Is NATO still necessary

[WarMachine]

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.

 

[A Can of Man]

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

 

[MontyB]

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.

 

[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.

 

[A Can of Man]

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.

 

[MontyB]

"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.

 

[Charge 7]

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.

 

[Doppleganger]

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.

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.

 

[A Can of Man]

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.

 

[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.

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).

 

[A Can of Man]

Monty, it's known as having been next to the Chinese for about a thousand years and a friggin' thing changing.
You see, it's different when a country that has to answer to its people becomes strong compraed to when a country where the people have to answer to the country becomes strong.
When the latter has been true, we've had World War I, World War II, the Napoleonic Wars etc.
THAT is why I don't like any of this.
If China was a democracy, things could be different.
Also maybe you missed out, but while NATO was doing their thing in the West, we in the east were doing the same thing. If China gains control of East Asia and Southeast Asia (pressure and not direct military force can do this as well), then Europe and the US's position in this world becomes even more difficult.
Can you imagine what potential power China + Taiwan + Korea and the riches of Southeast Asian natural resources would bring in to the Chinese? Do you know that China already has big influence in Southeast Asia thanks to its extremely successful Chinese populations in Indonesia, Mayalsia and Singapore?
And suddenly, Australia won't seem that relaxed anymore.
I guess New Zealand will be safe because there's nothing to gain from taking it or pressuring them into doing anything... unless there's a shortage of wool.

 

[MontyB]

Monty, it's known as having been next to the Chinese for about a thousand years and a friggin' thing changing.
You see, it's different when a country that has to answer to its people becomes strong compraed to when a country where the people have to answer to the country becomes strong.
When the latter has been true, we've had World War I, World War II, the Napoleonic Wars etc.
THAT is why I don't like any of this.
If China was a democracy, things could be different.
Also maybe you missed out, but while NATO was doing their thing in the West, we in the east were doing the same thing. If China gains control of East Asia and Southeast Asia (pressure and not direct military force can do this as well), then Europe and the US's position in this world becomes even more difficult.
Can you imagine what potential power China + Taiwan + Korea and the riches of Southeast Asian natural resources would bring in to the Chinese? Do you know that China already has big influence in Southeast Asia thanks to its extremely successful Chinese populations in Indonesia, Mayalsia and Singapore?
And suddenly, Australia won't seem that relaxed anymore.
I guess New Zealand will be safe because there's nothing to gain from taking it or pressuring them into doing anything... unless there's a shortage of wool.

You still havent explained why China is suddenly going to attack S.E.A. or anyone else for that matter, without prior examples or facts to back up these claims its starting to look a lot like another "China is evil" argument (which is what any thread that mentions China seems to become) which to date is both baseless and starting to look more racist by the day.

So once again my argument remains as it was IF there is to be any contact between NATO and China it pretty much has to come through Russia unless they want to leave a huge military power untouched on their flank and take on Europe in a naval war which would be monumentaly stupid.

PS you can insult NZ all you like but until your arguments start making some rational form of sense it is rather a poor shot.

 

[Chocobo_Blitzer]

I think 13th was trying to illustrate that Europe's involvement in Asia could sway any Chinese expansion from occuring. Do we know China will enroach on asia one day? No of course not. You ask for facts, what do you want? Someone to pull out the "China's Expansion Plans 2010-2020"

Just look to the authority of China, the economy of China, the military of China. China's strong nationalistic mindset. China is becoming a behemoth, with similiar traits of past aggressions, such as what 13th listed.

Is it probable China will adapt an expanasion policy? I don't know, but it is definitely possible.

13th just listed a possible use of NATO.

Though I would like to hear this idea expanded into greater detail.

 

[Boobies]

13th...

Can you imagine what potential power China + Taiwan + Korea and the riches of Southeast Asian natural resources would bring in to the Chinese?

13th, Korea is Korea. Korea is not China whereas Taiwan is a onwership of dispute. To simply classify China as war monger or land grabber is abit out of touch. Furthermore, changing of political system (KMT to Communism) does not give Taiwan any rights to seperate or declare independence from its original soverign, a bit like America Civil War (not allowing South of breaking away from the Union).

You see, it's different when a country that has to answer to its people becomes strong compraed to when a country where the people have to answer to the country becomes strong.

Hmmm... Are you saying Chinese economic reform is a form of becoming strong because "of people have to answer to the country becomes strong"? Isn't economic reform an answer to its citizens call for the better? Isn't China answering to its people's call to becomg strong and not-to-be disrespected like the past (the invasion and colonization by the 8 alliances and the defeat by Japan) at this present time? Please do explain the above quote, and use example.

And, yes, we all know human rights issues.



[/quote]

 

[MontyB]

I think 13th was trying to illustrate that Europe's involvement in Asia could sway any Chinese expansion from occuring. Do we know China will enroach on asia one day? No of course not. You ask for facts, what do you want? Someone to pull out the "China's Expansion Plans 2010-2020"

No but I do wonder what chance there is for peace when one side already has this view of the other and so far it is a rather unsubstantiated view.

Just look to the authority of China, the economy of China, the military of China. China's strong nationalistic mindset. China is becoming a behemoth, with similiar traits of past aggressions, such as what 13th listed.

To be honest I see a lot of rhetoric about China but mostly based on ignorance and long past prejudices and very little seemingly based on fact.

Is it probable China will adapt an expanasion policy? I don't know, but it is definitely possible.

Yep but then so MIGHT any other country on earth so why single out China.


Unfortunately we (the world) managed to create one cold war through mistrust and ignorance I am not that keen on seeing another.

 

[Charge 7]

You have doubts about China's methods? Why not hear it from a Tibetan?

http://www.timesoftibet.com/blogs/17/In-the-Face-of-Brutality-the-Young-China-and-the-Old-Tibet

The Vietnamese think so too.

http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/chinadn/en/archives/004353.html

The Indians haven't forgotten. So betrayed was Nehru by Chinese aggression that he had this to say on the day the Chinese invaded: "Perhaps there are not many instances in history where one country has gone out of her way to be friendly and cooperative with the government and people of another country and to plead their cause in the council of the world, and then that country returns evil for good." Think about that before you run into China's "friendly" arms.

http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=7802&t=4&c=1

And if you don't want to hear it from elsewhere, here's something from New Zealand.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0503/S00214.htm?mode=print

 

[MontyB]

What an utter pile of garbage.

Wait a sec lets find out what the Aliens are up to.
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/

Good god man at least find some accredited rags to back your case.

A tibetan web blog theres impartiality for you maybe we should get a quote from Saddam about the US and treat that as gospel.

A dodgy report on Chinese border guards shooting 9 Vietnamese fisherman in Chinese terratorial waters with absolutely no follow up,

'Chinese officials informed us that eight Vietnamese fishermen were killed and we are trying to verify the information,' said Do Hong, secretary of the People's Committee of Hoa Loc village, in Thanh Hoa province, where the victims were born."

Yeah thats enough data to hang an entire nation on I say we nuke em imediately.

And theres nothing like a 50 year old story written by the losing side to prove a point oh and lets top it off what looks like a decidedly left wing New Zealand internet site.

PS - This has moved a long way off topic.

 

[A Can of Man]

MontyB, I guess you missed it but I am actually ethnically Chinese so I guess you can throw your "racist" comment out the window.

China may not actually conduct a real military operation in Southeast Asia or even against Korea, but having a strong Chinese military, countries that cannot contain a possible threat (that's almost everyone in the region) will be more easily swayed into China's side.

Now I'm talking through the viewpoint of Europe and the US here when I say both of them will have interest in being in the game in Southeast Asia and in East Asia as well. And NATO can fill this role well.
Believe me, Europe has a lot of investments and interests in Southeast Asia. The Dutch are still a major player in Indonesia.

The Spratleys is an incident that could have gone bad, but didn't, largely thanks to the Chinese lack of strategic reach. Basically their Navy wasn't quite good enough to go there, gain control, then maintain control for a long time. And this was because of the US presence. Without the US, no one in the area could have stopped the Chinese from grabbing the Spratleys which they so wanted due to the oil reserves in that region.

Still don't believe in the Chinese using their military to apply pressure to the neighbors, who by the way, are legitimate democracies? Try that new Anti-Secssion Law.

Either way, what I'm saying is NATO could change its mission into containing Chinese influence in Asia. It's a possible new role for NATO.. That's what this thread is about right??

 

[Charge 7]

What an utter pile of garbage.

Well, I guess you're just the kind of person who'd think the weather had gotten warmer if the house was on fire

 

[MontyB]

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.

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