Hacker News Reader

Comment by et2o | Hacker News Reader

Don't understand the issue with this mandate coming from NATO.

The Belgian military policy has never been an aggressive one (modest-sized country and army), yet SEAD missions are. NATO is some sort of US military policy deployed in european countries, and can serve (as in this case) US commercial interests.

NATO is definitely serving Western European interest. NATO is probably the major reason there has not been a land war against NATO members since WW2.

Since the 1950s the Belgian military policy has been that it will do whatever is required of it as a NATO member.

This. I don't get this complaining about "NATO made us do it". NATO is a voluntary alliance, and they all signed up for a reason - defense against Russian aggression. That defense doesn't look like America does everything to keep the Russians away while everyone else sits on their butts. Everyone who wants that protection needs to step up and do their part.

Doing their part does include purchasing modern aircraft that are capable of participating in missions in support of an overall strategy of air superiority.

Not to mention, so far most of the NATO missions are about participating and helping in US wars on MiddleEast. And it is not only about military budget. But also the budget to deal with immigration issues after MiddleEast conflicts.

I don’t think it is fair to blame NATO. They did their best so far and they deserve the support.

Well, while I can agree with this, it doesn't deny the fact that the US can use NATO for its defense industry interests. And they will. Which I mean, is okay, that's life and geopolitics.

I'm not saying it's the primary purpose of it. But I think one should not be overly naive towards NATO.

Goes both ways tho. The US military has been the major export client for Belgian arms industry.

That's fair.

Though to be totally honest, Belgium could withdraw from NATO and still benefit from it, since any enemy would have to go through multiple NATO member states to even reach Belgium. France pulled this stunt once.

If the point of NATO is to get money flowing into the U.S. from Europe, it's failing horribly.

EDIT - I mean via direct military purchases. Obviously the stability protected by NATO enables tremendous trade between Europe and the U.S.

This is actually an interesting calculation. I'm not sure how I'd do it. We'd have to figure out what percentage of US defense funding goes toward NATO or NATO members specifically.

Or, NATO is trying to defend Eastern Europe from the encroaching Russian front.

    The Belgian military policy has never been an aggressive one (modest-sized country and army)

Sadly, that's not always enough.

Ask Ukraine and Georgia about what can happen to non-aggressive, modest countries with modest armies.

    NATO is some sort of US military policy deployed 
    in european countries, and can serve (as in this 
    case) US commercial interests.

I totally agree and I wish that wasn't the case.

But the solution to that is MORE engagement, responsibility, and contribution by European NATO allies, not less.

The greater Europe's role in NATO, the smaller the US's role can be...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com