• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should NATO disband?

Peter said:
The main reason I think the UK is safe is there very little point invading.
We have ballistic missile subs and can unleash a monstrous barrage that just makes the cost unacceptable for the gain of what is in the grand scheme of things a rather small island.

The cost/benefit ratio just doesn't seem to work and we're surrounded by allies who're likely to help if we get attacked makes it even less viable. I don't understand what China would hope to gain apart from 5 or more cities of theirs wiped off the map and with unbelievable casualties to look after.
Click to expand...



WWII, nobody used nerve gas though they had it. Would Britain nuke Russia if Britain knew Russia would retaliate?
 
Dayton3 said:
Incorrect. Goddard launched a number of rockets. After the war, German engineers reviewed his work and were impressed by it and amazed that he (working on his own) had basically completely duplicated their work.
Click to expand...

His rockets never made it far. They were mere toys.

Its a simple fact, that Germany was the epicenter of rocket development. If you denie that, then you have no clue what you talk about.
 
Peter said:
The main reason I think the UK is safe is there very little point invading.
We have ballistic missile subs and can unleash a monstrous barrage that just makes the cost unacceptable for the gain of what is in the grand scheme of things a rather small island.

The cost/benefit ratio just doesn't seem to work and we're surrounded by allies who're likely to help if we get attacked makes it even less viable. I don't understand what China would hope to gain apart from 5 or more cities of theirs wiped off the map and with unbelievable casualties to look after.
Click to expand...

I agree and thats the way Germany should go for. Have special forces, submarines and nuclear weapons. We dont need to be able to deploy troops evrywhere. We need to make it impossible to attack us.

Right now Germany chose teh japan option. To have the capability to build nuclear weapons in a short time. Its doubtful thats enough in the future and analysts here already say we need the german bomb as the balance in the world change.

Bildschirmfoto%202018-07-29%20um%2011.37.58.png
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Quote me where I said the US military should do the exact same job with half the budget. Shouldn't be hard to provide a quote. The defense budget is wildly bloated and it's not because we have soldiers stationed in Germany. Trump has shown zero interest in reducing the budget, in fact he and the Republicans have continually increased it. This is 100% about giving our allies the finger and has nothing to do with saving money.

Maybe we could start by not blowing TRILLIONS of tax payer dollars on pointless wars in the middle east? Why couldn't we start there? Do you hate the troops for not agreeing with that? Why do you want US soldiers to die in the desert?
Click to expand...

the defense budget continually rises because every year it costs more and more to maintain the equipment, troops, and bases worldwide....

If we will continue this STUPID bull**** mission from decades ago where we are responsible for the world's peace, then we better have the best defense....PERIOD

I for one dont want to send our boys and girls into harms way without the best equipment possible

Now is there waste in defense....you bet....always has been.....but because of the damn size of the military, it is just another decimal point

Which is why it is time for other countries to start paying beyond their fair share....like we have done for decades
 
Peter said:
The main reason I think the UK is safe is there very little point invading.
We have ballistic missile subs and can unleash a monstrous barrage that just makes the cost unacceptable for the gain of what is in the grand scheme of things a rather small island.

The cost/benefit ratio just doesn't seem to work and we're surrounded by allies who're likely to help if we get attacked makes it even less viable. I don't understand what China would hope to gain apart from 5 or more cities of theirs wiped off the map and with unbelievable casualties to look after.
Click to expand...

Britain probably is safe

Can you say the same for all of Europe.....
 
RabidAlpaca said:
We should cut the bloated defense budget tremendously, yes. However, getting rid of NATO only benefits our enemies, like Russia and China, so to that, absolutely not. One really has to ask the question why Trump is so intent on hurting our allies and helping our enemies.
Click to expand...

Disbanding NATO would also benefit one that poor silly US imagines to be its 'friend', that is Germany.
 
Rostocker said:
I agree and thats the way Germany should go for. Have special forces, submarines and nuclear weapons. We dont need to be able to deploy troops evrywhere. We need to make it impossible to attack us.

Right now Germany chose teh japan option. To have the capability to build nuclear weapons in a short time. Its doubtful thats enough in the future and analysts here already say we need the german bomb as the balance in the world change.

Bildschirmfoto%202018-07-29%20um%2011.37.58.png
Click to expand...

That aint going to happen. Not with the record you have.
 
Sweden said:
Disbanding NATO would also benefit one that poor silly US imagines to be its 'friend', that is Germany.
Click to expand...

Disbanding Nato does not mean by necessity, one does not strengthen relationships with countries that want strong relationships militarily with us. For instance Poland. Or we can keep Nato and boot those that refuse to meet their obligation like Belgium and Germany and add those countries that would like to join and will meet obligations. In fact that would be my preferred route to take. Germany is flat refusing to meet its obligations. Boot em from Nato. Nato would benefit from the move IMO as those on the fence would take notice.
 
Rostocker said:
His rockets never made it far. They were mere toys.

Its a simple fact, that Germany was the epicenter of rocket development. If you denie that, then you have no clue what you talk about.
Click to expand...

Yet, all of von Braun's most famous achievements were while he was in the United States and using U.S. resources.
 
The U.S. could close every overseas base it has and bring every soldier, sailor and airmen stationed overseas back to the U.S. and it still could NOT cut the defense budget by half.

Probably 10% at most. Maybe even just 5%.
 
PirateMk1 said:
That aint going to happen. Not with the record you have.
Click to expand...

We already have it.

Germany is the nuclear latent nation. We have evry single part to build the bomb in a very short time frame, including delivery systems.

So it already happend.
 
swing_voter said:
Europe seems strong enough to handle the Russian and Middle East situation.


We could cut our defense spending down from 3.4% to 2% and use that money for social programs.
Click to expand...

I think NATO was never needed. I think if Europe and Russia would work together there would never have been a need for NATO. Russia has almost unlimited natural resources that Europe needs. If they would work together and put aside their hate just imagine what could have been.
 
Dayton3 said:
Yet, all of von Braun's most famous achievements were while he was in the United States and using U.S. resources.
Click to expand...

Oh great, so the V2 was launched from Florida to flatten London. You write alternative history.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I think NATO was never needed. I think if Europe and Russia would work together there would never have been a need for NATO. Russia has almost unlimited natural resources that Europe needs. If they would work together and put aside their hate just imagine what could have been.
Click to expand...

We have bo hate towards russia and russia has o hate towards us.

Peace in Europe can only be possible when Germany and Russia are at peace. It was like that in last several hundred years and the sooner we get that working again, the better.

NATO itself is ot necessary anymore. Its a non functional relic.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Disbanding Nato does not mean by necessity, one does not strengthen relationships with countries that want strong relationships militarily with us. For instance Poland. Or we can keep Nato and boot those that refuse to meet their obligation like Belgium and Germany and add those countries that would like to join and will meet obligations. In fact that would be my preferred route to take. Germany is flat refusing to meet its obligations. Boot em from Nato. Nato would benefit from the move IMO as those on the fence would take notice.
Click to expand...

Germany has the 2nd largest contribution to defense spending and spends more than 25 members of NATO combined.

Good luck with your move.

Do you have a clue what an gigantic amount of money 1.38% of 3.8 trillion are?

I give you a hint...its 5 times more than Poland which is at 2%. Why? Because 2% from Polands small economy is less than 1.3% of a gigantic economy.

Math is tricky. You should try it.
 
Rostocker said:
Oh great, so the V2 was launched from Florida to flatten London. You write alternative history.
Click to expand...

There was nothing special about the V-2. Goddard built rockets exactly like it except in scale. And given that the V-2s were no more than a nuisance to Londoners, I don't see why you think it was a "great achievement".
 
Rostocker said:
We already have it.

Germany is the nuclear latent nation. We have evry single part to build the bomb in a very short time frame, including delivery systems.

So it already happend.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, this is where you repeat the already disproven claim that Germany could build operational nuclear weapons in days if not hours.

Not possible.
 
Dayton3 said:
There was nothing special about the V-2. Goddard built rockets exactly like it except in scale. And given that the V-2s were no more than a nuisance to Londoners, I don't see why you think it was a "great achievement".
Click to expand...

It was first manmade onbject that reached space.

Not just that, it had advanced gyroscopes, was steerable and quite precise.

The V2 is what opened space for humanity. Beside that its not just me who thinks it was a great achievement. Your ****head NASA on their own webpage praise the V2 as the prototype of evry liquid fuel rocket we have today.
 
Dayton3 said:
Oh yeah, this is where you repeat the already disproven claim that Germany could build operational nuclear weapons in days if not hours.

Not possible.
Click to expand...

You admitted yourself that we can do it.

7.5 Other Nuclear Capable States

Dude you are the worst teacher i know. As exchange stduent i would not stop laughing about you at class.

"Germany had previously abandoned plans for fuel reprocessing and the use of plutonium in domestic reactors. A planned commercial reprocessing plant has been canceled, and its existing breeder reactors are being reconfigured as plutonium burners. Due to reprocessing done elsewhere, Germany will own 48 tonnes of separated reactor grade plutonium by the year 2000.

Several German companies are key participants in the tri-national URENCO uranium enrichment consortium that developed gas centrifuge technology. Germany also holds exclusive control of domestically developed nozzle enrichment technology.

As is true of Japan, Germany has an advanced science and technology base capable of supporting an aggressive nuclear program should it be deemed necessary to do so. Although hard information about this is lacking, it is likely that Germany has undertaken advanced design work on a full range of nuclear weapon types. As noted at the beginning of this sub-section, this would be almost mandatory for national security reasons if only to create a base of expertise for conducting intelligence assessments of the nuclear programs of other nations. In addition there have been influential proponents of acquiring nuclear arms in the German government, such as the first Minister for Nuclear Affairs Franz Josef Strauss, who would most likely have sponsored such work.

It is known that Germany has considered manufacturing fusion bombs for civil engineering purposes. In the early 1970s a feasiblity study was conducted for a project to build a canal from the Mediterranean Sea to the Qattara Depression in the Western Desert of Egypt using nuclear explosives. This project proposed to use 213 bombs, with yields of 1 to 1.5 megatons detonated at depths of 100 to 500 m, to build this canal for the purpose of producing hydroelectric power."



We can build any type of nuclear weapon in a short span of typ. Thats what nuclear latency means. From fission, to fusion. We are capapble to build it all.
 
Rostocker said:
You admitted yourself that we can do it.


Dude you are the worst teacher i know.

From fission, to fusion. We are capable to build it all.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Germany could. Within 6-12 months.

And why do you insult my teaching? A apologized for calling you a meter maid.
 
Rostocker said:
We already have it.

Germany is the nuclear latent nation. We have evry single part to build the bomb in a very short time frame, including delivery systems.

So it already happend.
Click to expand...


It wont get assembled.
 
Rostocker said:
Oh great, so the V2 was launched from Florida to flatten London. You write alternative history.
Click to expand...

The V2 was lucky if it could hit London. It killed roughly two people per rocket. So much for the great vengeance weapon :lamo
 
Rostocker said:
Germany has the 2nd largest contribution to defense spending and spends more than 25 members of NATO combined.

Good luck with your move.

Do you have a clue what an gigantic amount of money 1.38% of 3.8 trillion are?

I give you a hint...its 5 times more than Poland which is at 2%. Why? Because 2% from Polands small economy is less than 1.3% of a gigantic economy.

Math is tricky. You should try it.
Click to expand...

And? Germany has an obligation to uphold and is not upholding it. They should be dumped.
 
Dayton3 said:
I'm sure Germany could. Within 6-12 months.

And why do you insult my teaching? A apologized for calling you a meter maid.
Click to expand...

A post before you said Germany could not build a nuclear weapon and that the V2 was nothing special

Btw can you tell me what would take 6 months for us to build a nuke?

We have plans for evry single type of bomb, enough Plutonium to build hundreds of nukes. We produce Deuterium and tritium which is used in fusion bombs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom