Why NATO is so important!

[Sophia4]

The history of Europe is one of war after war among and between countries that now, thanks to NATO, are joined in a common defense.

They are open with each other about the state and extent of their military organizations. They act together, not just in Europe but in other places in the world.

Thanks to NATO and with the exception of the former Yugoslavia, the world has enjoyed a peace not known for centuries on the European continent.

That should never be sacrificed for any reason.

NATO is the key to peace in Europe.

Let's don't forget that.

Financial concerns about who spends what are absurd.

Why? Because if we had to ever again fight a war on the European continent, it would be devastating for the entire world.

Never again. Never again.

So for those who do not understand the history of Europe or why NATO is so important, there you have it.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

1. Indeed.

Our buffer-zone and Allies.

[TheBlackAdder]

2. The US no longer remains the hegemonic state, the military gets gutted by 60% as no need for them.

[Sophia4]

3. What are you talking about?

[Yupster]

4. I thought NATO was to keep the Soviets

from overrunning Western Europe.

Does it have a new role now?

[Sophia4]

5. It has multiple roles.

But the most important one which is rarely if ever acknowledged is to promote peace in Western Europe.

A little reading of history will cause one to notice that the only wars in Europe (which used to have wars every 30 or so years) have been wars in countries that weren't members of NATO.

NATO promotes openness about military readiness and equipment that makes war among NATO members almost impossible, certainly very unlikely.

I don't want to insult, but read a little history.

[Shemp Howard]

6. But at some point, history is just that, history.

Look back in history. In 1814 the British raided the District of Columbia, and burned the White House. So should we maintain a series of forts on the east coast to prevent that from happening again? No, because that incident simply isn't going to happen again. Money spent on those forts would be better spent elsewhere.

The same goes with NATO. The odds of Germany attacking France again are about the same as the odds of Britain burning the White House again. Keeping NATO intact to keep Germany from attacking France again (or to keep Italy from attacking Greece again, etc.,etc.), it's all a waste of money.

Because that's all ancient history. Let's not waste money trying to prevent things that aren't going to happen anymore anyway.

Now here's a separate issue. Is NATO still of value to keep Russia from invading eastern Europe? That argument can still be made. But it's a weak argument. Militarily, Russia today is not the Russia of 1950.

So I'd be OK with phasing out NATO, and replacing it with some sort of EU-centered defense pact.

[Sophia4]

7. Have you ever lived in Western Europe?

Without the European Market and NATO, the individual countries, with their own languages or dialects and governments, could easily go to war.

The odds of Germany attacking France again? I think you underestimate them.

Look and listen to the way Trump attacks Canada and Mexico. All it takes is one crazy person like Trump and you have a war.

It could happen in Europe more easily than you think.

The fighting (troubles) between England and Ireland ended not so long ago. I remember that time.

War is always a possibility.

When Russia grows up a bit, matures and begins to fully respect the democratic institutions of its neighbors, maybe it can join NATO and be part of the movement toward peace.

[Yupster]

10. I lived in Europe

Here's an article from Deutsche Welle about the state of the German Army. They aren't invading anyone other than German tourists filling France's campsites and beaches every summer.

https://www.dw.com/en/limited-number-of-weapons-in-german-military-ready-for-action-report/a-42752070

Here's a chart from the article showing the equipment of the German military and how much of it is usable.

Number of weapon systems ready for action:

Eurofighter jet airplanes: 39 of 128
Tornado jet airplanes: 26 of 93
CH-53 transport helicopters: 16 of 72
NH-90 transport helicopters: 13 of 58
Tiger helicopters: 12 of 62
A400M transport planes: 3 of 15
Leopard 2 tanks: 105 of 224
Navy frigates: 5 of 13

[Sophia4]

11. Do you know that the US for many years refused to allow what was then West

Germany to rearm?

We agree to a mutual defense pact with Germany and maintain troops and bases that are smaller than they were in the years following WWII.

Immediately following WWII and for many years, our military presence in then W. Germany was to protect that country from Russian aggression as well as to prevent another war in Europe. Now, our presence there is to show support for peace on the continent of Europe. Small countries like Austria and others rely on peace. They could be easily the victims of "aggression" in a variety of forms as, for example, Austria was in 1938.

Our membership and support for NATO is absolutely necessary for the security of all of Europe and for our own country. Twice in the 20th century, we were forced to fight unwanted wars in Europe.

Since NATO was founded, there have been no wars in Europe. It is because NATO and our membership in NATO as well as that of other European countries is essential to the development and sustenance of the kind of trust that keeps the peace.

Only Russia is interested in war in Europe. Only Russia which is strongly suspected of having shot down a plane over the Ukraine.

Russia should change its strategy and work toward being accepted as a member of NATO also.

Why do you suppose Russia does not seek to join NATO? Is it because Russia wants war and conquest?

[Yupster]

14. Yes I did know that

I am a former college history instructor.

I agree that Russia is a threat, especially to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and to a lesser extent Poland.

There is no threat to Germany. Yet our troops are in Germany. What happens if Russia overruns Estonia in two days? That's where our troops need to be. It is a legitimate threat.

[Sophia4]

17. Our troops in Germany are a deterrent to aggression in Eastern Europe.

But it isn't just our troops. It is the cooperation and the trust shared by most of the people of Europe that is the real deterrent. At least it was when I lived there.

A lot of things have changed since the end of WWII.

Having our troops in Germany is not too far from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. Air travel is very fast, and the distance actually protects US equipment and troops.

[Sophia4]

12. I would like to add that the readiness of the German military is probably quite adequate

compared to any risk that the country faces of a war.

Germany focuses more on getting along and living in harmony with its neighbors and allies in NATO.

Germany doesn't have a lot of territory outside Germany to defend or conquer. NATO membership brings it and other countries, some small like Belgium or Austria or a number of other countries harmony with its neighbors and peace.

[Yupster]

15. I agree the German military, as haggard as it is

remains adequate to the threat it faces, since it faces no threat at all.

Wasn't it you who earlier said we were underestimating the possibility of Germany invading France again? That is just silly isn't it?

Also, Austria is not a member of NATO. That's where I lived in Europe and no one is going to be invading them either.

[Sophia4]

18. Austria is, however, protected by NATO as is all of Europe.

Austria is one of the countries I lived in. I know it very well.

[Yupster]

9. NATO would have value if it was deployed in

Poland and the Baltic States. Those countries could really be threatened by Russia.

US troops deployed to defend Germany is an expensive joke. The Russian military couldn't invade Germany even with the sad state of the current German military.

[Sophia4]

13. It would be expensive to move US bases. And it isn't necessary because NATO

exercises in countries on the border with Russia. That doesn't mean those countries are threatened or feel threatened by Russia. It just means that the countries do military exercises there.

As I have pointed out, whether or not there is a realistic threat from without the NATO alliance is not the question. Most important is the trust that NATO engenders among the countries that belong to the alliance. And that has proved itself over the years.

There has been no war between or among any of the NATO allies since 1945. That is over 70 years. And that is wonderful and worth all the money and trouble that NATO costs. Read the history of wars in Europe prior to NATO.

[Yupster]

16. Estonia absolutely feels threatened by Russia

Much for the same reason as Crimea and Ukraine. There is a significant Russian minority in Estonia, many of whom would like to be part of Russia again. A country of 1.3 million, Estonia has every reason to fear a Russian invasion. They would be overrun in about two days. NATO needs to have troops up there. Lithuania, Latvia and Poland also feel threatened, for lesser reasons.

[Yupster]

8. As an old history teacher and history textbook author

I appreciate you encouraging people to read history.

I'd ask you to encourage people to read my textbooks, but alas, they are long out of adoption, and the company I wrote for DC Heath is not even extant.