7 ms·
How does NATO benefit?
by Mountain_Skies 3y ago
How does NATO benefit?
- Paradigma11 3y agoSweden and Finland came as a pack so lets talk about both of them. Benefits: It completely neutralizes the Russian Baltic Fleet. The only railway line supporting Murmansk is less than 200km beyond the finnish border, which means the Nordic Fleet is also compromised. Potential disadvantages of additional members are added political instability as can be seen with Hungary and Turkey. There is little chance of this with both countries. Basically you dont defend members, you defend borders and adding Finland and Sweden to the pact makes for a far easier and better developed front. The Finns have been building bunkers and training their population for the next Russian invasion since WW2. Having Finland as a member strengthens the position of the Baltics, who are threatened by the Suwalki corridor. Basically it strengthens and stabilizes the northern border to Russia/Belarus.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- toyg 3y agoBy having to jump through fewer hoops to get the intelligence they already got before, and likely further restricting the field of operation for Russian forces in that area.
- Hamuko 3y agoSweden has a pretty solid defense industry. Gripens and NLAWs for example are Swedish production.
- nextos 3y agoIndeed, for a small country in terms of population, they have a really impressive defense industry. Also a very interesting distributed defense doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bas_90 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bas_90
- FirmwareBurner 3y agoCorrection: NLAWs are only Swedish designed(SAAB defense) but are production of Thales(a French company) manufactured in Belfast, Northern Ireland(UK), using warheads made by a subsidiary of SAAB in Switzerland. Yes, I'm fun at parties.
- fennecbutt 3y agoHe he, my response to the sorts of people that use the "I bet you're fun at parties" jibe is usually "we go to different parties".
- red-iron-pine 3y agoThe UK was heavily involved in the NLAW development too, IIRC. Not just made in NI but the UK provided a lot of the initial funding along with SAAB. and boy howdy do those NLAWs work.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago>and boy howdy do those NLAWs work. I know. I'm always in pain when my NLAWS come to visit.
- AlbertCory 3y ago[flagged]
- kazinator 3y agoYou, you can confidently state that at that time, they had at least one train.
- AlbertCory 3y agoI guess this is a reference to the joke, "no, what we know is that there is at least one sheep, at least one side of which is black." Unless we disbelieve what the guy said: we do know that they have at least the concept of a tank. He didn't actually say that they had any. That would have been a conversation-ending question for me to ask him. I don't know what those sheep statisticians would say if they hadn't seen the "black sheep" themselves and had to rely on the testimony of other people. You can't only believe what you've seen for yourself. As for all the people downvoting that: lighten up. It's a joke. Welcome to NATO.
- kazinator 3y ago> I guess this is a reference to the joke ... Yes, I can confirm that it is; busted! > and had to rely on the testimony of other people The sheep joke is not about believing people's reports or not, but about what may or may not be deduced from a report, given that it is accurate and true.
- AlbertCory 3y ago> The sheep joke is not about believing people's reports or not yes, I know. I was speculating about something not part of the joke.
- RecycledEle 3y agoA bigger alliance is harder to defeat in war. Also, a bigger alliance requires each member to contribute fewer troops to manage a common defense. Sweden is a fairly wealthy country that can contribute the required amount to NATO. Sweden's ports are beneficial in a potential Arctic conflict. Finally, Sweden does not bring any new potential conflicts/enemies with it.
- ttymck 3y agoI understand what you say is true in theory, but does this mean the US will deploy fewer troops in NATO theaters, in practice?
- MaxPengwing 3y agoNo, it has already increased, but not due to Sweden and Finland joining. the increase was a direct response to Russia invading Ukraine. https://www.uso.org/stories/3518-one-year-later-how-the-uso-has-pivoted-to-support-u-s-troops-since-russia-s-invasion-of-ukraine https://www.uso.org/stories/3518-one-year-later-how-the-uso-... https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9477/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-... But in same time European allies has also increased their NATO soldiers.
- ttymck 3y agoYes, I am asking: all else equal, would more NATO members reduce the number of US soldiers deployed.
- Paradigma11 3y agoThere is no all else equal here. If your new member is the Democratic Republic of Congo the number would go up considerably. With Sweden/Finland it might very well go down since the border is far more defensible. But the US has a global footprint and those troops in Europe are nearer to potential conflicts in the middle east and northern Afrika, so it might make logistical sense to park them there anyway.
- ethbr1 3y agoSweden has a pretty advanced and self-sufficient defense industry for its size. Examples: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stridsvagn_103 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stridsvagn_103 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_Launched_Small_Diameter_Bomb https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_Launched_Small_Diamet... PS: Not sure why parent is getting down voted for asking a neutral question. Curiosity!
- rashthedude 3y agoNot a diverse group of readers, as one would suggest.
- johnchristopher 3y ago> PS: Not sure why parent is getting down voted for asking a neutral question. Curiosity! Phrasing of that question is a classic bait for flame wars.
- ethbr1 3y agoIt's a simple interrogative sentence. At some point {subject} {verb} is just {subject} {verb}. And given the abnormally terse formulation, I'd expect GP was explicitly trying to decolor their interrogative.
- willcipriano 3y agoThe cold war was the largest project undertaken by any civilization in human history in terms of spending. With Sweden on board with NATO, defence contractors and other NATO adjacent public private partnerships can be assured that they won't interfere with that flow of funds.
- TulliusCicero 3y agoMore territory coverage, especially coastal areas of the Baltic Sea. With Finland in there too, it's a NATO lake for sure. Of course, Sweden was already a member of the EU and a NATO partner, so it's not a huge difference in practice.
- dehrmann 3y agoWe have a permanent aircraft carrier in the Baltic.
- Findecanor 3y agoDid you mean the strategically located island of Gotland, which has been called an "unsinkable aircraft carrier"?
- guappa 3y agoSweden and denmark control access to the baltic sea.
- euroderf 3y agoI've always wondered what is the reality of passage of Russian nuke subs thru the Skagerrak. Tidal flows. Hull detection. Passage protocols.
- charles_f 3y agoGuaranteed access to Ikea furniture in times of war.
- solardev 3y agoAnd delicious meatballs for the troops
- bluGill 3y agoIt isn't hard to make better meatballs than what Ikea sells. For that matter if you think Ikea furniture is good you have no idea what good really is.
- solardev 3y agoI wonder if they're tastier than the average MRE? Sure, you can always make better food with some effort, but next to Costco chicken bakes, Ikea meatballs probably have one of the world's highest convenience-to-deliciousness ratios. As a kid, I used to loooooove spending the day at Ikea, bouncing around all the beds and hiding in the fake rooms, but mostly just because we'd end up at the food court at the end... mmmm.
- fennecbutt 3y agoGood for the price Mr. Disingenuous
- kzrdude 3y agoIt's easier to defend Denmark, Norway and Finland if Sweden is not in the way. With this, Sweden is more likely to become completely "open" to NATO operations in any conflict that involves defending those three NATO members.
- The_Colonel 3y agoI think it has a more significant impact on the Baltics which have been an Achilles heel of NATO.
- PeterStuer 3y ago[flagged]
- TulliusCicero 3y agoAh yes, it's NATO that wants war, it's certainly not NATO countries being reasonably concerned about a certain neighbor that keeps invading neighboring democracies. I'm sure without being in NATO or the EU, Estonia and Latvia would be left completely alone and unharmed by Russia, just like Ukraine! They certainly wouldn't have been a smaller and easier target.
- ardaoweo 3y agoYes, everyone that opposes Russia's imperialist tendencies wants war. If everyone just willingly got annexed by Russia there would be peace.
- fennecbutt 3y agoSweden is a country that makes their own military related stuff: https://youtu.be/d8x8ITwd4Vg?si=ye6-_fe7EJMuqdIg https://youtu.be/d8x8ITwd4Vg?si=ye6-_fe7EJMuqdIg Archer can deploy fire and retreat so quickly, can also fire multiple rounds and have them land on the same target at the same time. As opposed to countries that do not design and manufacture such things themselves.
- trizuz 3y ago[dead]
- scoofy 3y agoSweden joining ends the problematic area of the Suwalki gap as a pinch point between Kaliningrad and Belarus. It also means NATO controls the Baltic Sea completely.
- saalweachter 3y agoNATO is two things. A defense pact, in case shit hits the fan. A deterrence, to make war too difficult to undertake. Adding additional countries around the edge of NATO does two things for the countries currently in the pact, even if they aren't economic or military powerhouses. First, those countries are less likely to be attacked, and not having your neighbors be embroiled in war is good. Germany is much happier if there is no land war going on next door in Poland, bombs occasionally falling on the wrong side of the border, civilian refugees looking to them for safety. Second, adding someone else to the pact puts someone else on the front lines to test the defense provided by the pact, if shit hits the fan. Sure, if Russia wanted to, they could try to bypass Poland on the way to Germany, but practically speaking with Poland in NATO, Germany will get to see how NATO responds to an invasion of Poland, rather than finding out how they respond to an invasion of Germany. Poland, likewise, would be much happier seeing how NATO responded to the invasion of Ukraine-the-NATO-member, rather than watching the invasion of Ukraine and wondering how NATO will respond to the invasion of Poland if Ukraine falls.