NATO's 2% goal

[Smitty-48]

I would actually submit that NATO is the paper tiger, because if someone does try to overthrow Putin, and Putin decides he needs a war to incite his base to rally around him, NATO will just fall back without putting up much of a conventional fight at all, because NATO countries would rather cede the Near Abroad back to the Kremlin than escalate to the brink of nuclear war.

[Speaker to Animals]

I wonder if there are still war plans that involve using nukes ahead of a mechanized advance. You can use aerial bursts to kill most of the troops defending some zone, and then roll in with tanks and apvs a few days later.

I think NATO is a joke, honestly, because there are only a few members who will realistically fight. The rest are freeloaders/rent seekers. That is a weakness, not a strength.

And the nations that would fight, chiefly US/UK/France, have to fight no matter what anyway. So what good is NATO??

[Fife]

I'm having a hard time figuring out how NATO promotes or helps at all the USA's diplomatic position.

[Smitty-48]

Offensive use of nukes would only be in extremis, at the brink of World War Three.

But taking back the Near Abroad is not World War Three, the Russian objectives are vastly more limited than the Soviets.

For example they could shore up their buffer zone with NATO, then use the nukes as a shield to force NATO to accept it, fait accompli

That's what they have done in Crimea, started with Little Green Men, but now the nukes are there, so taking it back ain't gonna happen.

[Speaker to Animals]

Another thing.. I suspect NATO makes us less safe from some hypothetical Russian advance on Europe. Because all these freeloading, socialist shitbag countries simply depend upon the United States, UK, and France to defend them, the continent is that much weaker. If you cut them off cold turkey, they'd be forced to divert GDP away from their shitbag welfare systems and towards their defense.

Also, forcing them to join alliances amongst themselves will make them more accountable to one another. Smaller alliances between like-powers makes much more sense.

[Smitty-48]

The way to leverage NATO is Intermediate Nuclear Forces, they're not strategic, they are in the field, which means tactical commanders can launch, which means NATO would back away, because there is no MAD at the theater thermonuclear war level.

The Russians could fight a limited theater thermonuclear war, without inciting America to blow up the world, America would keep its options open, so long as the Russians didn't launch against the CONUS.

[Smitty-48]

Franky, if/when Ivan makes a move, I expect NATO to just fly apart, the Free Riders will just abandon the east and pull back, the job will be left to the Americans, but the Americans will, again, keep their options open, I don't see a big REFORGER coming, the Americans will simply contain the Kremlin from the sea.

[heydaralon]

Part of the pathetic victimhood culture infecting America these days, is that so many of them want to be hated. They want it so bad, they need to inject "hate" into. Every. Single. Fucking. Thing.

StA, the data backs up Monte's point. Do the damn research instead of acting the drama queen about being "hated" about yet another thing.
....

As for OP topic: I've heard that point made alot. Whether two percent of gdp is enough, obviously depends on the nature and scope of the threat(s). Russia could, probably fairly easily, take the Baltics... but why? The need for Baltic naval yards are supposedly covered by an expansion of the St. Petersburg yards, and without a large and occupation, how would they keep the Baltic?
The way analysts here are saying Russian foreign policy works atm, is about restoring power and prestige by appearing as the sort of threat they once were.

If so, I wonder if US/NATO "provoking" Russia, really helps it regain some of its former prestige and pride. Because they feel they're taken seriously again?

Anyway. Welcome back Smitty an Capps.

Norway's off the hook for now, but Denmark has been mooching off us for years. They didn't even bring guns to Afghanistan (due to a Danish law saying that firearms cannot be used against muslims due to fear of rioting and respect for the Prophet) and their MRE's were apparently just some nasty pickled sardines with some dry ass cookies. I think Denmark should have to pay 4%+payback all that money we spent on you in WW2. Let's call it 1 trillion. The alternative is the US will destabilize another mid-east country and send another wave of refugees your way. Its up to you.

[Speaker to Animals]

The alternative is what the Athenians did with the Delian League. If this were the Delian League Denmark had joined, if they did not contribute annually the number of crewed ships to the combined navy that is required, then they had to pay something like two talents. If they refused to pay the talents, the Athenians would come, besiege the city, sack it, kill all the males and take the females as slaves. While we don't want to enslave people (and, really, what good would Danes be for anything), we could just extract the 2% of their GDP directly in exchange for their membership.

[heydaralon]

The alternative is what the Athenians did with the Delian League. If this were the Delian League Denmark had joined, if they did not contribute annually the number of crewed ships to the combined navy that is required, then they had to pay something like two talents. If they refused to pay the talents, the Athenians would come, besiege the city, sack it, kill all the males and take the females as slaves. While we don't want to enslave people (and, really, what good would Danes be for anything), we could just extract the 2% of their GDP directly in exchange for their membership.

Exactly. We are the Athenians and Denmark is some little pissant island like Epidamnus or some shit. Weak and ungrateful and constantly late on the bill. You do make a good point about Danes being good for nothing, which is also true, although their mosque building skills are quite superior, and they also have mastered the acid attack too.