The debate "NATO is obsolete" was started by
December 5, 2017, 11:45 am.
2 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 3 people are on the disagree side.
There needs to be more votes to see what the common perception is.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
blue_rayy posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
blue_rayy, victoria agree.
Nemiroff and 2 visitors disagree.
well if you say something is obsolete it doesn't seem like you want to refocus it but instead trash it.
the US is a very dangerous country. any nation with an easy to trigger leader is dangerous. especially if nuclear.
all nations do clandestine operations where necessary but Russia routinely interferes in the politics of many nations. they have 2 things that make them extra dangerous: a desperate desire to reclaim gone glory, and tenacity. China is in the similar but they have had too much economic success to start acting aggressive outside of their immediate surroundings (the south China sea). aggression carries risk.
it would be great if everyone got along. how many crimes would you be willing to overlook for the sake of this friendship?
Im not in favour of Russia but I would say that a country run by 'ex- KGB' doesnt makes it dangerous as you can see, US ( i support US) is being ruled by a buissnessman who once asked 'Why cant I use my nukes?' .
Does that statement make the US a dangerous country? nope.
Countries like Britian and Israel use clandestine tactics too. Does that mean they are dangerous to everyone?
Yeah I do agree that it seems as if Russia would invade the western europe at any moment but its not possible at the moment or for decades to come as i've already stated.
I never said 'bout disbanding NATO or something like that, what i said was to change its primary focus of 'Russia'.
The countries with nukes are - US, Russia, China, India , UK, Pakistan , France and recently North Korea. Out of these 8 nations, I consider only DPRK as a nuclear threat.
Russia obtained nukes in around 1950's and since then they've acted wisely and didnt fire any single of this cuase they know that if we do, the US would push the red button too.
Russia has handled these 15000 obsolete nukes for over 70 years now. So I dont think Russia's so silly to fire that red button of nuclear apocalypse.
I AM NOT A RUSSIAN SUPPORTER.
PS : Consider if Russia and US were allied to each other. wouldnt that be great?
russia is still a threat. it's army may be a fraction of what it was, but the whole country is now run by ex KGB. either way with nuclear deterrents, direct military strength is secondary. they specialize in clandestine tactics, and should not be underestimated.
What is the benefit in disbanding nato?
Reasons in favour---
1)no USSR as of now
2)Russia is not interested in western europe conquests
3)Russia doesnt have a military to do any harm on western europe.
I'm not in favour of Russia but I just believe its obsolete and should focus on other matters.
What should NATO focus on?
---> Eliminating global terrorism, wahabism terrorism, cyber terrorism , drug lords, mafias , criminals, war criminals, Mexican Cartels & finally NORTH KOREA
Spending millions of $$$ in order to maintain a powerful NATO isnt a cup of tea especially when the US is in a debt of over 7 billion $s.
NATO should rather be a trade and economic Organisation of the North Atlantic.