Do you endorse the US pulling out of NATO?

Do you endorse the US pulling out of NATO?

  • Total voters
    5
  • Poll closed .
Diogenes

Diogenes

Nemo me impune lacessit
Let’s talk the constitutionality of a NATO withdrawal and how that would work.

First, the NATO alliance became a constitutionally ratified treaty in 1949, so the U.S. must comply with its exit clause, which mandates one year’s notice to the participating countries.

The President has the unilateral authority to pull the U.S. out of NATO under his executive powers in Article II, as there is no exit clause formally outlined in Articles I or II.

Historical precedent supports this: George W. Bush withdrew the U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, without Senate approval, citing the treaty’s withdrawal clause.It is not standard practice for the Senate to be involved in the withdrawal process, even though they advise on treaties.


Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979).


Discuss, and vote!
 
In case you were thinking we are bound to send in our troops to help a member state, think again.


Article 5 of the NATO Treaty does not mandate an armed response to an attack on a member state. It commits NATO members to collective defense but leaves the specific response flexible. The text states that if a member is attacked, each ally will take "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force," to restore security in the North Atlantic area. The phrase "as it deems necessary" gives each country discretion—military action is an option, not a requirement.



@Grok
 
We shouldn't, imo.

I'm just not an isolationist. I think Europe needs us - and we need them. We lose a lot of our influence in the world if we withdraw from NATO.
 
BartenderElite said:
We shouldn't, imo. I'm just not an isolationist. I think Europe needs us - and we need them.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with isolationism.

We can still trade with member states and visit them subject to applicable laws. That goes both ways.

Your opinions about the necessity of our contributions aren't worth our financial sacrifices made on behalf of NATO.

That's my opinion.

BartenderElite said:
We lose a lot of our influence in the world if we withdraw from NATO.
Click to expand...

How so?
 
Diogenes said:
This has nothing to do with isolationism.

We can still trade with member states and visit them subject to applicable laws. That goes both ways.

Your opinions about the necessity of our contributions aren't worth our financial sacrifices made on behalf of NATO.

That's my opinion.



How so?
Click to expand...

Europe has a definite stake in working w/ America while we're in NATO.

Not that it would be NO stake if we withdrew - but we'd matter less.
 
Bigdog said:
Article 5. No drain is mandated.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that we refuse to spend money on defense?

NATO member states are not "required" to pay a specific share of its costs in the form of a mandatory fee, but they do contribute to the alliance’s funding through agreed-upon mechanisms.

NATO’s budget is divided into three main categories: the civil budget, the military budget, and the NATO Security Investment Program (NSIP).

These costs are shared among the 31 member states (as of March 2025) based on a cost-sharing formula primarily tied to each country’s Gross National Income (GNI).

This means wealthier nations, like the United States, contribute a larger proportionate share, while smaller or less economically powerful nations contribute less.

For example, the U.S. historically covers around 22% of NATO’s direct funding, reflecting its GNI dominance, though this figure can fluctuate slightly depending on annual agreements.

The rest is distributed among other members, with countries like Germany, France, and the UK also being significant contributors. In 2023, the total common funding was about €3.3 billion, a relatively small amount compared to national defense budgets, covering things like headquarters operations, joint exercises, and infrastructure.

Beyond this direct funding, there’s the famous 2% guideline—introduced at the 2006 Riga Summit and formalized in 2014 at Wales—where members pledged to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense, with 20% of that on equipment. This isn’t a payment to NATO itself but a commitment to national military capability, which indirectly supports the alliance’s strength. As of 2024, over two-thirds of members meet or exceed this target, up from just a handful a decade ago.

So, while there’s no enforced "dues" checkbook, the expectation is that members pitch in both through the common budget and by maintaining robust defense spending.

Non-compliance doesn’t trigger expulsion—NATO’s got no mechanism for that.


@Grok
 
The U.S. contributes to NATO's "common funding," which covers the alliance's operational budgets, including the civil budget, military budget, and the NATO Security Investment Program.

For 2025, NATO's common-funded budgets are set at approximately €4.6 billion (around $4.7 billion USD, depending on exchange rates).

The U.S. share of this is about 16%, matching Germany's contribution, following a cost-sharing adjustment in 2019 that reduced the U.S. portion from a previous high of over 22%.
  • 2025 Estimate: 16% of $4.7 billion is roughly $752 million annually.
  • This figure fluctuates slightly year to year but has remained relatively stable, with 2024 contributions estimated at around $753 million based on a €4.6 billion budget.
These funds support NATO headquarters, joint operations, and shared capabilities like surveillance systems.

The broader, and often debated, cost comes from U.S. military expenditures that indirectly support NATO's goals, particularly the defense of Europe.

This includes troop deployments, equipment, and infrastructure in NATO countries, which are not mandated by NATO but align with its collective defense mission (Article 5).

Key points:
  • U.S. Defense Spending: In 2023, the U.S. spent approximately $816.7 billion on defense, with estimates for 2024 at around $967 billion (3.4% of GDP). NATO allies collectively spent about $1.47 trillion in 2024, with the U.S. accounting for roughly two-thirds of that total.
  • European Presence: The U.S. maintains over 64,000 active-duty troops in Europe (as of December 2023), with significant bases in Germany, Italy, and the UK. The European Deterrence Initiative (EDI), designed to bolster NATO allies against Russian aggression, was budgeted at $3.7 billion in FY 2022. While not a direct NATO requirement, this spending enhances alliance readiness.
  • Proportion Attributable to NATO: It’s challenging to isolate what portion of U.S. defense spending is specifically for NATO, as much of it serves broader U.S. global interests. For example, a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean could support NATO but also U.S. operations elsewhere.
  • Direct Contribution: ~$752 million per year (2025 projection).
  • Indirect Contribution: Estimates vary widely. If we assume 10-20% of the U.S.'s $967 billion 2024 defense budget supports NATO-related activities in Europe (e.g., EDI, troop presence), this could range from $97 billion to $194 billion annually.



@Grok
 
NATO should have ended around 1995, it is now offensive to the point that it on purpose provoked the largest land war since WW2, the destruction of Ukraine and the death of some say 1.5 million Ukrainians....in a lost cause war that it wants to continue for as long as possible.

Yes....End NATO.....even if it means the denigration of the EU.....which is fairly likely.

Fuck Europe.....they have nothing of value to offer.
 
Before someone trots out the tired, trite "but muh allies won't trust is no more" argument ...


Yes, the United States has mutual defense treaties with several NATO countries that exist independently of their NATO membership. These agreements are bilateral or multilateral in nature and were often established for specific strategic purposes, sometimes predating or complementing NATO commitments.


Below is an overview of key examples as of March 2, 2025:


1. Mutual Defense Treaty with the Philippines (1951)
  • Details: Signed on August 30, 1951, this treaty obligates the U.S. and the Philippines to aid each other if either is attacked by an external party. Article IV states that an armed attack on either party’s territory, forces, or vessels in the Pacific triggers mutual defense consultations and potential action. NATO Connection: The Philippines is not a NATO member, but this treaty is worth noting as a parallel example of U.S. bilateral defense commitments. It’s exclusive of NATO and reflects U.S. strategic interests in the Asia-Pacific. Current Relevance: Still active, with recent reaffirmations amid tensions in the South China Sea.
2. U.S.-Japan Security Treaty (1960, originally 1951)
  • Details: The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security, signed January 19, 1960 (revising the 1951 version), commits the U.S. to defend Japan if it is attacked, while Japan provides bases and support. Article V specifies that an attack on Japan’s territory prompts joint action.
  • NATO Connection: Japan is not a NATO member, but it’s a key U.S. ally. This treaty operates independently of NATO and focuses on the Asia-Pacific region. Current Relevance: Active and central to U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy, especially against China and North Korea.
3. Rio Treaty (Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, 1947)
  • Details: Signed on September 2, 1947, this multilateral treaty includes the U.S. and several NATO countries that are also in the Americas, such as Canada (joined NATO 1949) and, historically, others like France (with territories in the Americas). Article 3 mandates collective defense if any signatory is attacked in the Western Hemisphere.
  • NATO Connection: While Canada is a NATO member, the Rio Treaty is separate from NATO and focuses on hemispheric security. It predates NATO and includes non-NATO Latin American states. Current Relevance: Still in force, though less invoked since the Cold War; last major use was post-9/11.
  • United Kingdom: The U.S.-UK "Special Relationship" includes extensive defense cooperation beyond NATO, such as the 1958 U.S.-UK Mutual Defence Agreement on nuclear technology sharing. While not a traditional mutual defense treaty, it ensures mutual support in practice.
  • Iceland: The U.S.-Iceland Defense Agreement (1951, amended over time) supplements NATO commitments. It focuses on U.S. responsibility for Iceland’s defense (since Iceland has no military), tied to Keflavík Air Base. This predates Iceland’s NATO membership but operates alongside it.
  • Norway: The U.S. has a bilateral defense relationship with Norway, including agreements on prepositioned equipment and base access (e.g., 2021 Supplementary Defense Cooperation Agreement).




@Grok
 
GlDu9FLXAAAgw_v
 
7 years ago, Trump slammed Germany and other NATO nations for buying Russian energy and then asking us to defend them against Russia.
 
GlEMvitX0AA4IcH



​
Quick; what other NATO partners are maintaining the security of the North Atlantic area?
 
Diogenes said:
The U.S. contributes to NATO's "common funding," which covers the alliance's operational budgets, including the civil budget, military budget, and the NATO Security Investment Program.

For 2025, NATO's common-funded budgets are set at approximately €4.6 billion (around $4.7 billion USD, depending on exchange rates).

The U.S. share of this is about 16%, matching Germany's contribution, following a cost-sharing adjustment in 2019 that reduced the U.S. portion from a previous high of over 22%.
  • 2025 Estimate: 16% of $4.7 billion is roughly $752 million annually.
  • This figure fluctuates slightly year to year but has remained relatively stable, with 2024 contributions estimated at around $753 million based on a €4.6 billion budget.
These funds support NATO headquarters, joint operations, and shared capabilities like surveillance systems.

The broader, and often debated, cost comes from U.S. military expenditures that indirectly support NATO's goals, particularly the defense of Europe.

This includes troop deployments, equipment, and infrastructure in NATO countries, which are not mandated by NATO but align with its collective defense mission (Article 5).

Key points:
  • U.S. Defense Spending: In 2023, the U.S. spent approximately $816.7 billion on defense, with estimates for 2024 at around $967 billion (3.4% of GDP). NATO allies collectively spent about $1.47 trillion in 2024, with the U.S. accounting for roughly two-thirds of that total.
  • European Presence: The U.S. maintains over 64,000 active-duty troops in Europe (as of December 2023), with significant bases in Germany, Italy, and the UK. The European Deterrence Initiative (EDI), designed to bolster NATO allies against Russian aggression, was budgeted at $3.7 billion in FY 2022. While not a direct NATO requirement, this spending enhances alliance readiness.
  • Proportion Attributable to NATO: It’s challenging to isolate what portion of U.S. defense spending is specifically for NATO, as much of it serves broader U.S. global interests. For example, a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean could support NATO but also U.S. operations elsewhere.
  • Direct Contribution: ~$752 million per year (2025 projection).
  • Indirect Contribution: Estimates vary widely. If we assume 10-20% of the U.S.'s $967 billion 2024 defense budget supports NATO-related activities in Europe (e.g., EDI, troop presence), this could range from $97 billion to $194 billion annually.



@Grok
Click to expand...
So how much money is mandated? ... and what is the enforcement mechanism?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top