Should NATO include Australia, Israel, Singapore, Japan & India?

S

swerve

Super Moderator
indian bull said:
Well if nato is expanded for countering India, Russia and China, then these nations will get closer to form a new alliance and nato will be weakened and loose its credibility. Who will permit Taiwan to be included in NATO and when Indonesia is going to break.This is never going to happen.
Well man u can certainly see these things happening in your dreams. I am seeing the death of NATO(EU is going to take much greater role)
Click to expand...
You should read posts before criticising them. KevinB did not suggest NATO should include Taiwan. He said that NATO should not be expanded to include Asian countries, & proposed a new alliance, separate from NATO, of Asia/Pacific countries & countries involved in the region (e.g. France, which has Pacific territories..

You are arguing with your own imagination, not what KevinB posted.
 
I

indian bull

Banned Member
swerve said:
You should read posts before criticising them. KevinB did not suggest NATO should include Taiwan. He said that NATO should not be expanded to include Asian countries, & proposed a new alliance, separate from NATO, of Asia/Pacific countries & countries involved in the region (e.g. France, which has Pacific territories..

You are arguing with your own imagination, not what KevinB posted.
Click to expand...
Its OK but china will not let Taiwan to get into such an alliance easily and certianly China India and Russia will not be sitting like ducks if such a alliance is formed to counter them strategically. Already there there is lot of discussion between these 3 nations to form an axis, but the chances of this situation coming true are grim, but in KevinB's imagination this can happen and also he can sleep well to dream about the breakup of indonesia,GOOD LUCK.
 
F

FlashG

New Member
Apologies, I havent read all 87 posts so far, so someone may have already posed these questions.

While the concept is perhaps laudable, encouraging common systems, training, interoperability etc, many of these are basic objectives anyway of all the militaries of countries suggested.

So I ask, what is the policy objective, other than expansion in and of itself? Can one realistically see Europeans rushing to help Australia in the event of an attack on it (setting aside the question of who attacked, or how such an attack occurred). Or if India suggested recovering territory lost to China in the 1960's? I think managing the NATO alliance itself has proved problematic enough, as General Wesley Clark indicated during the Kosovo operations in his book "Waging Modern War"; without having more distant members of some "wider alliance" framework.

Was the Republic of Korea forgotten? Or arent they welcome? Or New Zealand? Okay, policy here is anti-nuclear but doesnt Denmark also dislike nuclear powered ships? We have troops in Afghanistan and they will be there for years, public support is holding firm for that.

One wonders what the structures could be as well. Singapore does have personnel based all over the planet using other countries facilities. Would this new alliance seek to increase foreign troop deployments? What about the cost of that? Where would the commander and his staff be? How would that tie in with the US combatant commands, given their territory focus, and bluntly, their preponderance of firepower and deployable forces should some action start? Who would command, also - setting aside the political statements that would make!!

Perhaps "alliances of the willing and interested" in relation to the particular event may be more practical at present than a formal wider alliance.
 
G

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Re Denmark and nuclear weapons.

Denmark was a founding member of NATO, i.e. before nukes really became an issue.

The declared policy was and is that Denmark expects from the U.S. that they do not bring nukes into Danish soverign territory - but Denmark does not ask the U.S. to declare if the units are armed with nuclear weapons. Such a request would be refused, regardless if they are armed or not. And then what?

Thule air base is known to have been used for B-52s carrying nukes, but none were permantly stationed. Rather a an semi-emergency/occasional stop airfield, which was the case when a B-52 with 4 nukes crashed.

Re NATO enlargement.

My impression is that NATO needs to consolidate, as the view is that the ratio of security consumers to security contributors has been altered. It will take time to consolidate.

I don't see the NATO role dominishing in Europe. The grip the Atlanticists have on this is overpowering the more marginal Eurocentric view at this point. Very few wants the U.S. out of Europe.

Lastly, NATO is a "regional" alliance. What's in it for NATO to expand its policy goals, what's in it for the would be joiners. This is not just about who belongs to the "good guys club".
 
I

Incognito129

Banned Member
FlashG said:
Apologies, I havent read all 87 posts so far, so someone may have already posed these questions.

While the concept is perhaps laudable, encouraging common systems, training, interoperability etc, many of these are basic objectives anyway of all the militaries of countries suggested.

So I ask, what is the policy objective, other than expansion in and of itself? Can one realistically see Europeans rushing to help Australia in the event of an attack on it (setting aside the question of who attacked, or how such an attack occurred). Or if India suggested recovering territory lost to China in the 1960's? I think managing the NATO alliance itself has proved problematic enough, as General Wesley Clark indicated during the Kosovo operations in his book "Waging Modern War"; without having more distant members of some "wider alliance" framework.

Was the Republic of Korea forgotten? Or arent they welcome? Or New Zealand? Okay, policy here is anti-nuclear but doesnt Denmark also dislike nuclear powered ships? We have troops in Afghanistan and they will be there for years, public support is holding firm for that.

One wonders what the structures could be as well. Singapore does have personnel based all over the planet using other countries facilities. Would this new alliance seek to increase foreign troop deployments? What about the cost of that? Where would the commander and his staff be? How would that tie in with the US combatant commands, given their territory focus, and bluntly, their preponderance of firepower and deployable forces should some action start? Who would command, also - setting aside the political statements that would make!!

Perhaps "alliances of the willing and interested" in relation to the particular event may be more practical at present than a formal wider alliance.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with NATO. For one its coming from Giuliani who is more of an AIPAC hardliner so to speak. These countries are militarily insignificant. None of the 4 countries have any sort of strategic planning center capable of even attacking Iran if need be. These countries were mentioned because they have been historically neutral or welcoming to Jews.
 
RubiconNZ

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
Incognito129 said:
This has nothing to do with NATO. For one its coming from Giuliani who is more of an AIPAC hardliner so to speak. These countries are militarily insignificant. None of the 4 countries have any sort of strategic planning center capable of even attacking Iran if need be. These countries were mentioned because they have been historically neutral or welcoming to Jews.
Click to expand...
Military insignificant? (I'll ignore Australia as not to appear biased)
The Japanese Navy is Arguably the second most powerful in the pacific, India is the most native fleet in the Indian Ocean. Both have very strong airforces that are comperable to most European countries. Insignificant is a incorrect label if not insulting. However reading your last line are you alluding to a Jewish conspiracy?
 
I

indian bull

Banned Member
robsta83 said:
Military insignificant? (I'll ignore Australia as not to appear biased)
The Japanese Navy is Arguably the second most powerful in the pacific, India is the most native fleet in the Indian Ocean. Both have very strong airforces that are comperable to most European countries. Insignificant is a incorrect label if not insulting. However reading your last line are you alluding to a Jewish conspiracy?
Click to expand...
I do not know about millitary capabilities of Singapore but all other 4 nations are strong millitarily and have state of the art technology(no doubt in that). Already there is emerging a kind of partenership between US, India, Australia, Japan to encircle China strategically as China is increasing its presence in Asia millitarily.
 
F

funtz

New Member
Incognito129 said:
This has nothing to do with NATO. For one its coming from Giuliani who is more of an AIPAC hardliner so to speak. These countries are militarily insignificant. None of the 4 countries have any sort of strategic planning center capable of even attacking Iran if need be. These countries were mentioned because they have been historically neutral or welcoming to Jews.
Click to expand...
Yes that is true, this is just Mr. Giulinani (? :unknown) talking of things in the distant land of USA.

What is this 'strategic planing center' you speak of, that attacks other nations like Iran?

I suppose If attacking Iran is a measure of military might then Iraq is/was more militarily capable than most of this world. Why even Afghanistan is right up in the military powers table then, ah!

If you had put some thought into the Iran statement i suppose you also considered that Iran is not capable of "attacking" Australia, India, Japan, and Singapore either, except through words, and for that battle all of the nations have some expert politicians who can really give it back to them if need be.
 
Last edited:
P

Pro'forma

New Member
robsta83 said:
Military insignificant? (I'll ignore Australia as not to appear biased)
The Japanese Navy is Arguably the second most powerful in the pacific, India is the most native fleet in the Indian Ocean. Both have very strong airforces that are comperable to most European countries. Insignificant is a incorrect label if not insulting. However reading your last line are you alluding to a Jewish conspiracy?
Click to expand...
How you see the common military well-being today ? Military is not
anymore a noon almoner, anonyme alias without position as responsibity for
environmental healthy. Is it right-time to broaden the perspective to
overall world construction ?

[Mod edit]Pro'forma, I don't know what you're trying to say, & I'm not the only one. Can you be a little less delphic, please?

PJI
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I

Izzy1

Banned Member
Should NATO include Australia...

My peronsal opinion.

I'd take Australia over most of our continental European NATO "allies".

They're a disgrace.

When it mattered, we did our bit - where are they?
 
Last edited:
I

Izzy1

Banned Member
Grand Danois said:
As you shout in the forest, you get reply. ;)
Click to expand...
I'm sorry you disagree, but that’s own your issue.

I'm sorry, but I'd rather have Australia as a NATO partner than most. Would you not agree that the "alliance" is not now factionalised?

NATO's response in Afghanistan is a disgrace - I ask? Where are our "allies" in Helmand?
 
Last edited:
G

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Izzy1 said:
I'm sorry you disagree, but that’s own your issue.

I'm sorry, but I'd rather have Australia as a NATO partner than most. Would you not agree that the "alliance" is not now factionalised?
Click to expand...
Hmm, you brought it up...

It depends on what you're looking for. Iraq is an abomination in NATO context, i.e. the U.S. tried to draw an organisation that was not intended as a coalition of the willing into that purpose. So this is not a test. NATO was not intended for Afghanistan either, so what is this a test? Btw, you have the Estonians, Dutch, Danes with you in the south. And despite the rumours the north is an active place too. http://rearechelon.blogspot.com/

As far as I can see NATO is not factionalised on the core issues, but have disagreements over peripheral things. Like above...

He, it's hard to take any issue with the affable Aussies. ;)

NATO serves a and interop/standardisation tool; as a command tool; political tool. Can't see the practical day to day side diminishing either.
 
E

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Izzy1 said:
I'm sorry you disagree, but that’s own your issue.

I'm sorry, but I'd rather have Australia as a NATO partner than most. Would you not agree that the "alliance" is not now factionalised?

NATO's response in Afghanistan is a disgrace - where are our "allies" in Helmand?
Click to expand...
What about the UK or even Poland.
 
I

Izzy1

Banned Member
Grand Danois said:
Hmm, you brought it up...

It depends on what you're looking for. Iraq is an abomination in NATO context, i.e. the U.S. tried to draw an organisation that was not intended as a coalition of the willing into that purpose. So this is not a test. NATO was not intended for Afghanistan either, so what is this a test? Btw, you have the Estonians, Dutch, Danes with you in the south. And despite the rumours the north is an active place too. http://rearechelon.blogspot.com/

As far as I can see NATO is not factionalised on the core issues, but have disagreements over peripheral things. Like above...

He, it's hard to take any issue with the affable Aussies. ;)

NATO serves a and interop/standardisation tool; as a command tool; political tool. Can't see the practical day to day side diminishing either.
Click to expand...



Again... Sorry GD, but I never once mentioned Iraq.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top