EDIT: For clarification, I feel that the current situation on the ground in the war (vs. say a year ago) might indicate that an attack on Russia might not result in instant nuclear war, which is what prompted my question. I am well aware of the “instant nuclear Armageddon” opinion.

Serious question. I don’t need to be called stupid. I realize nuclear war is bad. Thanks!

  • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    4 months ago

    There’s a problem with your premise. NATO (much like the UN) is not a military force of its own. Rather, it’s an agreement between many nations, each with their own militaries. There is no NATO army. There is an agreement of the United States (with its army), the UK (with its army). Germany (with its army), etc.

    Each of them could independently invade. They could even negotiate an agreement to invade. But that would have limited impact on NATO. The big thing would be that any invading country loses the agreed upon defenses of the rest.

    • gigachad@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      4 months ago

      Technically, NATO has multiple multinational battalion battlegroups at Russia’s border in Poland and the Baltic States, although they consist of only a couple of thousand soldiers.

    • Flax@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      Well, the armies have standardised a lot of things and train together, so they very well can act as one army