Trump ponders if the US were attacked, would NATO respond?

[Richard T]

Here are the facts: On average, NATO members spend $125 billion per year on purchasing U.S.-made military equipment. It is true that they will not find similar technology elsewhere, and they will continue to buy U.S.-made military hardware. However, if we continue to exert undue pressure on them, they may eventually develop their own military industries. Europe did not build a military-industrial complex like the United States did after World War II, but if pushed, they have the capability to do so. Historical evidence shows that when Europe decides to develop a military industry, they are quite adept at it.

There is no benefit in antagonizing NATO members. There are only disadvantages for the US in doing so.

Repeatedly, I have posed this question to others: Can anyone explain the benefit of the United States leaving NATO? No one has been able to provide a satisfactory answer. The common argument is that "we are defending Europe, and we could use that money in America." However, no one has provided any statistics to demonstrate how much money the United States would save if it were to leave NATO.

We will not save any money; instead, we will lose $120 to $140 billion in weapon sales to NATO members after 3 or 4 years.

That is a great question though I will frame it what will be lost if the USA leaves Nato? When you buy insurance you do not save money. You buy it for unforeseen events. NATO is each other's insurance group. You share risks. The money to be saved is not leaving NATO but effectively gauging the strength of your opponents. Ukraine has showed us that a conventional war with Russia was highly overblown. We could have saved trillions had our analysts either been right or if the government would not be led by the military industrial complex, where USA spending is never enough. Ukraine has showed us the light. The problem and costs of leaving NATO exacerbates the arms race forcing everyone to buy more. 1% of GDP from partners is better than nothing. (Many of course do more than that). The USA can easily cut back now without being so undiplomatic. Going it alone risks the entire USA because coalitions may come against you. If you want to be top dog too, you have to be prepared to fight. We have serious commitments worldwide that even Trump can not abolish. Taiwan and Philippines for instance. So the costs of leaving NATO are immense. A great President would build up alliances rather than tear them down. Trump is such a great friend of Putin let him invite Russia to join NATO. That was talked about in the past.

 

[Bradskii]

President Trump is, once again, using a strong negotiating technique in order to persuade more NATO nations to pay more of their own national economy into military defense spending.

Just...what?

'Mon Dieu, Trump doesn't know that we 'elped them after 9/11. Increase our defence budget mon brave, toute suite!'

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

'Bloody oath, mate. Trump doesn't know what AUKUS is. Order another couple subs pronto.'

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

That is a great question though I will frame it what will be lost if the USA leaves Nato? When you buy insurance you do not save money. You buy it for unforeseen events. NATO is each other's insurance group. You share risks. The money to be saved is not leaving NATO but effectively gauging the strength of your opponents. Ukraine has showed us that a conventional war with Russia was highly overblown. We could have saved trillions had our analysts either been right or if the government would not be led by the military industrial complex, where USA spending is never enough. Ukraine has showed us the light. The problem and costs of leaving NATO exacerbates the arms race forcing everyone to buy more. 1% of GDP from partners is better than nothing. (Many of course do more than that). The USA can easily cut back now without being so undiplomatic. Going it alone risks the entire USA because coalitions may come against you. If you want to be top dog too, you have to be prepared to fight. We have serious commitments worldwide that even Trump can not abolish. Taiwan and Philippines for instance. So the costs of leaving NATO are immense. A great President would build up alliances rather than tear them down. Trump is such a great friend of Putin let him invite Russia to join NATO. That was talked about in the past.

I agree with everything except inviting Russia to join NATO. Including both friends and foes in NATO defeats its purpose.

Today, the United States appears to be reconsidering its commitment to Europe, a region with which it has been closely connected since the founding of the republic. This raises questions about whether the US would honor its commitment to Taiwan in the event of an attack. Approximately 40% of Americans, particularly those who strongly support President Trump, are opposed to the US spending money on other countries. Taiwan and Japan are watching the situation in Ukraine and the current treatment of close allies like Canada and the UK, and they are wondering that they might face similar challenges in the future.

 

[Say it aint so]

I would expect them to do the same thing they did after Article 5 was declared after 911. They will give a lot of lip service and provide whatever minimally is necessary to say they did something while they argue amongst themselves about who was going to do what.

They literally lost lives right along with Americans in support of our wars. But you can call that lip service.

 

[Richard T]

I agree with everything except inviting Russia to join NATO. Including both friends and foes in NATO defeats its purpose.

Today, the United States appears to be reconsidering its commitment to Europe, a region with which it has been closely connected since the founding of the republic. This raises questions about whether the US would honor its commitment to Taiwan in the event of an attack. Approximately 40% of Americans, particularly those who strongly support President Trump, are opposed to the US spending money on other countries. Taiwan and Japan are watching the situation in Ukraine and the current treatment of close allies like Canada and the UK, and they are wondering that they might face similar challenges in the future.

Yes, it would seem weird Russia joining Nato, but it was once floated with Pres. Clinton and might be worth another look. I am not sure what happens if two NATO members do to war. Perhaps one just gets kicked out, but if the peace lasted for even five years that is better than none. If they like the security though Russia could stay. In Stone interviews, Putin says he once asked about Russia joining NATO

 

[ozso]

I was referring to the fact Trump has no idea NATO has defended us already.

NATO didn't defend us, they joined in on our retaliatory assault in which we put in the lion's share of.

Now let's say China, not some terrorist cell, but the whole nation, made a full scale military attack against the United States. Would NATO come to our defense in a military capacity against China? It's fair to postulate that they wouldn't.

 

[wing2000]

“You know the biggest problem I have with NATO? I really, I mean, I know the guys very well. They’re friends of mine. But if the United States was in trouble, and we called them, we said, ‘We got a problem, France. We got a problem, couple of others I won’t mention. Do you think they’re going to come and protect us?’ They’re supposed to. I’m not so sure.” --Trump (Military.com)​

Never mind the only time Article 5 was invoked one day later when the US was attacked on 9/11.
I am also sure "couple of others I won't mention" is because he couldn't name the rest. Person, Woman, Man, Camera, TV.
Kind of like it's the foreign countries that pay the tariffs, Donald Trump is by far the most ill informed president in American history.

Trump, again, is projecting.

There is only one NATO member whose commitment to supporting NATO Article 5 is in question: The United States (and maybe Hungary).

 

[Say it aint so]

NATO didn't defend us, they joined in on our retaliatory assault in which we put in the lion's share of.

Now let's say China, not some terrorist cell, but the whole nation, made a full scale military attack against the United States. Would NATO come to our defense in a military capacity against China? It's fair to postulate that they wouldn't.

They literally died on the battlefield right along with Americans defending the American cause. I mean, "wow" the idea Trump's ignorance is being defended is amazing.

 

[Say it aint so]

Trump, again, is projecting.

There is only one NATO member whose commitment to supporting NATO Article 5 is in question: The United States (and maybe Hungary).

Projecting response, yes.
Displaying his ignorance, yes.

 

[ozso]

They literally died on the battlefield right along with Americans defending the American cause. I mean, "wow" the idea Trump's ignorance is being defended is amazing.

True, but I don't think OIF and ISAF is the type of situation the President was talking about.

 

[iarwain]

I'm sure NATO would make some sort of response, even if it were only a token one.

 

[RDKirk]

One can take the Five Eyes, a intelligence sharing community consisting of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Suppose you were one of those countries other than the US who came upon some intelligence critical of Putin.
Would you share that with the Trump admin?

I never had an assignment in 26 years that didn't have some of those blokes around.

 

[RDKirk]

Just...what?

'Mon Dieu, Trump doesn't know that we 'elped them after 9/11. Increase our defence budget mon brave, toute suite!'

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

'Bloody oath, mate. Trump doesn't know what AUKUS is. Order another couple subs pronto.'

I can't count how many times I saw "CANAUKUS Release Only."