NationStates Jolt Archive

The discussion about NATO in this country often involves the US government and its policies. US policies have an enormous impact on NATO. Informed citizens are required for a democracy to work, so I'm asking now whether you know what NATO is.

Please vote in the poll above.

what country :confused:

what country :confused:

Oh, I didn't have a location in the settings. It's a neutral country, Finland.

Oh, I didn't have a location in the settings. It's a neutral country, Finland.
Hasn't their position pretty much always been that they don't want to join?

Honestly, I don't spend a lot of time thinking about NATO. In my mind its just this big military club that does... military stuff, and would have theoretically saved our limey asses from Joe Stalin if he ever decided to invade.

Oh, and there's Afghanistan, but that's very unusual in regards to what NATO usually does. Not that NATO really does what it should be doing in Afghanistan.

Honestly, I don't spend a lot of time thinking about NATO. In my mind its just this big military club that does... military stuff, and would have theoretically saved our limey asses from Joe Stalin if he ever decided to invade.

Oh, and there's Afghanistan, but that's very unusual in regards to what NATO usually does. Not that NATO really does what it should be doing in Afghanistan.

Well, Article V begins with:


The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.


So, when al-Qaeda attacked the United States, that means that all NATO countries are officially at war with al-Qaeda. So, what NATO is doing in Afghanistan, I think, is going to be its future "dayjob", besides maintaining the nuclear umbrella.

Now al-Qaeda is a generally acceptable enemy for all states, but consider the case where USA wants to attack a country that has a national debt to another NATO country. Or another reason why a NATO country doesn't want to be enemies with the country USA is attacking.

Hasn't their position pretty much always been that they don't want to join?

Yes, but now some commentators want to prove that this opinion (although it's the democratic majority opinion) is a remnant of the Cold War, and stress the availability of NATO military intelligence for NATO members.

So, when al-Qaeda attacked the United States, that means that all NATO countries are officially at war with al-Qaeda. So, what NATO is doing in Afghanistan, I think, is going to be its future "dayjob", besides maintaining the nuclear umbrella.

Now al-Qaeda is a generally acceptable enemy for all states, but consider the case where USA wants to attack a country that has a national debt to another NATO country. Or another reason why a NATO country doesn't want to be enemies with the country USA is attacking.

Then they wouldn't have to participate in such an action. The treaty is only binding when a member nation is attacked, not the other way around. Iraq is a good example of this.

(If you didn't know what NATO was, how could you possibly know if you were from a NATO country or not?)

I'm happily from another NATO country - not that NATO would've made any real difference in the event of the Cold War going "hot" - I think standard USSR doctrine was tac-nukes the moment their first waves got bogged down. Add to that the Soviet's planned response to American carriers parking themselves off the coast of the Motherland - a regiment of SS-18 missiles :p

Enough Cold War geekiness, yes I know what NATO is, and I don't think it has any real purpose anymore.

I thought the whole idea of NATO was that it was to stop the Cold War going hot. If the Cold War ever did go hot then NATO wouldn't be all that useful for most of its members.

Honestly, I don't spend a lot of time thinking about NATO. In my mind its just this big military club that does... military stuff, and would have theoretically saved our limey asses from Joe Stalin if he ever decided to invade.

Oh, and there's Afghanistan, but that's very unusual in regards to what NATO usually does. Not that NATO really does what it should be doing in Afghanistan.

*sigh*

If you haven't noticed, the USSR went poof about fifteen years ago.

So the primary mission of NATO, instead of being disbanded, necessitated a change. Afghanistan is part of an expansion of NATO's role in the post-Cold War world. You would do well to learn a bit about NATO before assuming that Afghanistan is "unusual" because it's not what "it usually does," and making ridiculous, uninformed and utterly baseless comments like that last sentence.

I thought the whole idea of NATO was that it was to stop the Cold War going hot. If the Cold War ever did go hot then NATO wouldn't be all that useful for most of its members.True enough.. If memory serves, the peoples of Denmark, Sweden & Germany weren't overly thrilled when a newly elected Danish PM divulged that NATO plans, in case of an attack, was to liberally sprinkle tactical nukes over Denmark, so it couldn't be used as staging zone.

Which is completely idiotic, if you think about it. If a nuclear holocaust had happened, what the fuck difference would it make if a couple of countries got blasted by themselves & their friends, or their enemies? "No, no. If you hurt me I'll get all pissy. But if that other guy does it, well that's just life". Utterly senseless.

I thought the whole idea of NATO was that it was to stop the Cold War going hot. If the Cold War ever did go hot then NATO wouldn't be all that useful for most of its members.

No, it was rather a contingency if the Kremlin did take agressive action against Europe. The Alliance was designed to provide a unified front against an aggressive Soviet Union.

EDIT: It also served as a second-thought for the USSR before taking any offensive action against the West, designed as a Western response to the Warsaw Pact.

I thought the whole idea of NATO was that it was to stop the Cold War going hot. If the Cold War ever did go hot then NATO wouldn't be all that useful for most of its members.

Mmm. The Soviets would have taken over continental Europe in about 15 minutes and the Americans and British would be sitting on their asses saying "So, what do we do now?"

Mmm. The Soviets would have taken over continental Europe in about 15 minutes and the Americans and British would be sitting on their asses saying "So, what do we do now?"

Of course. Nevermind the significant American and NATO military presence, which was significantly technologically superior to the USSR, and while the Soviet Union's main element would have relied on surprise, these allied contingents were prepared to counter any incursion into the West within minutes.

Or do you not know much of what you are talking about?

Of course. Nevermind the significant American and NATO military presence, which was significantly technologically superior to the USSR, and while the Soviet Union's main element would have relied on surprise, these allied contingents were prepared to counter any incursion into the West within minutes.

Or do you not know much of what you are talking about?

Oh, come on. The Soviets and their allies could field so many more troops than the Allies that it's almost not funny.

No, it was rather a contingency if the Kremlin did take agressive action against Europe. The Alliance was designed to provide a unified front against an aggressive Soviet Union.

EDIT: It also served as a second-thought for the USSR before taking any offensive action against the West, designed as a Western response to the Warsaw Pact.I seem to remember it being the other way around - that the warsaw pact was a response to NATO. Yep I was right. NATO started in 1949, whereas the Warsaw Pact came into being in 1955.

Oh, come on. The Soviets and their allies could field so many more troops than the Allies that it's almost not funny.

And they had no qualms about "expending" them. That's a legitimate point, but 15 minutes is giving numbers too much of an advantage.

45 minutes at the least.

I seem to remember it being the other way around - that the warsaw pact was a response to NATO. Yep I was right. NATO started in 1949, whereas the Warsaw Pact came into being in 1955.

Yes, you are correct. *hangs head in shame*

Though the idea is still there, NATO was designed first as a contingency against Soviet aggression. However, it also served as a deterrent.

And they had no qualms about "expending" them. That's a legitimate point, but 15 minutes is giving numbers too much of an advantage.

45 minutes at the least.For reason I'm suddenly thinking about Iraq. No idea why though...

Yes, you are correct. *hangs head in shame*

Though the idea is still there, NATO was designed first as a contingency against Soviet aggression. However, it also served as a deterrent.It takes guts to publicly admit that you were wrong about something. Most people would just ignore the mistake or flee the thread. You got my respect for acknowledging your mistake.

My advice from personal experience is to be wrong more often. It makes coping with being wrong much more easy... c.c;