*sigh*... yes, but that fight started with the rush to Berlin. That predates NATO.No I'm not, not at all. NATO was formed with one clear enemy in its sights – the Soviet Union and its allies. The Soviet Union was the UK's ally in WW2. The pattern of allegiances changed.
Here are the questions you're still avoiding:
1.) How would WWI, and II have gone without US assistance? Given that, how do you expect future wars to be prosecuted without assistance? From an empire to an island... take the hint.
2.) The economic advantage the UK enjoys through its relationship with NATO... you don't have to design and launch a GPS system...until you WANT to. You have traded a measure of freedom for a measure of peace and time to recover from two conflicts that nearly obliterated your country, and decimated your population.
3.) If the USA decided that the Soviets could have had Europe, and did not make that same rush to Berlin... you would not be the UK anymore. That you now find that allience inconvenient is understandable, as the threat no longer exists. By the same token, that's a fairly ****** way of carrying on with an alliance, and short sighted.
4.) Mutual Defense. Ok... as Russ pointed out, it's not that mutual. How do you think the Baltic states would have gone, or so many other issues without NATO involvement? Hell man, your country lost an enitre empire through poor management, and was on the brink of being completely overrun.
5.) The Soviet Union and the US were in a race to Berlin, and if you genuinely don't know that already, you are in no position to speak of history, or these issues.