Why is NATO still around. It has no threat after the iron curtain fell, from a military point of view, aren't the Europeans self-sufficient in defending themselves?

BTW i don't know if this has been done before, i even searched and found nothing.

Self sufficient in defending themselves against who?
I think NATO should continue, if anything, as something to keep US-Europe relations going.

I think NATO is a hang over from the cold war that no longer serves a purpose.
It probably should be buried in a deep hole next to the UN as an example of a failed ideology.

"Failed"? It kept the peace for all the decades of the Cold War. Far from a failure. And just because a group's original purpose is not existent (we like to think anyway - Russia's clamping down again) doesn't mean it can't be repurposed. Get rid of NATO and you encourage the US to ignore Europe and vice versa.

With the rising of China and most economic experts saying how much more powerful the Chinese could possibly get than the US, I think the US and Europe should keep NATO around.
If China proves peaceful enough and another cold war doesn't occur, then fair enough, but if it does, you might as well keep that organization who did it right the last time around.

Originally Posted by Charge_7

"Failed"? It kept the peace for all the decades of the Cold War. Far from a failure. And just because a group's original purpose is not existent (we like to think anyway - Russia's clamping down again) doesn't mean it can't be repurposed. Get rid of NATO and you encourage the US to ignore Europe and vice versa.

They already do ignore each other, NATO has existed in name only since the end of the cold war.
As for keeping the peace I would say M.A.D. kept the peace far more effectively than NATO ever did.

With the rising of China and most economic experts saying how much more powerful the Chinese could possibly get than the US, I think the US and Europe should keep NATO around.
If China proves peaceful enough and another cold war doesn't occur, then fair enough, but if it does, you might as well keep that organization who did it right the last time around.
_________________
I pretend to work. They pretend to pay me.

Which NATO country is China likely to attack, I dont see a lot of direct borders between China and a NATO aligned country, if Europe genuinely fears an agressive China then it should be working more closely with Russia than the USA.

I would say M.A.D. kept the peace far more effectively than NATO ever did.

Ask the Germans what they think. I was stationed there during the height of the Cold War. Let me tell you, they were very glad NATO was around to keep the Soviets from gobbling them up like every nation to the east of them and half of their own nation. M.A.D. was the final word, not the first. Without NATO the Soviets could've walked right in and said "well, do you want to start WWIII over West Germany?" and without the troops there to prevent their coming in through the Fulda Gap there wouldn't have been anything to stop them.

As for ignoring each other, Europe and US have been through such times before. Having NATO around gives a forum for relations. Removing it would ensure that they ignore each other continuously.

Originally Posted by Charge_7

Ask the Germans what they think. I was stationed there during the height of the Cold War. Let me tell you, they were very glad NATO was around to keep the Soviets from gobbling them up like every nation to the east of them and half of their own nation. M.A.D. was the final word, not the first. Without NATO the Soviets could've walked right in and said "well, do you want to start WWIII over West Germany?" and without the troops there to prevent their coming in through the Fulda Gap there wouldn't have been anything to stop them.

As for ignoring each other, Europe and US have been through such times before. Having NATO around gives a forum for relations. Removing it would ensure that they ignore each other continuously.

I agree with this. NATO was vital for winning the Cold War and it still has a place as a medium for European and North American forces to work together. In this age of global terrorism NATO, or the philosophy behind it, still is absolutely relevant.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Which NATO country is China likely to attack, I dont see a lot of direct borders between China and a NATO aligned country, if Europe genuinely fears an agressive China then it should be working more closely with Russia than the USA.

This time it'd be purely around for support of allies abroad. That's what could end up being key. If anything happens, it would be nice to have an organization through which the US and Europe could coordinate their efforts.
Believe me, it is not politically wise to let pacific countries go over to the Chinese side if you wish to stay in the game.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

This time it'd be purely around for support of allies abroad. That's what could end up being key. If anything happens, it would be nice to have an organization through which the US and Europe could coordinate their efforts.
Believe me, it is not politically wise to let pacific countries go over to the Chinese side if you wish to stay in the game.

Ok so now we have NATO involved in the Pacific because the Chinese are coming.
I really dont understand this desire to demonise China as some evil empire with the desire to take over the world, my argument remains the same if China is to attack Europe it is going have to do it through Russia therefore Europes defence relies solely in in ensuring Russia doesnt lose.

However this is all hypothetical as I personally dont believe China is threatening to attack anyone (well maybe Taiwan but thay have a fairly interesting case there).