| |
Topic: Is NATO still necessary 3 |
![]() ![]() ![]() Click Here to Join us Today! FAQ/Rules - Search - Military Photo Gallery |
|
![]() |
| |
| | Post 21 | ||
| Tribuni Angusticlavii | Quote:
__________________ "An Emperor is subject to no-one but God and justice." Frederick 1, Barbarossa | ||
| |
| | Post 22 |
| Legatus Legionis |
Because operations in SEA are not within NATO's brief now sure given some amazingly powerful world threat maybe they would deploy to the Pacific however by the time NATO managed to get all the required approval to move most wars would be well and truely over, on top of this I think NATO is a rather toothless organisation whos formation has basically lead to a reliance on the US military, if Europe is to ever play a strong role in glogal security it must take more responsibility for its own defence. (This does not mean breaking ties with the US but it does mean showing some self reliance).
__________________ We are more often treacherous through weakness than through calculation. ~Francois De La Rochefoucauld |
| |
| | Post 23 |
| Banned ![]() |
i inagine that should china move against taiwan (oh god....i said the "T" word) gaum would be on their watch list, attack guam, attack the US, nato gets involved? |
| |
| | Post 24 |
| Je suis aware |
Europe has interest in Southeast Asia. The US has interest in Southeast Asia. Both are weary of the challenges that China as a super power can bring (out of economic rivalry mostly). So how could NATO not change its mission to this? And no disrespect Monty, but if you think a combined Australian - New Zealand alliance could handle a serious Chinese power move into Southeast Asia, you're joking. Do you think South Korea, Taiwan and Japan are just ricepeasant pushovers? It's just how big China can get. If it's small enough for Australia to handle on its own, these three countries can handle it just fine. Something the size of NATO may be required and even that may not be enough. |
| |
| | Post 25 |
| Legatus Legionis |
Go find out about ANZUS.
|
| |
| | Post 26 |
| Je suis aware |
With the US yeah. But I think we're still going to need everyone on board this one. The topic here though is, could NATO still go on or is it just a relic? I detailed a possible way in which NATO could continue and still serve a purpose. Ideally yes, the alliance to counter China would be US - Korea - Japan - Australia - New Zealand plus anyone else willing to join. This is more regionally focused. We're not answering the question: What's the best way to contain China? |
| |
| | Post 27 |
| Centurion | Post; Chager...
Hmmmm, Vietnamese were all angels and China was the devil. Look into some other side of reasons why Vietnam and China had those 2 wars before you take up a side. Is China naturally a global terioist eventhough it tried to defend its boarder? India and China? It was a border dispute and political mishap that 2 countries elected to move on. Tibetans? Yes, it is shady and brutal; however, Tibetan separatist movements need to be considered as internal threat as well. Chewie, once again, changing of political system does not give Taiwan rights to declare independence from its original sovereign, like American Civil War. |
| |
| | Post 28 | |
| Optio | Post; Re: Chager...Quote:
__________________ \"It\'s well beyond rage. Help me. In the name of Christ, help yourselves. Now is our chance, now! If we join, we can win. If we win, well then we\'ll have what none of us has ever had before: a country of our own.\" | |
| |
| | Post 29 |
| Tribunus Laticlavius |
NATO, UN, both belong with the League of Nations...
__________________ MICHAEL HATKEVICH, C/Capt, CAP |
| |
| | Post 30 |
| Je suis aware |
USAFAUX, that isn't a fair statement because NATO accomplished its original mission: to keep the Soviets out of Western Europe.
|
| |