Can NATO Survive Without The U.S.?

[mike2000 is back]

nope without the U.S NATO is pointless

just like without the UK or France the EU is pointless.

if we were to pull out of NATO we would have to work with Russia to secure a long peace deal. no NATO means no threat to threat to Russia.

Without US, NATO still got UK, France, Germany, Italy and even Turkey to a some extent. All of those countries are one out of 10 most powerful militaries in the world and the former 4 have a mature advanced mature industry and technology which very very few countries in the word can match.
So, back to the question, even if USA withdraws from NATO, then also Russia can't take over European countries. They can defend themselves. They all have GDP equal or bigger than that of the US. I think, NATO would be affected of course, but it will more than survive , U.K alone has the world's 2nd or 3rd largest Defence industry. France and Germany aren't far behind. So these countries can basically meet all their defensive and offensive defence needs independently of any country.

So we should not confuse some European countries reluctance(lack of political will) to spend much on their military with lack of capability. It's more about lack of political will to do so. Many E.U powers can rearm in very short notice if needed and defeat or stand their own against any major power out there. Its just that there is a feeling of complacency among European countries towards defence, since the U.S and NATO covers that anyway, so they rather focus on social welfare, healtcare for their people and other social programs. Since most of them don't face any major direct threat anyway.

Thing is the U.S is still the world undisputed superpower. It's spends more on its military as the next top 8 countries combined.

it also constitutes over 65% of NATOS budget despite the E.U having a bigger GDP. So U.S leaving will greatly affect NATO, but the organisation will still be viable and still functional as, the next biggest powers U.K,France and Germany will probably rise up to fill the void, this will also help justify to the public an in rear in many military projects in these countries, same with other E.U countries who have een reluctant to spend more on their military or meet NATOS defence commitments(at least 2% of GDP).
However, if France ,Britain (and Maybe Germany) were to pull out as well, then NATO will be completely useless.

Actually...Yes, you do. Not only that, you need US to watch over you. After all. two world wars started in Europe.

Lol he's Chinese calm down.

 

[AViet]

Without US, NATO still got UK, France, Germany, Italy and even Turkey to a some extent. All of those countries are one out of 10 most powerful militaries in the world and the former 4 have a mature advanced mature industry and technology which very very few countries in the word can match.
So, back to the question, even if USA withdraws from NATO, then also Russia can't take over European countries. They can defend themselves. They all have GDP equal or bigger than that of the US. I think, NATO would be affected of course, but it will more than survive , U.K alone has the world's 2nd or 3rd largest Defence industry. France and Germany aren't far behind. So these countries can basically meet all their defensive and offensive defence needs independently of any country.

So we should not confuse some European countries reluctance(lack of political will) to spend much on their military with lack of capability. It's more about lack of political will to do so. Many E.U powers can rearm in very short notice if needed and defeat or stand their own against any major power out there. Its just that there is a feeling of complacency among European countries towards defence, since the U.S and NATO covers that anyway, so they rather focus on social welfare, healtcare for their people and other social programs. Since most of them don't face any major direct threat anyway.

Thing is the U.S is still the world undisputed superpower. It's spends more on its military as the next top 8 countries combined.

it also constitutes over 65% of NATOS budget despite the E.U having a bigger GDP. So U.S leaving will greatly affect NATO, but the organisation will still be viable and still functional as, the next biggest powers U.K,France and Germany will probably rise up to fill the void, this will also help justify to the public an in rear in many military projects in these countries, same with other E.U countries who have een reluctant to spend more on their military or meet NATOS defence commitments(at least 2% of GDP).
However, if France ,Britain (and Maybe Germany) were to pull out as well, then NATO will be completely useless.

Dont cheat yourself. He is pure German come from former East Germany. Not every people in western Europe like the US, that is for sure. Given that he comes from a former communist country, sympathy to Russia is understandable

People like you never understand why your countrymen votes for Brexit, why I can and foreseen that.

Regarding who is most powerful military power, in East Asia we have China, japan, north korea, south korea, taiwan and Vietnam, each can easily be among the 10 most powerful military power in the world.

In normal warfare, and a neutral ground, i doubt UK forces can win North Korea.








Lol he's Chinese calm down.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Lol what are you on about? It's not today I know him dude. So chill.
As for top military power, what does Vietnam has to do with being a top 10 Military power? Lol Apart from manpower Vietnam doesn't have much. You can talk of China,Japan and even S.Korea yes, but Vietnam? . Be more realistic dude.

The countries I mentioned are countries who have a robust defence industry, diverse military companies and mature military technology,experience, skills, professionalism etc.These countries can sustain a war by themselves if needed without relying on foreign powers. Since they have companies and defence industry who can churn out any weapon systems if needed. Military power is not all about manpower, else Egypt will be a world power today. Lol
However, sometimes the issue with some European countries is lack of political will and reluctance from the public, since it's hard to justify high defence spending when there is no real immediate threat. In this regard, i will even say we kind of miss the Soviet union..

 

[AViet]

Lol what are you on about? It's not today I know him dude. So chill.
As for top military power, what does Vietnam has to do with being a top 10 Military power? Lol Apart from manpower Vietnam doesn't have much. You can talk of China,Japan and even S.Korea yes, but Vietnam? . Be more realistic dude.

The countries I mentioned are countries who have a robust defence industry, diverse military companies and mature military technology,experience, skills, professionalism etc.These countries can sustain a war by themselves if needed without relying on foreign powers. Since they have companies and defence industry who can churn out any weapon systems if needed. Military power is not all about manpower, else Egypt will be a world power today. Lol
However, sometimes the issue with some European countries is lack of political will and reluctance from the public, since it's hard to justify high defence spending when there is no real immediate threat. In this regard, i will even say we kind of miss the Soviet union..

Your argue was quite solid if you do not mention Turkey.
Defense industry in countries like Turkey, india or indonesia are basically assemble or license production, i.e. import most or all the critical parts. Vietnam can do the same in a short time if we want to focus on defense industry.

In real warfare, do you really believe the UK can win North Korea. Even the US can not be so sure if fighting on Korea soil.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

Lol he's Chinese calm down.

As much as you are an Indian.

 

[jamal18]

We don't need the US to protect us. So how about **** off, USA?!

Never a truer sentence!

US is the problem, not the solution. Dragging Europe into its wars.

Dump the US; you'll all be safer.

 

[52051]

Judging by the recent performance of miliitary competition called European Strong Tank competition or whatever, the soldiers there acts like they have a party rather than have a competition.

If this is representive for current status of european armed force, then without the US (not saying the US soldiers there were any better, but at least they have lots nuke warheads), NATO will be a joke.

And "fighting" experience with cavemen dont count since it merely policing action and the NATO troop actually perform poorly at that.

Lol what are you on about? It's not today I know him dude. So chill.
As for top military power, what does Vietnam has to do with being a top 10 Military power? Lol Apart from manpower Vietnam doesn't have much. You can talk of China,Japan and even S.Korea yes, but Vietnam? . Be more realistic dude.

The countries I mentioned are countries who have a robust defence industry, diverse military companies and mature military technology,experience, skills, professionalism etc.These countries can sustain a war by themselves if needed without relying on foreign powers. Since they have companies and defence industry who can churn out any weapon systems if needed. Military power is not all about manpower, else Egypt will be a world power today. Lol
However, sometimes the issue with some European countries is lack of political will and reluctance from the public, since it's hard to justify high defence spending when there is no real immediate threat. In this regard, i will even say we kind of miss the Soviet union..

Well, if you believe China's official defence spending in the you source cited, then China defence spend is just about as low as european countries, in terms of GDP ratio.

The end of cold war make most countries reduce their defence spend/GDP ratio significantly, it is just the US's defence/GDP rate remain unusually high.

So actually the US is the abnormal one, not the rest world, so the average american do have an arguement whether they should spend this much, afterall, without such huge spending, their military strength wont change much anyway (e.g. they dont need to spend this much to get beaten by cavemen anyway).

 

[monitor]

Russia is not soviet union and don't seeing any ambition to anex any Europeans country so in today's world NATO is unnecessary if not irrelevant. Europe can surely survive if any aggrassion from Russia.

 

[PeaceGen]

Trump needs to cool it.. In case he doesnt know it, the US needs Europe more than the other way around. Fucking warmongering against the Russians trying to get us to raise our defense spending.. WE DONT RUN OUR ECONOMIES OR JOBSMARKET WITH 'defense gear production companies'..

 

[saurav jha]

UK,France and Germany are more than capable of taking care of NATO. So yes NATO can manage without USA.

 

[AUz]

LOL...NATO without USA is nothing.

May be Turkey can fill in for some numbers..but other than that, NATO is farce. They barely have numbers to patrol their own borders...let lone fight prolonged wars with stretched out logistics

 

[samsara]

No way a NATO without the USA.

The moment the USA really pulls out, NATO immediately becomes the useless, paper-wise treaty.

NATO is indeed a USA extension in the Europe to rein in the old continent from ever being truly independent. A truly independent Europe seeking out its very core interests working together closely with Asia for prosperity through the Eurasia will render the USA in the other part of the world into the irrelevance, isolated condition.

Just look at closely the world map... both the continents of Europe and Asia are connected through land, are the two most populous continents as well as the two largest economies holding the most wealth in the world. If these two continents ever cooperate closely, the North America will be left behind with the limited, much smaller playground!

 

[mike2000 is back]

Your argue was quite solid if you do not mention Turkey.
Defense industry in countries like Turkey, india or indonesia are basically assemble or license production, i.e. import most or all the critical parts. Vietnam can do the same in a short time if we want to focus on defense industry.

In real warfare, do you really believe the UK can win North Korea. Even the US can not be so sure if fighting on Korea soil.

Oops, didn't get any notification for being quoted. Strange, haven't been receiving notifications recently.
Anyway, If you red what I wrote earlier. I clearly said the former 4 countries(I.e U.K, France, Germany and Italy) have a mature advanced defence industry and technology which very few powers out there can match. This didn't include Turkey, since I know Turkey doesn't have a mature defence industry as of yet.
Obviously, it's always difficult for a foreign country to fight a war thousands of miles away from their homesoil across the other side of the ocean(just like the British invasion of Egypt during suez canal crisis showed). Plus our military nowadays is geared exclusively towards projecting power overseas and securing our nation inretests while also protecting our overseas territories spread around the globe. since we are a secure power and we face no real major threat to our homesoil(which is also a drawback as it's makes it hard for our leaders to justify a high defence spending or not cutting back our military resources )we are more focused on overseas operations and deployments.Same with France.
As for fighting N.Korea on their home soil. It will be very challenging at present. For that we need a forward base from which to operate close to N.Korea, we don't have any. Our closest military base is in Indian ocean our overseas territory of Diego Garcia, which is too far from . Korea. Until our 2 Aircraft carriers come into operations a few years from now it's unfeasible for us to maintain air superiority as a prelude to an invadion in case of war there. Even if hypothetically we were to engage into a war with N.Korea(which won't happen anyway), we will plan for it and take the necessary means to assure we have the military equipment necessary for such an adventure(that will mean a rearming ourselves with necessary weapons needed for such a large amphibious operation, and yes we have the capabilities and defence industry to do so).

The U S at present has all the capabilities to smash N.Korea regime into pieces. However, there are many reasons they wont do that(I won't start going on about this since it's a long topic), for one N.Korean regime serves U.S military presence and interests in the region perfectly.

 

[tranquilium]

NATO today or NATO as the original concept? The original concept is has been invalid for more than two decade now. The dissolution of USSR means Europe is no long sitting on border of one of the most powerful nation in human history. Today's Russia still have its strategic interesting, but it doesn't reach anywhere near western Europe.

NATO today sorta disfunctional, since it's original purpose died with USSR, there has been attempts to re-purpose its to other region. For example, the incursion into Middle East and eastern Europe in the 90s and first decade of 21st century. Later there has also been talk about bringing NATO into US' East Asia pivot, but none of these yield any fruitful result because unlike the alliance against USSR, Europeans and Americans doesn't actually have a shared interest or stake on these issue. (Well, there has been some shared interest on going into middle east, but Europeans have only gotten a large bill and no benefit whatsoever as the result)

I am a bit confused on one thing. Can we really say "US leaving NATO"? If there is a company and then a group leaves with about 80% of the company's assets, do we really call that leaving? Or is it actual the 80% kicking the rest out more appropriate?

 

[AViet]

Oops, didn't get any notification for being quoted. Strange, haven't been receiving notifications recently.
Anyway, If you red what I wrote earlier. I clearly said the former 4 countries(I.e U.K, France, Germany and Italy) have a mature advanced defence industry and technology which very few powers out there can match. This didn't include Turkey, since I know Turkey doesn't have a mature defence industry as of yet.
Obviously, it's always difficult for a foreign country to fight a war thousands of miles away from their homesoil across the other side of the ocean(just like the British invasion of Egypt during suez canal crisis showed). Plus our military nowadays is geared exclusively towards projecting power overseas and securing our nation inretests while also protecting our overseas territories spread around the globe. since we are a secure power and we face no real major threat to our homesoil(which is also a drawback as it's makes it hard for our leaders to justify a high defence spending or not cutting back our military resources )we are more focused on overseas operations and deployments.Same with France.
As for fighting N.Korea on their home soil. It will be very challenging at present. For that we need a forward base from which to operate close to N.Korea, we don't have any. Our closest military base is in Indian ocean our overseas territory of Diego Garcia, which is too far from . Korea. Until our 2 Aircraft carriers come into operations a few years from now it's unfeasible for us to maintain air superiority as a prelude to an invadion in case of war there. Even if hypothetically we were to engage into a war with N.Korea(which won't happen anyway), we will plan for it and take the necessary means to assure we have the military equipment necessary for such an adventure(that will mean a rearming ourselves with necessary weapons needed for such a large amphibious operation, and yes we have the capabilities and defence industry to do so).

The U S at present has all the capabilities to smash N.Korea regime into pieces. However, there are many reasons they wont do that(I won't start going on about this since it's a long topic), for one N.Korean regime serves U.S military presence and interests in the region perfectly.

No, I am talking about a conventional war between the UK and North Korea on a neutral soil, like Central Asia.

Your strong points:
- Better equipment in general
- Better airforce
- Better propaganda machine

Their strong points:
- Bigger, better trained and better disciplined, ready for combat army. They have been like that since 1950s.
- Bigger quantity of equipment. Number is quality too.

For the other criteria, like capability to mass produce weapons, relations and support from big countries... I cannot judge.

The US at present cannot smash N. Korea easily. It would cost them dearly, and I am not talking about nuclear. If they can, they have done that since 1953. And remember Vietnam war.