Does NATO still matter?
Discussion statement | This is for ages 14 to 16
NATO was created during the Cold War, but the world has changed since then. Supporters say the alliance still plays a key role in security today, while critics question whether it fits modern threats.
Do you agree or disagree with the statement below? Explain why.
NATO is still essential for global security in the modern world
Tell us what you think
You might want to structure your answer like this:
I agree / disagree because [your opinion]. One reason for my view [the reason for your opinion]. I believe this because [a piece of evidence].
Make sure you read the comments from other Topical Talkers to see whether you agree or disagree with them.
Comments (6)
I believe NATO still matters in today’s world because countries need strong alliances to stay safe. Even though NATO was created during the Cold War, modern threats like cyber attacks, terrorism, and conflicts between nations still exist. NATO helps countries work together, share information, and protect each other. This cooperation makes member countries stronger and more secure.In addition, NATO promotes unity and peace. When countries stand together, it discourages others from starting wars because they know they are facing many nations, not just one. This can prevent conflicts before they even begin. NATO also helps with humanitarian missions and supports stability in different regions.
However, NATO must continue to adapt to modern challenges. The world is changing, and threats are different from the past. By improving technology, strengthening cooperation, and focusing on new dangers, NATO can remain useful and effective.
In conclusion, NATO still plays an important role in global security. It helps protect countries, maintain peace, and respond to modern threats. Strong alliances like NATO are necessary for a safer and more stable world.
thank you topical talkers 🌹
I disagree that NATO is still essential for global security today. NATO was created to protect countries during the Cold War, but the world is very different now. While it was helpful back then, it can sometimes cause more problems than it solves.
NATO’s job is to protect its member countries, but not everyone sees it that way. Some countries, like Russia, feel threatened by NATO’s presence near their borders. Even if NATO says it's only for defense, other countries might think it’s a way of growing power. This can lead to fear and make countries want to build their own military alliances, which can make the world even more divided.
For example, when countries feel excluded from NATO, they might start to see it as a challenge to their own security. This could lead to a situation where NATO isn’t protecting its members, but creating new enemies instead.
I believe that security doesn’t just come from having strong alliances. It also comes from understanding and trust. Instead of relying only on military groups, countries should focus on building better relationships through communication. This way, protection for some doesn’t feel like a threat to others.
In conclusion, I think NATO’s role has changed. It might have been essential in the past, but today, we need to think about other ways to make the world safer; ways that don’t create more tension.
I partly agree because NATO still plays a significant role in global security, but it also faces serious modern challenges. With 32 member countries that together account for over half of global military spending, it remains a powerful deterrent. After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, many members increased defence spending toward the 2% GDP target. Importantly, no NATO country has been directly attacked, which suggests that collective defence is still working.
However, NATO was created in 1949 during the Cold War, and today’s threats are more complex. Cyberattacks, hybrid warfare, and non-state actors are harder to deter with traditional military power. Some critics also argue that NATO’s expansion has increased tensions with Russia rather than reduced them.
In conclusion, NATO continues to provide stability and quick coordination during crises, especially when conflicts are unexpected. However, its future importance will depend on how successfully it reforms and adapts to meet modern global challenges.
I strongly disagree with this statement.
NATO has been shoved back to the spotlight by several countries who disagree with the alliance. It’s causing global unrest, and countries like the USA are already threatening to end the alliance through a direct attack internally. The USA has been aggressive towards Greenland, under the reasoning of take over. Many have speculated what this may mean for NATO, and unfortunately many have come to the conclusion that this would be the end of it.
NATO is not prepared for the issues of today, and is frankly outdated. The world is growing more complex, and while the terms of NATO still seem sound, some may see that as fit to use it as a bargaining chip, or rather a threat.
Expanding on that, simply being in NATO gives any country more power, as now they have a massive amount of defensive backing them. As such, that power leant from an outside force could make these countries reliant on outside defences, which makes them extremely vulnerable with internal issues, and issues directed from a supposed ally, which is again exactly what we see is happening with Greenland.
Some are of the view, that this alliance still serves for stability, and good relationships. While this was true, countries in NATO are already turning their backs on one another, with the recent internal threat of the USA’s tariffs, the alliance has been split down the middle.
To conclude, NATO is no longer useful, and is now causing more unexpected negative outcomes than positive, and as such it’s time for a new alliance. One which accounts for current issues.
I agree because NATO provides a structure that keeps different countries working together peacefully. One reason for my view is stability, it prevents smaller nations from being bullied by larger ones. I believe that article 5 of NATO ensures that an attack on one is an attack on all, that has provided a shield so that no Member State has to face a threat alone but if NATO didn't exist would the world be more chaotic with every country fighting for itself?
Signing off: fair minded elephant
NATO remains the world’s most powerful insurance policy, but in 2026, the premium for that insurance has never been higher. Its relevance is no longer a theoretical debate; the expansion to 32 members and the shift toward a 5% GDP defense spending target by 2035 proves that collective security is back at the top of the global agenda. The alliance has successfully transitioned from a Cold War relic into a modern shield that coordinates everything from traditional border defense to the protection of subsea data cables and satellite networks.
However, the true test of NATO’s value today isn't just its military might, but its political cohesion. While it provides an unmatched framework for nations to share technology and intelligence, it also faces internal friction as members balance domestic economic needs with the rising costs of "gray zone" warfare and AI-driven defense. NATO matters because it is the only organization capable of transforming a collection of individual nations into a unified deterrent, making the cost of conflict far higher than any potential aggressor is willing to pay.