7 New NATO Countries

Well, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia , have finally been (officialy) accepted into NATO. "These countries will make NATO stronger" said Bush. Well, finally we'll be able to throw away our rusty russian APCs ; all 5 of them.Now we'll be able to replace those damn MIG-21s that kill more pilots during peace time than in war.This crashing MIG phenomenon was so bad that the villagers have begun setting their watches accrodingly ("the five o'clock MIG, the seven o'clock MIG, the midnight MIG"). :smile:

What will you be getting to replace the rusty russian APCs and mig-21s? Just because I'm interested in this sort of thing.

A bunch of those countries are going be joining the EU in may too. :smile:

What's NATO without the Warsaw Pact? Also, what's NATO with the planned joint European defence force? Maybe the treaty should be reanalysed to focus NATOs efforts on the "war on terror"? At the moment it just seems like a redundant organisation...

Is it just me, or do the americans still think of Russia as some sort of enemy?

FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD!!!! :biggrin:

Oh no, the pigs are joining up with the humans!! :sad:

Uhhh...yeah.

Andrei said:
Is it just me, or do the americans still think of Russia as some sort of enemy?

russian people or russia?

id consider them no more so, than the UK thinks the USA is :rolleyes:

I'd say the majority of Americans now think Russia is better than it actually is.

Cassius said:
I'd say the majority of Americans now think Russia is better than it actually is.

if you overlook the shortage of potty paper that is..

points at Orpheus is it true that news about the fall of the curtain hasnt reached Kansas yet? :smile:

Meh, it'll probably expand and turn into an anti-China organization within the next 20 years or so... :razz:

Why bother. China will probably join NATO along with the rest of the world. Then there'd be no wars because everyone would be allied with each other. The US of course would dominate the alliance and institute a new world order, leading to loss of freedoms and an increase in violence, setting the stage for games like StarCraft, Deus Ex... and probably other ones too.

Yak_Fighter said:
Then there'd be no wars .

No wars but terrorism.

Andrei said:
points at Orpheus is it true that news about the fall of the curtain hasnt reached Kansas yet? :smile:

dunno, but we do have members who live there, ask them. :wink:

Why bother. China will probably join NATO along with the rest of the world. Then there'd be no wars because everyone would be allied with each other. The US of course would dominate the alliance and institute a new world order, leading to loss of freedoms and an increase in violence, setting the stage for games like StarCraft, Deus Ex... and probably other ones too.

:razz: I wouldn't count on it. The western world (particuarly Britain) is long overdue for mad revolutions and upheavals :razz: Leaving the place for the reds in China to fill the gap :biggrin:

WE ALL LOVE THE PARTY!

Gwil said:
WE ALL LOVE THE PARTY!

We dont. Thats why we got rid of it :biggrin: .

No offence but I reckon those countries will drag Nato down budget wise... they arn't exactly wealthy countries or have anything going for them.

Myrk- said:
No offense but I reckon those countries will drag Nato down budget wise... they arn't exactly wealthy countries or have anything going for them.

might i ask, how else would the countries get elevated otherwise?

Its not as if the NATO countries are struggling... look at USA, UK, they can afford to donate a few tanks/aircraft/dollars, whats a small loss to them is a huge gain for Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

I know about aeroplanes, the US has plenty of F16s that will probably be phased out for the F/A-22, UK has Tornadoes that might be replaced soon with the eurofighter (but there is a bit of an issue with them... hmm...) Any of those could be sent to Eastern Europe and not be missed by the donators. They can probably also provide training/maintenance facilities fairly cheap.

AND we still use MIG-21s!!!

Theres nothing inherently wrong with MiG-21s, however, they are quite dated by now.

UK, they can afford to donate a few tanks/aircraft/dollars,

t'is a shame they cant donate something to their own country. having a fatal heart condition? well, book yourself up now & youl only have to wait a year! wp blair.

Myrk- said:
No offence but I reckon those countries will drag Nato down budget wise... they arn't exactly wealthy countries or have anything going for them.

I think NATO has enough military hardware.And if the British donate 40% of their hardware, it wont go to waste. NATO will be able to control them even if they belong to...rum...Bulgaria .

I thought NATO had problems actually getting anything done or making decisions? Wouldn't it be a good idea if the existing countries got NATO in a properly functional and rlevant state before letting more countries join? Won't the whole thing just get harder to organise, and the decision making process become slower, the more countries there are?

Hmm...not really, i think they only have to get organised in case of war.

Hmm...not really, i think they only have to get organised in case of war.

Uhhh...There is a War. (It's not full blown, but it is legally declaired war. By US laws anyway)

The war on terrorism? You cant mount a full scale assault on them, so all that hardware is useless when fighting an enemy so well hidden among innocents.

you know its funny in a sort of f*cked up way that me year 10 science teacher said during class (early 2001) taht "the wars of the future wont be fought with aircraft, warships or even nuclear weapons. they will be fought through terrorism and terror tactics" as, unfortunately weve been forced to see through 9/11, Bali and Madrid examples weve all seen just recently recently

yea somehow this was on topic for science...

it made me think twice just now the reason why rich countries notably the US UK hell even Australia would spend tens of billions on useless hardware-just what are they doing with all those tanks etc, except as a deterrent? (no countries military going to invade them by sea air etc)

then their donations of 'obsolete' hardwares to poorer countries seems to say "here ya go these things cost to much too maintain, and are even more useless against a unseen enemy so take them"

war on terror? it seems to me such things are improbable, when you can only see your enemy when they attack innocent civilians

/2 cents

Just as a point of note, Australian defence spending is far higher than it should be. In the past decade, we've bought submarines that can't shoot torpedoes, "new" helicopters with 40-year old airframes, and tanks that are too heavy for our landing boats. It looks stupid, but its actually a rather devious plan to get more money from the Government.