Nato
Nato Pros and Cons, Advantages and disadvantages in overview. Pros and Cons List
Balanced since the start. Over the last 12 months, Cons lead with 100%.
- Since the start (May 2014)5,247 votes52% Pros48% Cons
- Last 5 years4,298 votes51% Pros49% Cons
- Last 12 months16 votes0% Pros100% Cons
- Last 30 days1 vote0% Pros100% Cons
Year by year new votes per year
| Year | New votes, pros and cons | Majority | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 100% Cons | 1 | |
| 2023 | 54% Pros | 132 | |
| 2022 | 51% Pros | 1,736 | |
| 2021 | 52% Cons | 1,539 | |
| 2020 | 55% Pros | 759 | |
| 2019 | 58% Pros | 149 | |
| 2018 | 50% Pros | 368 | |
| 2017 | 60% Cons | 315 | |
| 2016 | 73% Pros | 168 | |
| 2015 | 100% Pros | 49 | |
| 2014 | 68% Pros | 31 | |
| Total | 51.5% Pros | 5,247 |
This list is also available in German: Nato
- Top post
Gives smaller states a security
- Top post
USA in focus
Association of different countries
All NATO member states are puppets of the USA
Deterrence
Spending 900 billion euros per year on armaments
Better collaboration
ridiculous
The most decisive advantage of NATO for me is the deterrent effect it has on other, non-NATO countries.
Nuclear Doctrine
NATO's terms of accession call for civilian control of the military and respect for human rights.
The Nato possesses nuclear weapons
Support
one-sided view (western determined)
Combating international terrorism
Securing Peace as a Military Alliance is a Contradiction
Alignment of interests
Its all a lie
much better cooperation
Counterpart to the Warsaw Pact, which no longer exists. Justification for existence doubtful
Makes people feel safer
NATO was a counterpart to the Warsaw Pact. Since this alliance no longer exists since 1991, NATO is also pointless.
Defense and security
Too much bureaucracy/ Long decision-making processes
Multicultural
Complicates/impedes diplomatic solutions
NATO is not the counterpart of the Warsaw Pact, but vice versa. Accordingly, it is not obliged to dissolve.
Only old white men
NATO has a much broader threat spectrum today than during the Cold War (e.g. worsening security situation in the Middle East + Africa).
No alignment of interests
Still deterrent potential
Child of the cold war
Most capable military alliance in the world
Confrontational course (example Crimea, Iraq) often brings negative results
Secures peace without military action, solely through deterrence
Is overrated
NATO remains the only security guarantor for the Federal Republic of Germany
Is like the EU, only with USA and Canada
Community of values
concealed propaganda against the Eastern states such as Russia or China. Worsens the economy of others like by preventing Nordstream 2.
Helps promote the multilateral world order
I do not send my children to the front
If the UN is unable to act in a critical situation due to the veto power of the permanent members - NATO acts anyway
Unnecessary nowadays
Provides military protection and guarantees security
Allied Command Transformation (ACD) in the U.S. city of Norfolk, Virginia.
Saves us from near-death experiences
cumbersome decision-making and too much bureaucracy
Military assistance to member states
Does not involve the company and contains information outside them
Stronger together - more resources for defense
are compulsively obliged to provide protection for each other
Reduction of the risk of attack
Acts without UN mandates - that is contrary to international law
Protection for Eastern Europe
The UN is a better institution than NATO because it incorporates the interests of more countries.
For all opponents of NATO, what would we look like without them? You have forgotten that there is also war in this world and now also in Europe again.
Terrorist states like Israel and USA are under protection
Can greatly advance medical research
Alone all the tanks and the military in Hamburg no country takes a stand on this and does not enlighten us
Helps with humanitarian crises
Illegal attack on Libya
Strong international statement
Germany spends more money on NATO defense than on its own Bundeswehr - Military alliance more important than national defense?
Oppression of various minorities
Imperialist-militarist alliance to secure Western neocolonial interests.
No country can be oppressed in it
Has disgraced many states in the Orient than helped. Fight against terrorism means also fight against terrorist states!
Without NATO, Germany in particular would have no chance in the event of war due to its poor defense equipment
Out-of-area operations
Financially and socially it makes no sense
Microaggressions on the way
Like a gang in the schoolyard that controls everything
flexible alliances are of greater importance today
Some states are in that don't need it as badly as others.
Is not designed for new threat situations
USA not a reliable partner e.g. Trump
NATO becomes unnecessary due to own successes e.g. democratization EU
If a NATO state is attacked, there will be a World War 3.
Values Community has moved away from values
NATO does not include all interests of the 30 countries Despite North Atlantic Council
We do not need Nato and EU. Nato is a provocation, see Ukraine war. This is the result of Nato eastward expansion. Nato countries USA vassals.