Is it time for the US to re-evaluate our commitment to NATO?

[CountDeMoney]

FYI Jake, the US does not have a formal defense treaty with Taiwan, and is most definitely not the guarantor of Israel.

Ah okay. Though functionally, you pretty much are their guarantors, no?

Depends on who is in the White House when Beijing decides to drop the ballon.

[jimmy olsen]

No. The Tim has spoken.

[Admiral Yi]

Ah okay. Though functionally, you pretty much are their guarantors, no?

Functionally we are definitely not Israel's guarantor.  They've been invaded several times and we never fired a shot in anger.

[Neil]

Canada is going to increase military spending by quite a bit, as our main enemy looks like it is going to be the US.

[CountDeMoney]

Canada is going to increase military spending by quite a bit, as our main enemy looks like it is going to be the US.

If relocating hockey teams from Canada to cities in the US that don't want them doesn't get Canada to do anything, then nothing will.

[Zoupa]

Libya is now an American military adventure? Huh?

You are basically arguing that the US should in fact ditch NATO, since the mission of NATO (defending Europe from Russia) is no longer relevant. I will maek you down in the "This the US should stop spending so much money on NATO" column.

Afghanistan was an American military adventure. So was Iraq (although not a NATO event, it was supported by a number of NATO members, such us the UK, Poland, Denmark, Canada).

Canada was never in Irak, noob.

[Zoupa]

I don't know about Germans, but it certainly true in Spain, especially since Ceuta, Melilla and the rest of our African possessions are excluded from the Treaty so we can't expect help where we're actually vulnerable.

Like the subway?

Classy.

[Zoupa]

I bet Poland is pretty keen on it (Marty not withstanding).  Though, you know, it might be fun if this time, we took Russia's side.  Make it a game, "What ever you can take in 90 days, you get to keep.  Go nuts.".

I think the US should take our dimes and go home. We can setup a different alliance amongst those who care about security beyond strictly European borders, or make ad hoc deals as necessary, or simply go it alone when needed.

k   

[Zoupa]

Couldn't the pulling out of American resources be done more along the lines of "well, it looks like things are pretty chill here, so we'll take our crew and go home or maybe go hang out in Asia where there may be trouble brewing. We're still best pals and if the shit hits the fan...

...we might come and help out or we might not, depending on what mood we're in.

So, par for the course?

[Admiral Yi]

So, par for the course?

You must be confusing the US's history of defense treaties with France in the interwar period.

[Neil]

Libya is now an American military adventure? Huh?

You are basically arguing that the US should in fact ditch NATO, since the mission of NATO (defending Europe from Russia) is no longer relevant. I will maek you down in the "This the US should stop spending so much money on NATO" column.

Afghanistan was an American military adventure. So was Iraq (although not a NATO event, it was supported by a number of NATO members, such us the UK, Poland, Denmark, Canada).

Canada was never in Irak, noob.

Well, there were those warships doing the blockade thing, although that was separate from the invasion.

[Zoupa]

So, par for the course?

You must be confusing the US's history of defense treaties with France in the interwar period.

Yeah, I must be.

[Camerus]

When I asked my question originally I was hoping you would elaborate said benefits.

Here are a few things that make sense to me:

• Being in a formal alliance reduces the chance of long term drift into strategic rivalry.
• Maintaining a common command structure framework, procurement standards and so on makes co-operative operations of various sorts easier to pull off in the future.
• It's a good forum for coralling political and diplomatic support.
• While the US military is obviously the most advanced, NATO allows the US to maintain contacts with and influence several of the closest runners up.
• Sharing tech and intel is much easier, I expect, within an alliance structure than outside of it. Once in a while, Europeans do develop things you might want to have a look at and I'm pretty sure that European intel comes in handy once in a while.

Jake summed it up pretty well. 

Now what would be the benefits of abandoning the alliance?  Being able to say, "fuck you, freeloading Euro parasites!" would be kind of emotionally fulfilling at some level, and I guess reducing the US' commitment to Europe to 0 (instead of just reducing spending significantly) would save some money, but ultimately neither of those reasons provides long-term strategic or security benefit to America.  What other benefits would there be?

[Admiral Yi]

What other benefits would there be?

It depends on how you percieve your treaty obligations.  If you think the obligation is to send as many armed men as you're in the mood for, then the benefits are nonexistent.  On the other hand if you think you're obligated to send enough men to repel any invasion of a member state, then the benefits are nontrivial.

[MadImmortalMan]

It depends on how you percieve your treaty obligations.  If you think the obligation is to send as many armed men as you're in the mood for, then the benefits are nonexistent.  On the other hand if you think you're obligated to send enough men to repel any invasion of a member state, then the benefits are nontrivial.

And that can't be assessed without some type of commitment requirement from each member rather than a simple blanket US guarantee. The treaty isn't the problem. The structure is. I'd favor some type of guidelines like the Eurozone has for deficit spending and such. If you want to be in the alliance, X% of GDP needs to go towards defense.