Should the US create an Asian NATO?

[Julie4]

[RavVid]

I think China is working on this quite extensively already and the US is best situated to let China complete the work. It has almost coalesced an East Asia NATO. What was that classic Napoleon phrase? Oh yes... never interrupt your enemy whilst they are making a mistake.

Most recently it added an extra dash to the nine dash line to make a ten dash line to mark it's territorial borders - according to it. The PLA "coast guard" attacked Philippines forces resupplying a beached ship in it's economic zone. China refuses to accept UNCLOS determinations despite being an early signatory and rejects that it cannot build islands.

Since the South China Sea is expected to have extensive petroleum reserves few countries bordering the SCS will willingly accept China's wolf warrior diplomacy even though as in the recent Philippines they are not in a position to militarily reject China's incursions.

China has managed to overcome traditional antithesis between South Korea and Japan with a bit of a love in recently. Both these states know better than to let China to cut shipping lanes to their countries as it is an existential threat to them. Japan, which has a far better navy than China, said about a year ago that Taiwan had to be defended.

Vietnam, despite being communist, is no great lover of CCP and fought a brief winning war against China. When I holidayed there, my passport had to be stamped to go on a SCS cruise (had the stern couple berth!). The Vietnamese where pretty huffy about the SCS claims. Biden's state visit to Vietnam is significant. by the way Australia had recent state visits to Vietnam by our Foreign Minister and by the vice regal. Usually our Governor General is limited to opening school fetes and symbolically eating a lamington. The representative of the Australian Monarchy going to Vietnam is significant.

India rejected the US cold war alignment and adopted non alignment. In it's constitution it declares it is a socialist state and is probably the historical reason for it's association with Russia. During the initial depths of covid, when nothing else was going to be on the front pages, China launched a sneaky border incursion. Yes the Himalayas are a long way from Taiwan but India has an island chain slap bang by the Malacca Straights and can easily blockade China's petroleum imports.

So too can Australia, from our mainland via missiles. There is a three navy facility being built in Western Australia (US, UK, Australia i. e. Aukus). Maybe a PLA naval vessel shooting at an Australian maritime patrol plane whilst transiting our exclusive economic zone wasn't smart and a bit more uppity than was wise.

The QUAD is not a military alliance but it is not not a military alliance. ASEAN is more a diplomatic economic grouping but it does have peace and security clauses.

Modi might just be a huge cricket fan but I think the effort in recent cricket diplomacy was significant and the effort in Australia for the reciprocal visit also significant.

I will go back to Napoleon's line about not interrupting you enemy and say I think the US is best placed following that advice.

People are also more convinced by their own ideas. You are best off letting them think they thought of it and nudge along their thinking rather then telling them what they should think. More buy in that way.

[nightdrot]

Well, first, there used to be an Asian equivalent of NATO, it was called the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization - (SEATO). It incorporated South Vietnam, Pakistan and some European states, believe it or not, as well. With the end of the Vietnam War, it was disbanded.

That is the starting point. Moving to the present, any SEATO alliance would likely be very thin gruel - as indeed SEATO was itself. Even in the 21st century there is a certain distrust of Japan in the Far East. No state wants to get caught in a second Korean War, and so likely South Korea would either be a deterrent to joining or would not be allowed to join. Australia and New Zealand never did join SEATO, instead preferring ANZUS, and even that was disbanded when New Zealand dropped out over the issue of the potential presence of nuclear weapons aboard visiting American Navy warships.

The list goes on. The bottom line being that whatever the theoretical advantages, any contemporary SEATO alliance would be full of holes and of minimal benefit. The interests of the various states in the region simply diverge too much - even in the face of China - to make it viable.

Thus, the current series of bilateral alliances is the more logical, though perhaps not ideal, course of action. The short answer being, yes, the US should. The problem being that the raw material, so to speak, for such an alliance - even in the face of China - is simply not there.

[Julie4]

Yes, I believe that the United States wanted to open a NATO office in Japan, but that France opposed it, but I don't even know why.

[nightdrot]

Most likely because France does not want another rival power within NATO.

Remember what Kissinger said: The Purpose of NATO is to keep "the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down." In that context, France has been freed to act on a global scale.

If Japan is brought into the alliance, suddenly matters not necessarily of concern to France would have to preoccupy French foreign and defense policymakers.

An example: France has little interest in the Korean peninsula, but bring Japan into NATO, and suddenly Paris would have to focus time and resources on a distant peninsula that is really peripheral to French national interests. So France objects to anything that will entangle NATO outside of the Atlantic basin, which is the region most crucial to French national security.

Hope all is well with you and the family.

[Julie4]

In fact, I've always wondered how a nuclear-armed nation to be menaced its national security. I mean, a country that took the risk of attacking a nuclear power would either be destroyed, or, if they both had it, they'd destroy each other. For example, even if NATO disappeared tomorrow and Germany found itself the most powerful army in Europe, I wouldn't be worried about our security because we have nuclear weapons. I don't Know if what I want to say is clear.

Everyone's doing well, thank you, and I hope you're And your family doing well too.

[nightdrot]

On your first point, a surprise first strike could knock out most, if not all, of France's - or any nation's - nuclear arsenal. At least to the point of rendering a nuclear counterstrike a reduced, if not moot, point. That is why even a nuclear power's national security must be protected, alliances made and precautions taken.

You seem to imagine that a nuclear capability is the magic formula that renders military calculations moot. That is not true and is why the USA risked nuclear war over the Cuban Missile Crisis.

As to the family, we have been going nuts. we have the first of two weddings this weekend. So it is to-ing- fro-ing, family get togethers. You know the drill. It is fun - but really busy. (Throw in my work schedule to boot.)

Anyhow, glad to hear all is well with you.

[miafryer2004]

You’ve got to be joking!!! Why would the US want to form a security alliance for all of the US enemies? Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Syria are all in that region and are all enemies of the US!!!

[strateguy632]

i partly agree, but the PRINCIPLES of nato apply there unite non communist to balance communist china is possible even beneficial. just divide multi party election from one party or no election for president.

[DeeDeeDeVour]

North

Atlantic

Treaty

Organization

So, what shall an Asian NATO-esque group be called?

[BCA6010]

Why? So the US can carry more countries that won't hold up to their obligations and furthermore, generally hate and distrust each other, only tenuously sharing a mutual acknowledgement that China is individually a bigger threat than anyone else? Geopolitics in the Pacific and eastern Asia are wildly different from that of Europe.

As it currently stands, the US has individual military alliances in some form with the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, Thailand, Brazil, and the latest addition, Papua New Guinea (there may be more but those are the ones I know of). Additionally, most of those have their own treaties with the UK, but aside from Australia-New Zealand, most of them want nothing to do with each other and still have proposals in limbo. This is before taking into account countries like Vietnam that want to oppose China, but don't want to collaborate with the Japanese or Koreans, or the fact that Brazil probably can't be relied on in the event an actual war broke out. In fact, it shouldn't be a huge surprise to anyone if any of these countries aside from maybe Australia decided to back down rather than respond to an attack on their alliance.

[strateguy632]

definitely start by inviting the 35 Asian countries non communist and yes multi party election to challenge communism only one party elections.

most will not join unless neighbor of china. so around 20, that is wonderful, except n. korea, laos vietnam and iran who are china allies.

[strateguy632]

it should be named pacific treaty association p. t. a.

[goaded]

Let them do it by themselves. Members should be democratic nations and undertake to defend each other in case of one being invaded. Should NATO countries join in support? I guess that would be up to the individual nations, but deterring aggression is a good thing, if it's a credible threat to the potential aggressors, which probably means including a nuclear-armed country is a necessity, these days.

[rtj1211]

Why are you US citizens obsessed with military conquest? You've been destroying the whole world with your genocidal actions the past 80 years. Stop trying to perpetuate it.

[YAsQuen]

BRO. Thats such a stupid question.
The US is not gonna create an offspring of NATO and LITERALLY WEAKENING ITS OWN DEFENCE PACT ON PURPOSE. Yikes

Should there be an Asian Military Alliance? Why not. BUT Japan and SK would need to leave NATO first.

What kind of alliance did you have in mind?

[strateguy632]

no need to leave nato. just add to a. t. o.

[Siri137]

No. What for? Alliances are formed to fight wars, in spite of what some fools believe about NATO having been formed in order to prevent them.

[ohsheeT]

I don't think America could do too much of anything they have basically sold us out to nato and we just keep getting deeper and deeper

[DermalPunch]

Maybe the Asians should and the US should mind their own affairs which are in a deplorable state.

[A_Bell]

No, because Asia is in the Pacific and really the South Pacific, so it would be SPTO.

[Dargil]

One used to exist until Vietnam. SEATO.
ASEAN exists now but it is not an active military alliance.

[Anonymous]

NATO= Slaughter house
why would anyone think it's good to have 2 slaughter houses? 1 is already too many and that 1 should be abolished immediately.

[strateguy632]

apparently your equation is false. actually nato "defend" each other like west germany. similarly Asian t. o. woumd unite to defend the neighbors of china and n. korea included japan taiwan philipines etc. and in my opinion freee nepal... not fake.

[BoopBoopBeep]

No that's just another imbalanced alliance for us to tie ourselves to and receive little in return.

[exitseven]

Thats all we need. Another global organization that the US will have to fund.

[strateguy632]

trump pressured grrmany to pay its part the problem is biden.

[KostasKouvalis]

I've thought of that myself. I'm surprised they don't

[msc545]

No. NATO is a cause of great trouble as it is.

[Julie4]

No , .

[jjj101010]

No, 2 reasons.

1. NATO is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Asia is not in the north atlantic

2. The US is not in Asia so has no business getting involved.

[strateguy632]

u. s. was not in Europe but the idea nato is unite to balance communism like west germany. same for neighbors of china.

[jjj101010]

@strateguy632 the US is on the North Atlantic, NATO isn’t a European body

[Anonymous]

Yes, but only South Korea and Japan are allowed in. Russia and China can’t be allowed in.

[Anonymous]

China is much more of a threat to the US than Russia is so probably.

[SaoirseS]

There already is, sort of: SEATO

[WhiteBoyChill]

There was,

[SaoirseS]

You’re right.

[RedInnocent68]

APTO? Why not let them just join NATO?

[strateguy632]

because india shouldn't need to commit to save france.

[RedInnocent68]

India would never join anyway. They will stay non-aligned. They’re already a nuclear power. (Thanks, Canada 😂)

[BLP11520]

I believe not 🤔

[jahaims]

Nope

[Anonymous]

No lol