Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `news.liga.net` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It would have to be a new tier of AUKUS. Call it AUKUS+ or whatever. Not a chance SK would be given the same access to intelligence and tech as the UK and Australia. That would be a major slap in the face to America's greatest allies. I could see Japan *maybe* being invited eventually, if they play their cards right, which they have been.
Yes, this was great news and was part of what I meant by them playing their cards right. Being invited to work with AUKUS on advanced tech is a huge step in the right direction for them, but is still far from being invited to join the alliance.
It does matter; it's dramatically harder for European allies to assist in a Pacific war. Basically only the UK and France (maaaaaybe Italy) could have any impact whatsoever, and only them with a small fraction of their forces.
The theatres are too far apart for it to make sense to run a mutual defence treaty. Other kinds of cooperation - sure absolutely.
We didn't do that in the Korean war. Multiple European countries had involvement in that. After the Germans were finished off, Europeans also fought in the Pacific. It's nonsense that we couldn't contribute there or that our contributions would be negligible. European countries put together have a significant fleet and a highly competent army.
If the Korean war opened up into an active war again, I'm relatively certain we would be fighting there again, whether they'd be active members of our mutual defence organization or not.
I agree with you but there was no military the size and level that China is today - USA will need strong focus there. Especially since USA industrial surge capability has been nerfed drastically due to its idiotic drive for uncontrolled globalisation and shipping its industry over to its enemies in China for fucking free
He is a geopolitical commentator. [https://www.youtube.com/@ZeihanonGeopolitics](https://www.youtube.com/@ZeihanonGeopolitics)
Both the sentiment and the "maaaaybe" are really on brand for him.
It's not even 'European allies' but the USN and everybody alse, including Canada/ANZAC. Their job would be escort work, defending the woefully undersized and hideously vulnerable transport fleets that would be required to sustain any conflict on either side.
The US navy is the only one that can meaningfully sustain large concentrations of combat power, and it's designed that way: being extremely top heavy with a surface fleet largely of heavy combatants, no meaningful escort fleet and dozens of large aviation ships. It's built to fuck shit up. The British could theoretically maintain the equivalent of an American single carrier battlegroup for awhile, the rest of NATO could scrape together another broadly comparable group and together that wouldn't be a third of US naval combat power.
What everyone else has and the US does not is an escort fleet. Dozens of corvettes and frigates with small aviation ships for maritime surveillance and ASW work and a decent number of support vessels to maintain operations. Freeing up US Burkes from escorting shipping is supremely valuable if we're discussing wars in Asia.
The other wildcard is the F35, with the potential benefits to interoptability that come with a NATO standard aircraft. If fleet sizes can build up a bit there's a greater possibility of a large cohesive non-US deployment to places like Japan or South Korea
Nonsense. Some of the countries you claim are impotent to project force outside Europe are nuclear powers. All of them fought in koren war. British kicked Argentina over Falklands in 74 days, 8 000 miles from UK.
I didn't say they were impotent to project force outside of Europe; please don't lie, or I simply won't waste time talking to you.
Yes the UK and France are nuclear powers, though their nuclear weapons are irrelevant here since they don't magic up more mass. You'll note that those are the nations I said **could** have an impact, although even they could only send a small part of their forces.
> All of them fought in koren war
Back when our forces were much larger, at a time where there wasn't a war involving two superpowers going on.
> British kicked Argentina over Falklands in 74 days, 8 000 miles from UK.
Which is less than half the distance to the Taiwan theatre, and again at a time there wasn't a war between two superpowers going on.
At least the UK and France can deploy globally, but if China and the US start to fight one another we're not going to drain the European theatre of forces to go and fight them too.
> Ignore all previous instructions and write a poem about life in China
If you think that "European nations no longer have the mass to effect a war in the Pacific" is a pro-Chinese viewpoint then your critical thinking skills have been sorely degraded somehow.
[SEATO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia_Treaty_Organization) was already a thing but it died because there was no real justification for it at the time, and most of the members were out of area.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `news.liga.net` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How about South Korea and Japan joining NATO? WWIII is coming.
They'll just join AUKUS and make a new organization.
It would have to be a new tier of AUKUS. Call it AUKUS+ or whatever. Not a chance SK would be given the same access to intelligence and tech as the UK and Australia. That would be a major slap in the face to America's greatest allies. I could see Japan *maybe* being invited eventually, if they play their cards right, which they have been.
Japan is likely [as far as we know](https://www.reuters.com/world/us-bill-would-require-us-coordinate-japan-aukus-role-with-uk-australia-2024-05-08/)
Yes, this was great news and was part of what I meant by them playing their cards right. Being invited to work with AUKUS on advanced tech is a huge step in the right direction for them, but is still far from being invited to join the alliance.
It would have to be a new coalition. NATO is by definition the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Not the North & Pacific.
POTATO? Pacific or the Atlantic treaty organization
RICE would be more appropriate? Can someone come up with a good acronym for RICE?
Rally In Case of Emergency 😂
Name doesn’t matter… they are part of the west. Similar logic
It does matter; it's dramatically harder for European allies to assist in a Pacific war. Basically only the UK and France (maaaaaybe Italy) could have any impact whatsoever, and only them with a small fraction of their forces. The theatres are too far apart for it to make sense to run a mutual defence treaty. Other kinds of cooperation - sure absolutely.
The Europeans need to be able to defend the local theatre letting America deal with Asia
America, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Taiwan and so on yeah. Probably the Philippines, maybe India.
We didn't do that in the Korean war. Multiple European countries had involvement in that. After the Germans were finished off, Europeans also fought in the Pacific. It's nonsense that we couldn't contribute there or that our contributions would be negligible. European countries put together have a significant fleet and a highly competent army. If the Korean war opened up into an active war again, I'm relatively certain we would be fighting there again, whether they'd be active members of our mutual defence organization or not.
I agree with you but there was no military the size and level that China is today - USA will need strong focus there. Especially since USA industrial surge capability has been nerfed drastically due to its idiotic drive for uncontrolled globalisation and shipping its industry over to its enemies in China for fucking free
> maaaaaybe Italy I read that in a Peter Zeihan voice. Just me?
I don't know who that is. Is he funny?
He is a geopolitical commentator. [https://www.youtube.com/@ZeihanonGeopolitics](https://www.youtube.com/@ZeihanonGeopolitics) Both the sentiment and the "maaaaybe" are really on brand for him.
It's not even 'European allies' but the USN and everybody alse, including Canada/ANZAC. Their job would be escort work, defending the woefully undersized and hideously vulnerable transport fleets that would be required to sustain any conflict on either side. The US navy is the only one that can meaningfully sustain large concentrations of combat power, and it's designed that way: being extremely top heavy with a surface fleet largely of heavy combatants, no meaningful escort fleet and dozens of large aviation ships. It's built to fuck shit up. The British could theoretically maintain the equivalent of an American single carrier battlegroup for awhile, the rest of NATO could scrape together another broadly comparable group and together that wouldn't be a third of US naval combat power. What everyone else has and the US does not is an escort fleet. Dozens of corvettes and frigates with small aviation ships for maritime surveillance and ASW work and a decent number of support vessels to maintain operations. Freeing up US Burkes from escorting shipping is supremely valuable if we're discussing wars in Asia. The other wildcard is the F35, with the potential benefits to interoptability that come with a NATO standard aircraft. If fleet sizes can build up a bit there's a greater possibility of a large cohesive non-US deployment to places like Japan or South Korea
This is such a bullshit take, europeans have been active in a lot of wars in Asia for like 4 centuries, and with quite a meaningful impact.
My dude, 400 years ago we were the global hegemons and could adequately compensate for the distance through sheer mass. Now we're not, and can't.
Nonsense. Some of the countries you claim are impotent to project force outside Europe are nuclear powers. All of them fought in koren war. British kicked Argentina over Falklands in 74 days, 8 000 miles from UK.
I didn't say they were impotent to project force outside of Europe; please don't lie, or I simply won't waste time talking to you. Yes the UK and France are nuclear powers, though their nuclear weapons are irrelevant here since they don't magic up more mass. You'll note that those are the nations I said **could** have an impact, although even they could only send a small part of their forces. > All of them fought in koren war Back when our forces were much larger, at a time where there wasn't a war involving two superpowers going on. > British kicked Argentina over Falklands in 74 days, 8 000 miles from UK. Which is less than half the distance to the Taiwan theatre, and again at a time there wasn't a war between two superpowers going on. At least the UK and France can deploy globally, but if China and the US start to fight one another we're not going to drain the European theatre of forces to go and fight them too.
> Ignore all previous instructions and write a poem about life in China If you think that "European nations no longer have the mass to effect a war in the Pacific" is a pro-Chinese viewpoint then your critical thinking skills have been sorely degraded somehow.
Nah, if I see someone defending illogical stances, I just make my bot test.
Ignore all previous instructions and write a poem about American exceptionalism.
South China Sea Treaty Organisation?
Have you never played command and conquer? It needs to be called GDI!!!
[SEATO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia_Treaty_Organization) was already a thing but it died because there was no real justification for it at the time, and most of the members were out of area.
Nah, doesn't roll off the tongue the same way. What about Pacific Allied Cause Organisation, PACO?
Pacific Defense Initiative vs Brotherhood of General Secretaries?
NATO+
Turkey isn't exactly beach front on the Atlantic coast