NATO improvements?

What changes would you make to NATO to improve it?

 

Make the coalition capable of intervening decisively anywhere in the world WITHOUT heavy reliance on the U.S.

 

What even in the North Pacific and Southeast Asia? Also what you want would mean carrier groups, only the UK and France need carriers. I have had many talks with people about European power projection, almost everyone wants to stand on their own to feet from the US, but they don't see the point in having a large powerful navy, mainly they just don't want to pay for it.

 

Disband it.

 

No. That's not very constructive.

 

Their unwillingness to pay for it means their continued inability to have any decisive international influence.

 

The Cold War is over. It needs to stop being about America and it's enemies and start being about the alliance members and their security.

 

I agree with PropagandaMachine for once. Disband it.

NATO has outlived its usefulness.

Someone once said NATO was there to keep the USSR out, the US in and Germany down.

 

What do you think the Europeans would need to have decisive international influence?

 

So you think Russia and Belarus are US allies?

 

I think it's more that it's outlived it's usefulness to the US in your view, but then you say Germany is being kept down, really looks they Germany isn't dominating the rest of Europe as we speak?

 

NO USA! Hey that is why they want Obama. All of them want Obama! Everywhere Obama! China, Japan, everywhere Obama! They know he is the fastest way to a quickening US downfall. They can repossess.

 

What does this have to do with NATO?

 

My answer was NO USA. The rest was commentary. I guess I should have made that post a little more clear.

The rest of the world needs (READ: NEEDS) the US to step back a bit. For them and for us.

 

What would this step back in real terms mean? You tryed to take a step back in the former Yugoslavia you found the Europeans wanting, Obama tryed to talk a step back in Libya again you found the Europeans wanting, taking a step back doesn't help, when you have the Central and Eastern Europeans unwilling to help in NATO operations, with only the British and French using their assets to anywhere near full effect.

 

(*)(*)(*)(*) them they want it they can have it.

Close all european bases, strengthen the pacific area and hunker down. Screw the Med. If Israel falls it is Gods will. They (or any country) can pay us to have a peace keeping presence either by forgiving debt or paying cash.

 

What members of NATO have had their security threatened?

 

Turkey had one of their jets was shot down and some of their people killed. The threat has moved it's not Russia or Belarus, but from Iran and Syria.

 

A military capable of intervening outside of Europe. History has shown that the only truly effective means of exerting influence globally is with military force, or the threat of military force. While it's nice and peachy to think that economic sanctions, resolutions, and goodwill will be taken seriously by despotic third world nations, it's not reality. Hell, sometimes even military force doesn't work.

 

One aircraft being shot down has hardly threatened Turkey. They have a very formidable military that would be more than capable of crushing any serious Syrian threat.

 

Will I think Europe had the means to defeat Libya without US help, but the political will wasn't their in places like Germany, Italy and Spain to put in the aircraft needed, in the end it was just the UK, US and France doing 90% of the work. When Italy was most threated by people leaving Libya and going to Italy.

What assets would the Europeans need to do what you want?

 

So, because Turkey can do it NATO shouldn't help Turkey, well in that case how about Turkey will need to move it's troops in Afghanistan to help the fight against Syria. I also think the Syrian's are alot better than you think and Turkey isn't as good as you think, with it's Patton MBT's.

 

Political will is a vital part of military operations. If Europe can't get together and decisively act in a region outside Europe without the U.S. because of a lack of political will, it's still an inability to act. Also, European forces had to rely very heavily on the U.S. for drone assets, intelligence, armarments, and command and control functions. Secretary Gates complained about the inability of Europe to intervene in Libya alone and their heavy reliance on the U.S.

I think European militaries need to fix their large weaknesses in the areas I just described. Many of their individual Air Forces/Armies are also very tiny. When it comes to a military liason between multiple countries with different languages and cultures, the sum of the parts is not greater than the whole. With such alliances it often becomes a political game. The Dutch send 4 F-16s to "help" in the conflict and look good. 4 F-16s aren't of much help by themselves, especially if they have to be supplied by an ally. Larger militaries would much rather just rely on their own forces than a mismash of allied forces with different ROEs and equipment. This is why the majority of the NATO assets in Afghanistan are considered largely useless in Afghanistan. It's a running joke in that nation among U.S. troops that ISAF stands for (I suck at fighting). I heard it directly from the former commander of ISAF that only about 5 of the 40+ nations with troops in Afghanistan were of any real fighting value.

 

What should NATO do to help Turkey?

The Turkish Army is quite effective and has a proud military tradition. The Syrian military is in chaos right now as it battles the revolutionaries.

 

Yeah I remember that speech, he said only 4 members were any good, excluding the UK and France. BAE is working on the Taranis drone which will be cheaper than the US drones. The only way to get the better intelligence, armaments, and command and control functions is by really enforcing the 2% of GDP rule. Common procurement would also be very good, but you have Swedish, Russian, American, British and French built aircraft it makes the whole thing harder, or that Europe has French, British, German and Russian MBT's, just about every country has different ship classes. Most countries don't want to be in Afghanistan, that's maybe why, I for one would rather Britain didn't have 9,000 troops their and be spending $15 billion a year on a pointless job. I do hope the UK was 1 of the countries of value.