• Announcements

    • Kelly

      New Team members Needed--Moderator, Project Team, and Declass Team: Voting   12/10/13

      See:   http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/164659-new-declass-team-member-needed-voting/   http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/164657-new-moderator-member-needed-qa-co-mod-and-world-watch-mod-voting/   http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/164656-new-project-team-member-needed-resources-and-education-director-voting/  
    • Kelly

      AVENues Holiday Special Edition is now live   08/17/17

      The new edition of AVENues is done!   See:        
    • Lady Girl

      Ace Community Census   11/06/17

      It’s time for the 2017 Ace Community Census!   see:   http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/162675-announcing-the-2017-ace-community-census/  
    • Heart

      Help fund AVEN's servers!   11/06/17

      AVEN is doing its annual fundraiser to raise donations for server costs! See http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/163251-aven-server-fundraiser/ for more details.  
Sign in to follow this  
ThaHoward

Pre-emptive strike against North Korea?

Recommended Posts

Autumn McJavabean

What reason would China even have to attack the US? I see no logical interest in that. But thanks for clarifying.

 

NATO was formed back in the late 1940's, before the end of the cold war. So its continuation to prevent Russia (was the Soviets) from attacking or launching is an outdated reason now.

 

Why? Why should it stay as much?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThaHoward
22 minutes ago, Autumn McJavabean said:

 

 

NATO was formed back in the late 1940's, before the end of the cold war. So its continuation to prevent Russia (was the Soviets) from attacking or launching is an outdated reason now.

 

 

 

Russia have proven itself to be aggressive toward its neighbours. Let it be Georgia or Ukraine, and its many aggressive manuevers in neutral countries (fighter planes going over Finnish and Swedish arieal space, submarines violating their waters) and provoking US NAvy vessels. And the only time NATO have gotten together as a mutual alliance was after 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan. So it might not be so outdated, it have just evolved. And Russia have the CSTO which is basically all of the Soviet Union (minus Ukraine and Georgia which got its territory invaded by Russia) as a defense alliance, are Russia just as outdated as USA then by evolving the former USSR states into an alliance? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Autumn McJavabean
Just now, ThaHoward said:

Russia have proven itself to be aggressive toward its neighbours. Let it be Georgia or Ukraine. And the only time NATO have gotten together as a mutual alliance was after 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan. So it might not be so outdated, it have just evolved. And Russia have the CSTO which is basically all of the Soviet Union (minus Ukraine and Georgia which got its territory invaded by Russia) as a defense alliance, are Russia just as outdated as USA then by evolving the former USSR states into an alliance? 

It's outdated on the nuke part, not conflict, though obviously NATO has done hardly anything on that front considering recent actions in the past 2-3 years. I forgot, maybe 4 years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThaHoward
1 minute ago, Autumn McJavabean said:

It's outdated on the nuke part, not conflict, though obviously NATO has done hardly anything on that front considering recent actions in the past 2-3 years. I forgot, maybe 4 years?

What is it to do? Nuke countries? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Autumn McJavabean
Just now, ThaHoward said:

What is it to do? Nuke countries? 

Well it wont because the counter to it would be total annihilation and a nuclear winter. NATO isn't regulating nor preventing Russia from using nukes and hardly on invading. They spread themselves into conflicts much like the US, so while NATO came together after 9/11, it's not doing to well to stop Russia and sure as hell is doing nothing to stop China, who just gives NATO and the US the big middle finger regarding nautical laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThaHoward
6 minutes ago, Autumn McJavabean said:

Well it wont because the counter to it would be total annihilation and a nuclear winter. NATO isn't regulating nor preventing Russia from using nukes and hardly on invading. They spread themselves into conflicts much like the US, so while NATO came together after 9/11, it's not doing to well to stop Russia and sure as hell is doing nothing to stop China, who just gives NATO and the US the big middle finger regarding nautical laws.

Russia have proven itself to not be afraid to invade non-aligned nations. For some reason they have stayed away from NATO nations, and that's the whole point of the nuclear capacity of both blocs to prevent a war. An alliance can't just regulate directly another nation from having nukes, but the whole thing is that it "regulate" it (by using your words) from being used by having retaliatory capabilities. 

 

And what can NATO do to prevent Russian aggression? And what can CSTO do to prevent US aggression? There is the matter of what's needed and what's practical, however the Russian economy is taking a big toll on NATO and EU sanctions, but what would the alternative be? Should NATO go to war over Crimea or some islands in the South China Sea? The execution of the annexation of Crimea took many by surprise, but the war in Donbass have been somewhat quiet, much to do with US and EU involvement. Now Russia also conducted a massive cyberattack against Estonia, after that NATO evolved to include such cyber attacks as an act of war. After that there haven't been any cyber attacks on that scale from Russia (however the eastern expansion of NATO is another topic..)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Autumn McJavabean
3 minutes ago, ThaHoward said:

Russia have proven itself to not be afraid to invade non-aligned nations. For some reason they have stayed away from NATO nations, and that's the whole point of the nuclear capacity of both blocs to prevent a war. An alliance can't just regulate directly another nation from having nukes, but the whole thing is that it "regulate" it (by using your words) from being used by having retaliatory capabilities. 

 

And what can NATO do to prevent Russian aggression? And what can CSTO do to prevent US aggression? There is the matter of what's needed and what's practical, however the Russian economy is taking a big toll on NATO and EU sanctions, but what would the alternative be? Should NATO go to war over Crimea or some islands in the South China Sea? 

Of course they can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThaHoward
Just now, Autumn McJavabean said:

Of course they can't.

So what do you propose them to do? Since the creation of NATO, Russia/USSR/Warsaw Pact/CSTO have only invaded countries in "their sphere" and not done anything directly against NATO/US/EU and vice versa. And that is the point of these alliances in the end, to keep peace in Europe between the two blocs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this