• It's a liability

    With the recent incident of a Russian jet being shot down by Turkish military forces, it is clear that our contract with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is by definition a guaranteed ticket into WW3. If any mistakes or misunderstandings take place, the countries bound by NATO's terms would be forced to declare war, starting WW3.

    In other words, if the Warsaw Pact was dissolved, shouldn't NATO be dissolved as well?

  • NATO is cancerous.

    History has proved to us again and again that military congregation always leads to more aggression, More aggression always leads to more war, More war always leads to more military congregation, . . . , Until everybody gets killed. NATO is cancerous. Some of the NATO members have repetitively invaded and occupied other countries with no provocation.
    Stop the cancer, When you still can!

  • Do dissolve - It's unfair

    It's unfair the US is paying 60-70% of the cost. Our people are taxed beyond belief and we don't have healthcare, social security is always in jeopardy, and honestly the US citizens deserve to see where their money is being spent instead of offshore. We're subsidizing the existence of competing nations who take our money and jobs. Talk about being taken advantage of.

  • Past it's usefulness.

    Relic of the Cold War. Gone on long enough. Time to evolve into a newer version of itself. USA should reduce European footprint, or at least people/money by 50%, if not more. Navy remains the same. Get on with it already. However, so much $$$$$ to be made by military industry, they will never let that $$$$$ go. It's all about the $$$$$$$. Too bad...

  • NATO is a Frozen Conflict stopping European Defense from its Full Potential

    Like a Russian supported “frozen conflict” European defenses are stopped from their full potential by NATO’s existence. The EU doesn’t go far enough and won’t as long as NATO exists. NATO would evaporate without steady US financial support. But if NATO dissolves, what takes its place? Some may argue Russian expansion, but that is arguable. Instead, at full transition to European defenses that mirror US defenses with full standardization, interoperability, and superior technology.

    Deterrence works. France's first use escalation policy for nuclear weapons can work and has worked against deterring Soviet and now Russian invasion. If Europe as an entity adopts that same policy, nuclear deterrence can be a huge off set for the higher costs of conventional military build-up.

    Non-negotiated per capita support the Europe’s defense. Europe should adopt a similar government rule as in the US, where every state is taxed for the nation's security and defense. NATO uses an optional "voluntary" state by state contribution. If each European state has a mandatory federal tax for defense, the bickering and side-step of contributions for Europe's defenses will be history. The US will gain a potent ally (instead of a drain). Combined US-European common collective global defense and protection of human rights will be stronger with a United State of Europe teaming with the United States of America.

    Added perk: Europe gets freedom to fight the fights most vital for their nation's defense without asking US permission.

  • Dissolve NATO no ...But..

    Should the US dissolve our membership in NATO? Yes! All the "NATO' nations are mature enough nation-wise to handle their own business in their backyard. Their economies should take the massive burden that the US has been carrying for decades now.
    If we have the great and advanced military in the World that can deploy within hours or days to any hotspot ... Except Benghazi or ISIS.
    If our European Allies need our help we will have their backs.

  • United we stand

    Divided we are weak. What djeisb. And so jakkdjsh ahdhjsb hahah dneka kdiebsba said jdbsbemtl aoaiqirhtuw skjshfvtnw kskncbxvznal djwoqpqpeirutyend dmsns and is eke rkd do eks dkdne en DJs sick e did end ekdkodie r ekbfbt r and f end for end f f. G g r f. C f d sbbsbe. D s

  • Many small armies can function as one large army.

    NATO allows countries small in both population and military the opportunity to present a united front against much larger potential enemies (i.E., Russia, China, etc.). Although an individual country may be relatively weak militarily, potential aggressors should know that by attacking one nation in the pact, they may be entering into a war with all NATO armies.

    There's also an added benefit of cost reduction. If a large number of countries can make small contributions to a common, large fighting force, that leaves more money in the national budget for "at-home" policies and programs.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.