[Nakura]

For some time now I have been considering transforming the North Atlantic Treaty Organization into a global alliance of free and democratic states. Currently only countries in North America and Europe are eligible for membership. However there are many exceptions to this clause already, with countries that are not connected to the North Atlantic (or even predominately in Asia) becoming members, such as Turkey and the former Warsaw Pact states. Several countries outside of Europe have been trying to join, such as Colombia and Georgia (though some argue Georgia is in Europe).

Do you believe NATO should become a global defense alliance for free states and free peoples around the world?

[Luis Dias]

Good luck with that given the ****fest that is going on right now with America spying on Germans like crazy, them being pissed off to the extreme and so on and so on.

[Gray113]

NATO is a relic of the cold war and it's own members don't trust each other. The South Ossetia conflict showed just how ineffective this force is when faced with internal division and conflicting interests.

[The E]

NATO does not fulfill any role today that is relevant, and it should be disbanded.

[swashmebuckle]

If I haven't served in the military do I still get the right to vote for Snuffy?

[Dragon]

NATO does not fulfill any role today that is relevant, and it should be disbanded.

Live with Russians at your border for a while, and tell me that again. NATO influences the politics quite a bit, and I feel that the "Attack on one NATO member is an attack of the whole NATO" does help with preserving peace in the Central Europe. Especially considering Poland isn't exactly a military power. It might look meaningless from Germany, but keep in mind Germany doesn't have a border with Russia, and a much stronger army than Poland.
Think of it that way: NATO is the reason why you don't have a Russian border, having a mostly harmless Poland for a neighbor instead.

Also, if Georgia was in the NATO, the conflict in that region would've gone very differently. Can't say if better or worse (politics involved were quite complex), but definitely differently.

It's difficult to speculate what would happen if NATO was disbanded, but I strongly suspect a network of independent alliances would quickly fill the void, resulting in a "power block" similar to NATO, with a few shifts here and here and without an official name. It would shake up global politics, that's for sure, especially in the Central Europe.

Yes, I think that NATO should not be limited based on the geographic location of a country that wants to join. At the same time, it needs some changes to it's own structure in order to account for the changing times. But I think that an alliance between the free, democratic states is a very good idea, no matter under what banner.

[Scotty]

For some time now I have been considering transforming the North Atlantic Treaty Organization into a global alliance of free and democratic states.

At this point I really have to ask just who you think you are?

I really don't intend that in an accusatory or aggressive tone, I'm honestly curious based on your phrasing.

[The E]

Live with Russians at your border for a while, and tell me that again. NATO influences the politics quite a bit, and I feel that the "Attack on one NATO member is an attack of the whole NATO" does help with preserving peace in the Central Europe. Especially considering Poland isn't exactly a military power. It might look meaningless from Germany, but keep in mind Germany doesn't have a border with Russia, and a much stronger army than Poland.
Think of it that way: NATO is the reason why you don't have a Russian border, having a mostly harmless Poland for a neighbor instead.

Certainly a point.

But.

Wouldn't standard mutual defence treaties do the same thing?

Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but what exactly does Poland have that Russia would like to acquire by force? Land wars are no longer profitable for anyone involved in them.

[MP-Ryan]

Wouldn't standard mutual defence treaties do the same thing?

1914, dude.  Bad plan.

[MP-Ryan]

NATO does not fulfill any role today that is relevant, and it should be disbanded.

NATO as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization - I agree.

NATO as the functional arm of the UN that isn't thwarted constantly by the UN Security Council's idiotic veto configuration - very much disagree.  It's a necessary institution in that regard.

NATO as it currently stands should probably be disbanded, but there is certainly a space for a formal alliance of democratic nations for mutual protection and advancement of democratic interests.  There have been enough geopolitical instances where the UN has been render impotent (Vietnam, Malaysia, Afghanistan, the entire African continent, Cambodia, Afghanistan again, Korea, and now presently Syria) that I think such an institution is actually necessary.

Nakura's OP may be worded unfortunately, but he strikes on a valid premise.

[The E]

Wouldn't standard mutual defence treaties do the same thing?

1914, dude.  Bad plan.

There is that. But let me ask you, do you really think that land grabs are actually a good strategy these days? NATO spends most of its time intervening in other countries, not defending its signatories. If we could give the UN some official teeth, that would be good, but that's not gonna fly, I believe.

[Klaustrophobia]

not being good strategy does not mean they won't happen.

[Nakura]

Wouldn't standard mutual defence treaties do the same thing?

1914, dude.  Bad plan.

There is that. But let me ask you, do you really think that land grabs are actually a good strategy these days? NATO spends most of its time intervening in other countries, not defending its signatories. If we could give the UN some official teeth, that would be good, but that's not gonna fly, I believe.

Land grabs may not be very beneficial in terms of resources gained, but in terms of propaganda, they absolutely can be. The best way to distract your people from problems at home is to give them an enemy (either real or perceived) to hate.

[The E]

And that translates into the need to invade another country, incur massive debts, create instability for little gain how, exactly?

Just because it's the US' modus operandi does not mean it can work for anyone else.

[MP-Ryan]

Wouldn't standard mutual defence treaties do the same thing?

1914, dude.  Bad plan.

There is that. But let me ask you, do you really think that land grabs are actually a good strategy these days? NATO spends most of its time intervening in other countries, not defending its signatories. If we could give the UN some official teeth, that would be good, but that's not gonna fly, I believe.

I've never been in favour of land grabs.  Where I see a new NATO being more useful is in preventing wholesale slaughter and the protection of human rights and democracy by force where the UN in unable or unwilling to act.

If we could fix the UN Security Council then this would be a moot point, but I can think of five reasons that is never going to happen, and their names are the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China.

[Nakura]

And that translates into the need to invade another country, incur massive debts, create instability for little gain how, exactly?

Just because it's the US' modus operandi does not mean it can work for anyone else.

Maybe not for Bulgaria, but for a country like China or Russia? I could absolutely see this happening.

Let's not forget that Russia invaded Georgia and Moldova not too long ago.

[Colonol Dekker]

Your options confuse me, and it would just become GTO no?
/sarcasm

[Dragon]

And that translates into the need to invade another country, incur massive debts, create instability for little gain how, exactly?

Yeah, like high cost of an invading ever stopped anyone from doing just that. In that case, politics play a huge part. Russia is in a noticeable decline, meaning less and less on the international stage. They don't like that, of course. Invading some militarily backwards, but well known and western-sympathizing country could seem like a viable move. Or maybe not an outright invasion, but a mere threat of it. With NATO in place we know they won't dare to actually do that, no matter how many times they imply that possibility. Without that protection being in place, they'd be free to bully other countries (not only Poland) and count on the rest of the world being more concerned with maintaining good relations with Russia than with some expandable backwater.

Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but what exactly does Poland have that Russia would like to acquire by force? Land wars are no longer profitable for anyone involved in them.

In case of Poland, it's in an important strategic position. It borders a number of important countries and has a large port. At the same time, it has a weak military and is generally pro-western. A large gas pipeline from Russia to the west runs through Poland, not to mention the land itself is the perfect staging ground for stationing forces which could be used to threaten Germany and France, among other countries. In case of Poland, an eventual land war would be highly political/economic in nature. There's the propaganda factor, too, since Russia has a history of hostilities with Poland. Not to mention our foreign ministry isn't exactly doing well at maintaining good relations with Russia.

NATO as it currently stands should probably be disbanded, but there is certainly a space for a formal alliance of democratic nations for mutual protection and advancement of democratic interests.  There have been enough geopolitical instances where the UN has been render impotent (Vietnam, Malaysia, Afghanistan, the entire African continent, Cambodia, Afghanistan again, Korea, and now presently Syria) that I think such an institution is actually necessary.

I think that outright disbanding of NATO would be a bit drastic, I'd rather go with reforming it so that the change is more gradual and the end result is the same. But in general, you're right. Some sort of a military-centric UN equivalent, but without the numerous restrictions that plague the UN itself and somewhat more selective (but less than NATO) about it's membership.

Wouldn't standard mutual defence treaties do the same thing?

Well, they didn't last time we tried that (1939), so I'm inclined to go with the NATO idea. Not to mention this approach can (and has) led to a serious politics mess up, which wasn't very pleasant last time it happened (1918). NATO had so far worked better than individual, mutual alliances and treaties, and I think it's a very good approach, because it's much easier to coordinate.

[Nakura]

Your options confuse me, and it would just become GTO no?
/sarcasm

Most likely:

[Mebber]

Depends highly on the actual mandate and how it's realized, and in that regard on how the organization would be incorporated into the international community, including non-members. I'd support a global NATO in the sense of an intergovernmental organization focused solely on the mutual defense of it's member states, yes. I'd say such an organization works much, much better in terms of actual determent of possible attackers, and coordination of it's military assets than a whole bunch of single bilateral treaties. And it's more distinct and less convoluted - WW1 was already mentioned before.

But i doubt such an organization would remain a pure defensive alliance. The actual NATO isn't one anymore, it's used more and more for assignments on a global level and international interventions. I'm not against international interventions per se if they're based on humanitarian reasons, but, as past events have shown, it's often hard to make a judgement in such cases if an intervention is actual reasonable or even more harmful, and of course there is always a risk of "humanitarian" or "democratic" reasons simply beeing a false pretense.

If such an global NATO would be found on the later premise as a kind of "World Police", i wonder how they'd actually word their criteria and regulations for interventional operations. There are even members of the current NATO who've some examples of human rights not-taken-too-seriously in some areas of their own. I imagine it really, really hard to reach an international, binding consens for what allows interfering with another nations' sovereignty, and if a global NATO is specifically intended to take over such tasks, they better have a good foundation for it from the beginning instead of deciding on a case-to-case basis.

An global NATO in that sense would only make sense for me if it is connected to the UNO, and answers to it, instead of beeing a completely seperate organization independent in it's decisions. A seperate military organization of such a scale, not bound to the UN and specifically meant for taking action even in non-memberstates, even for humanitarian reasons, would be a really big step backwards. As a seperate organization with self-given powers as an international police it could actually serve as a kind of rival and competitor to the UN, undermining the latters authority even more, and lead to an even more bloc-shaped world than we have today, because non-memberstates of this new organization would inevitably become alienated and feel threatened by it if they have no means of influence over it's interventional actions via the UN.