Will the UK leave NATO eventually?
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
An unfortunate choice of words on my part. Of course, it is the percentage of GDP spent on defence. As far as pensions are included, yes, it's a false figure. My point still stands. We are one of only two nations spending enough on our defences. Although I agree that we should be spending more.
I am not sure how it would be in the strategic interest of the UK to not remain in NATO. Once one has reduced one's overall military force structure, there is more incentive to depend on coalition efforts for a variety of military endeavors.
Put another way: what benefit(s) would it accrue to the UK to quit NATO? Since my PoV is from the western shores of the pond, I might be missing something obvious to someone who sees it from the other shore.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Herod,
That is of course, the worst kind of old fashioned defence thinking.
We should be trying to focus on getting more defence. Buying even more of the useless, but very expensive kit from our friends, is not helping the war effort.
Although I agree that we should be spending more.
We should be trying to focus on getting more defence. Buying even more of the useless, but very expensive kit from our friends, is not helping the war effort.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
I didn't say we should be spending more on useless, expensive kit. I just said we should be spending more. I would hope that spending it in the most cost-effective way would be a given (in my world, but not necessarily in the world of the "powers")
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Clipperton island
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway, they have no maritime patrol aircraft, no nuclear bombers, no aircraft carriers ... and virtually no longer any overseas commitment (and they need their Parliament approval to go to war, which was THE problem in 9/14 against Syria) and for their nuclear submarines (with American missiles) it's not clear what's going to happen with the base in Scotland ...
so not a lot will be missed.
so not a lot will be missed.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
France Nato yes or no
I am finding the comments about France and NATO confusing, probably through ignorance
I recall France leaving NATO over a nuclear weapons issue and then agreeing to a non military stance within NATO, whatever that may be. Now I think they have made some sort of planning agreement to take into account other NATO nations plans and situation but not to be full members. Is that right?
I recall France leaving NATO over a nuclear weapons issue and then agreeing to a non military stance within NATO, whatever that may be. Now I think they have made some sort of planning agreement to take into account other NATO nations plans and situation but not to be full members. Is that right?
France never left NATO. It remained a full member of the North Atlantic Council but did, in 1966, leave the NATO Integrated Military Structure. It thus ceased to have a MilRep on the Military Committee at NATO HQ, but did maintain active observer status. Sensibly, taking account of its geography in relation to the potential Soviet threat, a number of General to General agreements were then drawn up to ensure that, should war break out, Allied defence could still be conducted. Given changing circumstances, France rejoined the Military Structure in 2009. This link may prove useful:
France and NATO - France-Diplomatie - Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development
France and NATO - France-Diplomatie - Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development
and they need their Parliament approval to go to war, which was THE problem in 9/14 against Syria
https://fullfact.org/law/mps-dont-ha...-action-syria/
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by recceguy
nuclear submarines (with American missiles)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of NATO's original functions was to deter Soviet expansionism after WWII. The Soviet Union no longer exists, but Russia has recently started to flex its military muscles. So the real question is what will NATO do if there is a serious military conflict involving Russia and one of its members?
I think there are still many citizens in the UK who can recall the serious threat posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War years. So I think the UK will remain part of NATO for the foreseeable future.
I think there are still many citizens in the UK who can recall the serious threat posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War years. So I think the UK will remain part of NATO for the foreseeable future.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm
I wonder if NATO has the will to fight a full on war against the Russians, and does it still have the capability ?
For certain the infrastructure in Western Europe is far less than it used to be - as is the number of assets deployed. Does the improvement in quality make up for the degraded quantity ??
And a follow up question - does Russia have the will to fight a full on war against NATO ?? and does it still have the capability ??
They also have a far reduced infrastructure, a reduced number of assets and also further to come to reach the 'old' border area.
A 'good staff question' - any 'good staff answers' out there ?
Arc
I wonder if NATO has the will to fight a full on war against the Russians, and does it still have the capability ?
For certain the infrastructure in Western Europe is far less than it used to be - as is the number of assets deployed. Does the improvement in quality make up for the degraded quantity ??
And a follow up question - does Russia have the will to fight a full on war against NATO ?? and does it still have the capability ??
They also have a far reduced infrastructure, a reduced number of assets and also further to come to reach the 'old' border area.
A 'good staff question' - any 'good staff answers' out there ?
Arc
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I think there are still many citizens in the UK who can recall the serious threat posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War years"
well even at the time there was significant minority who didn't recognise it at all - and for anyone under 40 the Cold War is history
well even at the time there was significant minority who didn't recognise it at all - and for anyone under 40 the Cold War is history
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NATO has generally been a force for good and why would Uk withdraw, the French did under de Gaulle but there was never the least doubt which side they were on. Simialrly Sweden was neutral and not in Nato and it was just a coincidence that all their equipment was NATO compatible.
The real danger to NATO is America or to be precise a loony right wing America under the likes of Trump why might break it up by accident although i am sure other US Govt forces might just think that too much for them.
The other tricky bit is that the US -UK relationship which smoothed a lot of transatlantic conflicting views over might weaken since the US cousins like dealign with the people who really matter in these affairs and these days thats Hollande and Merkel who can intermingleNATO and EU politics leaving us as sort of nuclear armed Billy no mates -an odd situation
The real danger to NATO is America or to be precise a loony right wing America under the likes of Trump why might break it up by accident although i am sure other US Govt forces might just think that too much for them.
The other tricky bit is that the US -UK relationship which smoothed a lot of transatlantic conflicting views over might weaken since the US cousins like dealign with the people who really matter in these affairs and these days thats Hollande and Merkel who can intermingleNATO and EU politics leaving us as sort of nuclear armed Billy no mates -an odd situation
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm old enough to remember the cold war. I certainly remember NBC drills, working in the R3, being woken in the middle of the night because the scopies could see someone 200 miles north east of Aberdeen, and were worried about it.
The cold war was full of mystery and suspense. I couldn't figure out why the Soviets would invade, and how long it would take for everyone else, including them, to figure out that it was a bad idea.
One of the best lessons to learn from history, is recent history. The Nimrod is gone, and our capability for LRMP went with it. But still, the world turns.
Just because we had it, is no proof that we need it. I'm not saying it was wrong to have the V force and QRA and all the 24/7 readiness that went with that. But we don't have the same enemy, now, real or imagined.
Nobody at the MOD seems to look at what the RAF "need" to do nowadays and what kit they would be best equipped with.
How much better would the last fifteen years have gone, had they bought a **** load of A10s instead of Typhoons?
Don't get me wrong, I know that we need to plan for all sorts of eventualities, not just those that hindsight allows us to play with.
I mean, you can't deny, that if a situation had come up, requiring a load of vandalised Chinooks to be stored in a hangar, sorry, three hangars, at Shawbury, then the RAF would have been well placed to save the day.
Had the Russians, or anyone else, decided to pitch in to Afghanistan, against UK forces, armed with advanced supersonic fighters, then the only problem might have been a shortage of Typhoons. However, when the big "actual need" was for CAS, CSAR & Supply of ammo to the front line, well I don't recall seeing the Typhoon doing much of that.
But mostly, and I know I'm giving away my age here, the main reason for being in NATO was supposed to be mutual defence. So where was the rest of NATO in June 1982 and where will they be the next time that we actually need them?
The cold war was full of mystery and suspense. I couldn't figure out why the Soviets would invade, and how long it would take for everyone else, including them, to figure out that it was a bad idea.
One of the best lessons to learn from history, is recent history. The Nimrod is gone, and our capability for LRMP went with it. But still, the world turns.
Just because we had it, is no proof that we need it. I'm not saying it was wrong to have the V force and QRA and all the 24/7 readiness that went with that. But we don't have the same enemy, now, real or imagined.
Nobody at the MOD seems to look at what the RAF "need" to do nowadays and what kit they would be best equipped with.
How much better would the last fifteen years have gone, had they bought a **** load of A10s instead of Typhoons?
Don't get me wrong, I know that we need to plan for all sorts of eventualities, not just those that hindsight allows us to play with.
I mean, you can't deny, that if a situation had come up, requiring a load of vandalised Chinooks to be stored in a hangar, sorry, three hangars, at Shawbury, then the RAF would have been well placed to save the day.
Had the Russians, or anyone else, decided to pitch in to Afghanistan, against UK forces, armed with advanced supersonic fighters, then the only problem might have been a shortage of Typhoons. However, when the big "actual need" was for CAS, CSAR & Supply of ammo to the front line, well I don't recall seeing the Typhoon doing much of that.
But mostly, and I know I'm giving away my age here, the main reason for being in NATO was supposed to be mutual defence. So where was the rest of NATO in June 1982 and where will they be the next time that we actually need them?