NATO's Reach Extends To The Pacific Ocean

Australia is set to expand its relationship with NATO. This will make it more likely for Australian solders to be sent to international spots of unrest. Several hundred Australians are already under NATO command in Afghanistan. At a NATO summit in Brussels President Bush plans to propose an arrangement that will include Australia. It is said that the other countries involved will be Japan, South Korea, Sweden and Finland.



My opinion on this is mostly a little mixed. I am all for nations working together to maintain there security. I also wonder just how much good this will do in the long term. NATO has not always acted when it was necessary. That being said if the nations involved do not choose to act and commit when the time comes that it is necessary, then what good will it do with these nations acting with NATO? The League Of Nations proved to be a lame duck. NATO is somewhat better, but without the will to commit any alliance will just be lame.

Related News Links:
voanews.com
english.people.com.cn
www.weartv.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
First Tournament for 2006
The New Military
Round 3. Thelibra V Ktprktpr: Non-Western Democracy

[edit on 22-11-2006 by UM_Gazz]

[edit on 22-11-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

League of Nations and the UN are more like International diplomatic peacekeeping organizations. I am pretty sure NATO is nothing more than a military alliance. Kind of like, if one NATO nation is attacked, they all are. Of course there are other stipulations to the North Atlanitc Treaty of 1949, of which you can view the entirety of it in the following source.

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Originally posted by DYepes
League of Nations and the UN are more like International diplomatic peacekeeping organizations. I am pretty sure NATO is nothing more than a military alliance. Kind of like, if one NATO nation is attacked, they all are. Of course there are other stipulations to the North Atlanitc Treaty of 1949, of which you can view the entirety of it in the following source.

Dyepes,
Yes all of that is true, but the point I was trying to make is that the league of Nations failed. Although be it I am no expert on that time of history but I would not doubt it is because the nations failed to take action soon enugh, or at all. NATO did seem to serv its purpose through the cold war, but I now do belive the charter needs a re write.

NATO served a purpose during the Cold War, it was an alliance meant to strengthen the response and opposition against the Soviets and Warsaw. Now it has to expanding in the Pacific to contain China, the pacific is the region of the upcoming Cold War 2.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
NATO served a purpose during the Cold War, it was an alliance meant to strengthen the response and opposition against the Soviets and Warsaw. Now it has to expanding in the Pacific to contain China, the pacific is the region of the upcoming Cold War 2.

WestPoint,
I can't call what you are saying wrong, that could very well happen. Although be it in one sence if there is a cold war two, that would not be an all bad thing if it stays a cold war. The leader of the U.S. and Soviat were both smart enugh to keep the cold war cold. However I fear the leaders of the Middle East may not be that way. On that regard I do hope I will be wrong.