Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

Nuclear Proliferation after NATO's demise?

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Nuclear Proliferation after NATO's demise?
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:29 pm

TFLYTSNBN

I saw this recently:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomp ... departure/

It appears that it is only a matter of time before President Trump withdraws the US from NATO. The US could withdraw from other alliances as well.

For 70 years the US has provided a "nuclear umbrella" for its allies that has dissuaded all except Great Britain, France and Israel from acquiring nuclear weapons. The credibility of the US deterrent has often been questioned. Would a US President launch a nuclear attack against the USSR or now Russia to protect or avemge Berlin or Seul or Tokyo knowing that New York or Los Angeles would get nuked in retaliation? Trump is the first US President who has the terminity to suggest that the answer is HELL NO!

If the US does withdraw from NATO and other defense organizations, folds up its nuclear umbrella and goes home, how many nations will deploy their own nukes and how many?
Top
Re: Nuclear Proliferation after NATO's demise?
Post by Joat42   » Fri Oct 19, 2018 9:59 pm

Joat42
Admiral

Posts: 2142
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 7:01 am
Location: Sweden

TFLYTSNBN wrote:I saw this recently:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomp ... departure/

It appears that it is only a matter of time before President Trump withdraws the US from NATO. The US could withdraw from other alliances as well.

For 70 years the US has provided a "nuclear umbrella" for its allies that has dissuaded all except Great Britain, France and Israel from acquiring nuclear weapons. The credibility of the US deterrent has often been questioned. Would a US President launch a nuclear attack against the USSR or now Russia to protect or avemge Berlin or Seul or Tokyo knowing that New York or Los Angeles would get nuked in retaliation? Trump is the first US President who has the terminity to suggest that the answer is HELL NO!

If the US does withdraw from NATO and other defense organizations, folds up its nuclear umbrella and goes home, how many nations will deploy their own nukes and how many?

The question you need to ask is who will fill the power vacuum if USA leaves NATO. China? Not impossible.

Another aspect is that if the US leaves NATO the economy will take a big hit.

On the whole I think it will be a net loss (influence, economy etc) for the USA if they withdraw.

---
Jack of all trades and destructive tinkerer.


Anyone who have simple solutions for complex problems is a fool.
Top
Re: Nuclear Proliferation after NATO's demise?
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:29 pm

TFLYTSNBN

Joat42 wrote:
TFLYTSNBN wrote:I saw this recently:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomp ... departure/

It appears that it is only a matter of time before President Trump withdraws the US from NATO. The US could withdraw from other alliances as well.

For 70 years the US has provided a "nuclear umbrella" for its allies that has dissuaded all except Great Britain, France and Israel from acquiring nuclear weapons. The credibility of the US deterrent has often been questioned. Would a US President launch a nuclear attack against the USSR or now Russia to protect or avemge Berlin or Seul or Tokyo knowing that New York or Los Angeles would get nuked in retaliation? Trump is the first US President who has the terminity to suggest that the answer is HELL NO!

If the US does withdraw from NATO and other defense organizations, folds up its nuclear umbrella and goes home, how many nations will deploy their own nukes and how many?

The question you need to ask is who will fill the power vacuum if USA leaves NATO. China? Not impossible.

Another aspect is that if the US leaves NATO the economy will take a big hit.

On the whole I think it will be a net loss (influence, economy etc) for the USA if they withdraw.



Interesting responses.

Why would the withdrawal of the US create a power vacumm that China would fill?

Why would the witdrawal of the US from NATO hurt the US economically? Are you presuming that the remaining NATO countries would retaliate with tariffs or embargos?
Top
Re: Nuclear Proliferation after NATO's demise?
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Sat Oct 20, 2018 9:10 pm

TFLYTSNBN

Top
Re: Nuclear Proliferation after NATO's demise?
Post by Annachie   » Sat Oct 20, 2018 9:46 pm

Annachie
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3099
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:36 pm

Presumably, there'd be even less reason for former NATO allies to buy US suplied/made military equipment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top
Re: Nuclear Proliferation after NATO's demise?
Post by Joat42   » Sat Oct 20, 2018 9:48 pm

Joat42
Admiral

Posts: 2142
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 7:01 am
Location: Sweden

TFLYTSNBN wrote:..snip..
Interesting responses.

Why would the withdrawal of the US create a power vacumm that China would fill?

Why would the witdrawal of the US from NATO hurt the US economically? Are you presuming that the remaining NATO countries would retaliate with tariffs or embargos?

Leaving NATO
I'm counting on the fact that the markets will react negatively.

From a certain perspective NATO is a way to secure trade, and if they withdraw that trade will be impacted - especially since the EU is the US biggest trading partner (per Jan 2017).

I'm not sure how the whole thing with basing rights is handled but it may be that some of those is tied to NATO, and if the US withdraws some of their bases China and Russia will try to push their influence into those areas.

I'm almost certain that Turkey will look to Russia if the US bases are withdrawn from there. Turkey are already trying to buy weapons from Russia which kind of riled up some people. It's interesting since they also helped finance the F-35 JSF and they actually manufactures parts for it.

Anyway, my opinion is that withdrawing will create more problems for everyone involved plus the economic impact of it but it will also greatly benefit Russia and China politically in the long term since the US will appear to have a weak foreign policy.

---
Jack of all trades and destructive tinkerer.


Anyone who have simple solutions for complex problems is a fool.
Top
Re: Nuclear Proliferation after NATO's demise?
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Sun Oct 21, 2018 10:38 am

TFLYTSNBN

Top
Re: Nuclear Proliferation after NATO's demise?
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Sun Oct 21, 2018 10:56 am

TFLYTSNBN

Brazrl is another country. Not NATO or european but would affect Europe.

https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/ ... ear-option
Top
Re: Nuclear Proliferation after NATO's demise?
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Sun Oct 21, 2018 10:57 am

TFLYTSNBN

Top
Re: Nuclear Proliferation after NATO's demise?
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Sun Oct 21, 2018 12:13 pm

TFLYTSNBN

Joat42 wrote:
TFLYTSNBN wrote:..snip..
Interesting responses.

Why would the withdrawal of the US create a power vacumm that China would fill?

Why would the witdrawal of the US from NATO hurt the US economically? Are you presuming that the remaining NATO countries would retaliate with tariffs or embargos?

Leaving NATO
I'm counting on the fact that the markets will react negatively.

From a certain perspective NATO is a way to secure trade, and if they withdraw that trade will be impacted - especially since the EU is the US biggest trading partner (per Jan 2017).

I'm not sure how the whole thing with basing rights is handled but it may be that some of those is tied to NATO, and if the US withdraws some of their bases China and Russia will try to push their influence into those areas.

I'm almost certain that Turkey will look to Russia if the US bases are withdrawn from there. Turkey are already trying to buy weapons from Russia which kind of riled up some people. It's interesting since they also helped finance the F-35 JSF and they actually manufactures parts for it.

Anyway, my opinion is that withdrawing will create more problems for everyone involved plus the economic impact of it but it will also greatly benefit Russia and China politically in the long term since the US will appear to have a weak foreign policy.


I think that you got things backwards. The Brenton Woods "free trade" regime that pertained from the end of WW2 to President Trump has been an economic detriment to the United States. The US offerred access to its markets as a bribe to buy allies against the Soviet Union. Now that the Soviet Union is no more and Russia is not an existential threat to the United States, there is no rationale for the US to continue paying the price to bribe its "allies."

Try reading this:

https://www.amazon.com/accidental-super ... superpower


From the US perspective, the 9-11 attacks were a very bitter lesson about the risks that are inherent to a country that chooses to be the enforcer of the global order. People such as yourself would describe the United States' roll as global cop as "imperialism" while refusing to acknowledge the fact that the US does not exact tribute from its client countries. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were retailiation for the US fighting the First Gulf War to defend Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Iraq. Only a fortuitous accident of mistiming prevented the terrorists from killing 50,000 Americans rather than 3,000. Bush, Chenney and Rummsfield understood that it was a near nuclear attack.

The fact that the 9-11 terrorists were Saudis or Kuwaitis certainly demonstrated that the US will never win friends by defending other peoples. Even more enraging, Al Quida was a client of the Taliban who was a client of Pakistan which was being bank rolled by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Bush, Cheney and Rummsfield refused to publicly acknowledge these realities because they were indoctrinated in the Cold War era presumptions about alliances. The United States was also at that time extremely dependant on imported oil. Had the United States not been so dependant of foreign oil and its leaders not so conditioned to value allies, Bush's probable reaction to the 9-11 attacks would have been to nuke Kabul, Islamabad, Rihad and Kuwait City.

Given the above realities, Bush demonstrated astounding restraint. Rather than nuking Islamabad and whatever targets were neccessary to destroy Pakistan's nuclear weapons, Bush attempted to reform Pakistan into a secular democracy. Did you not understand the profound significance of General Mushariff peacefully eeliquishing power to a democraticaly elected secularist? The attempt was actually succeeding until Obama decided to humiliate Pakistan's government by grand standing the Bin Laden assasination.

Bush also targeted nascent nuclear weapons states which he characterized as the "Axis of Evil." You foreigners and even most Americans took great delight in chanting "Bush Lied, People Died" because Bush "misoverestimated" (look up "misunderestimated") Iraq's WMD programs. The intentional biases in internet search engines will prevent nearly anyone from accessing accurate information on the state of Iraq's WMD at the close of the First Gulf War much less the capacity to reconstitute those WMD programs.

Any prospect of America ever again employing military force to prevent a rogue state from acquiring nuclear weapons was destroyed when France and Great Britain conned Obama and Hillary Clinton into inciting the "Arab Spring" uprising against Libya and America's moderate muslim allies including Egypt. You imbeciles ignored the reality that Muhamar Gadaffi had surrendered his WMD, including gas centrifuges that we didnt know he had purchased from Pakistan, to Condolezza Rice and G W Bush. All the humanitarian bleatings aside, the motivation was to compel Libya to sell its oil to and buy oil development services from Europeans rather than China. Gadaffi's reward for entering an agreement that should have earned him the Noble Peace Prize was getting sodomized witha bayonet. Ever dictator and leader of every would be nuclear power on the planet has watched that video and learned the important lessons. They learned to never, ever trust the US and that acquiring nuclear weapons was the only way to ensure their survival.

Now the United States is effectively energy independant thanks to fraking. Contrary to your assertions, the United States' economy is amongst the most insular in the world and NOT dependant on foreign trade. This energy independence combined with President Trump's aggressive renegotiation of Brenton Woods era trade agreements are revitalizing America's manufacturing sector making America even more self suffecient. This is great news for middle class and lower middle class Americans. As a result, Trump might actually get the majority of the vote from African Americans when he is reelected! This is bad news for America's security clients because Trump is no longer willing to grant free access to American markets as a bribe to preserve alliances that ceased to serve America's interests back in 1991.


I recommend reading this book even though I disagree with many of the author's assertions.

https://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Hubris- ... 1597971596

The take away for me was that to survive in peace in an emerging era of unrestrained nuclear prolifferation, the United States must retreat into its traditional isolationism and be willing to view foreign wars and foreign genocides with equalmity.
Top

Return to Politics