Is NATO still necessary - Page 3




 
--
Boots
 
March 27th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
the_13th_redneck: I am just getting somewhat amused at the development of China as a "great evil" because of actions comitted 50 years ago, to me it looks more like they are to be the USSR's replacement in the cold war.

However any action in SEA would more than likely be covered by ANZUS (Which is really now AUS as NZ has dropped out of it but lets hope they dont add Nuie) or a reinstituted SEATO which admittedly has been defunct since 1977.

I really cant see a role for NATO outside Europe.

PS here is NATO's role as they see it.
Quote:
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is an alliance of 26 countries from North America and Europe committed to fulfilling the goals of the North Atlantic Treaty signed on 4 April 1949. In accordance with the Treaty, the fundamental role of NATO is to safeguard the freedom and security of its member countries by political and military means. NATO is playing an increasingly important role in crisis management and peacekeeping.

I dont see how this gets them into S.E.A.
Why not? As you stated NATO's goal is to "safeguard the freedom and security of its member countries by political and military means." Why wouldn't this include overseas projection of power in other theatres if it was clear that actions by other powers would in some way threaten the security of its members? We're living in a global world. Something that happens in SEA can and does have the ability to threaten the security of NATO members.
March 27th, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
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).
March 27th, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
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?
--
Boots
March 27th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
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.
March 27th, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
Go find out about ANZUS.
March 27th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
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?
March 27th, 2005  
Boobies
 
 

Topic: 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.
March 28th, 2005  
Zyca
 
 

Topic: Re: Chager...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Boobies
Chewie, once again, changing of political system does not give Taiwan rights to declare independence from its original sovereign, like American Civil War.
Taiwan's original sovereign is the debatable issue here. If both China and Taiwan can agree on this, there wouldn't be so many problems.
March 28th, 2005  
USAFAUX2004
 
 
NATO, UN, both belong with the League of Nations...
March 28th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
USAFAUX, that isn't a fair statement because NATO accomplished its original mission: to keep the Soviets out of Western Europe.