"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (1 Viewer)

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

Right, and this is indeed where we agree. The actions in the past had other positive motivations (stopping genocide in the former Yugoslavia, redressing the attack of 9/11, and so), but in this case there is a negative motivation that simply was not there in those instances -- a nuclear-armed opponent -- that mitigates against NATO action today.

Had any of those other opponents held nukes, you can bet that NATO would have been much less solid in response. Had any of those other powers had the ability to strike NATO countries with a nuclear response, I doubt NATO would have taken the actions it did in fact take.

NATO didn't act only because Libya or Serbia lacked nukes; the motivation was clearly outside that. But had either nation possessed nukes, I'd be willing to bet NATO's reply would have been very different; and I'm willing to bet that it's only Russia's nuclear forces which are holding a NATO response at abeyance today.

NATO is generally defensive in nature, to be sure. But how willing it is to be active in defense is surely affected by a potential nuclear response. I think it's fair game to point that out.

 

[nuuumannn]

I think it's fair game to point that out.

It is, and I agree, but not without taking the mitigating circumstances into consideration. Not gonna back down on that. It is too simple to make that connection.

 

[nuuumannn]

Supposed to be great windsurfing country, though.

Oh heck yeah. Never been, but the winds are pretty ferocious. Unfortunately due to a little war 40 years ago, many of the beaches had obstacles that made such activities a bit more hazardous though. I have read that the land mine issue has almost completely been cleared up - the Argies didn't make maps, apparently...

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

It is, and I agree, but not without taking the mitigating circumstances into consideration. Not gonna back down on that. It is too simple to make that connection.

We don't have to agree 100% to agree in broad principle. I get where you're coming from, just wanted to make sure my own point was plain. I'm sorry if it looked like I was trying to pick an argument, I honestly wasn't, I just wasn't sure I had been clear. I think we're both clear about it now?

 

[nuuumannn]

I think we're both clear about it now?

Cool dude. I understand.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Only when it suits their purpose.

 

[buffnut453]

NATO didn't act only because Libya or Serbia lacked nukes; the motivation was clearly outside that. But had either nation possessed nukes, I'd be willing to bet NATO's reply would have been very different; and I'm willing to bet that it's only Russia's nuclear forces which are holding a NATO response at abeyance today.

I'm not sure I agree with this conclusion. Both Libya and Serbia were engaged in civil wars. If nukes were added to the mix, there's a strong case to be made for earlier, and perhaps more comprehensive (than an air campaign), decisive action to prevent use of the nukes or their capture by "bad guys" (whoever falls into that category as defined by the UN, NATO, the US et al).

Let's say someone tops Putin and Russia descends into civil war. Do we really think NATO will sit on the sidelines and not help to secure the nukes?

 

[SaparotRob]

Would it be NATO or some other organization? NATO might not be the most politic of choice. How was it done last time?

 

[hawkeye2an]

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.

Would you two just get a room.....................................................................I mean open a new thread

 

[nuuumannn]

Would you two just get a room.....................................................................I mean open a new thread

But we're friends now...

Thump holds my respect. Always insightful and thoughtful. A true character and he has great taste in music.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm not sure I agree with this conclusion. Both Libya and Serbia were engaged in civil wars. If nukes were added to the mix, there's a strong case to be made for earlier, and perhaps more comprehensive (than an air campaign), decisive action to prevent use of the nukes or their capture by "bad guys" (whoever falls into that category as defined by the UN, NATO, the US et al).

Let's say someone tops Putin and Russia descends into civil war. Do we really think NATO will sit on the sidelines and not help to secure the nukes?

I don't know that NATO would have much to say about it, if someone had both the weapons and the codes to fire them.

We do know that Putin has that. If he goes down, who's to say who can operate those weapons, and will they?

While the USSR never descended into civil war, it certainly broke apart, and we've spent the last thirty years devoting time and energy to controlling those nukes that were emplaced outside Russia proper, so I'm not sure what NATO could do, if anything, outside of negotiating those weapons into recycling. But I do think the action(s) would be diplomatic rather than militaristic ... at least at first.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

But we're friends now...

Thump holds my respect. Always insightful and thoughtful. A true character and he has great taste in music.

And likewise, Nuuu[...]man[...]n . Disagreement need not be disagreeable, and I hope we've shown that here. Up the Irons!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

We don't have to agree 100% to agree in broad principle. I get where you're coming from, just wanted to make sure my own point was plain. I'm sorry if it looked like I was trying to pick an argument, I honestly wasn't, I just wasn't sure I had been clear. I think we're both clear about it now?

Cool dude. I understand.

But we're friends now...

Thump holds my respect. Always insightful and thoughtful. A true character and he has great taste in music.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

View attachment 663264

 

[swampyankee]

I think NATO's remit does not include colonial possessions, such as the Falklands or Aruba, but does, probably, include edge cases like Jersey or the Faeroe Islands.

 

[Greg Boeser]

So, Northern Ireland is right out?

 

[swampyankee]

So, Northern Ireland is right out?

Somewhat confused by that statement.

 

[buffnut453]

Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, which is a member of the NATO Alliance.

Article 6 includes geographic definition which includes "the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer" as well as "forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."

The text of Article 6 also explicitly mentioned "the Algerian Departments of France" as being included, but the North Atlantic Council decided, on January 16, 1963, those territories had ceased to be included since July 3, 1962.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Somewhat confused by that statement.

I was referring to Northern Ireland as a colonial possession.

 

[buffnut453]

I was referring to Northern Ireland as a colonial possession.

But it's not a colonial possession. It's a formal member of the United Kingdom, just like England, Wales, and Scotland. That's what the people of Northern Ireland wanted and why they fought so long against the IRA.