This House believes European NATO member governments should significantly reduce their armed forces

NATO is an alliance of 28 states from Europe and North America.[1] It was founded in 1949 at the start of the Cold War to provide for the collective defense of its members, and for much of its history was focused on the military threat posed by the forces of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. Since the end of the Cold War in 1989, the direct military threat to NATO’s European member states has substantially diminished and NATO has transformed itself to additionally include crisis management beyond its borders and collective security amongst its tasks. This requires substantial investment by its member states to modernize their armed forces to be deployable and sustainable overseas. More recently, the long term effects of the global financial crisis have underlined the strain that defense expenditure puts on the governments of the member states. And, under the terms of NATO’s Treaty, its European member states should still be able to expect military assistance from the United States and Canada in the event of an attack.  Should NATO’s European members reduce their armed forces?

[1] “The North Atlantic Treaty Organization“.



Bergman, Jay. “NATO Past and Present, and Why the Obama Administration Values it”. April 2nd, 2011., P.R. . ‘Nuclear Restraint, Nuclear Risk Reduction, and the Security-Insecurity Paradox inSouth Asia’ in: Michael Krepon (ed.), Nuclear Risk Reduction in South Asia (New York 2004).“Defence secretary forced to defend 11,000 ‘sad’ job cuts after redundancies branded ‘disgraceful’”. Daily Mail. March 2nd, 2011.“What future for the Armed Forces?” Defence Management. July 30th, 2010.“Strategic environment,” Department of National Defense (Canada),, Alan M. Why Terrorism Works. Publ. 2002., Gareth. “NATO and the Responsibility to Protect.” March 31st, 2009., Robert, “Transcript of Defense Secretary Gates’s Speech on NATO’s Future”, The Wall Street Journal, June 10, 2011“Russian Military Budget,,, Michael.  “MIRAGE OF DEFENSE: REEXAMINING ARTICLE FIVE OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY AFTER THE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON THE UNITED STATES”., Gaby. “Are we Getting Ready for the Wrong War?” The Observer. June 28th, 2009., Peter. The Strategic Consequences of Nuclear Proliferation, Security Studies, Vol.4, No.4, 1995, Chairman of the National Intelligence Council“Libya mission may cost UK £260 million”. BBC News, UK Politics. June 23rd, 2011., John J.  Winter 1994-95.  [Prof in the Poli Sci Dept at the University of Chicago.]  The False Promise of International Institutions.  International Security.  Vol. 19, No. 3.  pp. 5-49.  Pg. 10.  JSTOR.  CEDMoelwyn-Hughes, Owen. The Telegraph. October 26th, 2010.“The North Atlantic Treaty”. North Atlantic Treaty Organization. April 4th, 1949. “Financial and Economic Data Relating to Defence.”, Richard, “Armed forces are ‘overstretched’ says Commons defence committee”,, February 9th 2010,, Alasdair. “Forget about Nuclar Deterrence if Terrorists get a Bomb.”  The Age.  April 30, 2008.Sofaer, Abraham D. On the Necessity of Pre-emption. EJIL (2003), Vol. 14 No. 2, 209–226“NATO and Nuclear Weapons.” The Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy.“NATO will protect its members with missile defence system”. The Lithuania Tribune. February 10th, 2011.“Strategic Concept For the Defence and Security of The Members of the North Atlantic TreatyOrganisation,” North Atlantic Treaty Organization, November 2010,, Tomas. “Surviving austerity: The case for a new approach to EU military collaboration.”, Kenneth. “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better,” International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1981, Geoffrey, “Who Needs NATO?” The New York Times, June, 15 2011,


Or log in with...