Will the UK leave NATO eventually?
Lonewolf 50:-
Could you please spell out what that means please? It sounds suspiciously like "Europe must take care of its own defence". If that is so then we need to know ASAP. Does it reflects a general feeling amongst the US population?
Parliament has just debated the renewal of the UK nuclear deterrent (specifically the build of 4 new submarines). Russia is renewing its capability too. NATO underlines the resolve of the West to counter Russian threats towards Europe (Red, Blue, and White now I believe airpolice). If the USA thinks that can now be left entirely to Europe to resolve in the usual fashion, presumably it anticipates deja vu all over again a la 1914 and 1939? The USA leads the NATO alliance out of self interest. I would contend that same self interest still exists.
As to the threat from the south, I quite agree it exists. It is however of a different kind, and attempts by the west to counter it by conventional military means have been more like stirring a hornet nest with a stick rather than resolving it in any way. The EU in particular has proven particularly vulnerable to mass immigration with its lengthy coastline and open borders. It can do little to change the former other than to patrol and reinforce it, but it needs to reform its ambitions and move into the real world to resolve the latter. The UK electorate has recently voted to do just that.
Russia's a problem that can be dealt with in a European fashion
Parliament has just debated the renewal of the UK nuclear deterrent (specifically the build of 4 new submarines). Russia is renewing its capability too. NATO underlines the resolve of the West to counter Russian threats towards Europe (Red, Blue, and White now I believe airpolice). If the USA thinks that can now be left entirely to Europe to resolve in the usual fashion, presumably it anticipates deja vu all over again a la 1914 and 1939? The USA leads the NATO alliance out of self interest. I would contend that same self interest still exists.
As to the threat from the south, I quite agree it exists. It is however of a different kind, and attempts by the west to counter it by conventional military means have been more like stirring a hornet nest with a stick rather than resolving it in any way. The EU in particular has proven particularly vulnerable to mass immigration with its lengthy coastline and open borders. It can do little to change the former other than to patrol and reinforce it, but it needs to reform its ambitions and move into the real world to resolve the latter. The UK electorate has recently voted to do just that.
The USA leads the NATO alliance out of self interest. I would contend that same self interest still exists.
As to the threat from the south, I quite agree it exists.
The EU in particular has proven particularly vulnerable to mass immigration with its lengthy coastline and open borders.
I am drifting off topic. Sorry. NATO as a political organization has quite a bit of momentum. As a collective security organization, it's pretty effective for all of it warts. I am an outsider to UK views on the matter, but it seems to me a useful club to be in for the short to medium term, and likely the longer term as well.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My five cents (or, two pennies worth) on the Russian and "southern" threats.
The obvious state of the art is that UK, as a great country (said without sarcasm), possesses nukes and actually was number 3 to get this capability. I assume that for many Britons it is a certain part of national pride and something that deserves respect. If so, why to get rid of it? IMHO it would look a bit crazy in the situation (and the world we live in currently) when India and Pakistan do have and develop this stuff.
For Russia, four old-fashioned subs are next to nothing as compared with the US arsenal and therefore cannot be considered as an additional threat. I think their upgrade or modernisation of the whole fleet will be left unnoticed here. Moreover,maybe the submarine command system will be finally updated as well, because it is running Windows and this makes me worry :-)
Airpolice: unfortunately you are not right regarding mid-east fanatics not attacking Russia. There were many acts of terror in Moscow (subway, airport, residential buildings) and some southern cities in the past, all organised and performed by these a-holes. To say nothing about the war against Tchechen terrorists in 90's that tried to cut out a good piece of territory for future Calyphate. Now many of them reside in Europe, US and UK as "victims of the bloody regime" (e.g. Boston bombers were exactly those folks).
The obvious state of the art is that UK, as a great country (said without sarcasm), possesses nukes and actually was number 3 to get this capability. I assume that for many Britons it is a certain part of national pride and something that deserves respect. If so, why to get rid of it? IMHO it would look a bit crazy in the situation (and the world we live in currently) when India and Pakistan do have and develop this stuff.
For Russia, four old-fashioned subs are next to nothing as compared with the US arsenal and therefore cannot be considered as an additional threat. I think their upgrade or modernisation of the whole fleet will be left unnoticed here. Moreover,maybe the submarine command system will be finally updated as well, because it is running Windows and this makes me worry :-)
Airpolice: unfortunately you are not right regarding mid-east fanatics not attacking Russia. There were many acts of terror in Moscow (subway, airport, residential buildings) and some southern cities in the past, all organised and performed by these a-holes. To say nothing about the war against Tchechen terrorists in 90's that tried to cut out a good piece of territory for future Calyphate. Now many of them reside in Europe, US and UK as "victims of the bloody regime" (e.g. Boston bombers were exactly those folks).
airpolice:-
I'll assume that is a throw away line to express your belief that the deterrent will never be used, by us, by the French, by anyone. I quite agree, that is the whole point of it, that it never be used but yet that it might be used. In that respect we ourselves have to inject the "might", no use relying on someone else's might, they might say that they might not (in regard to our security). BTW, you instanced France, so I am not insinuating any such response in their regard.
Corbyn, like you, says that the threat is now from terrorism and that makes the nuclear deterrent ineffective. It might well be in the case of terrorism, but there are sadly now a number of nuclear armed states in the world with yet others vying to join the club. Many of those are regimes that would not hesitate to use such weapons if they could rely on there being no retaliation. They cannot be assured of that, especially as that retaliation could come from a number of western democracies alone, so they hold their hand. That is the value of our "four old-fashioned subs", and I for one will sleep sounder knowing that at least one of them is on patrol all the time.
Again you tell us what the people want and need. They need to feel safe first and foremost. That is why they vote in Governments that assure that safety by continuing with the UK deterrent force. The people speak for the people at a General Election, not you, and certainly not me!
Lonewolf50, thank you for clarifying the meaning of your previous post and apologies for my getting it wrong. I am afraid that we are in violent agreement regarding the threat to peace from the south. I hope that we remain agreed that something rather more sophisticated than bombing the hell out of it is called for to meet that challenge.
Most of these migrants are such out of desperation and fear. War, persecution, drought, and corruption are their daily lot. The only way to turn the migration off is to remove those factors. Little by little, one by one. We need a renewed charter, as expressed by Roosevelt and Churchill. The League of Nations failed, the United Nations has failed, let us succeed this time so that these ordinary people, with ordinary ambitions for themselves and their loved ones, can build a future for themselves in their own countries. Of course it will cost, but so does war and the aftermath of war.
Our new Prime Minister has promised the people of this country a new deal for its own ordinary people. We need such a promise for the people of the south, but only with international agreement to make good on that promise. All starry eyed nonsense? Of course! Who could ever begin to believe it?
Oh, and what has all this got to do with NATO? Possibly everything...
If the Russians need nuked at some point in the future, the French can do it, or not.
Corbyn, like you, says that the threat is now from terrorism and that makes the nuclear deterrent ineffective. It might well be in the case of terrorism, but there are sadly now a number of nuclear armed states in the world with yet others vying to join the club. Many of those are regimes that would not hesitate to use such weapons if they could rely on there being no retaliation. They cannot be assured of that, especially as that retaliation could come from a number of western democracies alone, so they hold their hand. That is the value of our "four old-fashioned subs", and I for one will sleep sounder knowing that at least one of them is on patrol all the time.
Again you tell us what the people want and need. They need to feel safe first and foremost. That is why they vote in Governments that assure that safety by continuing with the UK deterrent force. The people speak for the people at a General Election, not you, and certainly not me!
Lonewolf50, thank you for clarifying the meaning of your previous post and apologies for my getting it wrong. I am afraid that we are in violent agreement regarding the threat to peace from the south. I hope that we remain agreed that something rather more sophisticated than bombing the hell out of it is called for to meet that challenge.
Most of these migrants are such out of desperation and fear. War, persecution, drought, and corruption are their daily lot. The only way to turn the migration off is to remove those factors. Little by little, one by one. We need a renewed charter, as expressed by Roosevelt and Churchill. The League of Nations failed, the United Nations has failed, let us succeed this time so that these ordinary people, with ordinary ambitions for themselves and their loved ones, can build a future for themselves in their own countries. Of course it will cost, but so does war and the aftermath of war.
Our new Prime Minister has promised the people of this country a new deal for its own ordinary people. We need such a promise for the people of the south, but only with international agreement to make good on that promise. All starry eyed nonsense? Of course! Who could ever begin to believe it?
Oh, and what has all this got to do with NATO? Possibly everything...
Last edited by Chugalug2; 20th Jul 2016 at 06:09.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The French can do it..." Relying on the whim of another nation to defend us (or maybe not) in the last resort strikes me as the most powerful argument in favour of NATO.
Excellent post, chugalug, in particular +1 to releasing the people of The South from persecution etc. But are you suggesting that this should be NATO's job?
Excellent post, chugalug, in particular +1 to releasing the people of The South from persecution etc. But are you suggesting that this should be NATO's job?
But are you suggesting that this should be NATO's job?
Where we go from there would be down to the Charter. Perhaps a new alliance (MEATO?) would be required to assuage local sensibilities. Somehow though territory has to be returned to elected governments by defeating local war lords (Libya being the first, followed by those terrorised by criminal gangs posing as religious fighters). The West has to learn not to be too precious about "democracy". What is needed is stability and peace so that normal life can return. In that regard NATO can again assist with the various technical specialities within its military, engineering, transport, communications, etc. Eventually all that can be taken over by contractors, preferably local.
So in answer to your question, it will be the job of Governments, European and their Allies, to make this work. Part of the means of doing some of it should involve NATO, particularly where European security is involved
Also remember that NATO does have some linkage to the UN in its original Treaty, which will inform some limits on what political objectives are within the alliances remit.
My preferred focus for MEATO would be to defeat the Vegan hordes, but that's a topic for another thread.
Our key weapons would be surprise, bacon bombs, and a fanatical devotion to the pork ...
Point taken, Lonewolf. Perhaps MEATO is not the most appropriate acronym to have coined! I'm sure that much worthier people than yours truly have wrestled with all this before. That is the point though, before has become now, with a far greater urgency than then. In a way, all the worst case scenarios have popped up together. That at least should concentrate minds on all sides to seek solutions or to exploit situations. I've no doubt some fisticuffs will be required, it is just that they shouldn't be the default answer to everything and anything.
ShotOne and jindabyne, thank you both for your kind words. No doubt the cons will wade in shortly, so your declarations of pro are thus warmly welcomed. There are a thousand and one reasons why nothing can be done, but only one reason why they must be, ie regional stability, which is presently anything but.
ShotOne and jindabyne, thank you both for your kind words. No doubt the cons will wade in shortly, so your declarations of pro are thus warmly welcomed. There are a thousand and one reasons why nothing can be done, but only one reason why they must be, ie regional stability, which is presently anything but.
