I don't love Tom Brady...

... but I get your point.  I love his shows.  Carlin, I mean... NOT Brady.

The long and short of this is simply put by saying that you (and I and all of the rest of America) are used to the mainstream manner in which opposing points of view are presented:  Two people slugging it out in a 3 minute sound byte but accomplishing nothing and resorting to personal slights and slanders, OR two (or more) people in complete rapturous agreement bashing everyone that isn't agreeing with them.  Even "alternative" news and commentary (i.e. Beck, or Wilkow, or Savage, or Mike Church) have stopped being objective and started presenting selected information to make their points, rather than to inform a broader public.

Carlin (and other podcasters... there are hundreds) follow a more old-school approach to political/historical commentary.  Carlin's is the best, though... he poses a question, then finds a possible answer and expects YOU, the listener, to come to your own conclusions.  He doesn't say his solutions/answers are the ONLY ones, or even the best ones... he simply presents as "devil's advocate" and starts the discussion.  You don't have to buy his facts (although I have checked and checked, and his sources are solid)... but he can't be dismissed without counter facts, and if you can't find those... then you can't be right, right?

I do recall the episode where he spoke of a MAD deterrent for every state if every state had a nuke.  It wasn't his contention that his idea was the only idea, or even the best idea... he said that at least twice.  He was positing the proposition to change the perspective that has been the norm since 1948... that the nuclear club was CLOSED and everyone worried about being attacked by nukes had only to associate in one way or another with one of the two (later three) developing "umbrellas" of protection that the superpowers provided.

More to the point, I think the general question was "Is NATO valid now that the USSR is no longer a threat to regional and global peace?"   Specifically, he was asking if the US public would support the expense of lives, treasure and prestige if Russia "invaded" a NATO member in the way that they sent troops into the Ukraine.  I know Ukraine isn't a NATO ally... but it very nearly was.  And Latvia is.  As is Poland.  If the time would ever come when Russia does (and we did nothing to stop them in the Crimea, or Georgia, or Chechnya, or Moldavia...), would we be willing to send the same weight of effort to defend them that we would have to save Western Europe from a Warsaw Pact invasion in 1985?  I don't think we would have.

So perhaps your point is valid... Russia hasn't attacked a NATO ally, and possibly that is because they are NATO allies.  NATO has not shown a "unified front" in every situation that has arisen since 1999, though... does that factor into your defense of the alliance?  At least two did not endorse the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  Two did not support (or allow their airspace to be utilized) when Reagan bombed Tripoli, either... and that was at the height of the Cold War, and in clear violation of treaty grounds.  We were attacked in 2001... no one disputes that... yet only four nations in NATO vowed military support for operations in Afghanistan prior to the invasion in 2001.  The rest simply said "good luck".  Is the possibility that the US would be the ONLY nation defending Poland or Latvia if Russia moved in acceptable to you?  Does it still validate the existence of the organization?

Again, I'm not saying he's right... or that he is wrong.  I am simply saying that the fact he has gotten us talking about the question at all is a very good thing.