It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should the USA go to war to defend NATO countries?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
I think a more important question is - which of those countries would come to the defense of the US if we were attacked?
How many of them actually have the means to defend the US against a large attack, perhaps by China or Russia?

How many of these countries put their investments into their own country, without worrying about building up their national defense, because they count on the US and other larger countries to protect them?


Well, Blue, Article 5 would suggest that all the countries would be obliged to help defend America, though not sure how useful it would be.




posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ms898
a reply to: BlueAjah

Let's take Poland as an example. They are next to Russia ( who is a strategic threat to USA). By being in an alliance USA get to place defence structures and bases inside Poland's borders. If they weren't allies there is a good chance Russia would try to sieze control which they have tried in the past. Poland's military would not be a great help to USA but their regional cooperation is priceless to USAs strategic defensive goals.


Understood, buy I am not sure what legitimate strategic defensive goals the US have in Poland.



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I think wed have to. The very support nature of a treaty



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   
My problem with it is the US accepting all credit.

You look after your friends, but you don't later say "if it wasn't for us you would all be speaking [insert random foreign language] right now.

WWII was won by the UK and Russia, the US only intervened AFTER they knew the allies would win, but yet somehow the US won the war single handed.

It really annoys me.



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ms898
a reply to: BlueAjah

Let's take Poland as an example. They are next to Russia ( who is a strategic threat to USA). By being in an alliance USA get to place defence structures and bases inside Poland's borders. If they weren't allies there is a good chance Russia would try to sieze control which they have tried in the past. Poland's military would not be a great help to USA but their regional cooperation is priceless to USAs strategic defensive goals.


Understood, buy I am not sure what legitimate strategic defensive goals the US have in Poland.


Well if Russia launch a nuke USA could have anti missles placed in Poland to intercept. Russian defectors have a close place to go. Russia's territory cannot expand.

It's easy to say look at morals of USA placing military assests next to Russia but life or death does not worried about such things.
edit on 31-7-2016 by ms898 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: woogleuk
My problem with it is the US accepting all credit.

You look after your friends, but you don't later say "if it wasn't for us you would all be speaking [insert random foreign language] right now.

WWII was won by the UK and Russia, the US only intervened AFTER they knew the allies would win, but yet somehow the US won the war single handed.

It really annoys me.


Erm, that is a bit far from the truth!


Winston Churchill was standing in front of the washbasin in his bedroom and shaving with his old-fashioned Valet razor when his son Randolph burst in. Churchill had been prime minister for a week, taking over in a crisis as German troops were on the march, scything through Belgium and France and heading for the Channel ports. Randolph sat and waited.

Later, he described what happened next. 'After two or three minutes of hacking away at his face, he half-turned and said: "I think I see my way through." He resumed his shaving. 'I was astounded, and said: "Do you mean that we can avoid defeat?" (which seemed credible) "or beat the bastards?" (which seemed incredible). He flung his razor into the basin, swung around and said with great intensity: "Of course we can beat them. I shall drag the United States in."'

Here was a characteristic Churchillian flash of revelation, and all the more brilliant because it came in 1940, when the fighting had barely begun and the prospect of the U.S. joining in was remote.



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: BlueAjah
I think a more important question is - which of those countries would come to the defense of the US if we were attacked?
How many of them actually have the means to defend the US against a large attack, perhaps by China or Russia?

How many of these countries put their investments into their own country, without worrying about building up their national defense, because they count on the US and other larger countries to protect them?


Well, Blue, Article 5 would suggest that all the countries would be obliged to help defend America, though not sure how useful it would be.


The same with the RIo Pact, most of Central and South America would be brought in. What the would provide/along with NATO would be global reach, control of sea lanes and special operation forces.



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spacespider

originally posted by: IAMNOTYOU

originally posted by: Spacespider
a reply to: Orionx2

We are a small country and we have never had as much violence, rape, crime after we have opened our gates to these immigrants from the middle east, only ten years ago, gun shooting, rape and killings was very far between.. but now adays its almost everyday life and its being done by these brainwashed freaks.. everyone that do not follow their god Allah is a infidel and they do as they please.. there have been alot of small girls raped and people attacked.. and we had terror attack in copenhagen and someone tried to kill the guy that drew the Muhammad cartoon with a axe... And just today two people have been shoot by muslims and a bar was attacked by a gang of muslims with bats.. and this weekend a 16 old girl was raped at a music festival.


Oh really?? Cause iam from denmark aswell, and i cant recognize the picture your painting... Most of the problems your talking about, comes from gangs, and have nothing to do with islam.
Remember the big bikerwar in the 90´s ? Cause that was before the immigrants, and there was a lot more shoting and killing than now..

Yes, we have problems, but you cant blame muslims, is it their fault that we cant handle the criminals in our country?

Sorry for the off topic rant
Yes, USA should keep their end of the deal, and protect NATO members, or leave


Big biker war.. hah
Either you are a Muslim or you do not watch the news..


No, iam not a muslim, and i dont think the world is inside my television... I go outside, and experience the world first hand, something you should try one day



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: ms898

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ms898
a reply to: BlueAjah

Let's take Poland as an example. They are next to Russia ( who is a strategic threat to USA). By being in an alliance USA get to place defence structures and bases inside Poland's borders. If they weren't allies there is a good chance Russia would try to sieze control which they have tried in the past. Poland's military would not be a great help to USA but their regional cooperation is priceless to USAs strategic defensive goals.


Understood, buy I am not sure what legitimate strategic defensive goals the US have in Poland.


Well if Russia launch a nuke USA could have anti missles placed in Poland to intercept. Russian defectors have a close place to go. Russia's territory cannot expand.

It's easy to say look at morals of USA placing military assests next to Russia but life or death does not worried about such things.


Good points.
I wonder though whether anti-missile defences close to Russia is really productive or the most effective way to show a deterrent. I always like Reagan's Star Wars dreams



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ms898

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ms898
a reply to: BlueAjah

Let's take Poland as an example. They are next to Russia ( who is a strategic threat to USA). By being in an alliance USA get to place defence structures and bases inside Poland's borders. If they weren't allies there is a good chance Russia would try to sieze control which they have tried in the past. Poland's military would not be a great help to USA but their regional cooperation is priceless to USAs strategic defensive goals.


Understood, buy I am not sure what legitimate strategic defensive goals the US have in Poland.


Well if Russia launch a nuke USA could have anti missles placed in Poland to intercept. Russian defectors have a close place to go. Russia's territory cannot expand.

It's easy to say look at morals of USA placing military assests next to Russia but life or death does not worried about such things.


Good points.
I wonder though whether anti-missile defences close to Russia is really productive or the most effective way to show a deterrent. I always like Reagan's Star Wars dreams


Well they most likely have all of Reagan's Toys but for diplomatic reasons they can't openly admit it.



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: BlueAjah
I think a more important question is - which of those countries would come to the defense of the US if we were attacked?
How many of them actually have the means to defend the US against a large attack, perhaps by China or Russia?

How many of these countries put their investments into their own country, without worrying about building up their national defense, because they count on the US and other larger countries to protect them?


Well, Blue, Article 5 would suggest that all the countries would be obliged to help defend America, though not sure how useful it would be.


The same with the RIo Pact, most of Central and South America would be brought in. What the would provide/along with NATO would be global reach, control of sea lanes and special operation forces.


This underlines a point made by someone earlier that that all these pacts can actually have the effect of escalating...



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ms898

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ms898

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ms898
a reply to: BlueAjah

Let's take Poland as an example. They are next to Russia ( who is a strategic threat to USA). By being in an alliance USA get to place defence structures and bases inside Poland's borders. If they weren't allies there is a good chance Russia would try to sieze control which they have tried in the past. Poland's military would not be a great help to USA but their regional cooperation is priceless to USAs strategic defensive goals.


Understood, buy I am not sure what legitimate strategic defensive goals the US have in Poland.


Well if Russia launch a nuke USA could have anti missles placed in Poland to intercept. Russian defectors have a close place to go. Russia's territory cannot expand.

It's easy to say look at morals of USA placing military assests next to Russia but life or death does not worried about such things.


Good points.
I wonder though whether anti-missile defences close to Russia is really productive or the most effective way to show a deterrent. I always like Reagan's Star Wars dreams


Well they most likely have all of Reagan's Toys but for diplomatic reasons they can't openly admit it.


Possibly yes and would be better than relying on Poland or any other NATO country...



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Let's flip this. Why should a small European country send troops to the middle East which would potentially make them a terrorist target?

Because they are more threatened by other countries (like russia). Defensively if they want to keep their way of life it makes sense to appease a greater power who could defend that way of life.



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ms898

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ms898

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ms898
a reply to: BlueAjah

Let's take Poland as an example. They are next to Russia ( who is a strategic threat to USA). By being in an alliance USA get to place defence structures and bases inside Poland's borders. If they weren't allies there is a good chance Russia would try to sieze control which they have tried in the past. Poland's military would not be a great help to USA but their regional cooperation is priceless to USAs strategic defensive goals.


Understood, buy I am not sure what legitimate strategic defensive goals the US have in Poland.


Well if Russia launch a nuke USA could have anti missles placed in Poland to intercept. Russian defectors have a close place to go. Russia's territory cannot expand.

It's easy to say look at morals of USA placing military assests next to Russia but life or death does not worried about such things.


Good points.
I wonder though whether anti-missile defences close to Russia is really productive or the most effective way to show a deterrent. I always like Reagan's Star Wars dreams


Well they most likely have all of Reagan's Toys but for diplomatic reasons they can't openly admit it.


Possibly yes and would be better than relying on Poland or any other NATO country...


The thing is it's not just military supremacy. By controlling eastern Europe, USA can benefit economically from oil and gas distribution throughout the region as well as restricting Russia economically. That is what many believe the Syrian conflict with USA and Russian involvement is really about



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


The question leaves much undefined. The scenario for one
thing. If they are the attacking nation, then no.

All things being equal? Then I'd say Canada, the U.K. and Iceland. No others. (At least based on NATO membership.)

Only two nation honored their NATO commitment in (Afghanistan). Canada and the U.K..

What also is missed is we don't HAVE to be NATO members to choose to fight along side ANY nation ever. It is our prerogative.

The problem is the financial drain NATO is to the U.S. when the EU is fully capable of defending itself and against any invader.

They have more people, as big an economy. Superb aircraft and surface fleets and nukes....


Let them take care of themselves for a change.....

edit on 31-7-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-7-2016 by nwtrucker because: correction



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   
No I think we should go to war for France if they call but none others. We can offer aid to the rest of NATO but it would be a really nice change if we could focus more time and resources on our own continent and possibly the continent south of us.



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

NATO has grown to large and been corrupted by the polticial ambition's of those whom wish to use it for there own interests.

NATO was original the NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION, there were originally just 12 founding member state's, it was intended as a pact for mutual protection against the growing threat of the Warsaw pact nation's.

If it lived up to it's intent then YES as it is in the US interest to maintain NATO and it helps with it's close ties to Western Europe, however if the Western European nation's are not willing to do there part or at least try even if they are no capable then what does the US actually gain from it.

There are two ways of looking at it, Internationalism or Isolationism and NATO come's out of the military need to stabilize the world at an uncertain time backed up by a then newly internationalist United States which as you know prior to the second world war had a very isolationist view of the world.

I am British and would not feel quite as safe without the US to help back us up but our government (Tory prat's) is one of those that have failed to live up to there commitment and even reduced our expenditure as part of NATO.

NATO is also in danger from a move inside Europe to form a European military and the fact this would overlap much of NATO's responsibilty's.



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: BlueAjah
I think a more important question is - which of those countries would come to the defense of the US if we were attacked?
How many of them actually have the means to defend the US against a large attack, perhaps by China or Russia?

How many of these countries put their investments into their own country, without worrying about building up their national defense, because they count on the US and other larger countries to protect them?


Well, Blue, Article 5 would suggest that all the countries would be obliged to help defend America, though not sure how useful it would be.


The same with the RIo Pact, most of Central and South America would be brought in. What the would provide/along with NATO would be global reach, control of sea lanes and special operation forces.


This underlines a point made by someone earlier that that all these pacts can actually have the effect of escalating...


That is the idea. You attack somebody in the US camp which includes most of Europe, Central and South America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia and you have more trouble then you could ever hope to deal with. Wars between nations have become a rare thing since the US rise to global dominance. You take the US and Russia out of the equation and you have almost no cases one nation invading another. Historically that is amazing.



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesungod
a reply to: UKTruth

We have a written, signed and declared defense pact with them. We should honor it as long as they are honoring their side.

Just my opinion.


No doubt.

Thing is though it seems that there ought to be enough juice between the other states that the US shouldn't have to be the tip of the spear every time.

There is always the reality that the odds of US ever getting attacked and ever needing them to show up, versus the other way around, that ought to have some bearing on decision making.

I'm curious how many even would show up from those other 28 states.



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 11:24 PM
link   
If ANY treaties matter then ABSOLUTELY,Ukraine and Moldova too.
WE AGREED to do so.
I 'm a straight shooter a deal is a deal.
I'd do it because I am WIRED to fight ,so I do it for the country.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join