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

Sweden Is a NATO Member

government.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 738 posts

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#451

Post by simion314 »

dralley wrote: post #421
simion314 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it seems to me that the US gains very little from being in NATO. So far Europeans died in USA conflicts around the world , how many conflicts did Europe start and USA had to get involved so far ? From me a Romanian, feels very shitty that our soldiers died in Iraq and Afghanistan for America but now if we will need help Trumpists will not help back.

>So far Europeans died in USA conflicts around the world , how many conflicts did Europe start and USA had to get involved so far ? Setting aside for a moment the rather large conflict that ended in 1945 - if you're in your late 20s or older, both Libya and Kosovo happened within your lifetime and meet your criteria.

>Setting aside for a moment the rather large conflict that ended in 1945 - if you're in your late 20s or older, both Libya and Kosovo happened within your lifetime and meet your criteria.

1 That was not an Article 5 thing,

2 how many USA soldiers gave their life in Kosovoa?

3 1945/ww2 I think USA was attacked by Japan, americans did not enter the world to protect Europe, they were forced in the war so they had no choice then to fight their enemies wherever they are.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#452

Post by eduction »

ethbr1 wrote: post #416
eduction wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right but OP said it’s “effectively impossible to invade a country that has nuclear weapons” and I’m curious how that is relevant to non nuclear NATO members like Germany. I don’t see how it helps Germany (or Finland, Poland etc etc) that France and UK have nuclear weapons, apart from deterrence against specifically nuclear Russian attacks. A conventional land invasion against a non nuclear NATO power would likely be…

It's ambiguous (or I haven't seen it written) under what conditions NATO would retaliate with NATO-controlled nuclear weapons to an attack on a NATO member. But it's definitely shy of 'never' I know during the 80s there were detailed plans to tactically nuke the larg(er) Soviet armored formations in eastern Germany et al. in the event of hostilities. I believe even before Soviet nuclear escalation.

That's interesting, I could see how even a vague possibility of that sort of response could be a deterrent.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#453

Post by AlGrothendieck »

baxtr wrote: post #418
u320 wrote: post #293

One thing that isn't mentioned a lot in connection to this: Sweden and Denmark has a VERY violent history. Hundreds of years of wars. It is said to be the worst conflict in all of human history. Now we are allied and committed to defend each other. That's a huge thing for peace.

I have many Serbian friends going for holidays in Croatia. Unthinkable 30 years ago. So maybe, in 50 years from now, Russia will join NATO, too?

While Secretary General, Ismay is also credited as having been the first person to say that the purpose of NATO was "to keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down," a saying that has since become a common way to describe the dynamics of NATO

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#454

Post by [deleted] »

dataflow wrote: post #343
chasd00 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the US didn't then NATO is effectively toothless, if the US did then Russia would be destroyed. I'm sure lots of officials in Moscow have spent a lot of time thinking about it.

> if the US did then Russia would be destroyed So would a lot of the US. I'm not sure Americans would want to die over this.

[deleted]

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#456

Post by bilekas »

krippe wrote: post #256
bilekas wrote: post #4

This is great news and NATO benefits hugely from this. I have to hand it to putin for bringing further solidarity across Europe and NATO.

It's crazy how there wasn't really ANY desire to join NATO before Russia showed, once again, that you can not trust them. The full scale of Ukraine really was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Honestly I can understand the previous sentiment, joining would have come across as an act against Putin as that's how he always frames NATO. So keeping the status quo was fine for everyone. But then he showed he doesn't respect the status quo. Just my opinion of course.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#457

Post by dralley »

simion314 wrote: post #451
dralley wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So far Europeans died in USA conflicts around the world , how many conflicts did Europe start and USA had to get involved so far ? Setting aside for a moment the rather large conflict that ended in 1945 - if you're in your late 20s or older, both Libya and Kosovo happened within your lifetime and meet your criteria.

>Setting aside for a moment the rather large conflict that ended in 1945 - if you're in your late 20s or older, both Libya and Kosovo happened within your lifetime and meet your criteria. 1 That was not an Article 5 thing, 2 how many USA soldiers gave their life in Kosovoa? 3 1945/ww2 I think USA was attacked by Japan, americans did not enter the world to protect Europe, they were forced in the war so they had no cho…

>3 1945/ww2 I think USA was attacked by Japan, americans did not enter the world to protect Europe, they were forced in the war so they had no choice then to fight their enemies wherever they are.

The American strategy in WWII was "Germany First" despite it having been the Japanese that attacked us.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#458

Post by tharmas »

luuurker wrote: post #385
tharmas wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

NATO is obsolete for whom? And have you seen the numbers of visually confirmed destroyed equipment and the drone shots of dead Russians, because that makes Afghanistan look good in comparison.

[flagged]

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#459

Post by ifyoubuildit »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #433
ifyoubuildit wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't this imply that the EU and the US are equal powers? They aren't, right?

For their purposes, yes. The EU has more population, and the US has more military, but those things don't matter between them. Is a marriage unequal because the male could beat the female at any time because he's stronger?

Yes, a marriage is unequal if one party has more strength, money, guns, technology, etc. Actual equality is a really rare thing in nature. Someone always has more, whether they are currently using that against the other party or not.

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure the US is still the leading superpower by quite a margin. It may not be brought up explicitly in negotiations, but that fact is always there.

Maybe I'm wrong and the EU wields an equal amount of influence over the US. It certainly sounds a little odd saying it though.

Post reply on HN