Funny that people say it would dissolve. NATO should stay intact after the US invasion. The alliance would just kick the US out.
Personally the UN should kick the United States out if they do invade. Then the UN needs to unite against the rogue United States. Sell all bonds and move their currency base. Wouldn’t be pretty, but fighting the United States with conventional weapons won’t end well. Crushing our economy and cutting trade is the real weapons that should be used.
It seems like there is no mechanism to kick a country out like that. What’s more likely is that NATO will be de facto dissolved immediately, but this doesn’t stop allied countries from working together anyway. If the Trump administration thinks that NATO is the only thing holding alliances together, I think they will be uncomfortably surprised.
Personally I think the real decision makers in the Trump administration actually want war, or at the very least don’t care if they get it. We should just cut them off from everything. Make them react. I’m sick of playing the game. Just shit or get off the pot.
Yeah that was the impression I got when I did some mindless chatgpt fiddling. There really is nothing stopping them from creating NATO 2: Cold War Boogaloo, except that it would take more time to set it up than it would for them to simply activate emergency bilateral assistance agreements or things like EU mutual assistance (Article 42(7)).
They would not be obligated under NATO anymore (there is apparently an article in Vienna Convention on international treaties that allows for suspended operation of a multiparty treaty if there is material breach).
In short new defense agreements would be established immediately and in parallel with the formal dissolution of NATO. The US attacking NATO is not like a cool loophole trick that makes the whole world obligated to just surrender… But if they did recreate NATO they couldn’t use the same name, apparently it’s protected.
I had already looked it up about a week ago. So I saved you the effort. And I was being honest about where I got the info, not trying to pretend I’m an expert.
Anyway this is an incredibly fatuous comment. Are you expecting everyone on Lemmy to not research, and just respond with mindless rambling bullshit? Shall we just sit around commenting on how we all don’t know the answer, hoping that an expert will show up? Or are you claiming that only certain types of research are ok? You know LLMs are quite powerful research tools, yeah? They provide links too. It’s really amazing.
Super amazing if all the links are real.
Google did just have to remove some query responses from their ai because it was lying about blood tests and giving out unsafe info iirc, so there is that.
Supply chains would be the biggest issue, methinks. Gotta figure out what hardware you need to adopt, maintaining the stuff you already have without American dictation, and so on.
The alliance was created to guarantee US hegemony over Europe. It’s predicated on dozens of US bases, US administered logistics routes, US contractors, US arms dealers, US surveillance.
You can’t remove the US any more than you can tear out your own heart.
Europe will need to completely retrofit how it handles internal security. And - especially after Brexit - I just don’t see the necessary level of cohesion between the members, absent a totalitarian hegemon like the Americans forcing Europeans together.
Crushing our economy and cutting trade is the real weapons that should be used
Just stop trade, we don’t make anything here we use directly. If we do try to make things here, you end up with smarter every day’s $100 grill scraper.
In a couple of weeks target/walmart will be empty
immediately all fruit/veggies in the winter will increase in price 10 fold.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I think an issue with that is that there isn’t a mechanism for kicking a country out; the US would have to choose to leave. So more likely the allied nations would have to reform a new agreement which has its own red tape.
Technically yes. A lot of international coalitions are built without mechanism to exclude anyone and that’s why Russia still has a seat on UN security council. With NATO that would be somewhat simple at least on agreement level, just have everyone to join NATOv2 and resign from current NATO and continue work without US. In practise it’s obviously “a bit” more complicated to arrange command and supply chains and whatever, but it’s still absolutely doable if member countries really want to.
Funny that people say it would dissolve. NATO should stay intact after the US invasion. The alliance would just kick the US out.
Personally the UN should kick the United States out if they do invade. Then the UN needs to unite against the rogue United States. Sell all bonds and move their currency base. Wouldn’t be pretty, but fighting the United States with conventional weapons won’t end well. Crushing our economy and cutting trade is the real weapons that should be used.
It seems like there is no mechanism to kick a country out like that. What’s more likely is that NATO will be de facto dissolved immediately, but this doesn’t stop allied countries from working together anyway. If the Trump administration thinks that NATO is the only thing holding alliances together, I think they will be uncomfortably surprised.
Personally I think the real decision makers in the Trump administration actually want war, or at the very least don’t care if they get it. We should just cut them off from everything. Make them react. I’m sick of playing the game. Just shit or get off the pot.
What’s the difference between kicking a country out of NATO vs all the other countries just saying, ok NATO2, same members minus one?
NA2 is right there
It’s a lot more complex administratively, I guess.
Yeah that was the impression I got when I did some mindless chatgpt fiddling. There really is nothing stopping them from creating NATO 2: Cold War Boogaloo, except that it would take more time to set it up than it would for them to simply activate emergency bilateral assistance agreements or things like EU mutual assistance (Article 42(7)).
They would not be obligated under NATO anymore (there is apparently an article in Vienna Convention on international treaties that allows for suspended operation of a multiparty treaty if there is material breach).
In short new defense agreements would be established immediately and in parallel with the formal dissolution of NATO. The US attacking NATO is not like a cool loophole trick that makes the whole world obligated to just surrender… But if they did recreate NATO they couldn’t use the same name, apparently it’s protected.
Thank’s but we could just ask a chatbot ourselves; we don’t need intermediaries.
I had already looked it up about a week ago. So I saved you the effort. And I was being honest about where I got the info, not trying to pretend I’m an expert.
Anyway this is an incredibly fatuous comment. Are you expecting everyone on Lemmy to not research, and just respond with mindless rambling bullshit? Shall we just sit around commenting on how we all don’t know the answer, hoping that an expert will show up? Or are you claiming that only certain types of research are ok? You know LLMs are quite powerful research tools, yeah? They provide links too. It’s really amazing.
Super amazing if all the links are real. Google did just have to remove some query responses from their ai because it was lying about blood tests and giving out unsafe info iirc, so there is that.
Yeah there is a right way to use it just like any other tool or technology.
Supply chains would be the biggest issue, methinks. Gotta figure out what hardware you need to adopt, maintaining the stuff you already have without American dictation, and so on.
The alliance was created to guarantee US hegemony over Europe. It’s predicated on dozens of US bases, US administered logistics routes, US contractors, US arms dealers, US surveillance.
You can’t remove the US any more than you can tear out your own heart.
Europe will need to completely retrofit how it handles internal security. And - especially after Brexit - I just don’t see the necessary level of cohesion between the members, absent a totalitarian hegemon like the Americans forcing Europeans together.
Just stop trade, we don’t make anything here we use directly. If we do try to make things here, you end up with smarter every day’s $100 grill scraper.
In a couple of weeks target/walmart will be empty
immediately all fruit/veggies in the winter will increase in price 10 fold.
We’re already on the edge of a recession.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I think an issue with that is that there isn’t a mechanism for kicking a country out; the US would have to choose to leave. So more likely the allied nations would have to reform a new agreement which has its own red tape.
Technically yes. A lot of international coalitions are built without mechanism to exclude anyone and that’s why Russia still has a seat on UN security council. With NATO that would be somewhat simple at least on agreement level, just have everyone to join NATOv2 and resign from current NATO and continue work without US. In practise it’s obviously “a bit” more complicated to arrange command and supply chains and whatever, but it’s still absolutely doable if member countries really want to.
not all. make it so that it can still be worse for them if the need arises. useful for negotiations