For whom would the US go to war? (outside of west Europe)

I wonder; if country ______ were attacked, would the US intervene? (outside of west Europe)

I'm pretty sure the US would go to war to help Japan, S Korea, Australia/New Zealand or the Phillipines if they were attacked.
Maybe Israel (unless it's a major coalition, they might not need help).

Former Soviet republics? nope.
Latin America? Monroe Doctrine to the contrary, probly not (unless maybe somebody went after the Panama Canal, which scenario is unlikely).

Thoughts?

reply to post by works4dhs

A country doesnt need to be attacked for the US to wage war.

Theres tons of money to be made from war profiteering which is why they invented preemptive wars: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan etc.

It used to be because American corporations had invested in those nations.

Now it could be because they represent an economic threat, Libya for example.

Albania, Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, South Korea, Trinidad & Tobago, Turkey, United Kingdom, and Uruguay.

reply to post by works4dhs


For WHOM wouldn't they go to war with, Our multinationals have the biggest baddest military force in the world to pave their way and cement their hold on other people's lands.

HA HA. Lets have a contest and try to figure out a country that it wouldn't wage war upon.

reply to post by DivisiveConformity


Point well taken. However, several countries on your list have already had their wars and circumvention of the most basic human rights of their populations.

US would help former Soviet Republics, who are currently members of NATO. Otherwise it would mean US losing all of its credibility with NATO.

I do not know about all former Soviet Republics, although in Baltics a large part of the military strategy is dependent on NATO. These are small nations (Lithuanian population - 3 million, Latvian population - 2 million ; Estonian population 1.4 million) which otherwise would have no option against larger countries especially the historical enemy - Russia, who has oppressed these nations for centuries. If a war would break out with Russia (even though it is extremely unlikely nowadays), these countries would have to hold off Russian army as long as NATO allies arrive. If the NATO allies do not arrive, NATO as an organisation would lose all of its credibility.

Any other military strategy would never work, as countries with less than 3 million people are not able to militarily compete with large countries as Russia, so NATO is a very important organisation for them defensively.

Originally posted by GrantedBail
Point well taken. However, several countries on your list have already had their wars and circumvention of the most basic human rights of their populations.

Since when did that stop us from supporting a country?

Cabin, you seem to be the only person to have actually read my op.

I'd forgotten about Nato. I guess the follow-up question would be, for whom would NATO go to war to protect?
members only?

The United States needs to go to war against itself. Wolves vs Sheep. World War 3 = American Revolution #2. However, whichever event sends USA in revolution will most likely affect other societies and send THEM into revolution. Like if our gov. told the truth about 9/11, Jesus Christ, etc.

Originally posted by works4dhs
I wonder; if country ______ were attacked, would the US intervene? (outside of west Europe)

I'm pretty sure the US would go to war to help Japan, S Korea, Australia/New Zealand or the Phillipines if they were attacked.
Maybe Israel (unless it's a major coalition, they might not need help).

Former Soviet republics? nope.
Latin America? Monroe Doctrine to the contrary, probly not (unless maybe somebody went after the Panama Canal, which scenario is unlikely).

Thoughts?

Your going to have to work through lots of answers and random radom rant from the population of crazy town to get answers so good luck with that. By treaty the US has defense obligations to all 27 other members of NATO of course and Japan, The Philiipines, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Thailand, Those are all covered by a variety of treaties. Also the Rio Pact provides for a common defense of Argentina, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela. Although Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela are on the way out and Cuba suspended. The US also has a variety of security arrangements both formal and informal with the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Morrocco, Singapore, Israel, most of the Carribean states, Jordan, Taiwan and lots of African states. Then of course of the US will act anywhere the see a threat to their interests or where the world expects them to lead.

I submit that treaties are irrelevant; after Iraq/Afghan etc the US is in no mood for any more field trips.
esp since we have a leftist/democrat regime what naturally dislikes military conflict.

if, for example, Russia goes into Estonia, does anyone really think we'd do anything about it?

I was thinking North America, if not all of the western hemisphere (except Cuba, possibly)

But, I notice, no one has mentioned Mexico. !!!

Are they not part of NATO? And even if they aren't - I'd think the US would have something to say about it if someone waged war on Mexico.... They are our neighbors, and like it or not, our economies are very much intertwined.

Mexico is not a part of NATO. At any rate, they would be pretty hard to attack anyway as very few countries can project power that far if at all.

As for the US fighting wars because of money-thats the worst/saddest excuse ever. The US gov does not make money off these wars. Sure the defense companies make money so they pay more in taxes whioch in turn the gov does get money from, but there are FAR more profitable companies out there than defense companies who pay taxes.

In fact, not one defense contractor is even listed in the top 20 US most profitable companies. SO for all those folks who keep thinking war makes money, well thats a shortcut to thinking.

reply to post by wildtimes


We may not start a full blown war with Mexico, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turned into a scrimmage based on the war of drug...

reply to post by jarien21

We may not start a full blown war with Mexico, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turned into a scrimmage based on the war of drug...

I was talking about the US defending Mexico if THEY were attacked. I thought that was the question in the OP.

The Federal Reserve, they do it all the time.

I think there are very few countries that the US would go to war for now.

The three that spring to mind are Israel, Taiwan and South Korea.

South Korea would not be a major problem because China would blink. They will not go to war over a North Korean attack. They would not blink over Taiwan and I think there is a fair to middling chance that they will invade within the next decade.

Apart from possible air and logistical support, I don't even think they would support NATO countries. They would expect, quite rightly, Europe to defend itself without American boots on the ground.

The best case of course is to NOT go to war at all! And that would be more likely if the USA stopped behaving like bullies in the school playground and sucking up to Zionist members of the Israeli Government.

Presumable NATO and I think they have defence pacts with Australia and Japan?

They'd go to war if either they would benefit from it, or were threatened by it. So if someone invaded Saudi and it threatened oil supplies, they'd go to war to get it flowing again. Are there any other cases where the country mightn't be natural allies but have a mutual interest in seeing the status quo maintained?

Originally posted by MortlitantiFMMJ
Presumable NATO and I think they have defence pacts with Australia and Japan?

They'd go to war if either they would benefit from it, or were threatened by it. So if someone invaded Saudi and it threatened oil supplies, they'd go to war to get it flowing again. Are there any other cases where the country mightn't be natural allies but have a mutual interest in seeing the status quo maintained?

SEATO is the Pacific version of NATO. I do think the US would go to war over Australia/Japan.

There would have to be huge benefit at this point, for the US to go to any war.
That's why I worry so much about a pan-Islamic union (Caliphate) which is what the Muslim Brotherhood is working for. If all the Islamic nations embargoed (maybe no oil unless you convert?)...definitely WW3.