On January 7, US president Donald Trump promised to withdraw the US from 35 international organizations and 31 UN agencies:
The Memorandum orders all Executive Departments and Agencies to cease participating in and funding 35 non-United Nations (UN) organizations and 31 UN entities that operate contrary to U.S. national interests, security, economic prosperity, or sovereignty.
Unverified: then the White House deleted the announcement from their website (personal note: I did receive 404 on it for a while).
Correction: announcement is still up or has reappeared. An archived copy is also available in case they change their mind.
Yes it would come back but it would be a good long while because we are having to start from the bottom all over again.
That’s the part you seem to not be getting. We are talking a process that would take YEARS to get done, if it would even happen at all.
How much of NATO is actually needed in the short term? The last bit there was kind of going in that direction. Just being a nuclear power that would credibly respond to actions against any member seems like it would provide safety for a few years.
Over the longer term, a coordinated structure to respond to novel threats starts to matter.
Given Russia is looking to take Ukraine and likely the other former Soviet countries and now we have the US is eyeing for the western hemisphere you are going to need NATO as a whole.
As for nuclear deterrence that only works if you are willing to use it. And I doubt France or the UK is willing.
Russia is having trouble fighting just Ukraine + Western weapons. Europe would not have trouble winning (at whatever cost) if it came to it in the near term, NATO or no.
I feel like it should go without saying that the US would not be supporting NATO, if NATO was fighting the US. So, zero days to build back up without them, and they probably blow things up on their way out.
Why? Unless you think none of the nuclear powers are willing. France in particular does not have a reputation for passivity.
Yes Russia is struggling but at the same time Ukraine (despite the efforts) is also not winning. Furthermore the military coordination is done via NATO, so its loss would create problems. Yes it’s not going to be Russian tanks on the streets of Paris, but it will be Russian tanks making a mess All over Eastern Europe.
Obviously yes but also NATO would stop existing. Seriously where within how NATO is structured are you getting that the loss of the US would be a shrug?
Erm because Nukes wipe out whole cities? We are talking literal WMDs here, what of that screams “yeah we totally are willing to be the first to launch a strike.”
Hey, I didn’t say a shrug. It’s also a bad option, just in a world with no really great ones left.
That’s also how it works for the US, though. MAD has still held for decades, because nobody really wants whatever thing bad enough to risk escalation.
Your implication is that NATO being gone is a shrug.
My argument is that it is not so simple. Getting the components of NATO back (particularly the coordination of the common defense.) would take time, time that would create a vulnerability other powers will exploit.
And yet here you are arguing for escalation and use of nukes. The only reason MAD has worked is no one has yet call one’s bluff (or rather has with Russia constantly reminding they have an arsenal and totally will use it, and yet here we are.)