"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (2 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Thumpalumpacus said:
They're not solely defined by whether or not the opposing power possessed or possesses nuclear arms
Click to expand...

You're STILL misunderstanding the point I'm making! You've got to the point that you are now inadvertently agreeing with me!

It looks to be that you are deliberately attempting to start an argument, which is nonsense and not necessary. I don't disagree with what you are saying, but what you are saying is NOT counter to the point I was initially making, simply because you misunderstood it.
 
Last edited:
Jagdflieger said:
So NATO is not willing (therefore not able) to engage actively militarily against him being a nuclear power.
Click to expand...

Nice that you have pointed all these things out, but you haven't really done anything except provide circumstantial evidence behind your assertion. Were you in the room when the statements of intent were being written? Yes, the nuclear issue is definitely a consideration when tackling a nuclear power, but that doesn't mean NATO is acting in those other scenarios simply because these countries are not nuclear powers - there were outside mitigating factors.

As for things like the Falklands War, what has NATO got to do with it simply because the UK is in NATO? This is the point I made earlier, NATO states do not have to be beholden to NATO, they can act independently of NATO. NATO had NOTHING to do with the UK response to the Argentine invasion of the islands, in fact, I don't even see the connection, to be frank.

Firstly, you are deliberately muddying the waters by considering all actions carried out by NATO member states as being NATO ordered, which clearly they are not. Secondly, the nuclear issue obviously informs how NATO will act, but it is not (take note, others) the only driver behind NATO's actions in the past and present, certainly not in this case when the Sec Gen (again, how many times do I have to point this out?!) stated that NATO was not going to provoke a full scale war in Europe.

Obviously the nuclear issue is big and changes the dynamic (I've said this before...) and NATO is right to be cautious regarding Putin's threats of using nuclear weapons in-theatre. What NATO fears right now is a possible incursion into NATO space that would result in war in Europe. Those Baltic State NATO members are probably feeling quite vulnerable right now.
 
Slightly off topic, this time forty years ago, hundreds of Argentine soldiers, sailors and airmen were mentally preparing themselves for what they thought was their patriotic duty. Operacion Rosario was finally being set in motion...

Back to our regular programming.
 
nuuumannn said:
You're STILL misunderstanding the point I'm making! You've got to the point that you are now inadvertently agreeing with me!

It looks to be that you are deliberately attempting to start an argument, which is nonsense and not necessary. I don't disagree with what you are saying, but what you are saying is NOT counter to the point I was initially making, simply because you misunderstood it.
Click to expand...

I understand the point you're making. I just don't think it applies in this instance.

I'm not trying to start an argument -- with you, whom I respect -- but I'm saying that in this instance ignoring the nuclear threat is not something anyone in NATO is actually doing; and that is a threat that didn't obtain in any previous NATO engagement. This is clear from public pronouncements from both American and European gov't officials. This makes it entirely different from previous NATO deployments. They had the luxury of ignoring non-existent nuclear threats in other deployments. They do not have that here.

It's the elephant in the room, which wasn't there in Serbia, or Afghanistan, or Libya, and I think J Jagdflieger is right in pointing that out.
 
Everyone, please take a deep breath and calm down..

C4CF98AB-37E5-4263-AB34-61E7AAD963B3.gif
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
It's the elephant in the room, which wasn't there in Serbia, or Afghanistan, or Libya, and I think J Jagdflieger is right in pointing that out.
Click to expand...

Obviously its consequential, but as I've said, it's not the sole driver behind NATO's past actions. He's simplifying the causes of each of these situations with a broad stroke of the brush, hence the "glib" statement. Why wouldn't NATO be cautious about Russia's nuclear weapons? But to assume that NATO acted in previous scenarios simply because they didn't have nuclear weapons (again...) doesn't take so many other mitigating factors into consideration.
 
nuuumannn said:
Firstly, you are deliberately muddying the waters by considering all actions carried out by NATO member states as being NATO ordered
Click to expand...
If GDR had attacked FRG back in the 70s or 80s, would we have considered it a solo operation? Of course not, we would have taken it as a Warsw Pact action orchestrated by Moscow. Why should we expect NATO to be viewed any differently by those to the east of us?
 
XBe02Drvr said:
Why should we expect NATO to be viewed any differently by those to the east of us?
Click to expand...

Context. Context, context, context.

Britain is a member of NATO, Argentina is not, Britain acted to invade the Falklands because it deemed the islands as its own sovereign territory, NOT because it was acting on NATO resolution.

Even East of the wall the word "context" has meaning.
 
nuuumannn said:
Britain acted to invade the Falklands because it deemed the islands as its own sovereign territory
Click to expand...
The dominant demographic in the Maldives was of Anglo origin and didn't want to become Latin Americans. Their Argentine neighbors, servants, and hired help didn't have any say in the matter.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

Similar threads

M
All V-22's Grounded
Replies
2
Views
876
GTX
GTX
M
All This For The Low, Low Price of .....
Replies
19
Views
1K
MIflyer
M
M
The Wrath of KAAN?
Replies
3
Views
567
Snautzer01
Snautzer01
M
What Is The Point Of This?
Replies
3
Views
362
SaparotRob
SaparotRob
M
USAF Provides More Proof That UFOs are Real!
Replies
0
Views
383
MIflyer
M
Back