• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What should NATO do if a Russian bomb lands in a NATO country or a Russian plane flies in a NATO country's air space?

If the russians are dumb enough to have a bomb or artillery piece shoot into a NATO country or a Russian plane fly into a NTO country's air space? Would it thn be time to go after the Russian military?
NATO should attack and defend itself at all costs. I just hope to God that the US has hypersonic missiles.

We can't help it if the US' signals are so strong that they throw Russian GPS coordinates off by 50 or 100 miles.
 
If the russians are dumb enough to have a bomb or artillery piece shoot into a NATO country or a Russian plane fly into a NTO country's air space? Would it thn be time to go after the Russian military?
Huge difference between a plane flying into NATO airspace and a bomb landing in a NATO country.
A plane can be warned to get out, and fighters can be sent to intercept without firing unless the aircraft refuses to leave. It the conduct persist then shoot it down. A bomb landing in a NATO country is escalatory as Biden likes to say and there should be a military response. If you know from whence the bomb was launched, strike that site as a retaliatory measure and warn Russia to let it happen again or the response will be greater.
 
Bullshit - NATO isn't OSCE, which treats all parties in Europe equally. NATO was designed to fight the old USSR, and now continues to treat Russia in the same way.
You can't settle conflicts in Europe by starting out automatically taking a particular side (ie. the side that's against Russia)
When all you have is a (NATO) hammer, then every problem is made to look like a nail.




Ohh, and Stalin, who was a Georgian not a Russian, had nothing to do with Soviet policies, huh?


The Bolsheviks overthrew the Tsars and had every one of them killed. They were also bankrolled by Russia's foreign rivals, who wanted to cause the Tsars as much trouble as possible.


All Great Powers do that. France and the French, Britain and the British, etc, etc. Russia is no exception. There are ethnic Russians living nearby. One third of Ukraine's population is ethnically Russian.
You want to pretend they don't exist, because it's inconvenient of you to acknowledge their existence and their needs of existence. They're your untermenschen, and you want them gone.
You don't want them to vote, because they won't vote for the govt you want in Kyiv. You don't want them to have rights, you don't want them to be heard at all, much less to be able to protest.
You want an Apartheid state, or an ethnically cleansed one.




The Russians are your convenient scapegoat - your untermenschen. You want the Russians in Ukraine dispossessed and/or dead. I say again -- one third of Ukraine's population is ethnically Russian.
Ukraine is not some united unified society. It's a divided society. It is ethnically heterogenous. In spite of your Left-wing propaganda about diversity at home, you don't want diversity to be recognized in Ukraine.
You don't want these other ethnic groups who inconveniently exist, to have an existence, because you find it inconvenient.
What is supposed to happen to them?
1647454924636.png
 
Like hypotheticals much. PLEASE!!!!

Ukraine would have to be doing much much worse in the field than they are doing for something like that to even get to the edge of the table...never mind on it.

Send the drones US......Send the drones....

That said, once again I think it absurd that we are hearing anything about possible new hardware going into Ukraine. Hell of a screwed up way to run a railroad.

The thread is predicated on a hypothetical so..........

I was asking people what they would push for if such an event was known to have taken place and you didn't answer the question.

hard to know what you think from the above tbh
 
And you answered lol

That said, you have opened up a few questions that are relevant to the thread:
- Do you think we should be in NATO?
- Do you think we should be supplying arms to Ukraine? If not, why not?
- Since we are in NATO and are the only country that has invoked Article5 of the NATO Treaty, do you think we should support our Article 5 obligation if one of the treaty members other than ourselves is attacked?
Yes we should be in NATO. Yes we should supply arms to a nation who we promised to help if they gave up their nukes. And yes we should go to war if another NATO partner is attacked, as they did when we were attacked.Anything else?
 
Ah, just how many authoritarians think, if they are a small weak country, they do not count.
You would just as soon ask for the Kremlin take. That is what you are getting whether you ask for it or not.
 
I'm guessing cooler heads prevailed and didn't want to escalate on a mistake. What do you suppose the military purpose of the drone flight was?
No idea. Maybe a mistake. Maybe testing the response. Maybe probing defenses. Maybe a display of force. But letting it roll was probably a good move.
 
If the russians are dumb enough to have a bomb or artillery piece shoot into a NATO country or a Russian plane fly into a NTO country's air space? Would it thn be time to go after the Russian military?
I think they should get one warning for invading airspace. The second "accident" would be cause for war. If they fire or drop a weapon onto NATO ground, NATO should turn all of Russia into dust and then salt the earth.
 
No idea. Maybe a mistake. Maybe testing the response. Maybe probing defenses. Maybe a display of force. But letting it roll was probably a good move.
I agree that it was probably a mistake. And that ignoring it is probably the right move.
 
I think they should get one warning for invading airspace. The second "accident" would be cause for war. If they fire or drop a weapon onto NATO ground, NATO should turn all of Russia into dust and then salt the earth.
What if I told you that, at the time of this posting, there had already been at least 3 such incidents?
 
What if I told you that, at the time of this posting, there had already been at least 3 such incidents?
Airspace invasions or bombs exploding in NATO territory?
 
3 of the former, one of the latter. (At least.)
I spent several minutes searching. I see exactly one drone that entered NATO airspace on Monday. What and when were the others? When did a bomb explode on NATO ground? Where?
 
I spent several minutes searching. I see exactly one drone that entered NATO airspace on Monday. What and when were the others? When did a bomb explode on NATO ground? Where?

Pretty hard to find, but has been posted on the major news networks...
 
NATO should attack and defend itself at all costs. I just hope to God that the US has hypersonic missiles.

----I'd like to think that our country doesn't foolishly babble about new weapons, particularly if they are of the hypersonic missile variety.

We can't help it if the US' signals are so strong that they throw Russian GPS coordinates off by 50 or 100 miles.

The way GPS works, if you jam the incoming signals from the 30+ GPS birds orbiting the Earth, you're going to render YOUR GPS inoperable as well.
 

Pretty hard to find, but has been posted on the major news networks...
Thank you.

I still don't see a bomb exploding in NATO territory. I see a bomb that didn't detonate that was on a drone that could have belonged to Ukraine or could have belonged to Russia. The article's authors don't even know.

Then there's a drone that entered Romania's airspace. Again, no indication whose drone it was.

Then there's a Russian drone that entered Ukrainian airspace from Poland. That's the incident I mentioned on Friday.

Accidents are bound to happen, but Russia is also profoundly untrustworthy. I don't see a reason to go to war with them just yet, but I also think they will test the West harder and harder and that the West must be prepared to respond with force.
 
Thank you.

I still don't see a bomb exploding in NATO territory. I see a bomb that didn't detonate that was on a drone that could have belonged to Ukraine or could have belonged to Russia. The article's authors don't even know.

Then there's a drone that entered Romania's airspace. Again, no indication whose drone it was.

Then there's a Russian drone that entered Ukrainian airspace from Poland. That's the incident I mentioned on Friday.

Accidents are bound to happen, but Russia is also profoundly untrustworthy. I don't see a reason to go to war with them just yet, but I also think they will test the West harder and harder and that the West must be prepared to respond with force.
That's the point; no one is going to go to war over Russia flying drones into NATO airspace, even when they explode. To argue or suggest otherwise is silly.
 
That's the point; no one is going to go to war over Russia flying drones into NATO airspace, even when they explode. To argue or suggest otherwise is silly.
I responded to the OP, which was:

"If the russians are dumb enough to have a bomb or artillery piece shoot into a NATO country or a Russian plane fly into a NTO country's air space? Would it thn be time to go after the Russian military?"

My response was:

"I think they should get one warning for invading airspace. The second "accident" would be cause for war. If they fire or drop a weapon onto NATO ground, NATO should turn all of Russia into dust and then salt the earth."

You may think that's silly all you want. That's why we post here. You did, however, respond with 3 airspace invasions and a bomb exploding in NATO territory that didn't happen.
 
I responded to the OP, which was:

"If the russians are dumb enough to have a bomb or artillery piece shoot into a NATO country or a Russian plane fly into a NTO country's air space? Would it thn be time to go after the Russian military?"

My response was:

"I think they should get one warning for invading airspace. The second "accident" would be cause for war. If they fire or drop a weapon onto NATO ground, NATO should turn all of Russia into dust and then salt the earth."

You may think that's silly all you want. That's why we post here. You did, however, respond with 3 airspace invasions and a bomb exploding in NATO territory that didn't happen.
But literally... it did. NATO didn't even issue a warning over three drones flying into NATO airspace, one of which exploded and caused damage.
 
It appears they're trying to be sure they understand what happened.

Yep. So... no repercussions. No three strikes and you're out. No warnings, no shooting them down, no nuttin. Free to keep droning as they wish.
 
Yep. So... no repercussions. No three strikes and you're out. No warnings, no shooting them down, no nuttin. Free to keep droning as they wish.
I thought when Russia invaded that we should have gone to war and imposed a no fly zone. Now I understand why NATO is being so cautious. Drones don't pose that much threat. They might malfunction. They might be improperly operated. NATO should be shooting down drones as they enter its territory. I also don't like that the "red line" is so unclear.
 
Back
Top Bottom