alliance with any European nation back then. In fact the United States had no alliance with any country in the world except the Monroe Doctrine which wasn't an alliance just a warning to Europe to stay out of the internal affairs of Latin America. NATO was established in 1949 for one purpose, to kill Soviet soldiers if they move beyond the "Iron Curtain." After WW ll most of the world was in ruins, the only real combat effective military powers were the United States and the Soviet Union. Without America NATO would fail. Five years later in 1954 SEATO was established to stop communist expansion in Eastern Asia, in particular Southeast Asia. In particualar Communist North Vietnam. In 1961 JFK ignored President Eisenhower's warnings not to get involved with the corrupt Diem regime of the Republic of South Vietnam and in 1963 signed off on the CIA backed regime change military coups. The coups backed fire when President Diem was murdered. JFK knew exactly what that meant, South Vietnam now was America's problem, we owned South Vietnam. Three weeks later JFK would meet the same fate as Diem in Dallas Texas. The revisionist say that JFK was planning to withdraw from the RVN. That might have been true before JFK's attempt of regime change in the RVN. But as soon as JFK found out that the coups back fired and that America now owned the RVN Kennedy realized that all of his Harvard buddies he surrounded himself with who were known and the "Young and Brightest" weren't so bright. JFK and also LBJ knew if they pulled out of the RVN, SEATO would collapse, so did the rest of the world, So the world watched, what would JFK do ? Three weeks later, what would LBJ do ? The Soviets watched, the NATO members watched. What will JFK / LBJ do ? If SEATO were to collapse, NATO would soon follow suit because America couldn't be trusted and would abandon NATO if the Warsaw Pact moved against Western Europe. Fast track to 2011. The frogs (France) want cheaper oil from Libya and wanted to renegotiate a new contract with Muammar Gaddafi, Gaddafi told the French to go eat frog legs. So France turned to NATO and said it's time for regime change in Libya. Most NATO members weren't sold. But soon the frogs stared bombing Libya under the cover of NATO as Vladimir Putin watched. Soon the frogs ran out of bombs, I (*)(*)(*)(*) you not. Putin also noticed it and said no (*)(*)(*)(*), maybe NATO is a paper tiger without the American military ? So the frogs turned to Hillary and Obama, we need your help to remove your ally who has been helping to fight Al Qaeda to remove him from power. Hey Barack and Hillary you just threw one ally (Hosni Mubarak) under the bus in Egypt, why not in Libya ? Hillary tells Barack I need a legacy when I run for President in 2016 Barack, lets help the frogs and remove our ally who's been keeping Al Qaeda out of North Africa and remove him from power. I don't know Hillary, it's up to Valerie Jarrett and Susan Rice to make those tough decisions. You know Barack that you are one of the biggest supporters of the Arab Spring. You backed stabbed our long time ally Hosni Mubarak didn't you ? lets do it says Hillary. Obama waffles a few times and then gets back to Hillary and tells her it's a go. I have just ordered the Navy to launch some Tomahawk cruise missiles. The rest is history and the entire Middle East is one big freaking basket case today.
