Posted on 12/09/2023 11:22:26 AM PST by Mariner
Yep
Look at what happened to the Confederacy.
While a direct invasion would be unlikely, the usual purpose of military action or threatened action is to extort some political or economic concession.
And all of you are ignoring the political aspects. A general withdrawal would mean a return to the tiny army and moderately sized Navy of pre-WWII America. We would still be too large of a potential adversary to ignore, so someone would always have a contingency plan for attacking us. Hell, even the Brits had one prior to WWII and we against them.
A general American withdrawal would simply set the stage for another great power competition leading to WWIII.
Indeed got to know your place in life.
Wasn’t it a NATO doofus that sent an F-117 ona DAYLIGHT mission and got it shot down?
on a
The NYT well knows that Trump rattled the NATO cage to create leverage while pushing Europeans to fund their militaries at the agreed 2% of GDP. He wasn’t really trying to end the alliance. It’s hard to negotiate with a fifth column biting his arse.
Not a lot of Latvian or Bulgarian heritage in the US.
I would agree with your logic if NATO was limited to its original members.
Montenegro? lol
It’s like Detroit joining NATO.
“When you fight on your own territory you are playing defense in depth: we would immediately lose access to our own depots, ports, highways, bridges, etc....”
What is amazing is that the NeoCons can understand this wrt America.
But it can’t understand it for Russia with Ukraine and other countries in NATO.
“We would still be too large of a potential adversary to ignore, so someone would always have a contingency plan for attacking us. Hell, even the Brits had one prior to WWII and we against them.”
Again, this is to be accepted as realistic. But Russia is “paranoid” to believe NATO would ever attack them.
I remember some foreign doofus ordered the mission.
Sheer stupidity and the Air Force should have refused. But they did not.
Thanks to Bill Clinton.
An important lesson from that is “stealth” is not 100 percent.
Stealth technology has improved since, but so has Russian air defence.
In that case it was 1990’s weak Russia tht was able to produce a shootdown with an export version operated by proxies.
If I was USAF I would be worried that Russian AD has improved more than F22 or F35 stealth.
Nighttime was part of its survivability too
But yeah not 100% invisible to tracking
“There is no incentive for Europe to defend itself when Uncle Stupid is willing to do so. That’s why they can afford to pay for all the many social programs and excellent infrastructure.”
BINGO!!!!
AND THAT is the most important point on this entire thread. The US is propping up socialism, which will utterly collapse when we withdraw from NATO.
All else are shiney objects and navel-gazing.
All the EU welfare hammocks would disappear. And the muslim invasion would stop, but not without major bloodshed. Europe has a tiger by its tail, and cannot let go lest it be eaten.
I’ll laugh and cheer, at stupid finally paying the price.
The only reason to bring Montenegro on board was to solidify the NATO European “block.” Look at a map of the NATO members: It is a pretty solid mass in Europe. So, it’s basically announcing to all and sundry that NATO Europe is off-limits for any aggressive designs. I mean, it has worked so far: No European NATO country has been invaded or aggressed since joining NATO. So, in that respect, NATO has fulfilled its intent. Because, at the beginning and at the end, NATO’s purpose was and is security.
You are familiar with the old adage that there is safety in numbers. There is much truth in that; but there is also risk. The question thus becomes pretty basic: Are the benefits (peace and protection from aggression) greater than the risks (invasion or being aggressed)? So far, the benefits have outweighed the risks for the NATO countries.
That being said, it is incumbent on all members of NATO to abide by their commitments, and that means bearing their agreed upon burden.
If the members do not comply with their obligations, then the alliance becomes fragile; perhaps too fragile to survive.
There are pros and cons to alliances and treaties. It would be nice to go back in time to the early 19th century when we enjoyed the awesome defense of two huge bodies of water, one east and one west; and a smaller yet still formidable body of water to the southeast; and a relative empty vastness to the north, the majority of which was inhospitable to any people who may have wished us ill; and a mostly primitive and fractured basket-case to the southwest.
We no longer have that luxury.
“When it comes to war the neocons never give up.” </Alex>
“So far, the benefits have outweighed the risks for the NATO countries.”
Everyone has benefited.
Except the US.
And US interests are not being served by supporting those who can support themselves. We have other things to do with that treasure.
“Except the US.”
Since the creation of NATO in 1949 the only time we have been attacked was in 2001, and that was by a stateless band of moslem misfits. Is the fact we have a large nuclear deterrent a factor in our security from attack? Absolutely. Is it a fact we have friends and allies who share INTEL with us, and that has contributed to our security? Absolutely. But, one without the other is taking on a pretty serious risk.
The whole game is avoidance of risk; and, if that risk cannot be avoided, overcoming it.
“no reverse gear”
An interesting fact: If Hawaii were to be invaded, NATO would not be triggered. It’s the same reason NATO wasn’t triggered when Argentina invaded the Falklands back in 1982: Both Hawaii and the Falklands are south of the Tropic of Cancer; and the NATO Charter stipulates that any attack against a NATO country must be an attack north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.