Should NATO be folded in favor of a European Union unified command?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

An attack on Romanian troops in Romania would oblige NATO to respond militarily, but any attack on Romanian troops will at least force NATO leaders to "consult", so even then Russia cannot rely on a complete lack of response from NATO...

Unless the other NATO powers had specifically advised Romania that they would not support Romanian efforts outside the extent borders which, in fairness to Sarmatian's general point, might well be the NATO attitude.

[Pannonian]

Unless the other NATO powers had specifically advised Romania that they would not support Romanian efforts outside the extent borders which, in fairness to Sarmatian's general point, might well be the NATO attitude.

A comparable case might be the US troops in Korea. Would NATO be obliged by treaty to respond if North Korea steamroller the US troops there? My guess would be that it's outside the treaty's remit, and any response would be volunteers only.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A comparable case might be the US troops in Korea. Would NATO be obliged by treaty to respond if North Korea steamroller the US troops there? My guess would be that it's outside the treaty's remit, and any response would be volunteers only.

Actually, SK is outside the NATO agreement because of geography. IIRC, the agreement is limited to the geographic borders of those signatories and specifies that anything outside the North Atlantic region is not involved.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actually, SK is outside the NATO agreement because of geography. IIRC, the agreement is limited to the geographic borders of those signatories and specifies that anything outside the North Atlantic region is not involved.

That's correct - likewise the Falklands are outside the geographic limits even though the Argentine attack otherwise qualified to trigger the treaty. It's notable that, even so, France and America were quietly accommodating in many ways. Which is nice, but had the treaty covered the Falklands, there would have been no war.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Falklands was a cocking shock up in many ways.

1st, Had it been an "Atlantic" treaty and not a "North Atlantic" treaty, you are probably correct as to the deterrence factor.

2nd, I think we failed the special relationship. Perhaps it was wrong of us to develop the special relationship -- there are some even today who feel that Washington's Benign Isolationism and/or Monroe's Europe Keep Out doctrines would be the better way to go. Nevertheless, having entered into the special relationship, when you were attacked in the Falklands we should have issued a joint ultimatum to the Argentines and backed it up with CVNs supporting the BEF as needed. We certainly didn't impede the British effort in that conflict but we aided it a bit fecklessly.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Falklands was a cocking shock up in many ways.

1st, Had it been an "Atlantic" treaty and not a "North Atlantic" treaty, you are probably correct as to the deterrence factor.

2nd, I think we failed the special relationship. Perhaps it was wrong of us to develop the special relationship -- there are some even today who feel that Washington's Benign Isolationism and/or Monroe's Europe Keep Out doctrines would be the better way to go. Nevertheless, having entered into the special relationship, when you were attacked in the Falklands we should have issued a joint ultimatum to the Argentines and backed it up with CVNs supporting the BEF as needed. We certainly didn't impede the British effort in that conflict but we aided it a bit fecklessly.

Well, yes, but it benefited both countries in the long run. It made Britain look strong internationally, caused an RN buildup which put pressure on the Soviets.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I feel bad for forgetting to vote in the poll until now. I think when it comes to an international crisis, NATO interventions, special relationships and what have you should be reserved when an individual member state no longer feels it can proceed successfully without support. Just because the US and UK are good allies doesn't necessarily mean that we should throw our weight behind every challenge that comes to the UK, and I am sure people in the UK probably feel similarly. Was anyone really thinking that Argentina was going to win an outright war against the UK?

That being said, after trying to reflect on this seriously, I think I have to go with the poll choice on maintaining NATO as it is. If a state wishes to join, well all the merrier, but while I think Putin's Russia is a legitimate threat, we really shouldn't be trying to antagonize him by letting him create a narrative of the West circling around his borders for the kill.

[Pannonian]

What? That war was between North Korea and a force that was flying the flag of the UN, even though most of the troops were American. That war never ended.

If the north launched an invasion there would be a lot more than just the USA obligated to respond.

I thought of it as an example of one of the NATO members putting troops in the way of any potential invasion, simply so they can be attacked and thus trigger a response. PVC suggested that putting Romanian troops in the way would likewise trigger some kind of response. My argument was that (although I didn't know about the geographical restrictions), NATO would only really be obliged to respond if NATO's recognised home soil was attacked, and if a NATO member deliberately put troops outside this to try and trigger a response a la PVC, that's outside the remit of the treaty and any response would be volunteers only.

Who was that Backroomer who was traumatised by his experience of patrolling the Korean border and regarded his re-posting to Vietnam as a relief, even though he got sniped there? Kafirchobee or something.