History UsefulNotes / NATO

Currently there are four countries that have indicated they wish to join NATO in the future: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia, and Kosovo. Georgia's 2008 South Ossetia conflict with Russia makes any move towards NATO integration frought with risk. The other three have "Membership Action Plans", though Macedonia's has been held up by Greece over the dispute regarding the former's name. Pretty much the entire rest of NATO sees this as a frivolous objection but accepting new members requires unanimous agreement of the current ones (the only reason it was possible to have both Greece and Turkey as members is that they were brought in simultaneously, and thus neither could block the other). As of 2018, UsefulNotes/{{Colombia}} has also partnered with NATO, being the first South American nation to do so, a move denounced by the left-leaning governments of the region.

NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Set up in Brussels, Belgium to counter the threat of the USSR, it was the effective successor to the informal "Western Allies" of UsefulNotes/WorldWarI and UsefuNotes/WorldWarII, primarily centering upon those nations (the UsefulNotes/UnitedStates, UsefulNotes/{{Britain}}, UsefulNotes/{{France}}, UsefulNotes/{{Canada}}, etc) with the addition of West Germany. With the end of the UsefulNotes/ColdWar, a number of former UsefulNotes/WarsawPact countries joined the alliance, which made the Americans happy -- they got [=MiGs=], Sukhois and T-72s to play with.

Since NATO's ''raison d'être'' was to contain the USSR, it was supposed to be disbanded after the fall of the latter, but it continued to exist, and expand. Currently the NATO members' military budget is more than double that of all non-NATO nations combined. However, many members have not met their obligations to it for a long time, and it is uncertain how willing the western NATO nations would be to go to war to protect the newer, weaker eastern NATO nations at risk of conflict with Russia. NATO also had problems with running out of munitions during the airstrikes against Ghaddafi in Libya. Given that apart from the US, most states in it do barely the bare minimum towards its upkeep, if even that, making it approach PaperTiger status, and jokes that NATO really stands for Needs Americans To Operate. Nowadays, no-one really knows what its purpose is, and for that reason it is very much criticized: many people and governments see it as a mere extension of the U.S. Army, that only serves American interests, while [[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/gates-rebukes-european-allies-in-farewell-speech/2011/06/10/AG9tKeOH_story.html some American officials]] criticize NATO as the U.S. providing military welfare for European allies who don't or can't meaningfully contribute to their own defense; some European countries punching above their weight have historically had the same complaint (lately, Poland has been particularly vocal in complaining about other members' reliance on the American military). Although NATO played a key role in ending conflicts in hotspots like Bosnia, Kosovo, and Libya, there's always an ObligatoryWarCrimeScene in stuff like that, so it's a bit of a mixed bag.

Since NATO's ''raison d'être'' was to contain the USSR, it was supposed to be disbanded after the fall of the latter, but it continued to exist, and expand. Currently the NATO members' military budget is more than double that of all non-NATO nations combined. However, many members have not met their obligations to it for a long time, and it is uncertain how willing the western NATO nations would be to go to war to protect the newer, weaker eastern NATO nations at risk of conflict with Russia. NATO also had problems with running out of munitions during the airstrikes against Ghaddafi in Libya. Given that apart from the US, most states in it do barely the bare minimum towards its upkeep, if even that, making it approach PaperTiger status, and jokes that NATO really stands for Needs Americans To Operate. Nowadays, no-one really knows what its purpose is, and for that reason it is very much criticized: many people and governments see it as a mere extension of the U.S. Army, that only serves American interests, while [[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/gates-rebukes-european-allies-in-farewell-speech/2011/06/10/AG9tKeOH_story.html some American officials]] criticize NATO as the U.S. providing military welfare for European allies who don't or can't meaningfully contribute to their own defense; some European countries punching above their weight have historically had the same complaint (lately, Poland has been particularly vocal in complaining about other members' reliance on the American security teat). Although NATO played a key role in ending conflicts in hotspots like Bosnia, Kosovo, and Libya, there's always an ObligatoryWarCrimeScene in stuff like that, so it's a bit of a mixed bag.

Currently there are four countries that have indicated they wish to join NATO in the future: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia, and Kosovo. Georgia's 2008 South Ossetia conflict with Russia makes any move towards NATO integration frought with risk. The other three have "Membership Action Plans", though Macedonia's has been held up by Greece over the dispute regarding the former's name. Pretty much the entire rest of NATO sees this as a frivolous objection but accepting new members requires unanimous agreement of the current ones (the only reason it was possible to have both Greece and Turkey as members is that they were brought in simultaneously, and thus neither could block the other).

NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Set up in Brussels, Belgium to counter the threat of the USSR, it was the effective successor to the informal "Western Allies" of UsefulNotes/WorldWarI and UsefuNotes/WorldWarII, primarily centering upon those nations (the UsefulNotes/UnitedStates, UsefulNotes/{{Britain}}, UsefulNotes/{{France}}, UsefulNotes/{{Canada}}, etc) with the addition of West Germany. With the end of the UsefulNotes/ColdWar, a number of former WarsawPact countries joined the alliance, which made the Americans happy -- they got [=MiGs=], Sukhois and T-72s to play with.

Compared to the WarsawPact, individual NATO member states during had more freedom and power in the running of things, which led to problems like the lack of unified troop control (all the NATO corps were subordinate to their countries, ''not'' NATO), members often having opposed interests, and other political squabbles that could've led to hesitancy and indecision in potential crises.[[note]]America was by far the most powerful and influential member, not to mention the most aggressive. Most notably, the West Germans, both on account of all the crap from [=WW2=], as well as being right on ground zero in event of a war, saw themselves as prospective chew toys. The French, as always, were difficult to work with. America and Britain were the most cooperative pair.[[/note]] The most prominent example is France, who under UsefulNotes/CharlesDeGaulle actually withdrew the French military from NATO's integrated command structure in 1966 and asked non-French units (mostly American ones) to leave France[[note]]This also forced NATO's headquarters to move from France to Belgium. U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk is said to have asked if that included American soldiers buried in French cemeteries.[[/note]]; de Gaulle pursued this partly out of a desire to maintain French control over its own foreign policy (including the ability to pursue a separate peace with the Soviets in a prospective WorldWarThree) and partly because he bristled at what he saw as a close partnership between the United Kingdom and United States steering NATO's policies. France continued to be part of the alliance (it kept troops in West Germany during the Cold War to assist in its defense and made separate agreements with the US to have French units reintegrate back into NATO's command structure in case war broke out), but compared to the (enforced-by-backroom-strongarming) unity of the Warsaw Pact NATO didn't look as unified.

While Forward Defense satisfied the West Germans in peacetime, there were significant problems with it. It created very little defensive depth. t It was only 250 km from the IGB to the Rhine across the North German Plain and another 250 to the Belgian coast. Most NATO ground units were deployed in only a fraction of that. Moreover, NATO was generally focused on tactical defensive actions with only limited counterattacks to restore the forward edge of the battlefield. There were maldeployments. For example, the British combat area near Hanover was actually garrisoned by a West German division, while the British garrisons were all spread across the old UK Zone of Occupation.

The 1980s saw two supplements to Forward Defense, one immediate and the other more long-term. The first was an attempt to adopt methods that would "make the most" of their situation while keeping in the confines of the existing guidelines. In 1984, General Nigel Bagnall (commander of the Northern Army Group, 1983-85) advocated and partially implemented a plan that called for a strong counterattack element following a mixed positional and mobile defensive battle. The U.S. Army under their [=AirLand=] Battle doctrine sought to introduce a counteroffensive element 75-150 miles into East Germany to disrupt a Soviet attack. While it is debatable if these new methods could actually stop a Soviet attack, they represented a willingness to address shortcomings in the existing war plan.

While Forward Defense satisfied the West Germans in peacetime, there were significant problems with it. It offered very little in the way of defensive depth; there was around around 300 kilometers from the IGB to the Rhine and most NATO ground units were deployed in only a fraction of that. Moreover, NATO was generally focused on tactical defensive actions with only limited counterattacks to restore the forward edge of the battlefield. There were maldeployments. For example, the British combat area near Hanover was actually garrisoned by a West German division, while the British garrisons were all spread across the old UK Zone of Occupation.

NATO's "official" plan in the event of a Warsaw Pact attack changed over the years. During the 1950s the plan was to establish the main defensive line on the Rhine while establishing a delaying zone at the border with East Germany (Inner German Border or IGB). By 1959, they pressed for the main defensive line to shift further east as they did not want to see their most of their country occupied as part of the war plan. This influence shifted NATO's emphasis on Forward Defense--a plan that placed the main battle as close to the IGB as possible. Until the 1960s, both plans involved the massive use of nuclear weapons as part of "Massive Retaliation".

The 1980s saw two supplements to Forward Defense, one immediate and the other more long-term. The first was an attempt to adopt methods that would "make the most" of their situation while keeping in the confines of the existing guidelines. In 1984, General Nigel Bagnall, commander of the Northern Army Group advocated and partially implemented a plan that called for a strong counterattack element following a mixed positional and mobile defensive battle. The U.S. Army under their [=AirLand=] Battle doctrine sought to introduce a counteroffensive element 75-150 miles into East Germany to disrupt a Soviet attack. While it is debatable if these new methods could actually stop a Soviet attack, they represented a willingness to address shortcomings in the existing war plan.

The second element was headed by U.S. General Bernard Rogers (Supreme Allied Commander Europe 1979-87) in 1984. It involved the adoption of "emerging military technology" of the 1980s and implementing then in a strategy called Follow On Forces Attack (FOFA). Under FOFA, NATO would continue to rely on regular ground and air forces to defend West Germany, but they would be assisted by deep strike weapons that would attack enemy concentrations before they were committed to battle. For example, an E-8 JSTARS aircraft could detect tank divisions in Poland entering East Germany, which would be attacked in minutes by long-range missiles carrying guided antitank submunitions. The tank force would be only 40% effective by the time it hit NATO ground forces. The end of the Cold War stopped FOFA's implementation, although Soviet military theorists believed that the associated technologies signed the death warrant for old-style mechanized warfare.

Secondly, NATO rarely trained under a surprise attack scenario. In the 1987 exercise "Certain Strike" in northern Germany, it was assumed that the American forces there (dependent on REFORGER reinforcement) would have the time and foresight to assemble and march an entire army corps to conduct a large counterattack, which may have been an illusory assumption if NATO was surprised for real.

The second element involved the adoption of "emerging military technology" of the 1980s and implementing then in a strategy called Follow On Forces Attack (FOFA). Under FOFA, NATO would continue to rely on regular ground and air forces to defend West Germany, but they would be assisted by deep strike weapons that would attack enemy concentrations before they were committed to battle. For example, an E-8 JSTARS aircraft could detect tank divisions in Poland entering East Germany, which would be attacked in minutes by long-range missiles carrying guided antitank submunitions. The tank force would be only 40% effective by the time it would hit NATO ground forces. The end of the Cold War stopped FOFA's implementation, although Soviet military theorists believed that the associated technologies signed the death warrant for old-style mechanized warfare.

NATO's "official" plan in the event of a Warsaw Pact offensive was a strategy of 'Forward Defense', wherein NATO troops would defend as close to the Inner German Border [IGB] as possible and use tactical nuclear weapons to prevent Warsaw Pact forces from making inroads into Western Germany. In the late 1970s this was replaced by 'Follow-On Forces Attack' doctrine, wherein NATO troops would execute a fighting retreat from the West-East German border before counter-attacking with the aid of reinforcements shipped over from the USA (under the [=ReFORGER=] - Return of [=FORces=] to [[UsefulNotes/{{Germany}} GERmany]] - programme). Under FOFA doctrine tactical nuclear weapons would only be used if the Warsaw Pact gained the upper hand.

While the concepts of Forward Defense and FOFA satisfied the West Germans in peacetime, the fundamental problem with both was that they offered very little in the way of operational depth (Around 300 kilometers from the IGB to the Rhine and most NATO ground units were deployed in only a fraction of that). Moreover NATO paid little attention in general to the operational level of war, which meant that even under FOFA it was unlikely to stop a Soviet offensive operation. Under Forward Defense doctrine [[UsefulNotes/PeaceThroughSuperiorFirepower NATO would have been tossing tactical nukes already from the word 'go', but under FOFA doctrine they would have had to start using them at this point anyway]].

While the concepts of Forward Defense and FOFA satisfied the West Germans in peacetime, the fundamental problem with both was that they offered very little in the way of operational depth (Around 300 kilometers from the IGB to the Rhine and most NATO ground units were deployed in only a fraction of that). Moreover NATO paid little attention in general to the operational level of war, which meant that even under FOFA it was unlikely to stop a Soviet offensive operation. Under Forward Defense doctrine [[SuperiorFirepower NATO would have been tossing tactical nukes already from the word 'go', but under FOFA doctrine they would have had to start using them at this point anyway]].

** UsefulNotes/{{Kosovo}}

Currently there are four countries that have indicated they wish to join NATO in the future: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia, and Montenegro. Georgia's 2008 South Ossetia conflict with Russia makes any move towards NATO integration frought with risk. The other three have "Membership Action Plans", though Macedonia's has been held up by Greece over the dispute regarding the former's name. Pretty much the entire rest of NATO sees this as a frivolous objection but accepting new members requires unanimous agreement of the current ones (the only reason it was possible to have both Greece and Turkey as members is that they were brought in simultaneously, and thus neither could block the other).

Currently there are five countries that have indicated they wish to join NATO in the future: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Montenegro. Of these, Kosovo is unlikely to get anywhere in the near future due to its tenuous diplomatic situation (four NATO members don't even recognize it) and Georgia's 2008 South Ossetia conflict with Russia makes any move towards NATO integration frought with risk. The other three have "Membership Action Plans", though Macedonia's has been held up by Greece over the dispute regarding the former's name. Pretty much the entire rest of NATO sees this as a frivolous objection but accepting new members requires unanimous agreement of the current ones (the only reason it was possible to have both Greece and Turkey as members is that they were brought in simultaneously, and thus neither could block the other).

Compared to the WarsawPact, individual NATO member states during had more freedom and power in the running of things, which led to problems like the lack of unified troop control (all the NATO corps were subordinate to their countries, ''not'' NATO), members often having opposed interests, and other political squabbles that could've led to hesitancy and indecision in potential crises.[[note]]America was by far the most powerful and influential member, not to mention the most aggressive. Most notably, the West Germans, both on account of all the crap from WW2, as well as being right on ground zero in event of a war, saw themselves as prospective chew toys. The French, as always, were difficult to work with. America and Britain were the most cooperative pair.[[/note]] The most prominent example is France, who under UsefulNotes/CharlesDeGaulle actually withdrew the French military from NATO's integrated command structure in 1966 and asked non-French units (mostly American ones) to leave France[[note]]This also forced NATO's headquarters to move from France to Belgium. U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk is said to have asked if that included American soldiers buried in French cemeteries.[[/note]]; de Gaulle pursued this partly out of a desire to maintain French control over its own foreign policy (including the ability to pursue a separate peace with the Soviets in a prospective WorldWarThree) and partly because he bristled at what he saw as a close partnership between the United Kingdom and United States steering NATO's policies. France continued to be part of the alliance (it kept troops in West Germany during the Cold War to assist in its defense and made separate agreements with the US to have French units reintegrate back into NATO's command structure in case war broke out), but compared to the (enforced-by-backroom-strongarming) unity of the Warsaw Pact NATO didn't look as unified.

According to TheOtherWiki, [[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_non-NATO_ally Major non-NATO ally]] refers to the countries that are close US allies but aren't members of NATO. They receive the benefits of being an US ally other non-NATO nations do not receive. They are:

Five other countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Moldova, and Ukraine[[note]]The Crimean Crisis has caused significant issues to arise in terms of Ukrainian admission into NATO[[/note]]) have rather extensive cooperation arrangements with NATO but don't wish to actually join for various reasons.

During the UsefulNotes/ColdWar, the USSR liked to test NATO reaction time. A lot. They'd send [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95 Tu-95 bombers]] towards the UK and Norway, or even up towards Canada, keeping their tail guns pointed upwards to show they weren't actually hostile, then got escorted out by NATO fighters. They also did "Bear" runs to Cuba and back.[[note]]The story goes that NATO soldiers would bring along copies of ''{{Playboy}}'' to show the "Bear" crews (the USSR banned porn).[[/note]]

NATO has a massive number of mutual standards in the the weaponry field (known as [=STANAGs=], or '''Stan'''dardisation '''Ag'''reements), with the two standard rifle calibres used by them actually being called 5.56x45mm NATO and 7.62x51mm NATO in other publications. Since 1980, NATO rifles also have standardised magazine dimensions, with the 20- and 30-round magazines of the American [[CoolGuns/AssaultRifles M16 family]] being used in nearly all other 5.56mm assault rifles in NATO.[[note]]Ironically, despite this standard (STANAG 4179) being the most famous of them all, with the magazines being referred to as "STANAG magazines" even by gun owners who don't know what STANAG means, it and the accompanying STANAG 4181 (for the stripper clip and guide tool used to quickly load M16 magazines) were never actually ratified, making NATO members' compliance optional.[[/note]] The idea was to share logistical support in times of war by having everyone's guns use the same ammo, even if often it seemed like mostly acquiescing to whatever whim America had about calibers (first 7.62x51, then 5.56x45), with the exception of adopting the German 9x19mm round for handguns instead of the American .45 ACP (11.43x25).

NATO has a massive number of mutual standards in the the weaponry field (known as [=STANAGs=], or '''Stan'''dardisation '''Ag'''reements), with the two standard rifle calibres used by them actually being called 5.56x45mm NATO and 7.62x51mm NATO in other publications. Since 1980, NATO rifles also have standardised magazine dimensions, with the 20- and 30-round magazines of the American [[CoolGuns/AssaultRifles M16 family]] being used in nearly all other 5.56mm assault rifles in NATO.[[note]]Ironically, despite this standard (STANAG 4179) being the most famous of them all, with the magazines being referred to as "STANAG magazines" even by gun owners who don't know what STANAG means, it and the accompanying STANAG 4181 (for the stripper clip and guide tool used to quickly load M16 magazines) were never actually ratified, making NATO members' compliance optional.[[/note]] The idea was to share logistical support in times of war by having everyone's guns use the same ammo, even if often it seemed like mostly acquiescing to whatever whim America had about calibers (first 7.62x51, then 5.56x45), with the exception of adopting the German 9x19mm round for handguns versus the American .45 ACP (11.43x25).

NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Set up to counter the threat of the USSR, it was the effective successor to the informal "Western Allies" of UsefulNotes/WorldWarI and UsefuNotes/WorldWarII, primarily centering upon those nations (the UsefulNotes/UnitedStates, UsefulNotes/{{Britain}}, UsefulNotes/{{France}}, UsefulNotes/{{Canada}}, etc) with the addition of West Germany. With the end of the UsefulNotes/ColdWar, a number of former WarsawPact countries joined the alliance, which made the Americans happy -- they got [=MiGs=], Sukhois and T-72s to play with.

NATO has a massive number of mutual standards in the the weaponry field (known as [=STANAGs=], or '''Stan'''dardisation '''Ag'''reements), with the two standard rifle calibres used by them actually being called 5.56x45mm NATO and 7.62x51mm NATO in other publications. Since 1980, NATO rifles also have standardised magazine dimensions, with the 20- and 30-round magazines of the American [[CoolGuns/AssaultRifles M16 family]] being used in nearly all other 5.56mm assault rifles in NATO.[[note]]Ironically, despite this standard (STANAG 4179) being the most famous of them all, with the magazines being referred to as "STANAG magazines" even by gun owners who don't know what STANAG means, it and the accompanying STANAG 4181 (for the stripper clip and guide tool used to quickly load M16 magazines) were never actually ratified, making NATO members' compliance optional.[[/note]] The idea was to share logistical support in times of war by having everyone's guns use the same ammo, even if oftentimes it seemed like this seemed like mostly acquiescing to whatever whim America had about calibers (first 7.62x51, then 5.54x45), with the exception of adopring 9x19 for handguns versus America .45 ACP (11.43x25).

->"''Keep the Americans in, the Soviets out and the Germans down.''"

NATO's "official" plan in the event of a Warsaw Pact offensive was a strategy of 'Forward Defense', wherein NATO troops would defend as close to the Inner German Border [IGB] as possible and use tactical nuclear weapons to prevent Warsaw Pact forces from making inroads into Western Germany. In the late 1970s this was replaced by 'Follow-On Forces Attack' doctrine, wherein NATO troops would execute a fighting retreat from the West-East German border before counter-attacking with the aid of reinforcements shipped over from the USA (under the ReFORGER - Return of FORces to GERmany - programme). Under FOFA doctrine tactical nuclear weapons would only be used if the Warsaw Pact gained the upper hand.

* ''VideoGame/{{ArmA}}: NATO as a whole features as a playable faction in ArmA 2: [[ExpansionPack Operation Arrowhead]], and in ArmA 3.

NATO's "official" plan in the event of a Warsaw Pact offensive was the strategy of Forward Defense, where NATO troops would defend as close to the Inner German Border [IGB] as possible. While the concept satisfied the West Germans in peacetime, the problem with Forward Defense was that it offered very little in the way of operational depth (Around 300 kilometers from the IGB to the Rhine and most NATO ground units were deployed in only a fraction of that) and NATO paid less attention to the operational level of war, which meant that it would not likely to stop a Soviet mechanized offensive and then the [[SuperiorFirepower tactical nukes start flying]]... the problem is that NATO [[IKnowYouKnow knew this]] and that it was highly unlikely to stop any dedicated Warsaw Pact push cold just past the IGB. So by and large they also intended to use the West Germans and any neutral nations the Soviets invaded as speed bumps while they would regroup in depth and fight-and win- the war further West with their backs to the wall. How well this would have turned out is a question...

During the ColdWar, the USSR liked to test NATO reaction time. A lot. They'd send [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95 Tu-95 bombers]] towards the UK and Norway, or even up towards Canada, keeping their tail guns pointed upwards to show they weren't actually hostile, then got escorted out by NATO fighters. They also did "Bear" runs to Cuba and back.[[note]]The story goes that NATO soldiers would bring along copies of ''{{Playboy}}'' to show the "Bear" crews (the USSR banned porn).[[/note]]