Now yes, but in the early to mid cold war? Not so much. NATO could probably stop existing today without too many major conflicts breaking out, but early on was an entirely different story.
NATO peace only works because it is a defensive alliance with nukes, not just a defensive alliance. Later comes lack of economic incentive, but it's important that the former begets the latter. A non-nuclear NATO would have fail miserably, see: the League of Nations
As has been pointed out consistently, America happily makes nice with dictators who tow the line.
Except that the standard is that they are completely subservient to America, even if it means the decimation of quality of life. This was most apparent as in Cuba and Vietnam. It is not just a risky move to implement a puppet government, it is completely idiotic if you are ignorant of country and its people. Not only will there be extraordinary resentment about the populace towards already being exploitative, but also towards who is sponsoring and controlling them. This is why sanctions fail to work on the likes of North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba like the US intended. The regime may be oppressive and exploit its people, but debilitating sanctions give a perfect scapegoat to propagate as to why shit is bad.
Canada and Mexico certainly can't step too far outside the American sphere of influence, and do something like host a Chinese airbase. But beyond that they are not in any danger of the US sending tanks over their border either.
Canada is basically the US culturally, not really anything insightful. To spoil the relationship entirely would be to embargo their oil imports, or some unthinkable form of sabotage. Mexico and the US have had a tumultuous relationship especially in regards to border disputes, their alliance is vastly different in that 81% of all their exports come from America. Mexico has also remained neutral in the sanctioning of Russia in the Ukraine war, and has been tying itself closer with china in recent years.
Only in as far as what America wants in exchange for peace is unreasonable.
You are not at liberty™ to dicate what is unreasonable and isn't for other countries. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of diplomacy.
America is not an expansionist superpower, which is a unique aberration of history. Its not interested in invading and taking over territory, nor engaging in regime change with countries that get along with it.
Oh my god
American leaders have too a large extent huffed their own product on this front. America is the agent of peace in Europe after thousands of years. Pax Americana has restored the western world to order for the first time since the Goths sacked Rome. Anyone who wants to upset that apple cart is a barbarian. There are no doubt nuances too this, but at a fundamental level it HAS worked. The French in Strasbourg don't go to sleep every night worrying about Germans going over the border while they are asleep. The Danes are not worried about the Swedes sweeping in from the north for whatever reason, and even tiny Luxembourg is safe and sound with no worries at all.
I think you're deterring for the point I was trying to make. I'm not insinuating that NATO did not help at all in the facilitation of peace among the Western European countries, in fact the Marshall plan was the most helpful piece of legislation given to the decimated post war economies of Europe. I'm saying that it is more complex than you suggesting that it was only done through the US's presence within NATO. It wouldn't have worked had it not been for the aforementioned reasons I stated of economic development and Nukes
Now this is not true at all. Actually quite the opposite. Nuclear war is a dead mans switch, and game theory is very clear that the more players in the game, the more unstable it is. That is why the US has been adamant against nuclear proliferation. Another unstated goal of NATO is to make sure the nuclear club is not expanded. Germany, Spain and Italy could develop nukes. But they won't. Because America won't let them .
At no point in my argument did I mention unfettered distribution of nukes. When I refer to nuclear war, I mean mutually assured destruction. I agree that current NATO with its alliance has maintained peace, just not the fact it's because NATO exists. Here's what I mean by that: NATO is essentially another League of Nations or historical defensive coalition if not for nukes.
There would be no peace in Europe. Two military superpowers that fundamentally oppose each other, coming off a victory without nuclear weapons and their consequences would almost immediately lead to WW3 post-WW2. It is highly likely that the war would take place in Europe. The former incentive of fear begets the latter incentive of economic development.
However, America's paranoid and aggressive attitude about nuclear proliferation has counterintuitively lead to nations out of it's sphere of influence to have a nuclear program of their own, ie. North Korea. They now have a bargaining chip but the US is too arrogant to negotiate anything less than the complete disassembly of their Nuclear Program. If you think saying "Tough shit, I don't trust you with anything less", then you have failed as a diplomat. You cannot be an enforcer everywhere, and think what you define as reasonable is something that they have to confide to. In order for it to be successful that has to be mutually agreed upon.
You're just liretal subhumans to them and a fuel for meat grinder, mark my words.
