Should NATO include Australia, Israel, Singapore, Japan & India?

[Teindva]

Admin: Text deletd. Please proof read your responses before posting to ensure that they are comprehensible to others.

Also, this is an international site where the language of communication is english. It is inapprop to have footnotes in another language as it could be regarded as disrespectful.

 

[dragonfire]

Wasnt there a proposal for a relationship between India, Russia and China (like tht of NATO)- which didnt take off

To maintain a semblance of balance one needs multiple insights and inputs, if everyone joins NATO then there is a pressure to follow the group even if one doesnt believe in the decions made and then it will be like the case of France for the 2nd gulf war - there was bad rhetoric against France - didnt the French Fries get renamed

None of the countries mentioned should join NATO has it already has plenty of members, in India's case it cannot because it's tradionaly been supported by Russia and russian arms imports are the largest for india and NATO is generaly against Russia so....

 

[stealth stalker]

India and China

I dont think india could really join NATO...there is a whole lot of opposition and anti-american sentiments here....My view is that To counter China India definitely needs a credible ally and i see no reason why that could not be America....The NATO is not against Russia anymore...it is more likely against terrorism at the present moment...i think there is a probability of russia joining NATO in the middle of this century because of threats from china(Dont mock me please...Tis is speculative)..Rememer russia and china have border disputes..Also remember Russia allowed NATO to use its territory for civilian transport...So i think the threat of China will bring US and Russia closer just like the rising germans did to the English and French in the 1900's..Also forming a democratic ring of India Australia and Japan would serve for the benefit of the 3 nations along with US.

 

[Type59]

You have to relise Pakistan has tries to have an independent foreign policy. If Nato inducts India, well Nato will find it harder Afghanistan without Pakistani road links. Afghan economy is dependent on this links. Thats one negative.

Too much negatives to be a positve for Nato to induct India.


Israel lol. The GCC nations have influence in US policymaking and maintain US strength in region. So giving Israel formal protection would not be US best interests in region.

These countries could easily reduce ties with US. People should not overestimated US soft power. Both Nato and GCC have mutual interests, if stand on each other feet then who knows what will happen.

 

[stealth stalker]

Admin: Text deleted. You are going off topic. Do NOT post any more responses until you have read the Forum Rules.

 

[Type59]

O really???!!!! Pakistan does has a independent foreign policy....and that policy is looking for help to china all the time and wooing America to get aids and F-16's.....

The location your writing from and tone of post, I comclude your just a troll. Go back to youtube and start posting there.

All I can say a nation that is fooled to buy T 72 upgrades is not very advanced militarily.

 

[Tavarisch]

The location your writing from and tone of post, I comclude your just a troll. Go back to youtube and start posting there.

All I can say a nation that is fooled to buy T 72 upgrades is not very advanced militarily.

T-72s are not as bad as you paint them to be. The latest upgrades like the Rogatka B2 are definitely comparable to other tanks. The T90A comes with an APS as standard.

So, what are you forming your basis on? Iraq? Just because T-72Ms and T-72M1s performed poorly over there doesn't make models like the T-72BM or T72B2 or T-72BM1 poor. The only problem with these is the lack of sufficient numbers. And let's not forget the characteristics of a tank are just one factor in determining victory. Crew training and proper tactical use are also major factors. I'm sure if the Iraqi's had trained their crews better and equipped them with better munition (BM-32 and above), they would definitely strike more kills.

 

[gf0012-aust]

OFF TOPIC Note

This is not a land warfare thread - it's not a thread about T-72's.

Any further off topic discussions will be deleted without prompting.

 

[stealth stalker]

The location your writing from and tone of post, I comclude your just a troll. Go back to youtube and start posting there.

I guess the admin will delete this one too....
Are the Australians atleast present in the political wing of NATO just like france??i thought they are already in NATO..

 

[kay_man]

T-72s are not as bad as you paint them to be. The latest upgrades like the Rogatka B2 are definitely comparable to other tanks. The T90A comes with an APS as standard.

So, what are you forming your basis on? Iraq? Just because T-72Ms and T-72M1s performed poorly over there doesn't make models like the T-72BM or T72B2 or T-72BM1 poor. The only problem with these is the lack of sufficient numbers. And let's not forget the characteristics of a tank are just one factor in determining victory. Crew training and proper tactical use are also major factors. I'm sure if the Iraqi's had trained their crews better and equipped them with better munition (BM-32 and above), they would definitely strike more kills.

i completely agree .
also not to mention the americans had total air superority and the relentless bombing campaign before the groung war.
the bombing campaign alone would be enough to break ones morale !!
most of the tanks and APCs were destroyed during the aerial campaign.
whatever remained after that was more of a hunting sport for american tanks.

 

[swerve]

I guess the admin will delete this one too....
Are the Australians atleast present in the political wing of NATO just like france??i thought they are already in NATO..

For the information of anyone who doesn't know -

Australia is not in NATO in any way. No country outside the NATO area (N. America, the North Atlantic, & Europe) is a member of NATO.

 

[AtmacA]

Australia and Japan would be really fine but what about Israel and India?

Israel is a country which rejects any democratic United Nations demands.They are too assetive and there is no difference between a civilian and an armed men for İsraeli army.They kill anyone oppose them.They don't want to negotiate the borders and they're expansionts,currrent Israeli govt is ultrantionalists thinkin who is not jewish has no rights.
Worst one is they dont have principles.
For example.
At air raids in Palestine February 2009 they willingly bombed a school run by UN which has students under 10 more than 200 child were dead.NATO wouldn't approve such violence i guess.

India is undeveloped country,they're too crowded to GDP per capita and currently they have no demographic policy.How that 1,5billions people will get a standard social life,employment etc is a huge question mark??

 

[STURM]

srael is a country which rejects any democratic United Nations demands.They are too assetive and there is no difference between a civilian and an armed men for İsraeli army.They kill anyone oppose them.They don't want to negotiate the borders and they're expansionts,currrent Israeli govt is ultrantionalists thinkin who is not jewish has no rights.
Worst one is they dont have principles.
For example.
At air raids in Palestine February 2009 they willingly bombed a school run by UN which has students under 10 more than 200 child were dead.NATO wouldn't approve such violence i guess.

I think you should tone down your remarks as implying that the current situation in the Middle East is solely the fault of one party is simply wrong and simplistic. All the parties involved, contrary to what supporters of certain sides would have us believe or would claim, have blood on their hands and share a reponsibility in contributing to the whole mess. But yes, Israel is in violation of UN Resolution 242, by its continued occupation of land that does not belong to it, acquired in 1967, and is also illegally building settlements on land it does not own - which is a prime reason why the peace talks have stalled. The Palestinans will have to convince Israel that a future sovereign Palestine state will not ''cause'' any ''trouble'' for Israel and they have to set their house in order. Israel on the other hand has to decide if it wants peace OR land, it can't have both, and its leaders are fully aware of this but are hampered by, internal politics, amongst other things. Hopefully, both sides will eventually come to an aggreement, which will take a miracle and the cooperation, concessions and trust, by all sides............

Getting back to the topic at hand, Israel does not have to be a member of NATO and can't, not only because of geographic reasons but because it already enjoys the full protection of Uncle Sam. In short, Israel's survival, which anyhow is not under any threat by anyone, is guaranteed by Uncle Sam.

 

[AtmacA]

I think you're right about its not one sided, Pelestinians attack israel too.

But i think Terrorist attacks are violent and aimless because they are terrorists. What i try to mention here is, a legal state has support of NATO should act more carefully.Israel is not sayin that they bombed civilians by mistake and regret it,they say "we just have to kill them and we did!"This aspect can't be the aspect of a democratic country.So after Israel's membership how will Nato rightfully defend the idea they're attacking for bring democracy to target countries?Neither Nato nor Israel wants a change in Nato image in our minds.

As you said Israel is enjoying its untouchable position without provision of international institutions.Somehow they don't need Nato membership to make whole western world to serve them.

Sure that's about money,if uncle sam sings Jessie J's Price Tag song to Israel guess everyone in middle-east would be dancing

Mod Warning :STURM has already given you an alert about posting expectations on this Forum. Before you respond to anyone I suggest that you read the rules. Another post in the tone of whats on here will run the risk of being an infraction.

Warning issued

 

[Eeshaan]

Honestly speaking, NATO stands for NORTH ATLANTIC treaty organization. India, Israel & Australia are a bit far from North Atlantic in my opinion A name change would be required lol.

Seriously though, if you look at it, most of the NATO countries have a relatively similar foreign policy ( or at least had, during the cold war ). NATO was made with the objective of combining arms & manpower to successfully repel a Soviet invasion. Then and even now, India remains relatively neutral. Israel & Australia have a very strong alliance with the west, but then again are too geographically displaced to be a part of NATO. Japan is bound by treaty that severely limits it's military capabilities & it's government has sworn to not participate in offensive operations beyond Japan's borders.

So all in all, the geographical & political hassles might outweigh the benefits of these nations joining NATO IMHO...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Why would Aust need to join NATO when we are already sitting on some of the technology seats, already have observor status on what we deem critical committees and have a defacto partner relationship?

joining would be symbolic and is not needed anyway. we already have officers attached to Brussels etc...

 

[Eeshaan]

Why would Aust need to join NATO when we are already sitting on some of the technology seats, already have observor status on what we deem critical committees and have a defacto partner relationship?

joining would be symbolic and is not needed anyway. we already have officers attached to Brussels etc...

Would it also include committing additional troops to be deployed in areas NATO forces are currently deployed as peace enforcers or keepers ?

I'm thinking of campaigns that NATO waged in the Balkans, Iraq & Libya etc.

I don't know what the australian government's policy is towards that...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Why would Aust need to join NATO when we are already sitting on some of the technology seats, already have observor status on what we deem critical committees and have a defacto partner relationship?

joining would be symbolic and is not needed anyway. we already have officers attached to Brussels etc...

The big difference would be that apart from being a practical military member of NATO – as Australia, Sweden, etc. – are now we would also be a political security member. That is part of NATO’s collective security agreement. The NATO treaty is a collective defence agency where states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack upon a member. The military integration element which Australia and many other non members are signed up to actually came as an afterthought to the NATO treaty.

While NATO now has a global reach (no longer just the North Atlantic area) for Australia and Japan (and others outside the European area) to join this mutual defence pact element would be problematical. What kind of assistance from attack could Norway provide Japan? Also since most of the potential new members are already in mutual security agreements with the USA there would be little net benefit from a token European presence. Further this would involve Australia and others in defending Europe from possible Russian aggression.

All that being said evolving NATO into a Global Treaty Organisation (GTO) that offered truly free, fully democratic advanced economies around the world a mutual security pact could be a powerful tool in promoting freedom and peace. Especially in providing all those partially free countries an objective to become free so as to qualify for the immense security guarantee of NATO membership. It could also be destabilising being a major counter to the increasing lack of legitimacy of the UN and a major threat to the various major dictatorships and partial dicatorships (China, Russia) and all the third world dicatorships. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. Might even instill western Europe with a bit of a second wind of relevancy and direction, though the melancholia that has invested these nations might be terminal.

 

[swerve]

NATO's out of area operations (e.g. Afghanistan) are currently ad-hoc & voluntary. They do not have any implications for the defined NATO area.

Extending NATO membership to countries outside the area would make the geographical limit untenable. There would either have to be a two tier membership, with different rules applying to in-area & out of area states, or the abolition of the NATO area, with implications for the overseas territories (e.g. the Netherlands Antilles, St Helena, New Caledonia, Guam) of NATO members which have been deliberately excluded from the treaty up to now.

Does Australia want to be committed to the defence of Tahiti & the Falklands? Would India want to be committed to defend Reunion?

Then there is the question of Japan. It is currently barred, by its own constitution, from some of the commitments which NATO membership requires.

All of this has to be thought through.

 

[Jhom]

or the abolition of the NATO area, with implications for the overseas territories (e.g. the Netherlands Antilles, St Helena, New Caledonia, Guam) of NATO members which have been deliberately excluded from the treaty up to now.

Does Australia want to be committed to the defence of Tahiti & the Falklands?

The Falklands are not included in NATO, like the Faroe or Ceuta and Melilla they are not under the cover of NATO.

Australia and NATO dont need anythig more from the other, they actually have the perfect relationship with Australia being a so-called "contact country".

But, talking from my piont of view I wouldnt say NO to Australia being a NATO full member, but I have my concerns about Turkey being one, or Georgia...

And dont forget the what is NATO about... as somebody said once it is designed for "keeping the americans in, the germans down and the russians out"