The issue with kicking out members is that it starts a precedent. The idea is that NATO got your back if you're in, you won't get kicked out if your membership starts being inconvenient, and that the other members will act when Article 5 is invoked.

This argument goes both ways though, I suppose. NATO has your back and you have to have NATO's back. If Hungary start dicking about then things wont go well for them, I think.

> idea is that NATO got your back if you're in, you won't get kicked out if your membership starts being inconvenient, and that the other members will act when Article 5 is invoked

None of that is violated by kicking someone out before they are attacked.

Kicking someone out who is really counting on NATO would make them incredibly vulnerable, though.

That's true, but NATO isn't the be-all and end-all of European mutual defence, for example there's also the Northern Group of countries, which even includes Sweden and Finland. NATO is the ultimate fallback defence pact, but being in NATO in no way prevent countries, in or out of it, from forming their own independent defence arrangements. Just this week Britain's prime minister very publicly guaranteed Britain's commitment to defend both Sweden and Finland.

I have to wonder to what extent the development of these alliances might have been influenced by the concern you raise though, you raise a good point.

Nukes from America Treaty Obligation

Article 5 is the shield that drastically decreases the amount of nuclear weapons European nations need to deploy, because USSR / Russian inventories are balanced out by American inventories, if it comes to all-out war.

Consequently, the world as a whole is a lot safer because {flight time Russia-US} >> {flight time Europe-Russia}, which allows for additional fail-safe guarantees on weapons that there wouldn't otherwise be a time budget for.

> Consequently, the world as a whole is a lot safer because {flight time Russia-US} >> {flight time Europe-Russia},

The US stations some of its nukes in Europe, so the flight time is less than you think.

Also, it is widely believed that the US has an “understanding” with certain European countries that in extreme circumstances (aka World War III) the US will hand those nukes over to the host countries, and then the host country governments will decide for themselves what use to make of them. In part, this helps discourage nuclear proliferation-Germany or the Netherlands don’t need to make their own nuclear weapons because they know if they ever really need them, Uncle Sam will help them acquire them real real fast (“here’s the keys to the safe, good luck”)

US nuclear weapons in Europe are in a stored posture, and have substantial procedures required for their release to their host countries' air forces.

As far as I know, the US hasn't stationed M/IRBM or nuclear cruise missiles in Europe since the early-60s Jupiter MRBM [0] and GLCM [1] were withdrawn.

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/01/the-rea...

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-109G_Ground_Launched_Cru...

Those are all aircraft based, so not the fastest mode of deployment.

You're arguing that it would be sensible to have, and therefore they have it? But not every entity has been created with perfect foresight.