If NATO were to be killed, the non-US members would most likely want to create a new alliance just like NATO but without the US in it. So if the US leaves it may be simplest to just tweak the existing one.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 11 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I wonder if Trump knows that the NA stands for North Atlantic.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think I saw a story yesterday where the administration sent out a press release that had it as "American". Not even the chief diaper shitter, apparently someone that gets paid to know better.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 4 points 2 days ago

Stupid is as stupid does.

[–] The_Che_Banana@beehaw.org 2 points 2 days ago

lol, no way

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

A NATO without the US would have many benefits for its members, especially the downstream economic effects it would have.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

NATO doesn't give a lot of economic benefits. A hostile US and Russia would give us the increased defense spending we already have, at least we wouldn't have to buy US equipment.

However it is funny that the US was the entire problem with the TPP and Trump saved us from that. However we still have the CUSMA agreement to free ourselves from.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

A hostile US and Russia would give us the increased defense spending we already have, at least we wouldn't have to buy US equipment.

That's part of what I was referring to. We'd spend this locally or among partners. Right now a lot of NATO spending goes to the US military industrial complex.

Then the other economic impact is that the US loses one more leverage tool to coerce us on various trade disputes. Which means we'd be able to negotiate better deals for us.