Instigator / Pro

Pevensie

1500

rating

debates

56.25%

won

Topic

#4736

The United States (US) should leave the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 1 vote and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!

Tags

War

NATO

United States

Parameters

Publication date: 07.18.2023 11:36PM
Last updated date: 08.22.2023 03:44AM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 3
Time for argument: One day
Max argument characters: 1,000
Voting period: One month
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

WillyB

1500

rating

debates

66.67%

won

Description

No information

Round 1

Pevensie

07.21.2023 03:41PM

Pro

According to the North Atlantic Treaty, only attacks in Europe or North America or on any military forces in the Mediterranean Sea or the Northern part of the Atlantic Ocean trigger the treaties collective self-defence provision.[1] That means that an attack on the Hawaii or any US military personnel station outside of the area previously defined would not require other NATO members help the US. Due to geography, an attack by Russia on US territory seems impossible. While China's military buildup, according to Indo-Pacific Commander ADM Aquilino:

What we're seeing is a military buildup second to none…it's all capabilities...The largest buildup that we've seen, the fastest buildup in history [2]

Taiwan's foreign minister has said China is 'more likely' to invade Taiwan.[3]

US President Biden has said multiple times that the US defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack.[4][5][6]

A military conflict between the US and China is much more likely than one between the US and Russia.

WillyB

07.22.2023 02:04AM

Con

Conflict between the US and China may possibly be more likely than one with Russia, but that’s not the point. The point of NATO is to secure the sovereignty and security of European nations against, originally the USSR, threats of imperial force. We’ve seen the whilst the night of the USSR may be long gone, Russia, with its invasion of Ukraine and Georgia in the last 15 years, is willing to ignore the internationally recognised protocol and sovereignty of nations. If the US, which is by far the most advanced and powerful military in the world, leaves NATO, then Europe’s security from imperial force is gone. The UK, EU and Turkey would struggle against the threat of a Russian attack, with the Russian army being way over 10x larger than the continents supposed best army (UK). America in its past has chosen the path of foreign isolationism, and every time it’s done this the decision has been incorrect. A US backed NATO is the only thing stopping war in Europe spreading.

Round 2

Pevensie

07.22.2023 02:50AM

Pro

If a war between the US and China occurs, the US would need to suddenly abandon its NATO allies. It would be better to give them notice and time to build up their defenses.

With that being said, the UK, Germany, and France could easily defeat Russia. Those three countries have a collective nominal GDP of $10.35 trillion and a population of 214 million compared to Russia's nominal GDP of $1.78 trillion and population of 144 million.[1][2] This comparison does not take into account that NATO includes an additional 27 member countries (excluding the US).[3] The problem is that many NATO members do not spend a lot on defense, since the US protects them.[4] It is in the interest of the US and Europe to have these countries dramatically increase their defense budgets before the US needs to redirect its military away from Russia and towards China. The US stating it will leave NATO soon would accomplish this goal.

WillyB

07.22.2023 07:57AM

Con

It would not be beneficial for Europe to spend more on their military, this would involve sacrificing many social and welfare programs, which would not be beneficial. Furthermore, mentioning the GDP of these other countries is not very relevant, as this is not a significant indicator of a countries fighting force, for example the UK army is not very large and not very advanced at all, compared to others. The USA is absolutely capable of supporting NATO, even if China invaded Taiwan (assuming it doesn’t go nuclear) as the US have already quadrupled troops stationed in Taiwan recently, whilst continuing to support NATO and Ukraine. The largest economy and most advanced military is absolutely capable of doing 2 things at once, and to think differently is ignorant. The whole idea of NATO is that if it works properly then no fighting ever happens and even if China invaded, the US wouldn’t send all 1.5m troops, meaning that there’s enough of a presence in europe to keep NATO working, as it has done since its creation

Round 3

Pevensie

07.22.2023 01:40PM

Pro

If the US did not have to subsidize NATO countries's defense then the US might spend more money on domestic policy as well. There is a limited number of recourse and European nations spending enough to defend to themselves is reasonable and fair. In fact, the US subsidizing them is unfair to Americans.

GDP is a crucial factor to determine military capability, since countries with higher GDPs can spend more money on defense technologies and soldiers. Western European countries are very rich and can spend enough to defend themselves and outspend the Russians in fact, as previously explained. Western European countries have more people than Russia, which means they could have more soldiers has well.

Chief of Naval Operations ADM Gilday say the Navy cannot handle two wars at once.[1] Furthermore, a recent report states that the entire US military is unable to win two wars at once.[2] European countries need to spend more on defense before the US is forced to abandon them and fight China.

WillyB

07.23.2023 03:44AM

Con

You missed the point, the US does not to fight two full scale wars at once, the simple threat and security of its presence in NATO is enough to stop war from breaching into NATO nations. GDP has long been shown to not be a reliable indicator of how a war will play out, e.g Vietnam, Afghanistan (US and Soviet), Boer and Yom Kippur are just a few examples of this. The US should maybe look at cutting its defence spending in other areas, such as committing human rights violations in Guantanamo Bay, providing Israel around $3.5b a year to continue their regime of apartheid, supporting the Saudi Arabian dictatorship that commits genocide in Yemen and covert operations to overthrow foreign leaders and influence elections. The US could cut this spending to fund domestic programs. The only thing that stops Putin from going into the Baltics or Poland is the US presence on NATO, and the US maybe should re-evaluate what it cares more about: the security of Europe or an island that isn’t even a country. Breaking up NATO that currently works as intended, before all the things I listed is just silly