> ...Trump took the unprecedented step of refusing to rule out military action to take territory from a Nato ally...
-
E [email protected] shared this topic
-
-
-
"Heputin" is how I'll be saving space and time moving forward.
-
I hope Trump gets to the see world nuked before he croaks. Would be a shame if he died still able to think he did good.
-
Could we just nuke Mar a Lago and leave the rest of us out of it?
-
What even happens if one NATO member attacks another? Does the aggressor immediately get their membership nullified and the rest must come together and declare war on them?
-
I mean, it's never happened. But the US declaring war on Danish territory would violate Article 5.
-
Intra-alliance fighting has always been a concern because of Greece and Turkey. Article 5 is probably the only reason they haven't already gone to war. But yeah the US would fight all of European NATO that answers the call, win a pyrrhic victory, and destabilize Europe for the next 100 years.
-
NATO immediately loses all credibility. Otherwise, nothing much.
NATO was founded as a defensive pact against the Soviet Union.
The only time it was ever used was as a tool by the US to force other countries to join the war in Afghanistan.
Article 5 isn't an automatism that forces all members to start an all-out war. They're still sovereign. -
US wouldn’t win, that would be the best time for China to overtake them on the global stage
-
always remember: when something bad happens, it's always russia's fault somehow. no introspection allowed.
-
Technically it was never used, that the three-ish nations provided troops and something like 40-ish nations provided logistics voluntarily, off the top of my head.
While the USA was attacked on 9/11, the attackers being unclear made it difficult to evoke a full NATO response.
A full NATO response would look very very different.
