Trump says US may abandon automatic protections for Nato countries

[norseamd]

It was a difficult concept to describe in a few words. Quantity is also to an extent important (as well as quality).

In some cases, because the US could make some things in amazingly large quantities, and quickly. That fact alone, was of considerable help, to the allies.

E.g. Although the British were losing huge amounts of (tonnage) merchant ships, due to the highly successful u-boats early on in WW2. The British being an isolated island would have got into dire supplies (especially food) trouble.

But fortunately the US were able to keep up, and create vast numbers of new ships, due to their clever, advanced very quick ship building capabilities.

Although the German tanks were much better than the US ones. The US could make many more of theirs, so they had about 10 of the US tanks, per 1 of the Germans. So they were able to defeat the German tanks, by simply lasting until the German tanks ran out of fuel. They were then sitting ducks and much easier to deal with.

I have seen articles and stuff, expressing big concerns, that although the Chinese have at least slightly inferior stuff. They have so much of it, and can produce so many of them, that the sheer quantities, may make them a winning force, all on its own.

Which is similar (or the same) as you said in your post.

If you notice, the American WW2 strategy, and the American post-war strategy, are noticeably different.

Also, the German armored force was not superior in technology until later in the war. The French armor is well noted as have being significantly superior. However it was strategy and tactics that allowed the Germans to shatter the Polish, French, British, and early in Operation Barbarossa, the Russians as well. In fact, despite the Germans having some Panzer 3 and Panzer 4 in their armies at the start of the war, much of the German armored corps was still Panzer 1 and Panzer 2. By the end of the war, the only vehicles I can think of the Germans producing in any significant numbers are the Panzer 4 and Stug 3.

Here are some fairly decent documentaries if you want to learn more. It includes one episode about the less known German development of self-propelled artillery that are so commonly used today.

German War Files - Panzer: Germany's ultimate war machine - YouTube
German War Files - Panzer I - II Light Tanks - YouTube
German War Files - Panzer III Medium Tanks - YouTube
German War Files - Panzer IV Heavy Tank - YouTube
German War Files - Panther, The Panzer V - YouTube
German War Files - Tiger - Heavy Tank Panzer VI - YouTube
German War Files - Stug III, IV Assault Guns - YouTube
German War Files - Hummel, Mobile Artillery - YouTube
German War Files - Military Vehicles And Half Tracks - YouTube
German War Files - Guns Of The Werhmacht - YouTube
German War Files - Fighter Aircraft '39 - '42 - YouTube
German War Files - Fighter Aircraft '42 - '45 - YouTube
German War Files: Dive Bombers And Combat Aircraft - YouTube
German War Files - Bombers And Bombing Raids '42-'45 - YouTube
German War Files - German Night Flyers - YouTube
German War Files - Support Aircraft and Gliders - YouTube
German War Files - Jet Aircraft, V1, V2 - YouTube

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

If you notice, the American WW2 strategy, and the American post-war strategy, are noticeably different.

Also, the German armored force was not superior in technology until later in the war. The French armor is well noted as have being significantly superior. However it was strategy and tactics that allowed the Germans to shatter the Polish, French, British, and early in Operation Barbarossa, the Russians as well. In fact, despite the Germans having some Panzer 3 and Panzer 4 in their armies at the start of the war, much of the German armored corps was still Panzer 1 and Panzer 2. By the end of the war, the only vehicles I can think of the Germans producing in any significant numbers are the Panzer 4 and Stug 3.

Here are some fairly decent documentaries if you want to learn more. It includes one episode about the less known German development of self-propelled artillery that are so commonly used today.

German War Files - Panzer: Germany's ultimate war machine - YouTube
German War Files - Panzer I - II Light Tanks - YouTube
German War Files - Panzer III Medium Tanks - YouTube
German War Files - Panzer IV Heavy Tank - YouTube
German War Files - Panther, The Panzer V - YouTube
German War Files - Tiger - Heavy Tank Panzer VI - YouTube
German War Files - Stug III, IV Assault Guns - YouTube
German War Files - Hummel, Mobile Artillery - YouTube
German War Files - Military Vehicles And Half Tracks - YouTube
German War Files - Guns Of The Werhmacht - YouTube
German War Files - Fighter Aircraft '39 - '42 - YouTube
German War Files - Fighter Aircraft '42 - '45 - YouTube
German War Files: Dive Bombers And Combat Aircraft - YouTube
German War Files - Bombers And Bombing Raids '42-'45 - YouTube
German War Files - German Night Flyers - YouTube
German War Files - Support Aircraft and Gliders - YouTube
German War Files - Jet Aircraft, V1, V2 - YouTube

Towards the end of WW2, Germany had some amazing weapon developments, but fortunately (for the allies) lacked the resources, to complete on them.
Their latest submarines/u-boats, the type XXI, were technologically amazing. They could operate mostly underwater (unlike earlier subs), and even had automatic homing torpedoes, which had electronics which listened to the enemy ships, with microphones. To aim, chase and blow it up.

Thanks for all the youtube links. I will look forward to watching them. I've already started, and liked what I have seen. But on the other hand war is such a horrible thing.

The details about WW2 are really fascinating. Such as that shells, had tiny electronic radars built into them (Allies), to detect when it was at the optimum position to blow up. This was very useful for fighting soldiers who were in dug out trenches, because it could blow up on top of them (tens of feet above ground), which was way more effective than ground strike based fuzes.
Even more effective was the radar could detect aircraft, and hence blow up when it was near an aircraft, so it was much more likely to hit one.
There were several electronic valves (tubes), and lots of other circuitry squeezed inside the shell.

I bet (and hope) that modern day Nato, has lots of really good, stuff like that (in WW2), some of which is presumably secret ?

The "secret" Hilary wikileaks emails, seem to paint a very dire picture of Trump as President. With them seeming to imply, that he would make a terrible mess of things, as regards Nato and stuff.

I can just imagine Trump causing a war, somewhere. E.g. With Turkey and/or North Korea etc. Then walking away from the terrible mess he has created and leaving the rest of the world to cope with the terrible fall out, afterwards.
By making silly excuses and just pulling out, after the initial attacks.

I am beginning to worry, that Trump is not just saying stuff for show. He really may do some of the things he says. Even if it creates a giant mess. Just like some of his failed businesses and bankruptcies.

Nato is being challenged by the fact that Turkey is in significant trouble. Trump may push Nato too far, and the organization may buckle as a result.

Some of the military capabilities, such as significant numbers of aircraft carriers, are mainly only from the US. Other countries, only have 1 or 2, if any. Which also tend to be massively smaller than the US ones.

Hopefully everything will turn out for the best. I also wonder what is going to happen about the current ISIS/ISIL situation.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Whats weasel-posting?

I assumed they were refering to this:

A weasel word (also, anonymous authority) is an informal term for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific and/or meaningful statement has been made, when only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated, enabling the specific meaning to be denied if the statement is challenged.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

 

[FrankRamiro]

holy shit am i reading youtube comments? :awe:

No; you are hearing what's been happening,and if you or anybody here say that what i say is not true,then you guys are retarded,or you smoke too much crack.

 

[Jhhnn]

As demonstrated in Vietnam with Hanoi's vastly superior economy compared to the US allowing them to win the battle of attrition.

Please. We never waged war in Vietnam with anything close to our full capabilities and withdrew before the conflict was resolved because the war was insupportable due to domestic politics.

It never was a matter of survival or territorial integrity for us as it would be in a conflict between Nato & the Russian Federation.

 

[Jhhnn]

Israeli wars, post WW2, give some examples of how superior technology, techniques and big determination, can rapidly win wars.

But I agree, sometimes attrition is what wins the war in the end.

I guess there is no single factor, and wars have many facets.

The Arab Israeli wars never were major conflicts because of limited scope & duration.

 

[Jhhnn]

I assumed they were refering to this:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

So, Trump, obviously.

 

[glenn1]

The Arab Israeli wars never were major conflicts because of limited scope & duration.

So if it's a war that you deem "major" then attrition is the key factor. So since you control the definition you've made yourself impossible to be wrong. Nice work.

 

[Jhhnn]

So if it's a war that you deem "major" then attrition is the key factor. So since you control the definition you've made yourself impossible to be wrong. Nice work.

So what you said about Vietnam was erroneous, obviously.

It's easy enough to say what is & what isn't a major conflict if you want to see it.

The six day war only lasted... six days.

 

[glenn1]

So what you said about Vietnam was erroneous, obviously.

It's easy enough to say what is & what isn't a major conflict if you want to see it.

The six day war only lasted... six days.

How about you just admit your wrongness and correct yourself that attrition is a factor in some wars but not most, even the major ones.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

The Arab Israeli wars never were major conflicts because of limited scope & duration.

The Israelis have some of the best armies and fighting techniques, in the world. Maybe even the top ones.

Going in, very rapidly meeting some objectives, then immediately going out again, is actually a very good thing for a number of reasons.

Jumping in and attacking a country (like the US and UK have, as regards some Middle East countries), whereby they just attack and attack, and ten years later, they are still there.
Costs a horrific amount of money, resources and usually has a very high casualty figure. The countries involved by and large do not seem much safer or more stable, either.

E.g. If the US/UK and others had over a 2 or 3 day period, gone into Iraq, taken out some air defenses and moved in forces, to only, take out the main weapons of mass destruction sites, then immediately left. With Saddam still in power.
The overall outcome may have been a lot better for everyone, including Iraq.

It then may have cost massively less money as well. The lives saved would be very significant, I would imagine.

Trying to completely eradicate the existing leadership and its infrastructure, as well as all military capabilities, does not seem to produce any winners.

The US would have needed to have better intelligence information and spy satellites (maybe the existing ones were good enough), so they can minimize where they need to blow up. Otherwise all the sites may be too much to readily bomb.

Better intelligence may have found there were no weapons of mass destruction, or we were somewhat lied to ,and Bush (etc) knew there were none of any significance.

Analogy:
Obama took out Bin Laden, in a very quick, military attack or very short war/skirmish (way too small an attack to call war, really), if you like. A 1 hour tiny war. But if it had been Russia/China or North Korea or somewhere. It could have been a big enough attack to spark a war.

Bush could have done something similar, but taken out a quarter of Pakistan at the same time, and taken years. By creating a war to take out Bin Laden Etc Etc.
So even now Pakistan could be much, much worse than it is now. I.e. very unstable.

 

[glenn1]

The Israelis have some of the best armies and fighting techniques, in the world. Maybe even the top ones.

Going in, very rapidly meeting some objectives, then immediately going out again, is actually a very good thing for a number of reasons.

Jumping in and attacking a country (like the US and UK have, as regards some Middle East countries), whereby they just attack and attack, and ten years later, they are still there.
Costs a horrific amount of money, resources and usually has a very high casualty figure. The countries involved by and large do not seem much safer or more stable, either.

E.g. If the US/UK and others had over a 2 or 3 day period, gone into Iraq, taken out some air defenses and moved in forces, to only, take out the main weapons of mass destruction sites, then immediately left. With Saddam still in power.
The overall outcome may have been a lot better for everyone, including Iraq.

It then may have cost massively less money as well. The lives saved would be very significant, I would imagine.

Trying to completely eradicate the existing leadership and its infrastructure, as well as all military capabilities, does not seem to produce any winners.

The US would have needed to have better intelligence information and spy satellites (maybe the existing ones were good enough), so they can minimize where they need to blow up. Otherwise all the sites may be too much to readily bomb.

Better intelligence may have found there were no weapons of mass destruction, or we were somewhat lied to ,and Bush (etc) knew there were none of any significance.

Analogy:
Obama took out Bin Laden, in a very quick, military attack or very short war/skirmish (way too small an attack to call war, really), if you like. A 1 hour tiny war. But if it had been Russia/China or North Korea or somewhere. It could have been a big enough attack to spark a war.

Bush could have done something similar, but taken out a quarter of Pakistan at the same time, and taken years. By creating a war to take out Bin Laden Etc Etc.
So even now Pakistan could be much, much worse than it is now. I.e. very unstable.

While this is interesting can you please advise how it relates to the OP topic? Namely whether we should continue to continue to shove money into defense of countries which can take care of themselves and have a low likelihood of being attacked anyway. We'd be better off kicking out the Spaniards and Greeks and increasing our aid to the Eastern European countries who are actually at risk and don't try to screw us at every turn.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

While this is interesting can you please advise how it relates to the OP topic? Namely whether we should continue to continue to shove money into defense of countries which can take care of themselves and have a low likelihood of being attacked anyway. We'd be better off kicking out the Spaniards and Greeks and increasing our aid to the Eastern European countries who are actually at risk and don't try to screw us at every turn.

I agree, I was straying too off topic.

But the technique of rapidly going in, reaching some military goals, then going out again. Is maybe a useful lesson for Nato.

I guess part of the problem, is that the smaller/weaker countries can see that the US has already got substantial military capabilities, such as many Aircraft carriers, and a huge number of jet fighters.
So they don't worry that much about having a particularly good military force, themselves. As they are relying on their massively tall friend/brother to step in and defend them, if anyone attacks.

Analogy:
If your wife earns $10,000,000 a year, and the job is 100% safe and secure. As her husband, it would be not so easy to just work in IT, and bring in $60,000 a year. One might get lazy, and not work that hard. Maybe even want to retire early and/or take lots of time off.

With the US having such an enormous military capability. A smaller/poorer country, can't see much point in getting their own (e.g.) aircraft carriers, which would cost billions of $'s and lots of hassle. When they can just rely on the US, "lending" theirs, if the need arises within Nato.

So I suppose it is a sort of viscous circle.

I.e If the US dropped completely out of Nato. Maybe the other countries would get their own aircraft carriers, maybe one per bigger country in Nato. So in time, they would build up their own independent (of the US), forces. France already has their own Aircraft carrier. The UK use to, but will have them again, with 1 or 2 new ones, coming in a number of years.

But that might go against what the US wants. Because the US wants to play a significant role in world politics and stuff. If many other countries, created their own Nato, aircraft carrier fleet. America would probably go down in their influences.

tl;dr
There are costs to being a super-power. Maybe the US needs to choose between being the big partner in Nato, or not being a super power as such. I guess there are a lot of factors, to being a super power.
Maybe one day, China will be the next super power.

 

[Jhhnn]

While this is interesting can you please advise how it relates to the OP topic? Namely whether we should continue to continue to shove money into defense of countries which can take care of themselves and have a low likelihood of being attacked anyway. We'd be better off kicking out the Spaniards and Greeks and increasing our aid to the Eastern European countries who are actually at risk and don't try to screw us at every turn.

Greece? From the graphs, they're coughing up 2.3% of GDP on their military, third behind the US & the UK. Even as the whole country is being shaken down by their creditors. You ought to love 'em.

Putin luvs him some Donald-

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing

It's interesting how Manafort fits into it-

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...e_s_made_a_career_of_reinventing_tyrants.html

Putin would love to crack Nato & Trump's bullshit might just give him an opportunity.

 

[evident]

Trump is a Russian operative

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Trump is a Russian operative

But surely a coincidence, he can't really be working/siding for the (supposedly finished USSR) or Russia can he ?

The Republican nominee for president, Donald J. Trump, has chosen this week to unmask himself as a de facto agent of Russian President Vladimir Putin, a KGB-trained dictator who seeks to rebuild the Soviet empire by undermining the free nations of Europe, marginalizing NATO, and ending America’s reign as the world’s sole superpower.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/07/clinton-trump-putin-nato/492332/

But since Ukraine/Crimea, maybe even that is not 100% out of the question.

Russia accused the US, of implanting people into the top positions of Ukraine. So they could be getting their own back. But surely this is nonsense ?

Please put my mind at rest, that it is a unreliable source. Unfortunately a quick check does NOT show that it is.

EDIT:
I think they are NOT claiming that he is. They mean that from a functional point of view, his (Trumps) possibly crazy policies, may amount to the same thing. Even though there is no real connection.

 

[nickqt]

But surely a coincidence, he can't really be working/siding for the (supposedly finished USSR) or Russia can he ?



http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/07/clinton-trump-putin-nato/492332/

But since Ukraine/Crimea, maybe even that is not 100% out of the question.

Russia accused the US, of implanting people into the top positions of Ukraine. So they could be getting their own back. But surely this is nonsense ?

Please put my mind at rest, that it is a unreliable source. Unfortunately a quick check does NOT show that it is.

EDIT:
I think they are NOT claiming that he is. They mean that from a functional point of view, his (Trumps) possibly crazy policies, may amount to the same thing. Even though there is no real connection.

It isn't that Trump is some Russian Secret Agent.

It's that Trump gets a lot of his money from Russia because all of the banks that Trump has burned in the past (bankruptcy, hello) don't lend him money anymore.

Which is why Trump makes noises that sound as if he gives a shit about the middle class, but it's just one more personal vendetta, against the Western finance industry that won't give Trump money anymore.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

It isn't that Trump is some Russian Secret Agent.

It's that Trump gets a lot of his money from Russia because all of the banks that Trump has burned in the past (bankruptcy, hello) don't lend him money anymore.

Which is why Trump makes noises that sound as if he gives a shit about the middle class, but it's just one more personal vendetta, against the Western finance industry that won't give Trump money anymore.

Unfortunately, I almost added to my original post(s), a similar theory, but if it is true, that is rather worrying.

I did wonder, at around the time I made that post. If Trumps bankruptcies, had ever meant that he received Russian money. If he is getting significant funds from Russia, given that Putin has much disagreement and hostility with the West, but especially the US. That is not good at all.

I've heard that the US presidential election, involves billions of dollars. I would have hoped/thought that it would be protected from big businesses and/or "enemy" countries from installing their own presidents.

N.B. I'm already aware that big business's can significantly influence US politics.

But common sense, strongly says, enemies of the US, must not in any circumstances be able to install their own, "friendly" to the enemies, president. That would just be crazy.

Trump just does not come across to me, as someone I'd want to be holding the "nuclear fire button". His reckless talk on Nato and even giving Nuclear weapons to countries which currently don't have them, sound very worrying.

Ironically, I have heard many rumors that the US has installed "friendly" government leaders, into potentially hostile/problematic countries. It would be so ironic (and so terribly dangerous, as it could start wars and terrible trouble, both within the US, and outside it). If Russia (or another country) did the same back.

I hope Trumps stance on Nato, is not due to corruption and/or external (potentially hostile/enemy) influences.

I've heard that in the US, winning the presidency, basically boils down to who has the most $Billions, to pay to win it.

Damaging Nato could be a Russian plan, so that they can dominate more countries. But it would be in severe danger of causing a big war.

(I might be disliked for saying this) But I don't even like the idea of Trump, having a big influence on Nato. He seems way more concerned about $money, than effectively defending the countries of Nato.

Nato should be defense first, keep costs under control second. If it is done the other way round, before you know it, wars can start and other bad things can follow.

Military things (Nato) should really be somewhat politically independent. I hope Trump (if he wins), does not totally mess things up. Nato is not just the US, it is many of the countries of the West.

EDIT: To avoid misunderstanding. Trump probably doesn't directly work for Russia. But having lots of Russian influence, could be a bad/dangerous thing. A president should really be "neutral".

 

[nickqt]

Unfortunately, I almost added to my original post(s), a similar theory, but if it is true, that is rather worrying.

I did wonder, at around the time I made that post. If Trumps bankruptcies, had ever meant that he received Russian money. If he is getting significant funds from Russia, given that Putin has much disagreement and hostility with the West, but especially the US. That is not good at all.

I've heard that the US presidential election, involves billions of dollars. I would have hoped/thought that it would be protected from big businesses and/or "enemy" countries from installing their own presidents.

N.B. I'm already aware that big business's can significantly influence US politics.

But common sense, strongly says, enemies of the US, must not in any circumstances be able to install their own, "friendly" to the enemies, president. That would just be crazy.

Trump just does not come across to me, as someone I'd want to be holding the "nuclear fire button". His reckless talk on Nato and even giving Nuclear weapons to countries which currently don't have them, sound very worrying.

Ironically, I have heard many rumors that the US has installed "friendly" government leaders, into potentially hostile/problematic countries. It would be so ironic (and so terribly dangerous, as it could start wars and terrible trouble, both within the US, and outside it). If Russia (or another country) did the same back.

I hope Trumps stance on Nato, is not due to corruption and/or external (potentially hostile/enemy) influences.

I've heard that in the US, winning the presidency, basically boils down to who has the most $Billions, to pay to win it.

Damaging Nato could be a Russian plan, so that they can dominate more countries. But it would be in severe danger of causing a big war.

(I might be disliked for saying this) But I don't even like the idea of Trump, having a big influence on Nato. He seems way more concerned about $money, than effectively defending the countries of Nato.

Nato should be defense first, keep costs under control second. If it is done the other way round, before you know it, wars can start and other bad things can follow.

Military things (Nato) should really be somewhat politically independent. I hope Trump (if he wins), does not totally mess things up. Nato is not just the US, it is many of the countries of the West.

EDIT: To avoid misunderstanding. Trump probably doesn't directly work for Russia. But having lots of Russian influence, could be a bad/dangerous thing. A president should really be "neutral".

I'd assume that Trump gets his money from Russian investors, rather than the Russian government. That said, Putin and Trump's mutual respect doesn't surprise me. Birds of a feather, and all that.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

I'd assume that Trump gets his money from Russian investors, rather than the Russian government. That said, Putin and Trump's mutual respect doesn't surprise me. Birds of a feather, and all that.

Hopefully, you are right.
But Russia is so terribly and horribly corrupt. Money coming from Russian investors, could really be partially/fully getting the nudge from Putin and his regime.

Trump is probably severely motivated by money and power. Especially big money. I just hope that the Russians have not got Trump under their spheres of influence.

I also found it weird, that Trump offered to go to North Korea and discuss stuff with them. Maybe it was just political fluff, to make Trump look good to the voters ?

Nato should be free, as much as humanly possible, of possible Russian influences. Otherwise we are up the creek without a paddle.

I heard that Russia has been (over the years), eyeing western techniques and potentially using them. I hope the Russians are not using US techniques (installing US friendly leaders) of how to move countries over to the West. Against us, and Nato.

 

[nickqt]

Hopefully, you are right.
But Russia is so terribly and horribly corrupt. Money coming from Russian investors, could really be partially/fully getting the nudge from Putin and his regime.

Trump is probably severely motivated by money and power. Especially big money. I just hope that the Russians have not got Trump under their spheres of influence.

I also found it weird, that Trump offered to go to North Korea and discuss stuff with them. Maybe it was just political fluff, to make Trump look good to the voters ?

Nato should be free, as much as humanly possible, of possible Russian influences. Otherwise we are up the creek without a paddle.

I heard that Russia has been (over the years), eyeing western techniques and potentially using them. I hope the Russians are not using US techniques (installing US friendly leaders) of how to move countries over to the West. Against us, and Nato.

Here's a recent article in the Washington Post with some information you may be interested in.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...dcaac8-31a6-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html

 

[norseamd]

Here's a recent article in the Washington Post with some information you may be interested in.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...dcaac8-31a6-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html

I was just about to post that.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Here's a recent article in the Washington Post with some information you may be interested in.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...dcaac8-31a6-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html

I was just about to post that.

Thanks that is a very interesting article. It potentially explains a possible motivation (Russian influence), as to why Trump may actually want to damage/dismantle Nato.

I'm in two minds. There are two possibilities, one great, one terrible.

Great:
Trump negotiates peace between the US and Russian nations, ending the "post" cold war, partial-cold-war that seems to have occurred.
This agreement, could give long lasting peace, reduce the risks of a world war 3, and maybe allow even better action against upcoming threats, especially ISIS/ISIL.

Terrible:
I don't particularly trust Putin, and hate the fact that he has damaged Ukraine and stolen Crimea. I also dislike his involvement in Syria, which may have caused the migration crises, or at least not made it better.
If Trump really is in Putins pocket, we could be in for some nasty surprises.

Presumably if the worst should happen and/or be true. The other member states of Nato would either build up its forces, independently of the US and/or create another big military cooperative, which may not include the US.

Europe has some of the most advanced countries in the world, and they are very well off, with or without the US. So in the longer term, I suspect Europe (and Japan etc), could sort something out.
Bexit was not about the UK leaving Nato and/or Europe, as regards military matters. So if push comes to shove, I'm sure something good will be sorted out.

Trump may not even win (a topic for another thread, really). So Nato may be fine, anyway.