3 ms·

> the great powers never make hard and fast alliances with smaller states, or aid them too openly. Really? US-Israel? US-Saudi? Russia-Syria? All examples of b

> the great powers never make hard and fast alliances with smaller states, or aid them too openly. Really? US-Israel? US-Saudi? Russia-Syria? All examples of basically untouchable alliances with smaller states and blatant, public military aid. If I were better educated/informed I'm sure I could come up with more.

kstenerud 10y ago
That's absolutely nothing in comparison the Bismarkian international political structure that led to the first world war.
- sgt101 10y ago
  Did you watch 38 days? Great dramatization that brought that to life for me.
ocschwar 10y ago
None of those are hard and fast alliances. None of them actually oblige the US to do anything in response to an attack on any of them.
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  Not to mention that the US is fond of breaking treaties left and right, though with the current administration it would surprise me if they didn't jump at the chance to attack anyone anywhere for the least provocation.
- taejo 10y ago
  NATO does oblige all members to come to the defence of another member in response to an attack.
  - fallingfrog 10y ago
    This is a good point, and I have an idea I want to toss out here- maybe what's really dangerous is to have a mutual defense treaty between a lot of states but still allow them to have separate diplomatic relationships.. so that a snafu involving one member state can blow up and involve a bunch of countries who didn't need to be involved. If there was a central agency speaking for all those states then there would be fewer ways for a disagreement to occur. So what I'm saying is that 20 small countries will a mutual defense treaty are much more likely to be involved in a war than one big country over the same area. I don't know if that's true or not- you'd have to do the number crunching to find out..

3 ms·

> the great powers never make hard and fast alliances with smaller states, or aid them too openly. Really? US-Israel? US-Saudi? Russia-Syria? All examples of b

by tomjakubowski 10y ago

kstenerud 10y ago
That's absolutely nothing in comparison the Bismarkian international political structure that led to the first world war.
- sgt101 10y ago
  Did you watch 38 days? Great dramatization that brought that to life for me.
ocschwar 10y ago
None of those are hard and fast alliances. None of them actually oblige the US to do anything in response to an attack on any of them.
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  Not to mention that the US is fond of breaking treaties left and right, though with the current administration it would surprise me if they didn't jump at the chance to attack anyone anywhere for the least provocation.
- taejo 10y ago
  NATO does oblige all members to come to the defence of another member in response to an attack.
  - fallingfrog 10y ago
    This is a good point, and I have an idea I want to toss out here- maybe what's really dangerous is to have a mutual defense treaty between a lot of states but still allow them to have separate diplomatic relationships.. so that a snafu involving one member state can blow up and involve a bunch of countries who didn't need to be involved. If there was a central agency speaking for all those states then there would be fewer ways for a disagreement to occur. So what I'm saying is that 20 small countries will a mutual defense treaty are much more likely to be involved in a war than one big country over the same area. I don't know if that's true or not- you'd have to do the number crunching to find out..