Is NATO a military dinosaur?

[contedicavour]

Beat by Ghana... I hate football! Men's that is.

You did manage to stop us 1-1 however

What is your opinion on NATO's extension to Eastern Europe and the fact that it antagonizes Russia ?

cheers

 

[Big-E]

You did manage to stop us 1-1 however

What is your opinion on NATO's extension to Eastern Europe and the fact that it antagonizes Russia ?

cheers

I can't wait for Ukraine to be a NATO member. It will stop her proliferation to countries we don't want aided. She is one of the main contributors to unfriendly weapons sales.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Sooner the better

I can't wait for Ukraine to be a NATO member. It will stop her proliferation to countries we don't want aided. She is one of the main contributors to unfriendly weapons sales.

Along those line the sooner Russia joins NATO the better as well then

 

[contedicavour]

I can't wait for Ukraine to be a NATO member. It will stop her proliferation to countries we don't want aided. She is one of the main contributors to unfriendly weapons sales.

Wouldn't you fear Russia would go berserk if Ukraine joined NATO ? If Russia really got angry, it could sell weapons anywhere (which it sort of does already btw )

 

[contedicavour]

Along those line the sooner Russia joins NATO the better as well then

Agree. One day we'll need Russia in global equilibriums of forces (versus China and versus Iran for example). For the moment we are pushing Russia in their arms

 

[Big-E]

Wouldn't you fear Russia would go berserk if Ukraine joined NATO ? If Russia really got angry, it could sell weapons anywhere (which it sort of does already btw )

Exactly... we don't have anything to lose lol!

 

[contedicavour]

Exactly... we don't have anything to lose lol!

Neither do they... and we may regret it once China and Iran will field several wings of SU-30 with AA-12 and standoff missiles, Lada SSKs, improved Akula SSNs, improved Grumble, etc etc
Finding common ground with Russia might help us slow down all these weapons sales (without mentioning nuclear technology...).

cheers

 

[Big-E]

Neither do they... and we may regret it once China and Iran will field several wings of SU-30 with AA-12 and standoff missiles, Lada SSKs, improved Akula SSNs, improved Grumble, etc etc
Finding common ground with Russia might help us slow down all these weapons sales (without mentioning nuclear technology...).

cheers

The only thing thats going to slow down Russian weapon sales will be Chinese weapon sales.:

 

[contedicavour]

The only thing thats going to slow down Russian weapon sales will be Chinese weapon sales.:

Or you can pay them to stop exporting, more or less as is being done now to make sure they don't break ranks on the current major issue of Iran going nuclear...

 

[abramsteve]

At least you can count on the fact that Russian hardware is... well... Russian.

For the most part I agree with Big E, Europe should put up the $ and fend for itself. However Like noted before it has its advantages eg on the issues of weapons sales and the like. I think that the advantages to the US of having a major say in that side of European defence affairs is too good to let go of. Unlike alot of people these days, I trust the US more than I would trust the EU... but thats just my personal opinion

oh and contedicavour, whats this... I go out in the freezing cold here, with 20,000 other people pack into a cricket ground, stay up till 2:30 am only to see us lose because of that!!!! Stupid round ball game, who needs it!!!!

 

[contedicavour]

At least you can count on the fact that Russian hardware is... well... Russian.

For the most part I agree with Big E, Europe should put up the $ and fend for itself. However Like noted before it has its advantages eg on the issues of weapons sales and the like. I think that the advantages to the US of having a major say in that side of European defence affairs is too good to let go of. Unlike alot of people these days, I trust the US more than I would trust the EU... but thats just my personal opinion

oh and contedicavour, whats this... I go out in the freezing cold here, with 20,000 other people pack into a cricket ground, stay up till 2:30 am only to see us lose because of that!!!! Stupid round ball game, who needs it!!!!

My fear is that a richer Russia (because of oil and natural gas) may get more chauvinist and kick up quite a mess by selling indiscriminately their newer technologies. For the moment we can live with Grumble, SU-30s and Sovremmenny DDGs being exported. Who knows what they can come up with tomorrow.

Regarding the game yesterday, full of mistakes by the referee, true that we saw much better !!

cheers

 

[Stryker001]

Interesting topic it would not surprise me if it is a NATO peacekeeping force deployed into the AO in Lebanon and not a UN operations this time around, Israel has spoken about EU not the UN. Of course before any deployment can take place the LAF will have to withdraw support from Hizbollah and the conflict would have to be downgraded as I can’t see any deployment occurring if the conflict becomes is classified as high intensity. SO perhaps NATO still is relevant in the modern world as an alternative to the UN?


Just my opinion

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

the only problem with using NATO as an alternative to the UN is legitimacy. NATO is offencive to ex "threat" nations like russia and to a lesser extent china, and the fact is that UN mandates, that can be more painfull to get than Kim Ill Sung to say the pledge of allegance, are acceptable to most nations, because everyone is envolved. A NATO presence on the ground in southern Lebanon without UN justification probably wouldn't be acceptable to Syria and Iran, and therefore make Hezbollah more beligerant, and might increase tentions in the area. Sure NATO is more efficient, but the fact that its a military alliance means it lacks legitimacy. Kosovo's a great example of this.

In my opinion the cercumstances NATO was created to adress have changed. Sure there is a need for a democratic alliance but the charter and structure of NATO are redundant. A european military alliance that includes russia with close ties to the US would be ideal, but NATO itself, let it go.

 

[Stryker001]

Syria and Iran sponsor state terrorism the Hizbollah are a terrorist organisations as such they have no rights under international law. It was the UN that allowed the Taliban a seat at the UN. As it stands at present there will be no international intervention. The UN was on the ground in Lebanon the current situation in relation to the LAF and Hizbollah occurred under their watch. The UN believe that an instant ceasefire will solve the current issues in the Middle East, Israel handed back territories, gave the Palestinians self-government, yet these initiatives did little to stop terrorism in the region.

The UN needs to take some of the blame in my humble opinion for the current offensive by Israel. If the UN had been more vigilant their may have not been the need for Israel to launch any offensive against the Hizbollah. If NATO is to take command in AO Afghanistan it obviously still has a relevant place in the modern world NATO has more legitimacy than the Hizbollah and the States which sponsor terrorism Syria and Iran in my opinion.

Make no mistakes about it Syria and Iran could stop the bloodshed of innocent civilians right now if they wished, however they are quite happy to allow it to continue as it is part of their Psy-ops doctrine. The alternative is they have lost control of Hizbollah either way the Hizbollah needs to destroyed or made combat and politically ineffective.:ar15

Obviously due to the level of equipment in the hands of Hizbollah and the fortifications and tunnel systems in the current AO in Lebanon and the alliance between Hizbollah and the LAF the planning of this operation were many years in the making.

 

[Izzy1]

Just going back to the original point of this thread, I watched an interview with former Spanish President Aznnar (?) who proposed a major re-organisation of NATO.

Most contreversial aspect of his proposals was his belief that Israel should be invited to join. He also proposed similar membership for South Africa, Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand.

Personally not sure about Israel, given the complexities of Mid East politics and the chance of the alliance being dragged into war. But I do think there are very good grounds for some of the other nations mentioned. My only fear is that certain other, less pro-active members of the Alliance would fear enhanced "anglo-saxon" influence.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Just going back to the original point of this thread, I watched an interview with former Spanish President Aznnar (?) who proposed a major re-organisation of NATO.

Most contreversial aspect of his proposals was his belief that Israel should be invited to join. He also proposed similar membership for South Africa, Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand.

Personally not sure about Israel, given the complexities of Mid East politics and the chance of the alliance being dragged into war. But I do think there are very good grounds for some of the other nations mentioned. My only fear is that certain other, less pro-active members of the Alliance would fear enhanced "anglo-saxon" influence.

I think thats a great idea (ok i'm biased becaus autralian entry to NATO would really beef up our defence treaties, ANZUS being our most important). It would make NATO a truely global alliance and give beligerent nations like North Korea something to think about. i agree that Isreali entry into the alliance would be a bad idea. imagine how the arab nations woulld feel. if they wanted to take on the isrealis, which is hard enough by itself, they would have to take on NATO. And it would be a huge propaganda coup for hard line muslims who would claim that the entire west was fully supporting isreali 'opression'. i think expanding NATO out of the north atlantic, and including stable, moderate, industrialized democracies from around the globe would really change its purpose from a compleatly anti soviet/russian alliance to an counterballance to China and India (these might not be a credible threat at the moment but we have to look foreward to the next 15-20years) and a possible soloution to rouge states that are not in europe or the mid east. Your right there would be an "anglo saxon" cartell, and all the western allies in WW2 would be involved. I dont know how happy the french would be about this. But for modernizing NATO and adapting it to global threats is the only way it will still be relevant.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Just going back to the original point of this thread, I watched an interview with former Spanish President Aznnar (?) who proposed a major re-organisation of NATO.

Most contreversial aspect of his proposals was his belief that Israel should be invited to join. He also proposed similar membership for South Africa, Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand.

snip.

They are not talking of giving out membership, iirc, but 'Partnership'. The Idea is for selected nations to have a formal araingements for training, personell exchanges and information exchange etc with the goal being that those nations will have a better capability to work with NATO member nations on missions.

 

[Izzy1]

NATO may be talking about partnerships, but as stated, Aznnar was stating his own belief that NATO's membership should be greatly expanded.

I do agree that the time has come to not only consider greatly expanded membership but also completely rethink the Alliance and its aims.

Sorting out the major problems in European defence would be a good start.

 

[contedicavour]

Use of NATO troopsin Lebanon

I don't think using NATO troops in Lebanon would be a good idea. They would be automatically identified as hostile by the Hezbollah and Syria.
EU countries might have a better welcome if the UN covers for them, and if the lead is attributed to countries with historically a mildly pro-moderate Arab countries policy such as France. It would also help establish good relations with the Lebanese government and potentially even with Syria (both countries were under French mandate from 1920 until WW2).
Let's hope someone manages to sort out this tragic mess.

 

[icelord]

The UN is a toothless tiger, perhaps if we looked towards the EU and NATO as combined force, they might be able to do something in the world without bickering and political corruptness. (case in point, Annan's son and links to food for oil scandal). With little in the way of force behind the UN besides a couple of fijians and a Swedish "neutral" Company, they rarely get involved because their members who vote on the deployment, always have some personal involvement. Instead of being involved in Africas numerous civil wars, they send the African Union because they want to distance themselves from any direct support. The AU may not be an economic power, but it at least gets it hands dirty when one of it own screws up, if the EU was willing to do the same, get involved military wise with Force, it could be a...dare i say a ..."superpower".
The EU would benefit from joining up with NATO to give a more powerful EU, which combined with economic support, would allow it to be more involved in world events. Its members have a massive military industry that allows it to be less dependant on the US, and gives it own economy jobs.
But, with all these euro nations militaries in one place, its sure to raise eyebrows in the CIA and pentagon as to whether theres a hidden motive, which would lead to a cold war.... History shows the best intentions can be misunderstood and taken the wrong way, and a strong EU would have this effect in the US. The Idea would be great, but the complexities don't help its case