5 ms·

on the other hand, if NATO gets into a conflict with China over Taiwan, there's a highly chance that Finland and Sweden would have to send their troops to fight

on the other hand, if NATO gets into a conflict with China over Taiwan, there's a highly chance that Finland and Sweden would have to send their troops to fight and die there too. It serves geo-political interests of the US, but whether it serves interests of Finland and Sweden is a question for their citizens to answer.

formerly_proven 5y ago
How does NATO "get into a conflict" between China (not a NATO member, last I checked) and Taiwan (not even an UN observer)?
- klawcode 5y ago
  I'm pretty sure a lot of people think NATO == US Empire and Interests. Its simply not true, and this is a pretty great example of how much disinformation and FUD certain "interests" have created around NATO. Hawaii isn't even covered under NATO, even if someone attacked the US: https://www.westernjournal.com/nato-loophole-attack-hawaii/ https://www.westernjournal.com/nato-loophole-attack-hawaii/
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  The US would have to make a case to the rest of the members that it has been attacked under article 5 and the rest of the members have to agree. There are a lot of conceivable scenarios where the US would not make the case and even where the other members might disagree.
tsupiroti 5y ago
Taiwan is not a member of NATO, and neither are other US allies in east Asia.
- ghostwriter 5y ago
  Yugoslavia was not a NATO member either.
ceejayoz 5y ago
NATO doesn't even cover Hawaii, let alone Taiwan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty#Article_6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty#Article_... > Article 6 states that the treaty covers only member states' territories in Europe and North America, Turkey and islands in the North Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer, plus French Algeria. It was the opinion in August 1965 of the US State Department, the US Defense Department and the legal division of NATO that an attack on the U.S. state of Hawaii would not trigger the treaty, but an attack on the other 49 would.
- ghostwriter 5y ago
  Was it covering Yugoslavia back in 90s?
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Irrelevant. That was a voluntary intervention, not an invocation of the Treaty's mutual defense aspects. Individual NATO members were not required to participate; three (Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland) did not. A similar scenario with Taiwan would not mean "Finland and Sweden would have to send their troops to fight and die there too" as you asserted; they'd have the option to join in if they saw fit.
    - klawcode 5y ago
      NATO also only covers the North Atlantic Area - this is explicit. https://www.westernjournal.com/nato-loophole-attack-hawaii/ https://www.westernjournal.com/nato-loophole-attack-hawaii/
    - ghostwriter 5y ago
      > Irrelevant. That was a voluntary intervention, not an invocation of the Treaty's mutual defense aspects. Individual NATO members were not required to participate; three (Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland) did not. I'm not saying it would be a verbal and written requirement to participate, and yet, they might have to for other political reasons, like a supply of additional defensive equipment or maintenance programs. For instance, some countries did participate in wars on the side of NATO even though they are not even a part of the alliance. All at the expense of human lives and taxpayers' money [1][2]. Before you say that the US interventions are not NATO interventions, could you name at least one instance from this list [3] where the US was not an active participant of and was actually disapproving of other members' actions? I'm asking because there's a valid growing sentiment with an element of truth in it that NATO without the US is not a potent alliance. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_Mechanized_Brigade_(Ukraine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_Mechanized_Brigade_(Ukrain... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_Mechanized_Brigade_(Ukraine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_Mechanized_Brigade_(Ukrain... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations

formerly_proven 5y ago

How does NATO "get into a conflict" between China (not a NATO member, last I checked) and Taiwan (not even an UN observer)?

klawcode 5y ago
I'm pretty sure a lot of people think NATO == US Empire and Interests. Its simply not true, and this is a pretty great example of how much disinformation and FUD certain "interests" have created around NATO. Hawaii isn't even covered under NATO, even if someone attacked the US: https://www.westernjournal.com/nato-loophole-attack-hawaii/ https://www.westernjournal.com/nato-loophole-attack-hawaii/
bayesian_horse 5y ago
The US would have to make a case to the rest of the members that it has been attacked under article 5 and the rest of the members have to agree. There are a lot of conceivable scenarios where the US would not make the case and even where the other members might disagree.

tsupiroti 5y ago

Taiwan is not a member of NATO, and neither are other US allies in east Asia.

ghostwriter 5y ago
Yugoslavia was not a NATO member either.

ceejayoz 5y ago

NATO doesn't even cover Hawaii, let alone Taiwan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty#Article_6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty#Article_... > Article 6 states that the treaty covers only member states' territories in Europe and North America, Turkey and islands in the North Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer, plus French Algeria. It was the opinion in August 1965 of the US State Department, the US Defense Department and the legal division of NATO that an attack on the U.S. state of Hawaii would not trigger the treaty, but an attack on the other 49 would.

ghostwriter 5y ago
Was it covering Yugoslavia back in 90s?
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Irrelevant. That was a voluntary intervention, not an invocation of the Treaty's mutual defense aspects. Individual NATO members were not required to participate; three (Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland) did not. A similar scenario with Taiwan would not mean "Finland and Sweden would have to send their troops to fight and die there too" as you asserted; they'd have the option to join in if they saw fit.
  - klawcode 5y ago
    NATO also only covers the North Atlantic Area - this is explicit. https://www.westernjournal.com/nato-loophole-attack-hawaii/ https://www.westernjournal.com/nato-loophole-attack-hawaii/
  - ghostwriter 5y ago
    > Irrelevant. That was a voluntary intervention, not an invocation of the Treaty's mutual defense aspects. Individual NATO members were not required to participate; three (Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland) did not. I'm not saying it would be a verbal and written requirement to participate, and yet, they might have to for other political reasons, like a supply of additional defensive equipment or maintenance programs. For instance, some countries did participate in wars on the side of NATO even though they are not even a part of the alliance. All at the expense of human lives and taxpayers' money [1][2]. Before you say that the US interventions are not NATO interventions, could you name at least one instance from this list [3] where the US was not an active participant of and was actually disapproving of other members' actions? I'm asking because there's a valid growing sentiment with an element of truth in it that NATO without the US is not a potent alliance. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_Mechanized_Brigade_(Ukraine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_Mechanized_Brigade_(Ukrain... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_Mechanized_Brigade_(Ukraine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_Mechanized_Brigade_(Ukrain... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations