Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sweden Is a NATO Member

government.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 738 posts

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#311

Post by u320 »

u320 wrote: post #305
pphysch wrote: post #18

Serious question, what does this change? NATO gets a bit more revenue from Swedish taxpayers? So what?

NATO doesn't have "revenue". It has a little to run offices and stuff but it is tiny. The big gain from NATO's perspective is another member and its military capacity, and the terrority. Which is a huge thing, just look at a map.

An anecdote about the maps: When Swedish diplomats were meeting with members of congress before the vote to convince them to admit Sweden they just brought a map. Literally just "here is a map of the baltic sea, this is why you should let us in". And it worked.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#312

Post by TulliusCicero »

unnouinceput wrote: post #253
TulliusCicero wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most ways yes, but militarily there's definitely some dependence on the US. A lot of European militaries were found to have relatively bare cupboards when the time to donate things to Ukraine came. Germany's Army Chief straight up said the army wasn't capable of fulfilling its mission. (And yeah the US struggled with artillery shells too, the difference is that the US has so much airpower it had a legit reason to…

Military it's inter-dependency, that' why we're allies. The whole point of an ally is to be inter-dependency of one another. I, for one, as a citizen of a NATO country, I am very happy with this arrangement.

The principle is interdependency, but in practice many European militaries don't have a ton to give. Since the cold war ended, many just sort of coasted on military spending.

Of course, since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, that's changed for a lot of them. There's renewed interest in taking the defense budget seriously.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#314

Post by Log_out_ »

somenameforme wrote: post #231
solardev wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the OP, but in context, the US is a huge part of NATO's overall defense (and offense/force projection) capabilities. The EU on its own would have a harder time defending itself against aggression.

It's effectively impossible to invade a country that has nuclear weapons. There might be small scale border skirmishes, but large scale organized invasions are essentially a nonstarter. The main purpose of conventional weaponry, for nuclear nations, is to invade non-nuclear nations, or to engage in proxy skirmishes to try to expand one's geopolitical power. We're rapidly approaching a century with 0 major and unrestr…

Which is why everyone bordering any empire currently looks for nukes or nuke eqivalents,as the American reliability falls apart. Must be fun to work at the iaa nowadays.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#315

Post by u320 »

sschueller wrote: post #51
bilekas wrote: post #4

This is great news and NATO benefits hugely from this. I have to hand it to putin for bringing further solidarity across Europe and NATO.

[flagged]

> Why isn't there a NATO base in the US where German military etc. "hang out"?

Because Russia is in Europe, not in the US.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#316

Post by u320 »

tw04 wrote: post #65
sschueller wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

No? Just because Sweden is a member of NATO doesn't meant they have to just let the US do whatever they want. IF Sweden so chooses to allow US troops to be stationed there, it will be for their own benefit.

Sweden hosts US troops already. There was no reason to wait for Orban and Erdogan for that.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#317

Post by ethbr1 »

eduction wrote: post #272
somenameforme wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's effectively impossible to invade a country that has nuclear weapons. There might be small scale border skirmishes, but large scale organized invasions are essentially a nonstarter. The main purpose of conventional weaponry, for nuclear nations, is to invade non-nuclear nations, or to engage in proxy skirmishes to try to expand one's geopolitical power. We're rapidly approaching a century with 0 major and unrestr…

Do you think UK or France would use nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear Russian attack on other NATO members (e.g. Germany)? Are they obligated to do so?

>> Article 5

>> The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

>> such action as it seems necessary, including the use of armed force

There's no mandatory requirement to deploy specific weapons, but I believe all NATO forces would be subordinate to CMC (rotating) and SACEUR (has always been a US leader)? Inasmuch as multinational command structures work.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#318

Post by OkayPhysicist »

lumb63 wrote: post #146
RecycledEle wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bigger alliance is harder to defeat in war. Also, a bigger alliance requires each member to contribute fewer troops to manage a common defense. Sweden is a fairly wealthy country that can contribute the required amount to NATO. Sweden's ports are beneficial in a potential Arctic conflict. Finally, Sweden does not bring any new potential conflicts/enemies with it.

But also, a bigger alliance creates a larger amount of territory to defend. For example if the US were to leave NATO, they miss out on all the benefits that European NATO members provide, but also would not need to defend Europe, which is where any war involving NATO members is likely to happen. It seems to me that the US gains very little from being in NATO.

NATO is the greatest power projection project the in the history of the world, and is in no small part why the US has achieved hegemonic status. The ability for the US to wage wars on the opposite side of the globe without major logistical issues is greatly aided by NATO bases that are simultaneously in very friendly territory, and much closer to the action.

NATO membership also means NATO equipment, which the US's military-industrial complex disproportionate benefits from, but also serves as lock-in: those extremely expensive aircraft are basically scrap without the appropriate service contracts and part availability, meaning any military that aligns itself with the US's tech is far less likely to be able to wage wars we don't approve of.

NATO also brings stability: nuclear red-line borders are unlikely to be invaded, reducing the chances of conflicts that are bad for business. A peaceful world is a profitable world, and those profits disproportionately go to the US.

NATO also provides soft power projection: NATO membership is a huge boon to its members, which grants the US leverage politically to encourage member states to adopt pro-US policies.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#319

Post by unethical_ban »

ilrwbwrkhv wrote: post #267
seydor wrote: post #128

This is actually very significant, this time NATO expands to the west, and who knows where next. I wonder what was the debate in Sweden all this time (beyond the waiting for some dictators to give them the final approval)

It's time for the USA to step out of NATO. Will surely happen when Trump comes to power.

Extraordinary opinions call for elaboration.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#320

Post by tharmas »

lawn wrote: post #258
nostrebored wrote: post #192

I get that we've decided 'NATO Good' now -- but are people really so sure that it's sphere of influence is geopolitically stabilizing? I don't see how it could be. If I were Russia, or an ally of Russia, an expansionist NATO would be galvanizing for me and would accelerate a counterbalance alliance. Creating a potentially entrenched conflict in countries that have surface-to-surface access to Moscow would be in my be…

You do realize that Russia invading a peaceful country that was turning more towards democracy and away from dictatorships like Russia is what pushed Sweden and Finland into NATO, in fear of Russia invading and terror bombing them? Not protecting yourself, and letting Russia do whatever they want, is what countries did to Nazi Germany for years. Have we learned nothing from history?

[flagged]
Post reply on HN