Is NATO obsolete?

[XT]

@Little_Nemo

Personally, I wouldn’t go that far. I don’t feel Russia would start a nuclear war over Latvia but I do feel they would start a nuclear war over Moscow (although I guess it wouldn’t be starting a nuclear war if we launched first).

In my opinion, the best response would be for NATO (including American forces) to fight the Russian invaders with non-nuclear forces in Latvia. Neither side has an interest served by extending the war outside of Latvia or up to the nuclear level (and diplomatic back channels should relay this message both ways).

The best thing would be for NATO and the individual nations of NATO to be strong and united so that Russia never has any reason to take the chance or assume a weak NATO would allow them to take the Baltic States without repercussions. Failing that, I agree with you that the best thing would be a non-nuclear conventional war to take back the Baltic States and expel Russian troops by force of arms and then probably embargo and trade sanctions, perhaps hinged on Russia having to pay reparations for what they would have done in invading 3 NATO nations.

[Silver_lining]

@XT

I know this has been discussed on the board before, but since it’s in the news again with the upcoming NATO meeting and the heated words between Trump and NATO, along with the running argument with Germany I figured I’d see what 'dopers think. Should we just scrap the thing and each country go it’s own way? Should Europe reform a defensive alliance of it’s own to protect it’s own interests and allow the US to go it’s own way, dealing with it’s own security concerns and issues? Is NATO necessary in today’s world, and could Europe simply defend itself without having to rely on the US…especially since the current US president and seemingly a segment of the US population doesn’t see the value in such alliances anymore?

Thoughts?

NATO is the premier alliance.

It’s not obsolete, but it’s not a valued as it once was.

The USA pays for over 22% of the funding. Other nations who fail to pay at least 2% of their GDP to need to pull their weight.

[running_coach]

@Silver_lining

NATO is the premier alliance.

It’s not obsolete, but it’s not a valued as it once was.

The USA pays for over 22% of the funding. Other nations who fail to pay at least 2% of their GDP to need to pull their weight.

Two totally different issues.
From here.

The U.S. share, as for all member countries, is a proportional share based on the size of the country’s gross national income.

4. Among NATO members, Germany pays the next-largest share under this formula, at 15%, followed by France (11%), the UK (10%) and Italy (8%).

5. President Trump has created the impression, or erroneously seems to believe, that all nations pay their entire respective defense budgets into NATO.

The 2% is each country’s spending on their own military. It is not money due to anyone. It’s also a guideline, not a requirement.

[Little_Nemo]

@XT

The best thing would be for NATO and the individual nations of NATO to be strong and united so that Russia never has any reason to take the chance or assume a weak NATO would allow them to take the Baltic States without repercussions. Failing that, I agree with you that the best thing would be a non-nuclear conventional war to take back the Baltic States and expel Russian troops by force of arms and then probably embargo and trade sanctions, perhaps hinged on Russia having to pay reparations for what they would have done in invading 3 NATO nations.

I agree that the primary value of NATO is that it serves as a deterrent. And a strange part of being a deterrent is that NATO needs to assume it will fail as a deterrent. Only by having a credible plan for fighting a war can NATO prevent that war from occurring. And not planning on fighting a war makes that war more likely to occur.