6 ms·

But also, a bigger alliance creates a larger amount of territory to defend. For example if the US were to leave NATO, they miss out on all the benefits that Eu

by lumb63 3y ago

But also, a bigger alliance creates a larger amount of territory to defend. For example if the US were to leave NATO, they miss out on all the benefits that European NATO members provide, but also would not need to defend Europe, which is where any war involving NATO members is likely to happen. It seems to me that the US gains very little from being in NATO.

realusername 3y ago
> It seems to me that the US gains very little from being in NATO. NATO is the only reason why the EU buys so much US weapons in the first place, the benefit to the US is enormous.
ipython 3y ago
That’s silly to say considering the one and only time article five was invoked was by the USA after 9/11.
hollerith 3y ago
The US benefitted from NATO because if the Soviets has overrun Western Europe, there would have been what was essentially a single country (or a country and its satellites which it dominates militarily) stretching from the North Atlantic to the North Pacific, a country that probably would have become wealthier than the US and consequently eventually stronger militarily (if it had the political will to do so, which it probably would have). It was probably worth the expense for the US to have tried hard to prevent the formation of such a wealthier peer, just as it was worth the expense to prevent Germany from uniting most of Europe under its system during WWII (even ignoring the moral reasons for getting involved): being the wealthiest country in the system with the strongest military makes it less likely the country's civilians will get hurt or killed (by e.g. an invasion or a naval blockade). In other words, there has been a strong streak of national self-interest (correctly calculated IMHO -- at least until the end of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union) in the US's contributions to NATO.
adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
the US believes Russia invading more of Europe is not in their interest. I'm not sure why that is hard to understand.
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  feedin the trolls mon ami, they be shillbots. they be putting out literal russian, like on RT, talking points.
simion314 3y ago
>it seems to me that the US gains very little from being in NATO. So far Europeans died in USA conflicts around the world , how many conflicts did Europe start and USA had to get involved so far ? From me a Romanian, feels very shitty that our soldiers died in Iraq and Afghanistan for America but now if we will need help Trumpists will not help back.
- dralley 3y ago
  >So far Europeans died in USA conflicts around the world , how many conflicts did Europe start and USA had to get involved so far ? Setting aside for a moment the rather large conflict that ended in 1945 - if you're in your late 20s or older, both Libya and Kosovo happened within your lifetime and meet your criteria.
  - simion314 3y ago
    >Setting aside for a moment the rather large conflict that ended in 1945 - if you're in your late 20s or older, both Libya and Kosovo happened within your lifetime and meet your criteria. 1 That was not an Article 5 thing, 2 how many USA soldiers gave their life in Kosovoa? 3 1945/ww2 I think USA was attacked by Japan, americans did not enter the world to protect Europe, they were forced in the war so they had no choice then to fight their enemies wherever they are.
    - dralley 3y ago
      >3 1945/ww2 I think USA was attacked by Japan, americans did not enter the world to protect Europe, they were forced in the war so they had no choice then to fight their enemies wherever they are. The American strategy in WWII was "Germany First" despite it having been the Japanese that attacked us.
      - simion314 3y ago
        And that strategy was somehow altruistic ? Explain? And explain why waiting to defend "Europe" Anyway we talking about NATO, USA used Art5 and Europeans died for USA, but now Trumpists complain that we are not doing enough and USA will not return the favor
OkayPhysicist 3y ago
NATO is the greatest power projection project the in the history of the world, and is in no small part why the US has achieved hegemonic status. The ability for the US to wage wars on the opposite side of the globe without major logistical issues is greatly aided by NATO bases that are simultaneously in very friendly territory, and much closer to the action. NATO membership also means NATO equipment, which the US's military-industrial complex disproportionate benefits from, but also serves as lock-in: those extremely expensive aircraft are basically scrap without the appropriate service contracts and part availability, meaning any military that aligns itself with the US's tech is far less likely to be able to wage wars we don't approve of. NATO also brings stability: nuclear red-line borders are unlikely to be invaded, reducing the chances of conflicts that are bad for business. A peaceful world is a profitable world, and those profits disproportionately go to the US. NATO also provides soft power projection: NATO membership is a huge boon to its members, which grants the US leverage politically to encourage member states to adopt pro-US policies.
rad_gruchalski 3y ago
Where are you going to sell your Pepsi Cola to?

by lumb63 3y ago

realusername 3y ago

> It seems to me that the US gains very little from being in NATO. NATO is the only reason why the EU buys so much US weapons in the first place, the benefit to the US is enormous.

ipython 3y ago

That’s silly to say considering the one and only time article five was invoked was by the USA after 9/11.

hollerith 3y ago

The US benefitted from NATO because if the Soviets has overrun Western Europe, there would have been what was essentially a single country (or a country and its satellites which it dominates militarily) stretching from the North Atlantic to the North Pacific, a country that probably would have become wealthier than the US and consequently eventually stronger militarily (if it had the political will to do so, which it probably would have). It was probably worth the expense for the US to have tried hard to prevent the formation of such a wealthier peer, just as it was worth the expense to prevent Germany from uniting most of Europe under its system during WWII (even ignoring the moral reasons for getting involved): being the wealthiest country in the system with the strongest military makes it less likely the country's civilians will get hurt or killed (by e.g. an invasion or a naval blockade). In other words, there has been a strong streak of national self-interest (correctly calculated IMHO -- at least until the end of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union) in the US's contributions to NATO.

adgjlsfhk1 3y ago

the US believes Russia invading more of Europe is not in their interest. I'm not sure why that is hard to understand.

red-iron-pine 3y ago
feedin the trolls mon ami, they be shillbots. they be putting out literal russian, like on RT, talking points.

simion314 3y ago

>it seems to me that the US gains very little from being in NATO. So far Europeans died in USA conflicts around the world , how many conflicts did Europe start and USA had to get involved so far ? From me a Romanian, feels very shitty that our soldiers died in Iraq and Afghanistan for America but now if we will need help Trumpists will not help back.

dralley 3y ago
>So far Europeans died in USA conflicts around the world , how many conflicts did Europe start and USA had to get involved so far ? Setting aside for a moment the rather large conflict that ended in 1945 - if you're in your late 20s or older, both Libya and Kosovo happened within your lifetime and meet your criteria.
- simion314 3y ago
  >Setting aside for a moment the rather large conflict that ended in 1945 - if you're in your late 20s or older, both Libya and Kosovo happened within your lifetime and meet your criteria. 1 That was not an Article 5 thing, 2 how many USA soldiers gave their life in Kosovoa? 3 1945/ww2 I think USA was attacked by Japan, americans did not enter the world to protect Europe, they were forced in the war so they had no choice then to fight their enemies wherever they are.
  - dralley 3y ago
    >3 1945/ww2 I think USA was attacked by Japan, americans did not enter the world to protect Europe, they were forced in the war so they had no choice then to fight their enemies wherever they are. The American strategy in WWII was "Germany First" despite it having been the Japanese that attacked us.
    - simion314 3y ago
      And that strategy was somehow altruistic ? Explain? And explain why waiting to defend "Europe" Anyway we talking about NATO, USA used Art5 and Europeans died for USA, but now Trumpists complain that we are not doing enough and USA will not return the favor

OkayPhysicist 3y ago

NATO is the greatest power projection project the in the history of the world, and is in no small part why the US has achieved hegemonic status. The ability for the US to wage wars on the opposite side of the globe without major logistical issues is greatly aided by NATO bases that are simultaneously in very friendly territory, and much closer to the action. NATO membership also means NATO equipment, which the US's military-industrial complex disproportionate benefits from, but also serves as lock-in: those extremely expensive aircraft are basically scrap without the appropriate service contracts and part availability, meaning any military that aligns itself with the US's tech is far less likely to be able to wage wars we don't approve of. NATO also brings stability: nuclear red-line borders are unlikely to be invaded, reducing the chances of conflicts that are bad for business. A peaceful world is a profitable world, and those profits disproportionately go to the US. NATO also provides soft power projection: NATO membership is a huge boon to its members, which grants the US leverage politically to encourage member states to adopt pro-US policies.

rad_gruchalski 3y ago

Where are you going to sell your Pepsi Cola to?