Another US foreign policy issue- NATO and other alliances

[Amira]

Again, this isn't about specific candidates, but about a discussion about the issues.

 

What do you think about US involvement in NATO? US military bases all over the world? Isolationism vs internationalism, both now and in the past?

[Lanny]

I would like to see the countries that we have been protecting, for many years, that are now very prosperous (Germany, Japan, South Korea) step up to the plate and pay us for protecting them.  They are getting a free ride and the USA pays for them.  Of the 3 countries I mentioned, South Korea is probably a different case, because of North Korea, and I believe we have better reasons to be in South Korea than in Germany or Japan, without them paying the USA for their protection.  

[chiguirre]

But what if they decide that they're not going to pay more (because they do already pay), that they prefer to develop nuclear weapons and let it be known that they will use them? Do we really want nuclear showdowns between China and Japan or Germany (or the whole EU) and Russia?

 

What if they decide they'll just engage in drone warfare on their own? Do we want a lot of smaller powers challenging each other world wide without coordination? NO! That would be a very bad idea. Little wars can easily escalate (look at the morass in Syria for an object lesson).

 

We are so very fortunate that the breakup of Yugoslavia didn't cause a bigger ground war. That was because of NATO and the EU. Locking up all the potentially fractious states in Europe into a grand alliance has made the world a much more peaceful place and it's incredibly stupid to break up that system.

 

As the current Asian alliances stand, I think we can contain China without resorting to violence. If we cut and run, Japan, South Korea and, even, India will need to ramp up their defenses. We do not need several Cuban Missile Crises for them to take the measure of each other. Nuclear weapons can easily reach us in Fortress America. We're no longer safe behind two oceans. 

 

The first America First movement in the 1930s advocated that the US just let Hitler do what he wanted. He couldn't reach us in our splendid isolation. If that policy had prevailed, it would have been catastrophic when the Germans developed both missiles and atomic bombs. Instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it might have been Cleveland and Baltimore.

[livetoread]

I would like to see the countries that we have been protecting, for many years, that are now very prosperous (Germany, Japan, South Korea) step up to the plate and pay us for protecting them. They are getting a free ride and the USA pays for them. Of the 3 countries I mentioned, South Korea is probably a different case, because of North Korea, and I believe we have better reasons to be in South Korea than in Germany or Japan, without them paying the USA for their protection.

I don't think this is true. At least Germany and Japan do pay us, (but not the entire amount), so they aren't getting it for free. I don't know about South Korea.

[Roadrunner]

Countries act in their national interests. There is not much altruistic involved in foreign policy decisions even if it's sold to the public that way. While there might be some Cold War setups that one could argue might no longer be in our national interest and this setups might require a fresh look, make no mistake that those arrangements originated from calculated decisions that served our goals. It is the way foreign policy works.