Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April

presidentti.fi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 218 posts

Re: Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April

#51

Post by arethuza »

ptero wrote: post #37
arethuza wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly enough - the US is the only country to have invoked article 5 which is the principle that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all - in response to the 9/11 attacks.

To nitpick: it was not the US that invoked article 5 after 9/11. It was driven by its European allies, which wanted a show of support at that time, to be expressed any way they could. The actual impact of that article 5 was pretty non-existent. 9/11 was not a declaration of war by a state; it was an action of a well-organized group. There are no specific actions that this article 5 could imply beyond the PR.

Hardly a nitpick - I had that completely wrong!

Re: Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April

#52

Post by sva_ »

otikik wrote: post #39
yks wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the small countries exist and if they cannot rely on big countries for protection against nuclear states, then the only way forward for them is to have their own nuclear weapons. Do you like that world better? Does it lower or heighten the risk of unleashing the “end of humanity”?

That ... is the world where we live in, more or less. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_we... > Under NATO nuclear weapons sharing, the United States has provided nuclear weapons for Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey to deploy and store

Do these countries actually have the launch codes though?

Re: Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April

#53

Post by ptero »

walkhour wrote: post #26
yks wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the small countries exist and if they cannot rely on big countries for protection against nuclear states, then the only way forward for them is to have their own nuclear weapons. Do you like that world better? Does it lower or heighten the risk of unleashing the “end of humanity”?

I don't accept that dichotomy despite I see value in the argument. Since the invention of nuclear bombs, how many countries without nuclear weapons have lost their sovereignty of those surrounding Russia? Btw if it's either NATO or nuclear bombs, why didn't Finland get nuclear bombs in the last 60 years?

> Btw if it's either NATO or nuclear bombs, why didn't Finland get nuclear bombs in the last 60 years?

Finland is a small country and nukes are very expensive (and hard) to deal with all the way: development, manufacture, deployment, service. The pressure to have your own nukes is low when you consider an attack unlikely, which was the case for Finland for the last 60 years.

Countries that did not feel so safe moved much faster (considering different fates of Mr. Gaddafi and Mr. Kim). But recent Russian actions motivated a lot of its neighbors who were not worried before to spend whatever is needed to make an attack on them prohibitively expensive.

Re: Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April

#54

Post by tyingq »

alkonaut wrote: post #6

"I must invade a neighboring country to prevent having NATO on my doorstep" - Vladimir Vladimirovich, master strategist "Whoa, if countries are annexed willy nilly then we better join NATO before it happens to us" - Every single one of those doorsteps

It doesn't sound terribly different from the domino theory that led the US to wage war in Vietnam.

Re: Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April

#55

Post by yks »

otikik wrote: post #39
yks wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the small countries exist and if they cannot rely on big countries for protection against nuclear states, then the only way forward for them is to have their own nuclear weapons. Do you like that world better? Does it lower or heighten the risk of unleashing the “end of humanity”?

That ... is the world where we live in, more or less. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_we... > Under NATO nuclear weapons sharing, the United States has provided nuclear weapons for Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey to deploy and store

Difference is those weapons are not Belgian to deploy against e.g. Austria whenever anti-Austrian fascist party is in power in Belgium. Example sounds absurd today, but you can use Hungary for example, another country bitter of its lands lost a century ago. That’s basically what the world with nuclear weapons everywhere looks like. Game of chicken against the opponents perceived weak over opportunistic use of century-old grievances.

Re: Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April

#56

Post by credit_guy »

IgorPartola wrote: post #47

As a Ukrainian immigrant living in the US the current situation in Ukraine is infuriating. I left Ukraine when I was a teenager nearly a quarter of a century ago and it was obvious to me then that sooner or later Russia would want its breadbasket back and an invasion would happen. How was this not clear to those in power? Zelinsky started the process of trying to get the country’s ducks in a row to be able to join NA…

I don't understand who you think is to blame here? Was NATO supposed to accept Ukraine without Ukraine applying for membership?

Re: Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April

#57

Post by ptero »

arethuza wrote: post #51
ptero wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To nitpick: it was not the US that invoked article 5 after 9/11. It was driven by its European allies, which wanted a show of support at that time, to be expressed any way they could. The actual impact of that article 5 was pretty non-existent. 9/11 was not a declaration of war by a state; it was an action of a well-organized group. There are no specific actions that this article 5 could imply beyond the PR.

Hardly a nitpick - I had that completely wrong!

I do not think you are wrong. It was a joint declaration, but from what I vaguely remember, the idea came from Europe and everyone understood it to be a great PR value with no technical pull. My 2c.

Re: Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April

#58

Post by sylens »

credit_guy wrote: post #56
IgorPartola wrote: post #47

As a Ukrainian immigrant living in the US the current situation in Ukraine is infuriating. I left Ukraine when I was a teenager nearly a quarter of a century ago and it was obvious to me then that sooner or later Russia would want its breadbasket back and an invasion would happen. How was this not clear to those in power? Zelinsky started the process of trying to get the country’s ducks in a row to be able to join NA…

I don't understand who you think is to blame here? Was NATO supposed to accept Ukraine without Ukraine applying for membership?

It seems clear to me that the GP is blaming past Ukrainian leadership

Re: Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April

#59

Post by Animatronio »

credit_guy wrote: post #56
IgorPartola wrote: post #47

As a Ukrainian immigrant living in the US the current situation in Ukraine is infuriating. I left Ukraine when I was a teenager nearly a quarter of a century ago and it was obvious to me then that sooner or later Russia would want its breadbasket back and an invasion would happen. How was this not clear to those in power? Zelinsky started the process of trying to get the country’s ducks in a row to be able to join NA…

I don't understand who you think is to blame here? Was NATO supposed to accept Ukraine without Ukraine applying for membership?

[flagged]

Re: Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April

#60

Post by snehk »

Olphs wrote: post #36
snehk wrote: post #17

I'm very happy that Finland is part of the team now. Sweden can stay out of Nato for all I care unless they finally cooperate with Germany when it comes to the Nord Stream bombings instead of hiding their findings.

> unless they finally cooperate with Germany when it comes to the Nord Stream bombings instead of hiding their findings. Didn't see that coming

Well, that's just my opinion. Germany's infrastructure was attacked, Sweden said "We're not gonna share our findings with German intelligence". Not sure how there's any situation in which Germany should go to a literal war - no questions asked - should Sweden be attacked if Sweden cannot even share their findings when it comes to an attack on an supposed ally.

Would you be willing to help out your neighbor if he told you that he has information about who robbed your house but won't share it with you? I highly doubt it.

Source (in German): https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/nord-stream-schwe...

Post reply on HN