Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hmm, Israel first needs to be able to hit them. And doing so, it will escalate the situation in the Middle East further, distracting the western countries even more from the Ukraine. I don't think we need another full blown war. The Gaza situation is bad enough as it is.I was thinking along the same lines.
Striking their drone manufacturing sites would not only benefit Israel, but Ukraine as well.
If this is the case, then Iran will have screwed Russia in a round-about way.
Hawaii is not protected by NATO because it is in the Pacific but I believe Alaska is included because it is in the contiguous US.
That said if Alaska is gifted back to the Russians as compensation for the Ukrainian war then NATO will definitely not protect it.
Perhaps, but even here in its own thread we're distracted from Ukraine. That's where Israel is dangerous for sucking the US and the West's attention.At least what they now use vs Israel can't be used vs Ukraine
However, I will bet solid money on the fact that Putin has worked a deal with Iran for the distraction and considering Iran's hatred for Israel, they were more than happy to do it.Perhaps, but even here in its own thread we're distracted from Ukraine. That's where Israel is dangerous for sucking the US and the West's attention.
That's because it's all interconnected.Perhaps, but even here in its own thread we're distracted from Ukraine. That's where Israel is dangerous for sucking the US and the West's attention.
Alaska is not part of the contiguous US, as it does not border any of the lower 48 states. Even the US military classifies Alaska as OCONUS (Outside Continental United States) and considers it an Overseas Assignment.
Alaska and Hawaii are not part of the contiguous states and are included in the definition of non-foreign OCONUS. NON-FOREIGN OCONUS AREA
But refer back to the Falklands.That said, it is still territory of a NATO member in North America, and therefore still has Art 5 protection.
But refer back to the Falklands.
The Malvinas are claimed by Argentina, but as a British possession, fall outside of the NATO language of national Proper.
This would be like saying that a Chinese attack on French Polynesia would involve a NATO response.
It won't.
I think that while NATO *might* be considered, Russia attacking Alaska would see the U.S. unleash an instant shitstorm that even Stalin could have never imagined.
NATO wouldn't even have a chance to get their car out of the garage.
So, had Argentina's Type 209 submarine ARA San Luis managed to get herself prewar to a position north of the Tropic of Cancer (perhaps via a visit to Cuba, with Argentina being one of the first e-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba in 1973), and torpedoed RN ships north of the Tropic of Cancer as the Task Force was heading southward, does NATO care? As for Hawaii, as part of the USA, I can't believe that NATO would stand by if Russia attacked the place. Surely that's not a viable loophole?The tropic of Cancer is the Southern limit for NATO.
Member states have no obligation to come to the defence of any territory below the line.
The Falkland islands and Hawaii are both South of the Tropic of Cancer so neither would
trigger article 5.
That said, it is still territory of a NATO member in North America, and therefore still has Art 5 protection.