We still need NATO?

Yes but for the first time in modern history, Europeans are collectively disgusted by US foreign policies.

First time? Really? I don't think of the Vietnam War as causing an outpouring of love for the US among Europeans.

The difference was, back then, having the Warsaw Pact on Western Europe's doorstep kept both sides aware of the value of the alliance. Iamandi is not the first to ask what value there is in NATO... and the questions come from both sides of the Atlantic.

Probably not, but neither what it close to the current level of anger/dismay . Personally I still tend to agree with the Vietnam war (no question it was botched).

Sure enough.

We still need NATO? This can be done buy some ONU team. Ok, are NATO funds... yeah.. ignoring USA funds, rest of moneys are from UE!


NATO/PfP Trust Fund Project to Destroy Surplus Weapons and Ammunition in Ukraine


Source: NATO


" A NATO Partnership for Peace (PfP) Trust Fund project has been established to help Ukraine destroy stockpiles of surplus munitions, small arms and light weapons, and Man-Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS). The project – the largest single demilitarisation effort in the world - is a practical demonstration of NATO’s continuing commitment to support Ukraine’s defence reform.

The Trust Fund project responds to Ukraine’s request for assistance in eliminating 133,000 tonnes of munitions and 1,5 million small arms and light weapons. Much of this material is stored in the open, posing a major security threat to local civilian population and infrastructure. Safe destruction of these stocks also eliminates potential proliferation risk.

The Trust Fund project will be executed in four phases, over 12 years. The voluntary contributions to the Trust Fund, estimated to be in excess of EUR 25 million will be used to purchase new equipment and improve Ukraine’s demilitarisation capabilities. Ukraine will contribute in-kind to the demilitarisation costs.

The United States has agreed to act as Lead Nation for the first phase of the project. The initial phase is estimated to cost EUR 7 million over three years. This is the first time the US has taken on the role of lead nation of a NATO/PfP Trust Fund project. In addition to the US , the United Kingdom and Norway have pledged funding for this project.

The PfP Trust Fund policy was established in September 2000, five projects have been completed to date. This is the second PfP Trust Fund project to be executed in Ukraine. The first project in 2002-2003 destroyed 400,000 Anti-personnel landmines (APLs). In total, Trust Fund projects have destroyed more than 2 million APLs in Albania, Moldova, Tajikistan and Ukraine. "

Iama

The USA is not the only non-EU NATO member. Canada, Norway, and Iceland are all founding NATO members who are not EU members.

If you include candidate EU members, add Turkey (founding NATO member), also Romania and Bulgaria.

There are also many EU members who are not NATO members.

Looking at the project discussed in your article (first phase), the funds are coming from the US, UK and Norway... 2 out of 3 not EU members.

In future Norway and all of the countries of Europe continent will join UE. Is just a question of time, Jeff.

Now, i have a press release from NATO. The world's largest AntiSubmarine Warfare exercise... Against who is that training? Russia don't want to upset the Occident... China had a large fleet of noisy submarines, old technology, a lot of them inactive, not enough crews and not enough trainings.. Japan? Maybe, because they had good submarines, well trained crews... but time for Japan just don't came yet! India? USA is enough to defeat indian submarines.
You may think - is an alliance, is good to train in comun.
Ok. Training is good. But for a training who cost a lot of moneys, is need to have a good motivation. So, Cold War is gone. USA introduce a new concept of fear and war - anti-terrorist war. Russia, happy, based on that concept, fight his own action against "terrorism"... So, why "submarines" ?

NATO Forces Gather in the Mediterranean for the World’s Largest Annual Anti-Submarine Warfare Exercise


Source: NATO


"Ten NATO nations will provide six submarines, ten maritime patrol aircraft and 16 surface ships to take part in NOBLE MARLIN 05 (NM 05), the world’s largest anti-submarine Warfare (ASW) exercise from 03 to 16 March 2005.

The exercise will take place in the Ionian Sea to the Southeast of Sicily. Forces are provided by Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

Six submarines from France (1), Germany (1), Greece (1), Spain (1) and Turkey (2) are scheduled to join the exercise. Each submarine will have the opportunity of being a hunter as well as the prey. NATO surface ships from Standing NATO Response Force Maritime Group 2 will take part, as well as a French Frigate and surface ships from the Italian Maritime Force (ITMARFOR).

The exercise will demonstrate NATO’s determination to maintain proficiency in coordinated anti-submarine, anti-surface, and coastal surveillance operations using a multi-national force of ships, submarines and aircraft. In addition to traditional submarine roles and missions, this year submarine capabilities will also be exercised in support of defence against terrorism.

Maritime Patrol Aircraft from Canada, France, Italy, Portugal and the United States of America will operate from Sigonella, Sicily. Italian shore-based ASW helicopters from Fontanarossa, Sicily will also participate. Over 65 air missions are planned, and on average this will result in a crew briefing every four hours, day and night, throughout the exercise.

NM 05 will be directed from the co-located multi-national Headquarters of the Commander Submarines Allied Naval Forces and the Commander Maritime Air Naples, Italy. "


Iama

Excercises don't have to be "against" anyone. You may just want to keep your operational capabilities intact or improve on them.

Because it's a powerfull, mobile, autonomous, hard to detect missile platform which has some weight in controlling the oceans.

The British did not scuttle their fleet after Trafalgar.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on March 01, 2005 11:25 am

right.
they had none left

Chandernagore,

Imagine that: a football team, composed only by short mens, trained to hit the ball with the heads... In all football games they will play against taller mens.. So, why they spend time for training in this way? Training is good.

This imaginary football team is trained "against" other teams, or like you say "exercises don't have to be <<against>> anyone"? Clear thing, is a sport confrontation, but is "against".
And for the second part of your comment inserted in quotes by me, this team is trained to "keep" ... "operational capabilities intact or improve on them".

QUOTE

The Submarine is one of the more wished weapons by all countrys who had sea opens (i don't think i used right words, but you catch the ideea, no?) because is something like a stealh planes in air fleets - is unseen, hardly detectable. But subs costs are too much for most of the countrys. Romania, for example had one Kilo but no money to use this ship. Bulgaria had (had yet?) an Romeo... much of the majority of countrys had old types subs, clasicall propulsion, noisy - of course not our Kilo ("Delfinul") who is one of the most quiet sub of the Kilo class.

Maybe, i don't know more but today i try to find something, maybe is an exercise involving some AIP systems and is the first simulated conflict with classic, AIP, and nuclear subs - surface ships, aircrafts anf sattelites. Maybe, and this can be a goooooood exercise.

Iama

Hey, this is not a discution based on Another Time Line facts!

Iama

Why we need a NATO alliance, with a leader like USA?

Look at this:

Victim-activated Claymore mines are prohibited by the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, which has been agreed to by 152 nations but not the United States

U.S.: New Landmines for Iraq Raise Fears of Civilian Risk

Source: Human Rights Watch


"WASHINGTON --- The U.S. Army plans to deploy a new system of remote-controlled antipersonnel mines in Iraq by May, but the Pentagon has failed to answer crucial questions about the potential harm these mines could pose to innocent civilians, Human Rights Watch said today.

The new mine system, which is called Matrix (my God! - my comment), allows a soldier with a laptop computer based several kilometers away to detonate Claymore mines remotely via radio signal. Claymore mines normally propel lethal fragments from 40 to 60 meters across a 60-degree arc. However, U.S. Army tests indicate that the actual hazard range for these types of mines can be as high as 300 meters.

The plan to use the Matrix Claymore mine system raises two key unanswered questions in terms of their humanitarian impact. The first is how a soldier will be able to make a positive identification of his target from great distances.

“A faraway blip on a laptop screen is hardly a surefire method of determining if you are about to kill an enemy combatant or an unsuspecting civilian,” said Steve Goose, executive director of Human Rights Watch’s Arms Division.

The second key humanitarian question is whether the mines could be inadvertently detonated by civilians themselves, rather than a U.S. soldier operating the system. The original technology behind Matrix was designed with a “battlefield override” feature that substituted activation by a victim for detonation by command. Victim-activated Claymore mines are prohibited by the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, which has been agreed to by 152 nations but not the United States.
“The Pentagon needs to give concrete assurances that innocent civilians can’t accidentally detonate these new Matrix mines,” said Goose. “Otherwise, this system would end up functioning like the old-fashioned antipersonnel mines that more than three-quarters of the world’s nations have banned.”

One year ago, on February 27, 2004, the Bush administration announced the outcome of a lengthy review of U.S. landmine policy, rejecting U.S. accession to the Mine Ban Treaty outright. The new policy reversed a 10-year pledge by the United States to eliminate all antipersonnel landmines. Instead, the Bush administration opted to retain self-destructing and self-deactivating antipersonnel mines indefinitely. It is not known whether Matrix possesses a feature to self-destruct or self-deactivate.

Human Rights Watch has expressed concerns that the new U.S. policy has set the stage for the United States to resume production, trade and use of antipersonnel mines prohibited by the Mine Ban Treaty. The U.S. has not used such mines since the 1991 Gulf War, has not exported them since 1992, and has not produced them since 1997.

The Army’s high-tech Stryker Brigade plans to field a total of 25 Matrix systems in Iraq by May, according to an article in the March edition of National Defense Magazine. The mines will reportedly be used primarily to protect bases.

Matrix is a precursor of Spider, another U.S. mine system that will utilize new munitions rather than Claymore mines. So far, the Pentagon has not answered similar humanitarian concerns raised by Human Rights Watch. "


Iama

Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions, Iamandi.

To my knowledge, there are at least 40 countries that have not signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. China, Russia, and India are among these countries.

Also, some countries opt to restrict mine usage through the Conventional Weapons Protocol, rather than the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. Thus, being a non-signatory country to the Treaty does not automatically place a negative label on that country.

But, in my opinion this "automatically place a negative label on that country"! And extraploting this, even is not subject of this topic, i extend the label for China, Russia and India and above all of the 40 remaining countrys.

Iama

Well, you're entitled to your own opinion, even though you seem to fail to see that there are optional ways to limit or even eliminate mine usage other than the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. One of the other avenues is, as I mentioned, the Conventional Weapons Protocol.

But, once again, you're entitled to your opinion.

I predict they will too, but I do not share your 100% certainty. There are advantages to being near the EU, but not in the EU. I don't consider it unthinkable that countries may leave the EU, or demand more rights to opt out of parts of the EU that they do not like as a condition of staying.