NATO Expansion

Hubris Boy · 11-23-2002, 08:53 AM

In Prague on Thursday, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization issued invitations to seven countries to begin accession talks to join the Alliance: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. The countries are expected to join NATO in 2004. This is the second time the Alliance has expanded eastward since the collapse of the late, unlamented Warsaw Pact; Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic were invited to join in 1999.

Is this a Good Thing<sup>®</sup>?

NATO used to be a Good Thing<sup>®</sup>". Originally developed as a foil to the land-grabbing tendencies of left-wing militant extremists in the Stalin administration, it worked admirably; for over 50 years NATO's existence prevented a flood of cheap, poorly-made Soviet tanks from pouring through the Fulda Gap and inundating Western Europe.

But now...

...hmmmm. The absence of Godless Communist Hordes In The East (no, we'll deal with China in a different thread) raises the question of whether NATO has outlived its usefulness. To what end, this eastward expansion? By what stretch of the imagination can Bulgaria be considered a "North Atlantic" nation? According to the terms of the Treaty, "...an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all..." This was fine during the Cold War, and made an effective deterrent. No one doubted that America would respond with great vigor to any Soviet incursion across the intra-German border, and that the American public would enthusiastically support such a response. But what about now? Are we supposed to believe that Americans would be equally enthusiastic about sending their sons to defend Bratislava?

It seems to me that NATO today is becoming more Euro-centric, and is increasingly being asked to function as a pan-European defense agency, with Uncle Sucker paying the tab. The EU has been babbling about creating an "EU Defense Force" off and on for over a decade now but, with typical European efficiency, babble is about all that's been accomplished.

I don't have any particular axe to grind here, and I don't have any answers either. I'm the last one who will deny the need for military cooperation between the Good Guys (i.e. the liberal democracies of the West) to protect our way of life from the encroaching barbarism of the Bad Guys (i.e. everybody else). But I'm not sure that NATO is, any longer, the proper tool for the job.

Break into groups and discuss among yourselves.

Griff · 11-23-2002, 01:29 PM

I'm dying from a cold right now so I don't have access to anything from the chest up. My gut says its a bad idea. My wallet says its a bad idea. If I worked for a defense contractor, they'd prolly both go the other way.

jaguar · 11-23-2002, 05:04 PM

I wouldn't trust some of those nations joining with a shopping list, let alone defense. Yea, it's outlived its usefulness, bit like the commonwealth, now it'll bumble around, without anyting really to do and consume money. Western Europe needs to work out finally how it wishes to define Europe, the recent shitstorms over some ex eastern-bloc countries joining the EU is evidence of this enough.

That Guy · 11-23-2002, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jaguar
EMOTIVE ARGUEMENTS: The notion that by tacking emotionally charged images to your argument you add moral weight that renders logical reasoning irrelevant.

Does the plural of argument have an extra 'e,' or is this a "Queen's language" thing again?

jaguar · 11-23-2002, 06:41 PM

No, i just don't spell well late at night =) thanks for pointing that out.

That Guy · 11-23-2002, 06:49 PM

Maybe a keyboard light might help.

tw · 11-23-2002, 10:45 PM

Purpose of NATO: To keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.

Sounds like it is still serving its function. BTW, NATO means big time deals for American arms suppliers. After all, what is the multifunction fighter plane of choice in NATO? F-16.

jaguar · 11-24-2002, 02:16 AM

Most major Euro powers are buying into the Eurofighter/Typhoon project. Actually it would, but sleep would more, post exam celebrations......

Griff · 11-24-2002, 07:52 AM

I remembered reading about Lithuania buying some missiles from us so I googled and got this page from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency. For those of you keeping score at home, yes that is another alphabet soup agency that nobody ever heard of. The page lists countries and the toys we sell them.

Hubris Boy · 11-24-2002, 10:57 AM

That's a scary link you found there, Griff.

Sweet merciful Jesus! We're selling Harpoons to the f*cking Australians?!? I wouldn't trust those wankers with anything more lethal than a burnt-out match!

Griff · 11-24-2002, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hubris Boy

Sweet merciful Jesus! We're selling Harpoons to the f*cking Australians?!?

Wheres the freaking oversite?

elSicomoro · 11-24-2002, 09:55 PM

Hey, I'm all behind sending troops over to defend Ljubljana.

Turkey and Greece have been members since at least 1982...and although I see why they were invited to join the posse, they're not exactly North Atlantic either.

I don't really see much of a point to NATO anymore. Old-school warring--at least in this part of North America, and in most of Europe--is dead, IMO. I guess if the Swiss get pissed and decide to invade Germany, then it could be incredibly helpful. But in reading about the alliance's plans for the future, I don't see why much of what is being discussed cannot be handled either through the UN or through general discussion and cooperation among nations.

tw · 11-25-2002, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sycamore
I don't really see much of a point to NATO anymore. Old-school warring--at least in this part of North America, and in most of Europe--is dead, IMO. ... I don't see why much of what is being discussed cannot be handled either through the UN or through general discussion and cooperation among nations.

The Sept 1995 lessons from a Srebrenica massacre did not teach us anything? A UN that can only respond during business hours 9 - 5 EST. A battalion of Dutch soldiers blamed for what was directly traceable to top UN management?

It was because of these lessons that the UN was removed from Bosnian peace keeping duties and an organization that plans, exercises, equipts and trains to coordination, cooperation and effectiveness instead took over. Clearly the antonym of those adjacetives are the UN, nations cooperating, and solutions through general discussion. Only when something effective like Nato took over was the Bosnian situation finally solved.

Many organizations have attempted to replace or supplement Nato. Early on was the WU. Later was a European security force for which Britian promised a lion share of military attachment. And yet only Nato survives as the organization that binds, standardizes, coordinates, and forces general discussion of cooperation. The UN even refused to take on the problems in Bosnia and Ruwanda. What about Liberia. Ivory Coast. Nigeria. Zimbabwa, East Timor, Aesch, islands in the Pacific (name forgotten) where those of Indian ancestary were denied polical office after winning elections. Where was the UN in any of this? Where did general discussion or international cooperation solve this problem? Only when nations that were staunch military allies also to cooperate and solve the problem.

Had the British not sent a battalion of tough Marines into Monrovia - independent of the UN force - then that UN force was expected to be overrun - with no backup from the UN expected. This being a year or so ago? Where is this effective or powerful UN?

The UN could not even address problems in Haiti. The OAS had to perform authorization for that problem. The UN does have certain necessary functions. But it is a long way from replacing or even supplementing what Nato still does.

Hubris Boy · 11-26-2002, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tw

The UN does have certain necessary functions.

And what, pray, might those be?

*Runs for cover, laughing like a loon all the way.*

View Poll Results: NATO expansion is...
... a logical evolution for the organization in the post-Soviet era.	2	33.33%
... a transparent ploy by the Europeans to get the U.S. to subsidize their defense spending.	2	33.33%
... huh?	0	0%
... CowboyNeal!	2	33.33%
Voters: 6. You may not vote on this poll

11-23-2002, 08:53 AM	#1
Hubris Boy Keymaster of Gozer Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Patapsco Drainage Basin Posts: 471	NATO Expansion In Prague on Thursday, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization issued invitations to seven countries to begin accession talks to join the Alliance: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. The countries are expected to join NATO in 2004. This is the second time the Alliance has expanded eastward since the collapse of the late, unlamented Warsaw Pact; Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic were invited to join in 1999. Is this a Good Thing<sup>®</sup>? NATO used to be a Good Thing<sup>®</sup>". Originally developed as a foil to the land-grabbing tendencies of left-wing militant extremists in the Stalin administration, it worked admirably; for over 50 years NATO's existence prevented a flood of cheap, poorly-made Soviet tanks from pouring through the Fulda Gap and inundating Western Europe. But now... ...hmmmm. The absence of Godless Communist Hordes In The East (no, we'll deal with China in a different thread) raises the question of whether NATO has outlived its usefulness. To what end, this eastward expansion? By what stretch of the imagination can Bulgaria be considered a "North Atlantic" nation? According to the terms of the Treaty, "...an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all..." This was fine during the Cold War, and made an effective deterrent. No one doubted that America would respond with great vigor to any Soviet incursion across the intra-German border, and that the American public would enthusiastically support such a response. But what about now? Are we supposed to believe that Americans would be equally enthusiastic about sending their sons to defend Bratislava? It seems to me that NATO today is becoming more Euro-centric, and is increasingly being asked to function as a pan-European defense agency, with Uncle Sucker paying the tab. The EU has been babbling about creating an "EU Defense Force" off and on for over a decade now but, with typical European efficiency, babble is about all that's been accomplished. I don't have any particular axe to grind here, and I don't have any answers either. I'm the last one who will deny the need for military cooperation between the Good Guys (i.e. the liberal democracies of the West) to protect our way of life from the encroaching barbarism of the Bad Guys (i.e. everybody else). But I'm not sure that NATO is, any longer, the proper tool for the job. Break into groups and discuss among yourselves.

11-23-2002, 01:29 PM	#2
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	I'm dying from a cold right now so I don't have access to anything from the chest up. My gut says its a bad idea. My wallet says its a bad idea. If I worked for a defense contractor, they'd prolly both go the other way. __________________ If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis

11-23-2002, 05:04 PM	#3
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	I wouldn't trust some of those nations joining with a shopping list, let alone defense. Yea, it's outlived its usefulness, bit like the commonwealth, now it'll bumble around, without anyting really to do and consume money. Western Europe needs to work out finally how it wishes to define Europe, the recent shitstorms over some ex eastern-bloc countries joining the EU is evidence of this enough. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

11-23-2002, 06:41 PM	#5
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	No, i just don't spell well late at night =) thanks for pointing that out. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

11-23-2002, 06:49 PM	#6
That Guy He who reads, sometimes writes. Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: at the keyboard Posts: 791	Maybe a keyboard light might help.

11-23-2002, 10:45 PM	#7
tw Read? I only know how to write. Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 11,933	Purpose of NATO: To keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down. Sounds like it is still serving its function. BTW, NATO means big time deals for American arms suppliers. After all, what is the multifunction fighter plane of choice in NATO? F-16.

11-24-2002, 02:16 AM	#8
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	Most major Euro powers are buying into the Eurofighter/Typhoon project. Actually it would, but sleep would more, post exam celebrations...... __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

11-24-2002, 07:52 AM	#9
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	I remembered reading about Lithuania buying some missiles from us so I googled and got this page from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency. For those of you keeping score at home, yes that is another alphabet soup agency that nobody ever heard of. The page lists countries and the toys we sell them. __________________ If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis

11-24-2002, 10:57 AM	#10
Hubris Boy Keymaster of Gozer Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Patapsco Drainage Basin Posts: 471	That's a scary link you found there, Griff. Sweet merciful Jesus! We're selling Harpoons to the fcking Australians*?!? I wouldn't trust those wankers with anything more lethal than a burnt-out match!

11-24-2002, 09:55 PM	#12
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	Hey, I'm all behind sending troops over to defend Ljubljana. Turkey and Greece have been members since at least 1982...and although I see why they were invited to join the posse, they're not exactly North Atlantic either. I don't really see much of a point to NATO anymore. Old-school warring--at least in this part of North America, and in most of Europe--is dead, IMO. I guess if the Swiss get pissed and decide to invade Germany, then it could be incredibly helpful. But in reading about the alliance's plans for the future, I don't see why much of what is being discussed cannot be handled either through the UN or through general discussion and cooperation among nations.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)