5 ms·
Why were you skeptical of NATO membership? What are the downsides?
by voisin 5y ago
Why were you skeptical of NATO membership? What are the downsides?
- vkou 5y agoThe major downside is that Russia might invade you if you make noises about joining. See: Georgia, Ukraine, Finlandization. ... That card's been played out, though, because it's only credible if you don't invade regardless. Practically speaking, Russia wouldn't be able to do anything about this.
- zucked 5y agoNATO has not been viewed favorably in recent years, and some of it is for good reason. As much as I dislike Trump, he is right that many NATO members don't contribute their fair share. Many countries, even wealthy, highly developed ones, are missing the 2% target by a wide margin. On the name and shame highlight reel is: Norway, Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the list goes on. I suspect we will see a renewed interest in making NATO a stronger alliance after this dust settles.
- ceejayoz 5y agoThe target date for the 2% is 2024. They haven't missed it yet, although several are likely to.
- Animats 5y agoMost European countries have surprisingly dinky armies today. Germany has only 60,000 troops for a population of 83 million. Norway has only 3,725. France has 118,000. The UK has 82,000. There hasn't been much for them to do in decades. That just changed. Sweden has 24,000 on active duty. Finland has about 21,000. Large for the size of the countries. Both have a draft. Switzerland has 120,000 troops on active duty, a draft, and a large, regularly exercised reserve, for a country with only 8 million people. All are outside NATO and prepared for self-defense. Of the big powers, the US has 1.3 million. Russia has about 1.4 million, and China has about 2 million.
- laserdancepony 5y agoI don't know where you got your numbers, but the german Bundeswehr has a total strength of about 185k and is limited by the two plus four treaty to a maximum strength of 370k. Way less than the 500k and up the old west german Bundeswehr had.
- Animats 5y ago64,036 in the the army (Heer) only.
- tablespoon 5y ago> Sweden has 24,000 on active duty. Finland has about 21,000. Large for the size of the countries. Both have a draft. Switzerland has 120,000 troops on active duty, a draft, and a large, regularly exercised reserve, for a country with only 8 million people. All are outside NATO and prepared for self-defense. I think active duty numbers can be misleading, since I believe many countries rely on military reserve forces, especially ones with smaller populations, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Defence_Forces#Military_service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Defence_Forces#Militar...: > At the completion of the service, the conscripts receive a reserve military rank of private, lance corporal, corporal, sergeant or second lieutenant, depending on their training and accomplishments.[24] After their military service, the conscripts are placed in reserve until the end of their 50th or 60th living year, depending on their military rank. During their time in reserve, the reservists are liable to participate in military refresher exercises for a total of 40, 75 or 100 days, depending on their military rank. In addition, all reservists are liable for activation in a situation where the military threat against Finland has seriously increased, in full or partial mobilization or in a large-scale disaster or a virulent epidemic. The males who do not belong to the reserve may only be activated in case of full mobilization, and those rank-and-file personnel who have fulfilled 50 years of age only with a specific parliamentary decision.[25]
- TechBro8615 5y agoWikipedia has a list that allows sorting by "per 1,000 capita (active)" [0] – scroll to the table and click the rightmost column to sort by active per 1k capita. By this measure, the US is 51st on the list with a value of 4.2, behind many European countries and NATO members, e.g. Greece is #7 with 13.3. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of...
- whatshisface 5y agoAmerica runs NATO and does not have a perfect history of only getting involved in justified wars itself. Being a NATO member means that other members can drag you in to something you wouldn't join yourself. For example, NATO helped in Iraq and Afghanistan (in small ways, by supporting the US-supported local forces), which weren't going to attack France for example any time soon. What Russia has done is made the odds of NATO dragging you in to something (which hasn't really ever happened in a major way) look much smaller than the odds of them invading you (which is happening to a NATO nonmember today).
- jjtheblunt 5y agoamerican here: excellent answer and i'd say most here agree
- jdminhbg 5y ago> NATO helped in Iraq and Afghanistan A number of NATO countries joined both Iraq wars, but not all. The only one where Article V was invoked and NATO was officially involved was Afghanistan.
- dragonwriter 5y agoNATO was officially involved in several post-invasion support missions in Iraq; not every NATO mission (not even combat missions) results from Article 5.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- gerikson 5y agoSweden was a participant in ISAF too.
- tedivm 5y agoI think part of this is that the non-US NATO countries basically let the US run it. The only NATO countries which seem to meet the financial and military requirements of the organization are the ones on Russia's border. So the US pays the money to support the alliance while Germany uses the money it's saved to purchase gas and oil from Russia so it can close down it's nuclear plants.
- darksaints 5y agoNATO was made for this kind of mutual defense. Unfortunately, NATO is a massive political force that can also be abused for political ends, and no country wants to commit their armed forces to be used as pawns in someone else's war.
- hnarn 5y agoThere are many pros and cons, but from a Swedish perspective, one of the obvious "downsides" would be an end to the idea of Swedish neutrality, which has been a thing since the early 1800's. This may be a hard thing to relate to if you're not a Swede, but if you imagine any political tradition in your country that's over 200 years old, you may understand that the idea of changing it generates some reluctance. I would argue that Sweden is a constitutional monarchy to this day for the same reason, most people simply do not like change unless it's obviously necessary, and Russia may have just given people in Sweden that sense of necessity.
- T-zex 5y agoHad a Swedish colleague and he said he did a military service. Answering to the question "why" he told us that Swedish must prepare not for the if but for when Russia invades. That was before the Georgian war when Russia seemed to be less aggressive. I guess the perspective should be changing within the country.
- fredthomsen 5y agoSwedish foreign policy and neutrality originates from all the wars they fought against Russia prior to the 1800s.
- rhino369 5y agoYou'll get nuked if Russia and the West ever are stupid enough to start WWIII.
- sloan 5y agoEveryone dies in that scenario
- hnarn 5y agoEven if you were correct, does it matter that your European country is not nuked when the rest of them are?
- cjbgkagh 5y agoThere is a very big difference between being nuked and not being nuked
- rhino369 5y agoYes. You'll have to shetler in place for several weeks until radiation recedes. Your economy will be ruined. And you'll have one hell of a refugee problem. But that is still a lot better than having all that plus your cities burned to ground.
- pinephoneguy 5y agoAs an American I hate NATO, that's a great way to start another World War.
- jacquesm 5y agoOn the contrary: NATO is what has stopped another world war. For decades. Non-agression pacts with mutual defense clauses are a pretty stiff deterrent.
- freedom2099 5y agoIt is the exact opposite!