politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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?
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.
NATO is exactly the same beast, to those not in it. All those pre WW1 alliances were M.A.D. prototypes, same as NATO.