This episode is brought to you by Dashlane.
Try Dashlane Premium free for 30 days at www.dashlane.com/infographics and never forget another password and keep
all your online accounts secure!
Here at The Infographics Show we come up with all kinds of interesting topics and ideas
to research for your entertainment, but sometimes we like answering a question directly from
you, the fans.
Today we're going to look at a huge what-if scenario, submitted by fan Jochi, who asked
us what would happen if the US were to pull out of NATO?
Concern for an American withdrawal from NATO is not without precedent.
Famously, now-President Trump often bemoaned the alliance during the 2016 election, saying
that the US should pull out of it and that it no longer served American interests to
remain in NATO.
While that statement was not just completely factually incorrect, it ultimately proved
to be nothing more than political grandstanding for votes, and the US today firmly remains
in NATO.
Yet American sentiments on both sides of the political aisle that European member states
don't pull their fair share within the alliance are not without merit.
Per a 2014 agreement, each nation is meant to fund its military at 2% of GDP, with 20%
of that spent on equipment.
After World War II the US was happy to bear the majority cost of defending Europe as European
nations rebuilt themselves after World War II.
However, over the next almost seven decades, nations would consistently fail to meet funding
goals, and when President Trump took office in 2016, only Britain and the US were meeting
that 2% goal.
Today Greece, Britain, Estonia and Poland are the only nations to meet or exceed 2%
spending, though 15 total nations of the 29 member states are on track to meet that goal
sometime in the 2020s.
Simply put, many Americans are tired of bearing the cost of defending Europe while Europeans
seem generally disinterested in doing so.
In fact the atrophying of Europe's defense industry is largely thanks to the security
umbrella that the US has provided for almost seven decades, and with thousands of American
servicemen stationed across Europe, European nations have traditionally seen little need
to be responsible for their own defense past a token force.
So, what if America said enough is enough, and decided to withdraw from NATO, what would
happen to the alliance and how could it fair in war against say China or Russia?
First, if the US packed up all its toys and went home, a whopping 75% of military hardware
on the continent would suddenly disappear, along with about 50,000 troops.
The United States operates its military on a total war footing, meaning that it dedicates
resources to ensure supremacy in all areas of warfare: land, sea, air, space and cyberspace.
Few other nations however match this capability, and most NATO forces aside from France, Italy,
Spain, Turkey, and the UK don’t have a diverse enough military to carry out a true combined
arms war against a modern adversary such as Russia.
The most immediate problem NATO would face would be a severe lack of space-based communications
and intelligence assets, as the majority of NATO's space resources are American, and American
units process and disseminate this information to NATO partners.
The second major obstacle for NATO would be a lack of transportation assets.
In our previous video, The United States Vs The World, we showed you that in a total global
war against the US, the American military would be able to fight the world's militaries
to a draw, and prevent any invasion of the American homeland.
This is due to two factors: the United States Navy and its transportation capabilities.
Simply put, the world lacks enough military transportation capability, and the naval assets
to defend that cargo, to ever threaten the United States.
Guns aren't worth a damn if you can't bring them to the battlefield, or if they get sunk
enroute.
Take China for example, a modern military power with a huge thorn in its side: Taiwan.
The tiny island defiantly refuses reunification with the mainland, and yet though the Chinese
military greatly dwarfs the small Taiwanese forces, China is completely incapable of crossing
the 110 miles (180 km) to get to the island.
It lacks the air and naval transportation capabilities to pull this very tiny trip off,
and any attempt to invade Taiwan by China's juggernaut military would end in a total bloodbath
for the People's Liberation Army.
NATO however is in an even worse position for transporting troops and equipment to a
modern battlefield.
During the Falklands War between Great Britain and Argentina, had Argentina used its navy
more efficiently it would have absolutely trounced British forces, due to the low numbers
that Britain could successfully ferry across the Atlantic at a time.
Even with the objective being the securing of a tiny strip of islands, Britain could
barely manage to procure enough transportation capability to conduct a maritime assault,
and had to press civilian ships into service.
Even then it was covert American assistance that saw Britain's task force ships refueled
enroute to the Falklands, and American aircraft that flew British personnel to Ascension Island,
a staging ground for the invasion.
It was also American satellite intelligence that averted a potential total defeat, when
the CIA informed the British that their invasion force would be going up against two to three
times the number of defenders they originally believed they would be facing.
In modern times, things haven't gotten much better, and the British navy has actually
shrunk in size.
Several ships have even had to be cannibalized of crew so that Britain's new aircraft carriers
could be activated.
The French and Italians are in a better position to move NATO troops around, but even their
current fleets don't allow those nations to do much more than small expeditionary sorties,
such as France's current ongoing counter-terrorism operations in Africa.
In essence, NATO would be all but paralyzed as it tried to move troops and equipment to
war fronts due to a severe shortage of transportation assets.
The best that NATO could manage would be a European defense, as the alliance has absolutely
no capability to respond to threats outside of the European theater.
A war with China would thus be impossible, although to be fair, China itself also cannot
wage war outside of its own borders.
The third problem that NATO would face would be the leadership vacuum caused by the US's
exit from the alliance.
Without any other nation being truly militarily superior, though France is certainly neck
and shoulders above others, it would be difficult to determine just who would run the alliance
during war time.
A crisis against Russia would require a unified command structure, and right now, no nation
seems capable of stepping in and filling that role.
Thanks to the disastrous decision to leave the EU, Britain would likely be far too resented
by the other Euro powers to allow it to lead, and highly divisive internal politics in France
and Germany would likely preclude them from taking leadership.
Turkey is today seen by many as a rather reluctant partner in NATO, and where war to break out
between a divided NATO and Russia, there is no telling if Turkey would honor its commitment
to the alliance.
But let's say that NATO did manage to pull itself together enough to resist a Russian
invasion- if for some reason Russia did want to invade.
Well, right now NATO's easternmost neighbors, such as Estonia and Latvia, face about 46
battalions of Russian tanks, infantry, and other forces.
By comparison, NATO has only 11 battalions currently defending that area, and most of
those forces are light infantry forces with little heavy equipment.
NATO could effectively surge an additional 8 battalions in an emergency, but 7 of those
battalions right now would be American.
Without the US, NATO could only surge a single battalion to an eastern emergency, bringing
NATO troop numbers to 12 battalions versus Russia's 46.
Not only would NATO forces be initially outnumbered, but Russia could call up to 20 million reservists
relatively quickly, while NATO has varying levels of readiness on a nation by nation
basis.
In the air, NATO and Russia have a relative parity, with both nations having roughly the
same amount of fighter aircraft.
However, Russia has an advantage in attack aircraft, numbering 1,459, versus NATO's approximately
1,300.
Russia without a doubt fields the best air defense system in the world, in the S-300,
400, and the new 500 model, and without American stealth assets or long-range cruise missiles
to destroy these systems or the command and control nodes that support them, NATO air
forces would be savaged as long as Russia advanced slowly across Europe, allowing time
for its air defenses to reposition and cover troop movements.
Targeting would also be a major problem for NATO forces, who would no longer have access
to American recon assets or satellites to relay information on enemy troop movements
and locations.
With a massive advantage in electronic warfare, Russian forces could potentially make coordination
and communication between NATO forces very difficult.
On the ground, Russian tank forces would dwarf NATO forces, with roughly 20,000 tanks at
its disposal versus NATO's 3,600.
Granted, many of Russia's stated tank numbers are actually cold war era relics which would
require weeks of maintenance to make combat worthy, but even without these Russia still
fields a very sizable force of modern and post-modern, but still capable tanks.
A more accurate Russian number would be 2,600 of immediately available tanks, though no
doubt many of those in reserve would be reactivated in the buildup to war.
With almost 4,000 rocket artillery though, Russia would decimate NATO forces, who can
barely field 400 units of their own.
Traditionally NATO relied on more accurate air power rather than ground artillery, but
most of that air power was American in nature and now no longer available.
While Russia also has an advantage in traditional artillery, rocket artillery is especially
devastating as it allows the launching of massive amounts of firepower in a very short
time, not giving the defenders a chance to relocate or dig in to defensive positions.
Russia's advantage in this arena would leave NATO forces struggling to pull themselves
together in an environment that would look like the cratered surface of the moon.
Although NATO could field about 2 million personnel versus Russia's 1 million, these
personnel all have varying degrees of readiness, as does their equipment.
Famously, Germany's air force was discovered to be completely incapable of carrying out
war time operations this past summer due to a shortage of personnel and equipment both.
Its navy also faces similar problems, leaving in question the utility of a keystone member
of a European-only alliance.
Turkey also makes up the bulk of European NATO forces, and given its strained relation
with other NATO members, and a lack of strong leadership should the US step out of the alliance,
it's not known if Turkey would support NATO in a war against Russia.
NATO could not hope to operate in the short term without the US's continued support, though
there is hope that if the US left and there was no immediate emergency, the alliance could
manage to pull itself together in time and become a fighting force capable of at least
defending Europe.
With the balance of global power shifting across the Atlantic to the Pacific in a new
tug of war between the US and China though, NATO will have to greatly expand its expeditionary
capabilities if it doesn't want to live in a world dominated by China's influence, and
under global rules imposed by the Chinese communist party.
If NATO wanted to remain viable in war without the United States, then immediate steps must
be taken to address critical shortfalls in key areas.
A dramatic expansion of expeditionary capabilities would be critical not just for fighting conflicts
far from home, but to rapidly move forces to potential flashpoints with Russia.
This means a larger naval transport fleet and the surface and undersea assets to protect
those ships, as well as a huge expansion of current air transportation fleets.
Next, the alliance would have to address a critical lack of space assets, as without
US support the meager European space infrastructure that does exist would be very quickly dismantled
in war.
While the US has a fleet of ready-to-deploy space assets in case of wartime attrition
of current assets, as well as the space government and civilian infrastructure to launch those
assets, Europe largely lacks the physical hardware to replace any current losses in
space, though it at least has adequate delivery solutions thanks to the robust European Space
Agency.
Transportation, intelligence, and leadership are NATO's greatest weaknesses without the
US, quickly followed by a severe lack of heavy combat equipment needed to stop a modern combat
force.
Yet these are problems that can be overcome with the refocusing of European military priorities,
and in the long run, NATO could survive without the United States.
For the US's part, any talk of leaving the alliance would be tantamount to shooting itself
in the foot, even if anger at shouldering the bulk of the cost of European defense is
itself not without merit.
European forces have proven steadfast allies for the United States in a variety of conflicts,
and the seven decades of peace in Europe are a testament to the ultimate victory of NATO,
which has so far succeeded with all members united in preventing a future war.
Traditional warfare isn’t the only threat that might follow the US pulling out of NATO.
Cyberwars between huge nations don’t just target each others military forces, but regular
people like you and me.
And it’s your data and online identity that they are after so you need to make sure you
keep it all secure.
For that reason we here at The Infographics Show have been using Dashlane, the one and
only tool you need to stay safe and secure online!
With a VPN, password generator, and breach alerts, for when websites you have logins
for suffer breaches or hacks, Dashlane will actively work to protect you across all your
devices and online accounts so you don’t have to.
So protect yourself from both the government backed and the everyday hackers by heading
on over to www.dashlane.com/infographics for a free 30 day trial, and if you use the coupon
code ‘infographics’ you can get 10% off a premium subscription today!
Do you think the US would ever actually leave NATO?
What do you think would really happen if they did.
Tell us your theories in the comments!
Then go watch “The United States (USA) vs The World - Who Would Win?”
If you've got your own question for us to answer, hit us up on our website and email
us and don't forget to Like, Share, and Obey!