re: Rumors are swirling Trump will announce our exit from NATO tonight

quote:

---

NK's nuclear and missile programs are very obviously a threat to the whole world.

---

They are not. They aren't even a threat to Japan at this time, other than getting lucky with an errant missile launch.

We're not even sure Russia still has the ability to project missiles accurately to Western Europe. China's missile program is in shambles due to grift DOGE would be jealous of.

quote:

---

China's belligerent trade policies and increasingly aggressive resource grabs in Africa and South America

---

Note: not Western Europe.

quote:

---

are a direct security threat to Europe.

---

How?

Explain how Chinese investment in South America is a direct threat to Europe militarily.

quote:

---

f Europe decides to go on a kamikaze mission in the hopes of us jumping in that's dumb. We don't have to go fight Russia if we don't think the reasons for them doing it are appropriate and strategically sound.

---

There is a difference in fighting in Ukraine to thwart Russia and Russia attacking inside the borders of a NATO country.

We can stay out of Ukraine, just as Europe largely stayed out of Vietnam and Afghanistan in the Cold War. Article 5 (and the WARSAW equivalent) was not triggered in either conflict.

However, if Russia crosses into a NATO country, that's completely different. They are not that stupid, however. Russia is having problems in Ukraine and it's cost them dearly. Ukraine is not comparable to, say, Poland. Poland would frick Russia up, and that's ignoring France, Germany, etc.

quote:

---

However, if Russia crosses into a NATO country, that's completely different

---

Theres literally zero chance of this happening (as you point out in your very next sentence - so why even post this to begin with?).

Read the post to which I replied.

There is this belief in MAGA land that either (1) Article 5 would be triggered somehow with a conflict contained within Ukraine exclusively or (2) Russia would attack inside of a NATO border.

I covered both attempted points in my post.

quote:

---

Poland would frick Russia up, and that's ignoring France, Germany, etc.

---

Man-for-man, yes. The problem is that Russia has 500k troops in Ukraine alone, while Poland has only about 100k active duty land forces.

quote:

---

While I doubt that happens tonight, the thought of it happening right now with the Ukraine issue, and all of Europe puffing their chest last week, makes me hope it does happen.

---

Far too reactive. Despite Trump’s personality and his need (personal) to bury those who oppose him, it’s my personal opinion that he needs to slow down a bit.

Don’t misconstrue my words. I didn’t say that I disagree with what he’s doing, for the most part.

quote:

---

I personally don't think the U.S. homeland is under any danger from attack from anywhere, other than terrorist attacks.

---

Well that isn't really the primary role of our military these days, anyway

quote:

---

. Very little of the United States' military spending is to protect the United States, because we really don 't need protecting. It's to protect our allies. And that is mostly NATO.

---

Only a small portion is to protect our allies.

Our military is used for Pax Americana and to ensure the spice flows.

The real mechanism that has left the world largely peaceful post WW2 (especially post-USSR dissolution) is free trade (globalism, the "new world order" that Bush described). What keeps that trade going without much fear of the negative externalities and increased transactions costs of warfare is the US military.

This is why Russia's invasion of Ukraine is such a potentially establishing (read: expensive) event.

This is also why when a discussion of military scaleback is had, another discussion about the negative economic impacts (direct and indirect) will be required.

quote:

---

There is no way to separate spending a dollar in Asia and a dollar in Europe and say one benefits NATO and the other doesn't.

---

Sure there is. Just look at spending in each sphere.

quote:

---

These is also no to say that building an aircraft carrier is not related to NATO, or even nuclear weapons expenses. It's all intertwined.

---

That means it's not NATO-focused spending.

quote:

---

Even if we pull out of NATO, it will be more symbolic than anything.

We will still respond if someone attacks Western Europe. We can't afford not to present that threat

---

Not having our response be automatic Article 5 response will make it worthwhile all by itself. The way that works now is an easy path to get us into a war by a small member acting bad and getting smacked back.

Treaties were why WW1 was inevitable.

quote:

---

Without US aid, Russia will take all of Ukraine within weeks.

---

They've been digging in for that fight for years now. It would take a lot longer than weeks to take it now.

quote:

---

The way that works now is an easy path to get us into a war by a small member acting bad and getting smacked back.

---

See, my boy SW?