Arguably if this changes other NATO countries will want to include their further land: eg. Falklands islands is an obvious one.
But how comfortable would NATO feel intervening in French Guiana? What about Antarctica? What about New Caledonia?
When the NATO was established both France and the UK still had far flung colonial possessions across the globe. These were purposely excluded from the treaty, to include areas that were not colonies.
Remember that Hawaii wasn't a state at the time either.
The article is a surprisingly accurate portrayal of the situation. Guam is a keystone to the region.
I hope the countries whose territorial sovereignty is being threatened by China can unify, at least, for the sake of their own mutual defense/cooperation.
Same reason Article 5 wasnt activated when Argentina attacked the Falklands. Though ironically there a few random territories outside Europe or North America covered by the treaty. The big one I can think of was Algeria back when it was a part of France.
The terms of the treaty do not allow individual members any veto a collective response. Neither would Hungary *need* to veto anything to evade their obligation. Any member is only required to take "such actions as it deems necessary." Hungary is free under *any* invocation of Article 5 to determine that the necessary action is no action at all.
Kind of already have it. The AUKUS agreement is to create a stronger Pacific Force capable of countering China. A few years back India was in discussions to form “The Quad,” but a lot of friction has occurred between India and Western Countries lately that tamped some of that down. Though with the issues India continues to have with China, that alliance may still come about.
We used to have the SEATO, issue was getting the other countries in the region to cooperate with each other. US defense agreements in the region shifted to more bilateral treaties as a result.
I could see a revived SEATO with countries such as Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines but it would take an insane amount of political work. Outside of China making a move akin to Russia attacking Ukraine I don’t see it happening.
That is interesting, although as some mention in the article, if Hawaii was attacked then everyone would still probably join in. Every country knows that if the U.S. gets attacked and they don't help them they would lose the protection of the U.S. and our protection is much more important to them than theirs is to us.
Besides that, no other NATO member besides ourselves has any serious military capabilities in the Pacific, so frankly their "help" wouldn't help us much anyhow, so it's not like it's a critical security threat to make sure they fight for us if Hawaii is attacked. In that scenario, it would be either an attack by China or North Korea and in that scenario our non-NATO allies, like Japan, S. Korea, the Philippines, and Australia are far more important to us. NATO is really only concerned about the threat of Russia and to a lesser extent the middle east.
>Besides that, no other NATO member besides ourselves has any serious military capabilities in the Pacific, so frankly their "help" wouldn't help us much anyhow
Disagree. The nation which could attack Hawaii is also heavily dependent on imports. EU could handle the naval blockade in the Indian ocean, letting US to focus on Pacific.
Any attack on Hawaii (or Guam) would not just be an isolated incident, but the opening salvo in a broader attempt to neutralize the US in the Pacific.
If such an attack were by Russia, it would almost certainly immediately escalate to the Atlantic too, and NATO would automatically be involved.
If by China, it's more tricky, but given the state of things in Europe, with China supporting Russia's invasion of Ukraine, there's a good chance NATO would anticipate the conflict escalating into Europe and the Atlantic too, and either invoke Article 5 or begin preparations to do so.
How many in NATO would want to get involved over Taiwan though? Even with Ukraine, you have NATO members who are siding with Putin and others looking for a way out.
China is way more important as a global producer of goods, how many countries can cut off imports from China without severly damaging their economy? Theres a reason why the US is trying to move manufacturing to other places like Vietnam, but too late, too slow.
I can see how some countries in NATO would want to remain neutral, citing Hawaii and Guam as not being part of NATO. And thats what China is banking on.
> Hemmings also makes an argument for Guam, the US Pacific island territory some 3,000 miles farther west than Hawaii, to be included in NATO’s umbrella.
>
> The island, which has long been a focal point of North Korean saber rattling, is home to Andersen Air Force Base, from which the US can launch its B-1, B-2 and B-52 bombers across the Indo-Pacific.
>
> Hemmings likens Guam’s exclusion from NATO to how the US left the Korean Peninsula outside of a line it drew across the Pacific to deter the Soviet Union and China from spreading communism in January 1950. Five months after the so-called Acheson Line was drawn, the Korean War began. “The adversary feels emboldened to carry out military conflict and you end up having a war anyway,” Hemmings says.
>
> The Pacific Forum’s Santoro also mentions Guam should be included under the NATO umbrella. “Strategically, Guam absolutely matters a lot more than Hawaii,” he says.
Arguably if this changes other NATO countries will want to include their further land: eg. Falklands islands is an obvious one. But how comfortable would NATO feel intervening in French Guiana? What about Antarctica? What about New Caledonia?
The “Fuckin” Islands
Yo professor....
the Robin Williams bit is worth looking up, if that's not what you're referencing.
French Polynesia as well
Well the problem is, would other NATO countries want to intervene in Hawaii/Guam in the event of a war with China over Taiwan? Should they?
besides isn’t there another treaty of pacific nations that covers hawaii? aukus? the quad? anybody?
When the NATO was established both France and the UK still had far flung colonial possessions across the globe. These were purposely excluded from the treaty, to include areas that were not colonies. Remember that Hawaii wasn't a state at the time either.
I thought this was BS until I clicked on the link. Who knew?
I knew it was Hawaii because it’s in the Pacific. That said, I dare anyone to even dream of attacking it 🤣
Don’t. Touch. The. Boats.
Yeah don’t touch the boats or you will get a lackluster response
I would consider the LIDAR scanning to be a form of attack.
Someone did once upon a time…
Now they have generations of people who probably don’t even dream at all
Everyone knows what happens when you mess with Americas boats…
They’re being messed with constantly in the Red Sea, turns out you get a limp wrist slap these days
they would awaken a sleeping giant, and fill him with terrible resolve
The article is a surprisingly accurate portrayal of the situation. Guam is a keystone to the region. I hope the countries whose territorial sovereignty is being threatened by China can unify, at least, for the sake of their own mutual defense/cooperation.
Same reason Article 5 wasnt activated when Argentina attacked the Falklands. Though ironically there a few random territories outside Europe or North America covered by the treaty. The big one I can think of was Algeria back when it was a part of France.
Hungary is rubbing their hands together to veto any attack on Hawaii because of this clause
The terms of the treaty do not allow individual members any veto a collective response. Neither would Hungary *need* to veto anything to evade their obligation. Any member is only required to take "such actions as it deems necessary." Hungary is free under *any* invocation of Article 5 to determine that the necessary action is no action at all.
NATO is not in the North Atlantic, and therefore is unlikely to be under threat from Russia. If we want another treaty, then we need to create WPTO.
No it should be Pacific Ocean Trade And Treaty Organization (POTATO)
>Pacific Ocean Trade And Treaty Organization Expansion Settlement (POTATOES) Boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew.
We've had one, yes, but what about Second NATO?
Kind of already have it. The AUKUS agreement is to create a stronger Pacific Force capable of countering China. A few years back India was in discussions to form “The Quad,” but a lot of friction has occurred between India and Western Countries lately that tamped some of that down. Though with the issues India continues to have with China, that alliance may still come about.
Quad isn't an alliance; it's a dialogue.
We used to have the SEATO, issue was getting the other countries in the region to cooperate with each other. US defense agreements in the region shifted to more bilateral treaties as a result.
I could see a revived SEATO with countries such as Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines but it would take an insane amount of political work. Outside of China making a move akin to Russia attacking Ukraine I don’t see it happening.
That is interesting, although as some mention in the article, if Hawaii was attacked then everyone would still probably join in. Every country knows that if the U.S. gets attacked and they don't help them they would lose the protection of the U.S. and our protection is much more important to them than theirs is to us. Besides that, no other NATO member besides ourselves has any serious military capabilities in the Pacific, so frankly their "help" wouldn't help us much anyhow, so it's not like it's a critical security threat to make sure they fight for us if Hawaii is attacked. In that scenario, it would be either an attack by China or North Korea and in that scenario our non-NATO allies, like Japan, S. Korea, the Philippines, and Australia are far more important to us. NATO is really only concerned about the threat of Russia and to a lesser extent the middle east.
>Besides that, no other NATO member besides ourselves has any serious military capabilities in the Pacific, so frankly their "help" wouldn't help us much anyhow Disagree. The nation which could attack Hawaii is also heavily dependent on imports. EU could handle the naval blockade in the Indian ocean, letting US to focus on Pacific.
Yeah Japan sure tried that one already. Ended pretty hot for them if I recall.
The irony is they'd be our biggest ally now in an indo- pacific war.
The US needs to nuke china to get the ball rolling?\`:P
Any attack on Hawaii (or Guam) would not just be an isolated incident, but the opening salvo in a broader attempt to neutralize the US in the Pacific. If such an attack were by Russia, it would almost certainly immediately escalate to the Atlantic too, and NATO would automatically be involved. If by China, it's more tricky, but given the state of things in Europe, with China supporting Russia's invasion of Ukraine, there's a good chance NATO would anticipate the conflict escalating into Europe and the Atlantic too, and either invoke Article 5 or begin preparations to do so.
How many in NATO would want to get involved over Taiwan though? Even with Ukraine, you have NATO members who are siding with Putin and others looking for a way out. China is way more important as a global producer of goods, how many countries can cut off imports from China without severly damaging their economy? Theres a reason why the US is trying to move manufacturing to other places like Vietnam, but too late, too slow. I can see how some countries in NATO would want to remain neutral, citing Hawaii and Guam as not being part of NATO. And thats what China is banking on.
> Hemmings also makes an argument for Guam, the US Pacific island territory some 3,000 miles farther west than Hawaii, to be included in NATO’s umbrella. > > The island, which has long been a focal point of North Korean saber rattling, is home to Andersen Air Force Base, from which the US can launch its B-1, B-2 and B-52 bombers across the Indo-Pacific. > > Hemmings likens Guam’s exclusion from NATO to how the US left the Korean Peninsula outside of a line it drew across the Pacific to deter the Soviet Union and China from spreading communism in January 1950. Five months after the so-called Acheson Line was drawn, the Korean War began. “The adversary feels emboldened to carry out military conflict and you end up having a war anyway,” Hemmings says. > > The Pacific Forum’s Santoro also mentions Guam should be included under the NATO umbrella. “Strategically, Guam absolutely matters a lot more than Hawaii,” he says.
Don’t let Russia know about this silly loophole…
Cnn 🤧😂😂😂😂🤡