Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It would be if we annexed Canada.Not disagreeing, just pointing out it is not the contiguous USA.
I thought we already had?!!!What if we annexed the Pacific?
You guard the White House.It would be if we annexed Canada.
The best way for Russia to protect those ships would be to hand 'em over to Turkey.
You have no idea how much this situation infuriates me.Robots Reinforce Ukraine’s Most Vulnerable District As A Key Brigade Melts Down
One obvious advantage of drones over human soldiers: they don’t have politics.www.forbes.com
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?
What if we annexed the Pacific?
That is from the Tropic of Cancer being decided on as the dividing line and is why it was.There was a big article on the WP or NYT or CNN a while back that says Hawaii is definitely not covered. From memory the reason was that Hawaii was not part of the US when NATO was formed PLUS it is in the Pacific.
What if we annexed the Pacific?
It would be helpful if everyone read Art 6 which I posted in post# 29563 on page 1479 if full and not just bits of it.
"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again."
There's a few sure things in life that are an absolute: Death, taxes and Ukraine will not ceed one inch to Russia. The media is having a field day hyping up the waffling in the U.S. with the aid package. Meanwhile, Europe has stepped up and is committing a staggering amount of support that...ww2aircraft.net
Article 6
"For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
Note it is Islands in the North Atlantic. No mention of thePacific. So no, an attack on Hawaii would not commit NATO members to coming to the assistance of the USA under Article 5. Add to that Hawaii is not in North America.
- on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
So unless there is a commitment under one of the other Treaties.....