• Shenanigore
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    4 months ago

    Perhaps the Americans leaving NATO turns out to be the thing that prevents WW3. We will only know this if WW3 starts in a similar manner to WW1 with all the alliances.

    • jaschen
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      Thinking the U.S. leaving NATO might stop World War III is kind of missing the point. Back in World War I, yeah, complex alliances dragged everyone into a mess. But NATO? It’s a whole different beast. It’s all about keeping peace by making it clear that messing with one member is like picking a fight with the whole gang. It’s more of a big, collective “back off” sign to anyone thinking of starting trouble.The U.S. being part of NATO actually helps keep things calm. It’s like having a really strong friend in the neighborhood who helps make sure nobody starts any fights. So, saying the U.S. leaving NATO could prevent a global war is kinda backwards. NATO’s there to prevent wars, not start them.

      • maynarkh@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Military alliances factored into the world war because there were two of them of similar strength and size. There is no military alliance that is of similar strength to NATO that would be reasonably able to pick a fight with it. About CSTO or a potential Russia-China alliance, if they mattered and worked, there’d be Chinese or Kyrgyz or whatever troops in Ukraine.

        If NATO is severely weakened or dissolved, that levels the playing field a bit more. Especially since not all NATO members are nuclear powers. Combining that with the batshit warmongering leadership of some countries, that would cause an escalation in the war in Europe.

        • Shenanigore
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          You ever consider why China is building aircraft carriers now, when previously they had no need, as their interests were limited to places they could access by land?

          • maynarkh@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            I guess they want to have their own adventures bombing far away places like the US.

            Aside all the political aspects and people dying, the aviation nerd in me is actually super interested in what Chinese naval aviation will look like once they get to where they want to be. Aren’t they using their own versions of the Su-33 right now? J-15 is it? The 5th gen fighter they are using looks far too heavy to do ski jumps.

      • Shenanigore
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        NATO is exactly the same beast, to those not in it. All those pre WW1 alliances were M.A.D. prototypes, same as NATO.