Is NATO still necessary

MontyB said:
the_13th_redneck: I am just getting somewhat amused at the development of China as a "great evil" because of actions comitted 50 years ago, to me it looks more like they are to be the USSR's replacement in the cold war.

However any action in SEA would more than likely be covered by ANZUS (Which is really now AUS as NZ has dropped out of it but lets hope they dont add Nuie) :) or a reinstituted SEATO which admittedly has been defunct since 1977.

I really cant see a role for NATO outside Europe.

PS here is NATO's role as they see it.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is an alliance of 26 countries from North America and Europe committed to fulfilling the goals of the North Atlantic Treaty signed on 4 April 1949. In accordance with the Treaty, the fundamental role of NATO is to safeguard the freedom and security of its member countries by political and military means. NATO is playing an increasingly important role in crisis management and peacekeeping.
Click to expand...


I dont see how this gets them into S.E.A.
Click to expand...

Why not? As you stated NATO's goal is to "safeguard the freedom and security of its member countries by political and military means." Why wouldn't this include overseas projection of power in other theatres if it was clear that actions by other powers would in some way threaten the security of its members? We're living in a global world. Something that happens in SEA can and does have the ability to threaten the security of NATO members.
 
Because operations in SEA are not within NATO's brief now sure given some amazingly powerful world threat maybe they would deploy to the Pacific however by the time NATO managed to get all the required approval to move most wars would be well and truely over, on top of this I think NATO is a rather toothless organisation whos formation has basically lead to a reliance on the US military, if Europe is to ever play a strong role in glogal security it must take more responsibility for its own defence.
(This does not mean breaking ties with the US but it does mean showing some self reliance).
 
i inagine that should china move against taiwan (oh god....i said the "T" word)

gaum would be on their watch list, attack guam, attack the US, nato gets involved?
 
Europe has interest in Southeast Asia. The US has interest in Southeast Asia. Both are weary of the challenges that China as a super power can bring (out of economic rivalry mostly). So how could NATO not change its mission to this?

And no disrespect Monty, but if you think a combined Australian - New Zealand alliance could handle a serious Chinese power move into Southeast Asia, you're joking. Do you think South Korea, Taiwan and Japan are just ricepeasant pushovers? It's just how big China can get. If it's small enough for Australia to handle on its own, these three countries can handle it just fine.

Something the size of NATO may be required and even that may not be enough.
 
With the US yeah. But I think we're still going to need everyone on board this one.

The topic here though is, could NATO still go on or is it just a relic?
I detailed a possible way in which NATO could continue and still serve a purpose.

Ideally yes, the alliance to counter China would be US - Korea - Japan - Australia - New Zealand plus anyone else willing to join. This is more regionally focused.

We're not answering the question: What's the best way to contain China?
 
Chager...

Hmmmm, Vietnamese were all angels and China was the devil. Look into some other side of reasons why Vietnam and China had those 2 wars before you take up a side. Is China naturally a global terioist eventhough it tried to defend its boarder?

India and China? It was a border dispute and political mishap that 2 countries elected to move on.

Tibetans? Yes, it is shady and brutal; however, Tibetan separatist movements need to be considered as internal threat as well.

Chewie, once again, changing of political system does not give Taiwan rights to declare independence from its original sovereign, like American Civil War.
 
Re: Chager...

Boobies said:
Chewie, once again, changing of political system does not give Taiwan rights to declare independence from its original sovereign, like American Civil War.
Click to expand...

Taiwan's original sovereign is the debatable issue here. If both China and Taiwan can agree on this, there wouldn't be so many problems.
 
USAFAUX, that isn't a fair statement because NATO accomplished its original mission: to keep the Soviets out of Western Europe.
 
And Putin's cancelling of elections, military buildups and crackdowns have you feeling just oh so snugly huh?
 
You never know. There is no guarantee.
Despite the good show they put up, there is still a great Russia vs Western Europe rivalry. Russia wants to keep its influence over Eastern European countries, which is why recently in the Ukraine there was some "fishy" things going on regarding the poisoning of their newly elected president.
 
Russia hasn't become a country who's military might can be dismissed just because the Soviet Union is no more. It is still quite powerful indeed. The latest developments from Putin are very disturbing. No more can people elect their officials, a massive military buildup has commensed, and Putin has taken a very hard line with the rest of the world. Russia has gone from a country that nearly impeached Yeltsin to a country that now cannot remove Putin under any circumstance. That's what happens when a KGB colonel takes over the government.
 
Charge_7 said:
That's what happens when a KGB colonel takes over the government.
Click to expand...

Hehe...good one.

My opinion is that yes NATO is still necessary...for the reasons others have stated earlier.
 
To re-launch something like NATO could take too much time. You might as well keep it with the idea that it will be modified for a future mission when neccessary. It's MUCH easier to modify an existing organization than start from scratch and my hunch, and the hunch of most people who are reasonable, I think, will agree that Europe, US and Canada need each other.
 
US for the hammer and EU for the pen...and voila you have a perfectly functioning NATO... :D j/k
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top