• Scott_of_the_Arctic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      16 hours ago

      If the USA attacks another NATO country, article 5 requires that the rest of NATO all pile on. None of those countries could individually do much, but you’d be loosing hundreds of thousands of soldiers and trillions of dollars to possibly take an icy rock with a population of 56000. It’s fucking stupid.

      • Jesus_666@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        15 hours ago

        …besides the fact that two of those other NATO members have nuclear weapons, which severely complicates matters.

          • Jesus_666@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Depends on how the war goes. Nobody uses nuclear weapons as a first response but they’re always there as a reminder that if my country goes down, so does yours.

            Besides, intercontinental force projection becomes a lot more complicated when your opponent has the ability, theoretical or not, to sink entire carrier groups at once.

            I think it’d be more likely that Trump would get immediately kicked out of office if he actually managed to start a war with the EU. There’s a limit to how stupid the GOP is willing to be for him.

            Counterproductive policies that can be used to pocket some more money? Sure, why not. But a war that threatens to fuck the economy, dramatically curtail international trade, and probably hand global hegemony over to China? Too risky for too small a reward.