Dougie93 Posted April 16, 2023 Report Share Posted April 16, 2023 12 minutes ago, CdnFox said: And it just got harder for them to do that. If you're going to pretend that their national security isn't an issue for them or that having what they percieve to be a hostile force on their border isn't a matter of national security. then fine, but please don't claim you know anything about military politics any further. you'd have to be 7 different kinds of stupid not to know that. the Russian assertions that their security is threatened by NATO is a bunch of nonsense lunatic conspiracy theories made up by the KGB in the Kremlin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted April 16, 2023 Report Share Posted April 16, 2023 2 hours ago, Dougie93 said: fair enough I was just asking about Finland specifically because in my experience, the Finnish military is hardcore they certainly put the Canadian military to shame Finland is ready to fight tonight, all out war if necessary, no delay Meh...they'd be better off on their own. NATO plays dangerous games and people know it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted April 16, 2023 Report Share Posted April 16, 2023 Just now, Nationalist said: NATO plays dangerous games it's a thermonuclear standoff at fifteen minutes notice to launch on warning at all times the Balance of Terror must be maintained it's a dangerous game indeed but those are the cards we have been dealt by the hydrogen bomb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted April 16, 2023 Report Share Posted April 16, 2023 1 hour ago, Aristides said: NATO is a defensive alliance and Finland is quite capable of looking after itself until the cavalry arrives. Permanently basing NATO troops in Finland would be an unnecessary provocation. During the Cold War, Canada used to do exercises involving rapidly moving troops to Europe and fighters to Bodo Norway. But why would it be a provocation if it's purely defensive? Of course it's not just defensive and 'defense' can be interpreted a lot of ways. And there's no need to worry about 'unnecessarily provoking' a foe who's just worn themselves to nothing fighting in ukraine. The Russians see it as a serious threat and they know it weakens their position. So - that is a loss for them. It would never have happened if they hadn't just wasted craptonnes of their military strength in ukraine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted April 16, 2023 Report Share Posted April 16, 2023 8 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: the Russian assertions that their security is threatened by NATO is a bunch of nonsense Not to them. And frankly if they are going to be aggressive and invade other countries it DOES threaten their security. 8 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: lunatic conspiracy theories made up by the KGB in the Kremlin Sure bud, sure. They're all nuts - YOU'RE the only SANE one. Finalnd as part of nato is an angry neighbour with a shotgun on his lap. Regardless of their ACTUAL intent, you have to be concerned about it. And it only happened because he started this war. So that's a loss for him in that respect regardless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted April 16, 2023 Report Share Posted April 16, 2023 16 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: also not the case no UNSC resolution is required to invoke Article 51 every country has the right to invoke self defence all NATO members are bound to come to their aid, by the UN Charter NATO is not part of the UN. It cannot act for the UN of its own volition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted April 16, 2023 Report Share Posted April 16, 2023 4 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Not to them. And frankly if they are going to be aggressive and invade other countries it DOES threaten their security. Sure bud, sure. They're all nuts - YOU'RE the only SANE one. Finalnd as part of nato is an angry neighbour with a shotgun on his lap. Regardless of their ACTUAL intent, you have to be concerned about it. And it only happened because he started this war. So that's a loss for him in that respect regardless. I simply do not require NATO to be constrained by the false accusations & conspiracy theories of the KGB if that was how we operated, we might as well just surrender to the Kremlin right now I'm not down for that if that makes me crazy, so be it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted April 16, 2023 Report Share Posted April 16, 2023 2 minutes ago, Aristides said: NATO is not part of the UN. It cannot act for the UN of its own volition. every NATO member is a member of the UN every member of the UN is bound to come to the aid of a member invoking Article 51 there is no Chapter 7 UNSC resolution required for NATO to assist countries under aggressive invasion the UN Charter itself authorizes all NATO members to take action in the face of that otherwise, you are stating, the NATO's assistance to Ukraine right now is unlawful I disagree NATO members are not constrained by the Russians at the UNSC when the Russians are the unlawful aggressor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted April 16, 2023 Report Share Posted April 16, 2023 7 minutes ago, CdnFox said: But why would it be a provocation if it's purely defensive? Of course it's not just defensive and 'defense' can be interpreted a lot of ways. And there's no need to worry about 'unnecessarily provoking' a foe who's just worn themselves to nothing fighting in ukraine. The Russians see it as a serious threat and they know it weakens their position. So - that is a loss for them. It would never have happened if they hadn't just wasted craptonnes of their military strength in ukraine If Russia started building up forces on the Finnish border like they did in Ukraine, countering with NATO forces would be justified. Otherwise not. It is definitely a bad move for Russia, they have lost their ability to apply pressure to Finland. Finland had to be very careful regarding its relations with Russia, now, not so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted April 16, 2023 Report Share Posted April 16, 2023 3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: every NATO member is a member of the UN every member of the UN is bound to come to the aid of a member invoking Article 51 there is no Chapter 7 UNSC resolution required for NATO to assist countries under aggressive invasion the UN Charter itself authorizes all NATO members to take action in the face of that otherwise, you are stating, the NATO's assistance to Ukraine right now is unlawful I disagree NATO members are not constrained by the Russians at the UNSC when the Russians are the unlawful aggressor I'm not saying NATO's assistance to Ukraine is unlawful. What gives you that idea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted April 16, 2023 Report Share Posted April 16, 2023 1 minute ago, Aristides said: I'm not saying NATO's assistance to Ukraine is unlawful. What gives you that idea? you apparently stated that NATO needs an UNSC resolution to intervene there are NATO boots on the ground that is NATO over the Trace on the offensive no Article 5, no UNSC Chapter 7 I say that is lawful, under UN Article 51, no Article 5 nor UNSC Chapter 7 required Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted April 16, 2023 Report Share Posted April 16, 2023 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: you apparently stated that NATO needs an UNSC resolution to intervene there are NATO boots on the ground that is NATO over the Trace on the offensive no Article 5, no UNSC Chapter 7 I say that is lawful, under UN Article 51, no Article 5 nor UNSC Chapter 7 required I'm saying they need a resolution to act in the name of the UN. Countries can't act unilaterally in the name of the UN just because of something in their own constitution. Edited April 16, 2023 by Aristides Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted April 16, 2023 Report Share Posted April 16, 2023 4 minutes ago, Aristides said: I'm saying they need a resolution to act in the name of the UN. Countries can't act unilaterally in the name of the UN just because of something in their own constitution. I think you are mistaken no country requires an UNSC resolution to invoke Article 51 right to self defence in the face of agression every country has the right to act unilaterally in the name of said UN Charter under such circumstances Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted April 16, 2023 Report Share Posted April 16, 2023 8 minutes ago, Aristides said: I'm saying they need a resolution to act in the name of the UN. Countries can't act unilaterally in the name of the UN just because of something in their own constitution. bear in mind, NATO is providing Ukraine "lethal aid" against the Russians not just weapons, but NATO is providing them with real time intelligence now, under the laws of armed conflict, by the Hague Conventions that is "direct participant in hostilities" which is an "act of war" inherently offensive operations if beyond the NATO Article 5 line Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted April 16, 2023 Report Share Posted April 16, 2023 7 minutes ago, Contrarian said: partially correct. All countries have the inherent right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Article 51 does not explicitly require a UNSC resolution to invoke this right. Any use of force in self-defense should adhere to international law principles and be carefully considered and justified. except I stated that NATO was bound by international law & the laws of armed conflict so nothing partial about it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted April 16, 2023 Report Share Posted April 16, 2023 4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: except I stated that NATO was bound by international law & the laws of armed conflict so nothing partial about it On no one's authority but its own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted April 16, 2023 Report Share Posted April 16, 2023 1 hour ago, Aristides said: Article 5 is the only one that obligates members to go to war. just a note on this Article 5 doesn't actually say "go to war" what it actually says is : "will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, " this was to protect America from being dragged into World War Three against our will thus, Article 5 does not require any member to go to war per se the treaty allows members to decide how much they deem necessary to contribute that could be as much as launch on warning massive thermonuclear retaliation or as little as a strongly worded letter of protest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted April 16, 2023 Report Share Posted April 16, 2023 16 minutes ago, Contrarian said: All I am trying to say, is not as easy as you make it look, like flipping a lightswitch. I think you are mistaken for example, the attack against NATO could be a thermonuclear counterforce first strike at which point, the SACEUR in consultation with the POTUS would only have minutes to decide what to do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted April 16, 2023 Report Share Posted April 16, 2023 1 hour ago, Dougie93 said: I simply do not require NATO to be constrained by the false accusations & conspiracy theories of the KGB Nobody cares what you require - you're a nobody who doesn't even have any loyalty to your country and your opinion is worth nothing. The reality is that to russia theyv'e increased the threat and that wouldn't have happened without the invasion. Anything else is just the blathering of an unpatriotic loser who takes 20 paragraphs to explain his disloyalty every time it's brought up. Go ahead, there's your cue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted April 16, 2023 Report Share Posted April 16, 2023 1 minute ago, Contrarian said: I am a man of the process and not immediate action immediate action is a process immediate Action or "IA" as we say in the military, is the process to be followed upon contact Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted April 16, 2023 Report Share Posted April 16, 2023 14 minutes ago, Contrarian said: Even if NATO were to be attacked with a thermonuclear counterforce first strike, any decision to retaliate would still need to be carefully considered and justified under international law. The SACEUR and POTUS would need to take into account a variety of factors, including the potential consequences of a military response and the likelihood of success, before deciding on a course of action. it's all laid out in standing orders called the SIOP Single Integrated Operational Plan it frankly doesn't even require the POTUS nor the FOOTBALL nor the BISCUIT if the POTUS does not or cannot decide it falls to the Airborne Command Post to decide, Callsign LOOKING GLASS if Callsign LOOKING GLASS does not or cannot decide the SSBN Captains are authorized to conduct a survivable second strike with UGM-133 Trident SLBM's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted April 16, 2023 Report Share Posted April 16, 2023 3 hours ago, Dougie93 said: it's a thermonuclear standoff at fifteen minutes notice to launch on warning at all times the Balance of Terror must be maintained it's a dangerous game indeed but those are the cards we have been dealt by the hydrogen bomb Maybe we should stop before a mistake happens? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted April 16, 2023 Report Share Posted April 16, 2023 2 minutes ago, Nationalist said: Maybe we should stop before a mistake happens? when it comes to strategy, I focus on what is likely to happen maybe there should be one world kumbaya but I wouldn't tailor my strategy to that concept of operations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted April 16, 2023 Report Share Posted April 16, 2023 4 hours ago, CdnFox said: Nobody cares what you require - you're a nobody who doesn't even have any loyalty to your country and your opinion is worth nothing. The reality is that to russia theyv'e increased the threat and that wouldn't have happened without the invasion. Anything else is just the blathering of an unpatriotic loser who takes 20 paragraphs to explain his disloyalty every time it's brought up. Go ahead, there's your cue. it's an internet forum when you launch into an ad hominem invoking disloyalty I make an considered response which in your case is that I am not bound to be loyal to some vague arbitrary standard which you invent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted April 17, 2023 Report Share Posted April 17, 2023 3 hours ago, Dougie93 said: it's an internet forum Yes - and everything i said remains true. And you are disloyal by your own admission - which you don't make a 'considered' response to, but rather to which you blather and attempt to justify your disloyalty in the most painfully ridiculous ways. And you're not just disloyal, you're stupid if you think that russia doesn't care about denmark becoming part of nato and the potential for land forces being based there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.