North Atlantic Treaty Organization

[PatBC]

As to why.

Unless the US wants to withdraw from the world, and that includes economically the US needs multilateral alliances, as does every modern economy

[Jim O]

Neither of the Iraq wars was a NATO mission. They were US led "coalitions". Let's look at deaths to date as that is a good indicator of real costs, Since March 2003-present (source iCasualties: Iraq Coalition Casualty Count):

US: 4052
UK: 176
All others combined: 133

So the US has borne 93% of the deaths. The US and UK together have borne 97% of the deaths. I don't mean to denigrate the value of those 133 brave souls, but do you really believe none of those nations would have participated in the absence of NATO? Even if not one of them did, lots more American moms and wives got the knock on the door than any others by a factor of over 10. The ratio is different in Afghanistan which is a NATO mission. Still the KIA numbers are lopsided, though not nearly as much and less so in recent years.

Second, beside the US and UK, what percentage of financial costs have been borne by other countries? Does that even approach 10% in total?

Third, if there were an attack on another NATO member, what percentage of forces and cost do you think would be borne by the US?

Not to pick on Latvia (but you mentioned her in the list), but how does having a military alliance with Latvia help the security of the United States? The same can be asked of the Czech Republic, Croatia, and many other smaller nations. The likelihood of war with them is about zero for the US yet the cost of providing security for them may be high should the be invaded.

My question was, and still is, what is the point of NATO? It is a throwback to the post World War II Cold War. That is over and so it's mission is complete.

The US would have allies in the world the same way with or without NATO. Our friends like us because we share interests or because we give them financial assistance. In fact, many referred to the US led coalition as the Coalition of the Bribed. Our friends, like Canada, Australia, and UK would support us and be our friends with or without NATO. And we would still all know who our enemies are without picking up a third of the cost of maintaining an out of date alliance.

All of this is just a humble opinion of course.

[PatBC]

NATO is still important for the reason I mentioned the common operating procedures, the common terminology. that is priceless, they exist because of NATO. If NATO was dissolved those things would die away over time. NZ and Australia when they operate together use NATO SOP because they also operate with NATO countries. The very symbol used in most modern wargames (and many older periods) are NATO symbols. Every western country looks at map and see this

and knows what it is

Bilateral exercise will not generate those type of SOP.

While the US could try to form a new multilateral alliance it would be more expensive.

As to how much money each contributes, I do not know. The US does contribute more cash then Turkey for example but for much is the land that the bases in Turkey are on, worth. How much could the 6th fleet HQ land in Naples be sold for? The K-Town base complexes in Germany is worth Billions certainly. The 8,914 wounded evacuated from Iraq to Landstuhl in Germany, as of Mar 2008, a part of the K-town complex are sure glad it is there I bet. The US does not rent the land it is given to NATO as part of Germany contribution.

What does the US get for the $1.3 billion military aid it gives to Egypt each year?

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by PatBC

What does the US get for the $1.3 billion military aid it gives to Egypt each year?

I don't really know. Perhaps the hope that the government is not toppled by extremists?

Your points are well taken Pat.

[Horch]

NATO is scheduled to meet in Paris in June for a summit on Afghanistan. My personal belief is the US should get the heck out of there (and the mid-east in general) including Iraq. But, NATO members have no stomach for this very weary conflict. I don't blame them. At the same time, they could well stab the US in the back. Time will tell and we shall see. The US has to stop propping up the rest of those Nations. Some of the newer ones who were part of Warsaw. The US is headed for a recession. We can ill afford anymore waste of lives,money, resources etc. Get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the United States is a well known phrase. You live in Canada. I live in the U.S.A. Stay with NATO if you desire. The same with the rest of NATO members. Get America out of NATO. Just like our borders,north and south, protect our own first. Makes sense to me.
All of the excuses for the US to stay in NATO just seem to benefit the other members.

[PatBC]

The US will not give up the veto in UN.

[Horch]

Originally Posted by PatBC

The US will not give up the veto in UN.

Which veto?

[PatBC]

Originally Posted by Horch

Which veto?

US, China, Russia, UK and France can veto any action by the UN. The US has used that Veto more then all the rest of countries combined. If the US leaves the UN it will lose the Veto and never get it back. That is why the US will never leave the UN.

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by PatBC

US, China, Russia, UK and France can veto any action by the UN. The US has used that Veto more then all the rest of countries combined. If the US leaves the UN it will lose the Veto and never get it back. That is why the US will never leave the UN.

Just to be pedantic, those vetoes are for Security Council actions, not for the General Assembly. It so happens that the Security Council is where the action happens, but those nations do not have veto power for the entire UN.

Your data is, however inaccurate as the USSR and its successor Russia have issued almost half of all vetoes in Security Council history. See Security Council: Patterns in the use of the Veto - Global Policy Forum. In the last 20-25 years the US has exercised its veto more than all others combined, probably most of the time to protect Israel.

vetotable.gif

vetograph2b.gif

[PatBC]

Originally Posted by Jim O

Just to be pedantic, those vetoes are for Security Council actions, not for the General Assembly. It so happens that the Security Council is where the action happens, but those nations do not have veto power for the entire UN.

Your data is, however inaccurate as the USSR and its successor Russia have issued almost half of all vetoes in Security Council history. See Security Council: Patterns in the use of the Veto - Global Policy Forum. In the last 20-25 years the US has exercised its veto more than all others combined, probably most of the time to protect Israel.

Attachment 1998

Attachment 1999

You are correct Jim, I was not aware of the early Russia vetos

But the US will not leave the UN as long as they have a veto.

The General assembly other then determining the budget is largely powerless.