The OP’s question is what NATO would do. What do you think Russia’s allies will do if NATO does anything at all? Pretty obvious really. China and NK don’t field very large armies for the fun of it.
Our technology, GPS, communication satellites, spy satellites, etc. will be the first causalities of the war. China has already demonstrated the ability to destroy satellites orbiting above the earth. We have the disadvantage of having to move our assets to their location. All those capital assets can be hit during that phase, and some will undoubtedly be lost because of that.
It’s going to come down to boots on the ground, and they far outnumber us in boots.
I didn’t say I liked it, but this is the reality of the situation.
If you figured out a way to destroy all the nuclear weapons in the world, it’d be the same rudimentary game theory anyway; NATO’s best position to take is that any incursion into a NATO member results in a disproportionate, if conventional, retaliation. One regiment in Estonia = full mobilization, general war, attacks on every target NATO can reach.
[QUOTE=bump]
One thing you’re missing is that the US Army is quite a bit bigger than the Russian Ground Forces- 540,000 men to 285,000.
[/QUOTE]
On the other hand, the great majority of the Russian army is in or near Eastern Europe. The great, great majority of the US Army is nowhere near Eastern Europe.
Granted, the forces fielded by Germany, France, the UK etc. are no clowns by any means; these are highly capable ass-kickers with professional armies that have the stuff they need to win wars. That’s the whole point of NATO, of course; if it acts in concert it’s the greatest military force in the world by a wide margin.
There’s been comments about what Poland or other European allies would do if NATO failed to respond to a Russian invasion of a NATO member. I think it is pretty obvious that a NATO failure to uphold treaty commitments would have broader implications: you think Japan is just going to sit idly by and believe that they are more important to the US than our NATO allies?
And even if Japan doesn’t question US commitments, countries like Taiwan, the Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, and other Southeast Asian nations that don’t have an alliance with the US, but do depend on good relations with the US for their own security guarantees, would be downright idiotic to believe that the US has their back. In the midst of that uncertainty, I think it is perfectly obvious that China would be even more assertive in seizing the various rocks and shoals that were once claimed on some Emperor’s map in 1245 or whatever.
The implications of NATO not responding to a Russian invasion are extremely far reaching, no question.
China actually fought wars with Russia, as well as with Russia’s ally Vietnam, in the late 1970s (which fortunately didn’t go nuclear, I’m pretty sure China was nuclear at the time).
What do you think that opinion piece by an MBA candidate actually says? More specifically, how do you feel it supports the position that Russia and China are in any sense approaching a military alliance of a sort that would cause China’s involvement in Eastern Europe?
Did you read the article? The writer acknowledges that Russia and China have been hostile for a long time and is discussing the possibility that this hostility might be beginning to decline. This is hardly the same as saying China and Russia are allies.
I wish I was that sure about that. The Chinese President has also openly demonstrated his desire to create a counter-alliance to the U.S. Speaking on May 20 President Xi Jinping called for the creation of a new Asian structure for security cooperation based on a regional group that includes Russia and Iran and excludes the United States. Clearly pointing a finger at the United States he called NATO an outdated thinking of the Cold War. According to him, “We cannot just have security for one or a few countries while leaving the rest insecure”.
The alliance between Russia and China is like the alliance between Wall Street Republicans and the Tea Party. Sure, they don’t like Obama, but they also want nothing to do with each other on any issue not relating to Obama.
I’m not sure that this line of logic is particularly relevant in the given scenario.
We always think/thought the same thing in regard to the Kennedy era, but, there have been numerous quotes from Kennedy that he wouldn’t have gone to war over Berlin, if the Russian had decided to take it over.
We don’t know what the leaders of the NATO nations are going to do, so, I think it would behoove us more to ask what is to be gained v. lost in an invasion and NATO response. That, I think, would give us more of a picture of what would happen, rather than the inconvenience of any signed treaties, or sworn allegiances.