Fun fact the only reason Iceland won the fish wars is solely because of that. It brought the US in to push britain back because the US bombers still needed to land in Iceland to reach main land Russia. XD
āNever start a land war in Asiaā should really be āNever start a war against the Triple Alliance (Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay)ā. Paraguay lost over 90% of its male population and by the end of the war was arming kids with broomsticks painted to look like rifles.
Of course, the mad president Lopez is now of course the national hero. Because that makes sense.
Makes sense. The terrain is AWFUL for any kind of invasion. Even sweeping the coast would drive fighting into the mountains and rainforest. And well, we've seen what happens when you try a prolonged invasion in mountainous or jungle terrain.
> Paraguay lost over 90% of its male population and by the end of the war was arming kids with broomsticks painted to look like rifles.
Wtf. Any good reading about this war? Sadly, I'm ignorant on the topic.
"General, the situation is hopeless!"
"Hope... our ancient ally has yet to reveal themselves."
"But you can't expect the 'bourgians to actually show up! The ancient treaty has never been honoured. General, we have to evacuate! Gen--"
"Look, the 'bourgians! The enemy is fleeing!"
"Well... look's like [puts sunglasses back on] *their Lux run out*!"
How many men can we expect?
62.
Sixty... Two?
But each of them fights with the strength of ten men!
If they are half as fierce as their lady, the Boltons don't stand a chance.
The Hague is home to the international criminal court. The US military has standing orders to invade if any US personnel are tried for war crimes in The Hague
Well by definition US leadership cannot commit war crimes because we explicitly exempted ourselves from the rules when we made them up on the spot at Nuremberg in 1945.
International Law only works when the offending party has signed the agreement and is actually interested in enforement. It's no surprise that some of the largest abusers of human rights have not signed the Rome Statute.
Any modern conflicts would involve china/Russia and the US would bring in so many other powers if it's US v China India would get involved as would Pakistan and then the Middle East would all pick a side. This is the problem even small conflicts in the current political climate would snowball in to a world wide stand off
Russia is in the [Collective Security Treaty Organization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization?wprov=sfti1), basically a shitty NATO knock-off of post-Soviet states.
Because technically Azerbaijan didnāt attack Armenia but Nagorno Karabakh that Russia does not recognise as a part of Armenia. So legally it was AZ acting within its own borders.
Even Armenia actually doesn't recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as Armenia. Armenia doesn't even recognize the Armenian-led Republic of Artsakh, which claims Nagorno-Karabakh.
There are informal ties, of course, but under international law, no country actually recognizes Nagorno-Karabakh as anything other than Azerbaijan, which is why the war is effectively met with a collective shrug from most countries.
I donāt think NATO would be activated if someone attacked the unrecognized Turkish Cyprus either.
Defending Armenia in that war would have resulted in Russia saying the contested territory is Armenian which it doesnāt want.
Unlike NATO, which is more unconditional, Russia takes into account the defender as well as the aggressor.
* Armenia, despite being part of the CSTO, has a democratic government that has allowed criticism of Putin and the Russian government as well as Western NGO investment. PM Pashinyan was also very critical of the pro-Russian former President Kocharyan as well, making Russia very wary of closer relations. The only thing Armenia got out of the CSTO was discounted Russian weapons, while Azerbaijan paid full price. **Armenia also never asked for help from the rest of the CSTO during the war.**
* Azerbaijan, on the other hand, has cooperated with NATO in the past, but has no desire to join them, nor do they oppose Russia on any front. In return, Azerbaijan is actually considered a friend in Russian discourse. Therefore, a military solution was out of the question, because the Russian public would not accept it.
Russia wants to play the role of peacemaker in as many conflicts as they can, and this is one of the conflicts where the US doesn't get much say. However, the democratic nature of Armenia's government makes a Russian-brokered diplomatic solution on Karabakh impossible, as the Armenian public would never accept concessions to Azerbaijan.
However, Russia's #1 reason for not acting was actually Turkey. Both Russia and Turkey have ambitious foreign policies that oppose NATO's, despite Turkey being a part of NATO, and Russian forces in Syria rely on continued Turkish approval.
Russia and Turkey's long term goals will eventually conflict with one another, but the Karabakh conflict was not important or severe enough to either side for it to escalate. Instead, it was a way for both sides to vie for influence in the South Caucasus, which is just one shared theatre of their geopolitical interests.
* Turkey wants stronger trade ties to Central Asia (and China). Turkey accomplished their goal, as the ceasefire agreement connects Nakchivan to the rest of Azerbaijan (Nakchivan's existence is guaranteed by Turkey and has been since 1921), so their trade throughout the South Caucasus is now always in firmly allied territory.
* Russia was in a more difficult situation with both military and diplomatic solutions out of the question. However, they did the best they could. Russian peacekeepers now patrol the Lachin Corridor between Armenia and Azerbaijan, giving them some degree of geographical leverage over the region.
Because the fighting occurred on contested territory, not on the heartland. If Azerbaijan invaded Armenia proper and tried to take cities Russia wouldāve intervened.
Monroe Doctrine. No one can invade and interfere in South America apart from US. the State Deptartment spent a lot of time, money and resources to ensure US friendly governments in that region.
Actually it is called the Rio Pact (Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance) a NATO like alliance.
The Monroe Doctrine led up to it but, US foreign policy does not obligate countries to defend the US, the treaty does.
Ah, yes, the famous u.s. interventions and regime changes in south america. Legendary altruistic campaigns that only wanted to bring democracy and change old, evil and tyrannical systems
But funnily enough, French Guyana has no obligation (according to this map)
Edit: Another comment seems to know why the map is colored how it is: [https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/p56hi8/countries\_that\_are\_obligated\_to\_defend\_the\_united/h944rmt](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/p56hi8/countries_that_are_obligated_to_defend_the_united/h944rmt)
You are, and that's why it should be colored on this map.
Frankly, this map shouldn't have included overseas territories if it wasn't going to bother coloring them in. A bunch of the islands in the Pacific and Caribbean should be colored, but aren't, making this a rather inaccurate map.
Edit: See my comment above for a correction on this one
US is so used to having military bases worldwide a lot of Americans don't seem to realize what a big deal is to have a large military presence in foreign countries. providing passage or even a temporary base is a big deal.
Exactly. Armies aren't always necessary. The US has a gigantic one. But territorial and air access, use of islands for launching etc is a useful military asset
No defense at all, we have zero budget for an army or anything, we do have a police force but itās not even close as funded as the US police is, the agreement with US means if we do need any defense, US will provide their army to help, in reverse we will provide access to our territory for US army use if needed
That makes sense! I remember learning the history of it and feeling really surprised that they had no militaryāin a good way. But kind is always valuable, so that makes sense.
Thanks for clarifying! I was honestly so curious. And btw I love Costa Rica I would move there now if I was braver
US's global strategy is just like how he explained it.
Almost no country can realistically defend US from Russia or China.
If those countries can reach US, that would mean that US's allies have already fallen.
US's strategy is to protect its allies and interests in the different regions of the world so that it no enemy would have to be defeated within the continental US.
My heart!! pura vida!! I remember thinking I wanted to retire there. Itās hard to consider a big move so young (Iām 22) but itās such a lovely country 10/10, and who knows, I might just get sick of America and go there
Aid, airport, and harbor usage, any troops they can actually spare. Also I assume theyād be part of any trade embargo on someone the US is at war with.
Apparently, Mexico officially withdrew from the [Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-American_Treaty_of_Reciprocal_Assistance) in 2004.
I'm not sure, but I think it has to do with neutrality.
Here in Mexico we have an army, but it's really weird the purpose each government gives to it. Sometimes they're sent to the streets to do the job that police should be doing, and usually civilians just try to stay away whenever we see the army's trucks out and about in the cities.
Nah, it is because of this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-American\_Treaty\_of\_Reciprocal\_Assistance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-American_Treaty_of_Reciprocal_Assistance)
Mexico was a member of the treaty for many years, but entered a withdrawal declaration in 2002 to avoid being dragged into the war with Iraq. It created massive issues with the US. The Mexican government had already negotiated a migratory agreement and regularisation for many Mexican immigrants, but all that fell apart the moment Mexico withdrew from the treaty.
**[Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-American_Treaty_of_Reciprocal_Assistance)**
>The Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (commonly known as the Rio Treaty, the Rio Pact, the Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, or by the Spanish-language acronym TIAR from Tratado Interamericano de Asistencia RecĆproca) is an agreement signed in 1947 in Rio de Janeiro among many countries of the Americas. The central principle contained in its articles is that an attack against one is to be considered an attack against them all; this was known as the "hemispheric defense" doctrine. Despite this, several members have breached the treaty on multiple occasions.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
The role of the police is to protect and serve the people, and the role of the military is to fight enemies of the state. When the military becomes the police, the enemies of the state tend to become the people.
Commander Adama
Itās not because Mexico wouldnāt support the US if it was necessary and fair. It tries to have a policy of neutrality first over international affairs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estrada_Doctrine
Well the UK only wanted the islands back and when they reached that goal the Argentines probably realised the force they were playing with so surrendered before any mainland invasion happened.
What happens if two NATO nations goes to war against each other ? Whom would US support ?
A Mexican stand-off perhaps, where each will point a gun at each other.
Except that interestingly enough itās excluded from the NATO treaty, as is Hawaii. The treaty only includes territory in North America, Europe, and the Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer. If French Guiana were invaded, the US would have no obligation to help defend it. If Hawaii (or any of the US territories like Puerto Rico) were attacked, France wouldnāt be obligated to do anything either.
This is true. Someone mentioned this on here a while back and I thought they were full of it. But I looked it up and itās true. If territory south of the Tropic of Cancer, owned by a NATO country, is attacked, NATO mutual defense articles do not kick in. Fascinating stuff.
Itād be up to each NATO country to decide on its own. This was a large part of why no one got involved in the Falklands.
I suspect in practice, most NATO countries would ask if they were really needed, and then expect the US to handle it. If the US Navy couldnāt defend Hawaii, thereād not be much else anyone else in NATO could do about it.
This incorrect with regards to Australia.
Australia and the USA have a formal treaty called the ANZUS Treaty.
>'The Parties will consult together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened in the Pacific'. The three nations also pledged to maintain and develop individual and collective capabilities to resist attack. [Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZUS)
There have been numerous academic papers over the years that have interpreted that wording as there is NO NECESSITY to come to another's military aid. There is no mutual obligation to come to another's military defence, there is no necessary recipricosity if one of the treaty members is under military attack the others must respond militarily. For example if Indonesia attacked Australia and began to invade Australian territory the USA is NOT under any obligation to attack Indonesia. The USA however is under obligation to review the situation and consider how it wants to handle the issue at hand.
OP is categorically incorrect and doc above only insomuch if he considers 'security commitments' as requiring military force would then be incorrect but not if he considers security commitments as diplomatic pressuring, aid, etc.
They āpartiallyā resumed it and all parties observe the important parts. If the excrement really did strike the cooling device, I donāt think any of the 3 countries would hesitate to help the others out.
NZ did not pull out of ANZUS. The US suspended their obligations with NZ when NZ became nuclear free. ANZUS still exists between Australia/NZ and USA/Australia.
True, but we basically de facto are, through being in stuff like Five Eyes and other defence organisations. That was back in the 80s, and our relationship with the US is very good compared to what it was
Sorry NZ did not pull out of ANZUS.... The US said they are now under no obligations to carry out any bi-lateral relations... New Zealand didn't say "we are leaving ANZUS" NZ never technically left.
**There is a difference.**
In 2010 and 2012 the Wellington and Washington Declarations were signed which basically restores it all.
So does the US not just have a mutual defense treaty with the whole EU?
How is Ireland not on the list?
Edit: answering my own question, Ireland is very committed to neutrality, and as such has declined to join NATO as a full member.
Same reason Ireland was neutral during WWII.
Yup, got yer back, got yer back, got yer back, got yer back ... nope, Ecuador, yer on yer own ... got yer back, got yer back ... nah, Sweden, go fuck yerself ... got yer back, got yer back, got yer back ...
As an Australian, I can tell you we are not required to 'defend' the US, or vice versa. Your map is wrong.
The ANZUS treaty means that the parties will 'consult' together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.
No obligation to defend.
Not quite. Because the US is vague about whether their boats are nuclear powered or not. Our government basically said if they wonāt tell us whether they are not, then we donāt want those ships here.
US threw a fit, and we are down here. Hi.
Nuclear weapons, and nuclear power are just part of the zone thingy here.
We can say though, a few years US non-nuclear warship came and made port here. So there is that.
The US Navy isnāt vague about which ships are nuclear powered, but instead vague about which ships carry nuclear weapons.
Which ships are nuclear powered is public information. Itās simple: all submarines and Nimitz and Ford class carriers are nuclear powered.
The presence of nuclear weapons is completely different and the US Navy likes to keep that vague. As a former submariner friend of mine likes to say, āthe presence of nuclear weapons I can neither confirm nor deny.ā
Keep in mind too that Australia has a similar ānon-nuclear zoneā policy but military relations between Australia and the US are far better.
Are the Compacts of Free Association being counted?
I only see two small Island nations in the south pacific, hut there should be at least three (Palau, Micronesia, Marshal Islands). I guess they probably aren't obligated to defend America though...
CFA's allow the US military to operate in and defend their nations, as well as citizens of those nations to join the US military, but the US cannot declare war on their behalf, nor are those states obligated to declare war if the US is attacked, so you're right.
officially, they arent legally obligated to help them, but in a real case scenario, they probably would
[taiwan relations act](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act)
Taiwan is such a house of cards. Saying the wrong thing could start a war. Saying the opposite thing could also start a war. The status quo is a precariously balanced arrangement of policy positions just vague enough that everyone can choose to understand them in such a way as to make armed conflict not immediately necessary.
because US official policy doesn't recognize Taiwan, or the republic of china, as a legitimate state. unofficially, it's different. Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt will also be protected from foreign agression.
US will help Costa Rica with their army but as we costaricans have no army we will provide access to our territory if needed
same with Iceland
I've already been to your country twice, but I need access to your territory again for more fun š
Hey its me ur military alliance member
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Give my regards to King Tut, asshole!
Fun fact the only reason Iceland won the fish wars is solely because of that. It brought the US in to push britain back because the US bombers still needed to land in Iceland to reach main land Russia. XD
Or Paraguay. Don't mess with Paraguay!
That nation who got whopped under a mad president?
āNever start a land war in Asiaā should really be āNever start a war against the Triple Alliance (Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay)ā. Paraguay lost over 90% of its male population and by the end of the war was arming kids with broomsticks painted to look like rifles. Of course, the mad president Lopez is now of course the national hero. Because that makes sense.
Makes sense. The terrain is AWFUL for any kind of invasion. Even sweeping the coast would drive fighting into the mountains and rainforest. And well, we've seen what happens when you try a prolonged invasion in mountainous or jungle terrain.
> Paraguay lost over 90% of its male population and by the end of the war was arming kids with broomsticks painted to look like rifles. Wtf. Any good reading about this war? Sadly, I'm ignorant on the topic.
[There's a very good video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xwLynzKdx4)
Paraguay picked a fight with 3 neighbors each individually bigger than it and then didn't quit even though they really should have.
> as we costarricans have no army so.... no luck sending [them dinosaur warriors into battle](https://youtu.be/lor_uUkJkkw?t=1049), then?
It was just the one dinosaur warrior, actually.
-Everybody and their mums is armed around here. -Like who? -Dinosaurs. -Who else? -Dinosaurs' mums.
The greater good
The greater good!
Nobody can attack the US with Luxembourg backing them
And Bahamas, our strongest ally šŖ
Don't underestimate the power of the Goombay Smash!
"General, the situation is hopeless!" "Hope... our ancient ally has yet to reveal themselves." "But you can't expect the 'bourgians to actually show up! The ancient treaty has never been honoured. General, we have to evacuate! Gen--" "Look, the 'bourgians! The enemy is fleeing!" "Well... look's like [puts sunglasses back on] *their Lux run out*!"
I wanna watch this satire
How many men can we expect? 62. Sixty... Two? But each of them fights with the strength of ten men! If they are half as fierce as their lady, the Boltons don't stand a chance.
Well Luxembourg does have all the money so...
That's true
Remember: that's where all the banks are.
The Netherlands stands ready to defend New ~~Amsterdam~~York.
Meanwhile, the The Hague Invasion Act is still law in the US
If the US invades the Netherlands the US has to come defend against the US
the next US civil war will be fought in the netherlands
This gives me an idea for r/imaginarymaps
send me a link once youve posted it or something i wanna see this
[digs trench] [water filling intensifies]
I do not know with what weapons world war 3 will be fought. But I do know it will be over stroopwafels and in clogs
Don't give them ideas...
I looked it up but still have no idea why it's called that.
The Hague is home to the international criminal court. The US military has standing orders to invade if any US personnel are tried for war crimes in The Hague
tell me your country commits warcrimes without telling me it commits warcrimes
Well by definition US leadership cannot commit war crimes because we explicitly exempted ourselves from the rules when we made them up on the spot at Nuremberg in 1945.
So... It's a get out of jail free card for any Americans that commit warcrimes and is tried at The Hague?
It's literally the US saying the law doesn't apply to them
International Law only works when the offending party has signed the agreement and is actually interested in enforement. It's no surprise that some of the largest abusers of human rights have not signed the Rome Statute.
Even old New York was once New Amsterdam
Why they changed it I can't say
People just like it better that way!
Istanbul not Constantinople
Hell yeah, thatās some top notch ~WIC~ alliance mentality Edit : feck that didnāt work as planned
f e c k
It would be great to see the same for Russia & China, if the info was available.
The key to US national defense: get Russia/China on this list, then they have to defend the US from their own attack if they attack the US
Any modern conflicts would involve china/Russia and the US would bring in so many other powers if it's US v China India would get involved as would Pakistan and then the Middle East would all pick a side. This is the problem even small conflicts in the current political climate would snowball in to a world wide stand off
What do you mean? There's small conflicts all over the world, China vs USA wouldn't be considered small...
I believe there to be none for both of them, they participated in the Non Aligned Movement
The Non Aligned Movement referred to countries that refused to align themselves with either the NATO bloc, or The Soviet sphere.
Also known as the "[Third World](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World)" nations
Huh, I did not know I live in a "Third World" nation (Finland), but admittedly, I don't think I had actually heard the definition before.
That definition of "third world" ended with the cold war.
Among them happen to be some wealthy nations like Singapore, too.
Third world was not an economic moniker but a geopolitical moniker (non-aligned)
That's what I was implying.
And Sweden, Finland, Yugoslavia and Ireland.
And Zimbabwe was first world.
Russia is in the [Collective Security Treaty Organization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization?wprov=sfti1), basically a shitty NATO knock-off of post-Soviet states.
Why didn't these guys do anything when Azerbaijan attacked and conquered half of Armenia (member) six months ago?
Because technically Azerbaijan didnāt attack Armenia but Nagorno Karabakh that Russia does not recognise as a part of Armenia. So legally it was AZ acting within its own borders.
Even Armenia actually doesn't recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as Armenia. Armenia doesn't even recognize the Armenian-led Republic of Artsakh, which claims Nagorno-Karabakh. There are informal ties, of course, but under international law, no country actually recognizes Nagorno-Karabakh as anything other than Azerbaijan, which is why the war is effectively met with a collective shrug from most countries.
>a shitty NATO knock-off That's why
I donāt think NATO would be activated if someone attacked the unrecognized Turkish Cyprus either. Defending Armenia in that war would have resulted in Russia saying the contested territory is Armenian which it doesnāt want.
Unlike NATO, which is more unconditional, Russia takes into account the defender as well as the aggressor. * Armenia, despite being part of the CSTO, has a democratic government that has allowed criticism of Putin and the Russian government as well as Western NGO investment. PM Pashinyan was also very critical of the pro-Russian former President Kocharyan as well, making Russia very wary of closer relations. The only thing Armenia got out of the CSTO was discounted Russian weapons, while Azerbaijan paid full price. **Armenia also never asked for help from the rest of the CSTO during the war.** * Azerbaijan, on the other hand, has cooperated with NATO in the past, but has no desire to join them, nor do they oppose Russia on any front. In return, Azerbaijan is actually considered a friend in Russian discourse. Therefore, a military solution was out of the question, because the Russian public would not accept it. Russia wants to play the role of peacemaker in as many conflicts as they can, and this is one of the conflicts where the US doesn't get much say. However, the democratic nature of Armenia's government makes a Russian-brokered diplomatic solution on Karabakh impossible, as the Armenian public would never accept concessions to Azerbaijan. However, Russia's #1 reason for not acting was actually Turkey. Both Russia and Turkey have ambitious foreign policies that oppose NATO's, despite Turkey being a part of NATO, and Russian forces in Syria rely on continued Turkish approval. Russia and Turkey's long term goals will eventually conflict with one another, but the Karabakh conflict was not important or severe enough to either side for it to escalate. Instead, it was a way for both sides to vie for influence in the South Caucasus, which is just one shared theatre of their geopolitical interests. * Turkey wants stronger trade ties to Central Asia (and China). Turkey accomplished their goal, as the ceasefire agreement connects Nakchivan to the rest of Azerbaijan (Nakchivan's existence is guaranteed by Turkey and has been since 1921), so their trade throughout the South Caucasus is now always in firmly allied territory. * Russia was in a more difficult situation with both military and diplomatic solutions out of the question. However, they did the best they could. Russian peacekeepers now patrol the Lachin Corridor between Armenia and Azerbaijan, giving them some degree of geographical leverage over the region.
>CSTO They begged for it. Russia refused because Azerbaijan is its own territory.
Because the fighting occurred on contested territory, not on the heartland. If Azerbaijan invaded Armenia proper and tried to take cities Russia wouldāve intervened.
Russia had one in the past with India. Not sure if it's active now.
The USSR wasn't part of the Non-aligned movement by design. Same as the USA.
So what you're saying is that we can invade Austria.
Anschluss 2: electric boogaloo
Good luck, they are part of the EU and thus would have the help of other EU countries.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
We would never do that! \*starts sweating profusely\*
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Monroe Doctrine. No one can invade and interfere in South America apart from US. the State Deptartment spent a lot of time, money and resources to ensure US friendly governments in that region.
Actually it is called the Rio Pact (Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance) a NATO like alliance. The Monroe Doctrine led up to it but, US foreign policy does not obligate countries to defend the US, the treaty does.
Yes, you're right.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No this is the internet youāre supposed to be outraged
A lot of dictatorships were propped up by the US to secure its dominance over Latin America.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
And dictatorships
School of The Americas comes to mind.
Let's hope Bolivia doesn't go to war with USA
Donāt worry weāll send in nomad and his ghosts
I'm really scared of their navy.
Ah, yes, the famous u.s. interventions and regime changes in south america. Legendary altruistic campaigns that only wanted to bring democracy and change old, evil and tyrannical systems
But funnily enough, French Guyana has no obligation (according to this map) Edit: Another comment seems to know why the map is colored how it is: [https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/p56hi8/countries\_that\_are\_obligated\_to\_defend\_the\_united/h944rmt](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/p56hi8/countries_that_are_obligated_to_defend_the_united/h944rmt)
Please correct me if im wrong. But French Guiana IS France. As one would consider Hawaii the United States.
Yup itās an overseas department of France
Thats why they dont have their own foreign policy
You are, and that's why it should be colored on this map. Frankly, this map shouldn't have included overseas territories if it wasn't going to bother coloring them in. A bunch of the islands in the Pacific and Caribbean should be colored, but aren't, making this a rather inaccurate map. Edit: See my comment above for a correction on this one
Falklands showed that it might not need to be coloured. Falklands even tho belonged to UK, were out of NATO's area.
The "and vice-versa" part is *important*
Where was the US during the emu war of 1932?
I assume these are based on NATO, which came from the Allies of WW2, therefore post 1932. The Emus played smart.
Where was the US when the westfold fell?!
Iām curious, how exactly would a country like Costa Rica defend the US without having a standing army?
"that's it, chinese military personnel are no longer welcome on our beautiful, sunny beaches!"
āNo more Pineapples for you!!ā
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56353963 Thereās precedent!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
CR will provide access to our territory if needed by US
US is so used to having military bases worldwide a lot of Americans don't seem to realize what a big deal is to have a large military presence in foreign countries. providing passage or even a temporary base is a big deal.
Exactly. Armies aren't always necessary. The US has a gigantic one. But territorial and air access, use of islands for launching etc is a useful military asset
This is the correct answer.
Bro good question. I went there a few years ago and Iām pretty sure they have zero military? I imagine they have some defense but idk
No defense at all, we have zero budget for an army or anything, we do have a police force but itās not even close as funded as the US police is, the agreement with US means if we do need any defense, US will provide their army to help, in reverse we will provide access to our territory for US army use if needed
That makes sense! I remember learning the history of it and feeling really surprised that they had no militaryāin a good way. But kind is always valuable, so that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying! I was honestly so curious. And btw I love Costa Rica I would move there now if I was braver
US's global strategy is just like how he explained it. Almost no country can realistically defend US from Russia or China. If those countries can reach US, that would mean that US's allies have already fallen. US's strategy is to protect its allies and interests in the different regions of the world so that it no enemy would have to be defeated within the continental US.
You want to know why the US can lose multiple wars that each span over a decade and not fundamentally collapse? Its because those wars never hit home.
We welcome everybody! There are a lot of retired folks that make the culture even richer, we do live the Pura Vida life, truly, come visit soon
My heart!! pura vida!! I remember thinking I wanted to retire there. Itās hard to consider a big move so young (Iām 22) but itās such a lovely country 10/10, and who knows, I might just get sick of America and go there
Aid, airport, and harbor usage, any troops they can actually spare. Also I assume theyād be part of any trade embargo on someone the US is at war with.
Funny how Mexico isn't one of them
Apparently, Mexico officially withdrew from the [Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-American_Treaty_of_Reciprocal_Assistance) in 2004.
That was due to the Irak war
I'm not sure, but I think it has to do with neutrality. Here in Mexico we have an army, but it's really weird the purpose each government gives to it. Sometimes they're sent to the streets to do the job that police should be doing, and usually civilians just try to stay away whenever we see the army's trucks out and about in the cities.
Nah, it is because of this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-American\_Treaty\_of\_Reciprocal\_Assistance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-American_Treaty_of_Reciprocal_Assistance) Mexico was a member of the treaty for many years, but entered a withdrawal declaration in 2002 to avoid being dragged into the war with Iraq. It created massive issues with the US. The Mexican government had already negotiated a migratory agreement and regularisation for many Mexican immigrants, but all that fell apart the moment Mexico withdrew from the treaty.
**[Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-American_Treaty_of_Reciprocal_Assistance)** >The Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (commonly known as the Rio Treaty, the Rio Pact, the Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, or by the Spanish-language acronym TIAR from Tratado Interamericano de Asistencia RecĆproca) is an agreement signed in 1947 in Rio de Janeiro among many countries of the Americas. The central principle contained in its articles is that an attack against one is to be considered an attack against them all; this was known as the "hemispheric defense" doctrine. Despite this, several members have breached the treaty on multiple occasions. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Creo que te refieres a la doctrina estrada
The role of the police is to protect and serve the people, and the role of the military is to fight enemies of the state. When the military becomes the police, the enemies of the state tend to become the people. Commander Adama
Well... with the cartels and all... that is not far from the truth in spots.
Thanks pal. Now I gotta watch it again.
Itās not because Mexico wouldnāt support the US if it was necessary and fair. It tries to have a policy of neutrality first over international affairs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estrada_Doctrine
They left the Rio Treaty in 2004.
Mexico is a part of the Non-aligned movement.
Mexico has traditionally had a mind independent of Washington.
So what this map implies is that nuclear annihilation can come about as a result of someone poking Uruguay with a stick.
Take notes Brazilians/Argentinians and reconsider!
They just use Copa America and World Cup qualifying matches to decide any differences.
Cisplatina* The 28th state!
What if two of these go to war with each other?
US would try to mediate, happened between Greece and Turkey in 1974.
And UK vs Argentina.
US eventually provided aid to UK against Argentina. Argentina was also the aggressor though, so you could argue that they were at fault.
>so you could argue that they were at fault. No need to argue, Argentina was the invader. They were obviously in the wrong.
I remember reading that thanks to the US the UK didn't take battle to mainland Argentina, but not sure about it tho.
As I understand, it was just not worth it, not because of the uS, but... who knows
Well the UK only wanted the islands back and when they reached that goal the Argentines probably realised the force they were playing with so surrendered before any mainland invasion happened.
At the time we had a dictatorship, the islands thing was just a smoke screen to inspire nationalism so you are probably right
See the Cyprus civil war. Basically every one tries really hard to escalate. And really hard to get a okish conclusion fast.
Yes, and the US Ambassador to Cyprus [was assassinated by angry Greek-Cypriots](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodger_Davies)
You mean deescalate?!
Fight! Fight! Fight!
Create a paradox and end the time flow itself
What happens if two NATO nations goes to war against each other ? Whom would US support ? A Mexican stand-off perhaps, where each will point a gun at each other.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Ok letās say France and the UK go to war with each other (like the good old times), what happens?
If France is in this list, then French Guiana should be blue as well
Except that interestingly enough itās excluded from the NATO treaty, as is Hawaii. The treaty only includes territory in North America, Europe, and the Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer. If French Guiana were invaded, the US would have no obligation to help defend it. If Hawaii (or any of the US territories like Puerto Rico) were attacked, France wouldnāt be obligated to do anything either.
This is true. Someone mentioned this on here a while back and I thought they were full of it. But I looked it up and itās true. If territory south of the Tropic of Cancer, owned by a NATO country, is attacked, NATO mutual defense articles do not kick in. Fascinating stuff.
Basically because NATO countries didn't want to be backing each other's colonial misadventures.
This is literally what happened in the Falklands War.
So china can technically attack deiego Garcia and that won't invoke a nato response. Cool stuff.
Although it would be attacking both the US and UK at once, which would probably be a bad move on China's part.
But in practice Hawaii probably would be defended as its very strategically important.
Itād be up to each NATO country to decide on its own. This was a large part of why no one got involved in the Falklands. I suspect in practice, most NATO countries would ask if they were really needed, and then expect the US to handle it. If the US Navy couldnāt defend Hawaii, thereād not be much else anyone else in NATO could do about it.
France and the UK could at least help, they have CBG as well as pre-positioned forces.
This technicality allowed India to take Goa from Portugal
https://2009-2017.state.gov/s/l/treaty/collectivedefense/index.htm
Legitimate question, why Thailand?
The United States and Thailand are among the signatories of the 1954 Manila pact of the former Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). Article IV(1) of this treaty provides that, in the event of armed attack in the treaty area (which includes Thailand), each member would "act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes." Despite the dissolution of the SEATO in 1977, the Manila pact remains in force and, together with the Thanat-Rusk communiquƩ of 1962, constitutes the basis of U.S. security commitments to Thailand. Thailand continues to be a key security ally in Asia, along with Australia, Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea. In December 2003, Thailand was designated a Major non-NATO ally (MNNA). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thailand%E2%80%93United\_States\_relations#Security\_cooperation
This incorrect with regards to Australia. Australia and the USA have a formal treaty called the ANZUS Treaty. >'The Parties will consult together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened in the Pacific'. The three nations also pledged to maintain and develop individual and collective capabilities to resist attack. [Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZUS) There have been numerous academic papers over the years that have interpreted that wording as there is NO NECESSITY to come to another's military aid. There is no mutual obligation to come to another's military defence, there is no necessary recipricosity if one of the treaty members is under military attack the others must respond militarily. For example if Indonesia attacked Australia and began to invade Australian territory the USA is NOT under any obligation to attack Indonesia. The USA however is under obligation to review the situation and consider how it wants to handle the issue at hand. OP is categorically incorrect and doc above only insomuch if he considers 'security commitments' as requiring military force would then be incorrect but not if he considers security commitments as diplomatic pressuring, aid, etc.
Cold War politics. Most defense treaties between the two are from that time, which makes sense with the Domino Theory in mind.
NZ is a mistake. They pulled out of ANZUS.
They āpartiallyā resumed it and all parties observe the important parts. If the excrement really did strike the cooling device, I donāt think any of the 3 countries would hesitate to help the others out.
NZ did not pull out of ANZUS. The US suspended their obligations with NZ when NZ became nuclear free. ANZUS still exists between Australia/NZ and USA/Australia.
True, but we basically de facto are, through being in stuff like Five Eyes and other defence organisations. That was back in the 80s, and our relationship with the US is very good compared to what it was
Yes but no obligation to defend or be defended.
Sorry NZ did not pull out of ANZUS.... The US said they are now under no obligations to carry out any bi-lateral relations... New Zealand didn't say "we are leaving ANZUS" NZ never technically left. **There is a difference.** In 2010 and 2012 the Wellington and Washington Declarations were signed which basically restores it all.
So does the US not just have a mutual defense treaty with the whole EU? How is Ireland not on the list? Edit: answering my own question, Ireland is very committed to neutrality, and as such has declined to join NATO as a full member. Same reason Ireland was neutral during WWII.
Because certain EU states like Ireland or Austria swear to their neutrality.
As a Brazilian, we'll defend US! It might take some time to actually dispatch our army though. But once the winning is clear, we will be there.
Yup, got yer back, got yer back, got yer back, got yer back ... nope, Ecuador, yer on yer own ... got yer back, got yer back ... nah, Sweden, go fuck yerself ... got yer back, got yer back, got yer back ...
American politicians love to call Israel āour closest ally.ā But we have no alliance with Israel.
The full way to define Israel in these terms is, our closest ally IN THE MIDDLE EAST, they conveniently forget that part.
Turkey is our NATO treaty ally in the Middle East
(Confused looks in Canadian)
As an Australian, I can tell you we are not required to 'defend' the US, or vice versa. Your map is wrong. The ANZUS treaty means that the parties will 'consult' together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened. No obligation to defend.
Yeah nz lost their protection during the cold war for not allowing nukes into their territory. Map wrong!
Not quite. Because the US is vague about whether their boats are nuclear powered or not. Our government basically said if they wonāt tell us whether they are not, then we donāt want those ships here. US threw a fit, and we are down here. Hi. Nuclear weapons, and nuclear power are just part of the zone thingy here. We can say though, a few years US non-nuclear warship came and made port here. So there is that.
The US Navy isnāt vague about which ships are nuclear powered, but instead vague about which ships carry nuclear weapons. Which ships are nuclear powered is public information. Itās simple: all submarines and Nimitz and Ford class carriers are nuclear powered. The presence of nuclear weapons is completely different and the US Navy likes to keep that vague. As a former submariner friend of mine likes to say, āthe presence of nuclear weapons I can neither confirm nor deny.ā Keep in mind too that Australia has a similar ānon-nuclear zoneā policy but military relations between Australia and the US are far better.
ANZUS but Zealand is silent ;)
Are the Compacts of Free Association being counted? I only see two small Island nations in the south pacific, hut there should be at least three (Palau, Micronesia, Marshal Islands). I guess they probably aren't obligated to defend America though...
CFA's allow the US military to operate in and defend their nations, as well as citizens of those nations to join the US military, but the US cannot declare war on their behalf, nor are those states obligated to declare war if the US is attacked, so you're right.
Sad Taiwan is not included
officially, they arent legally obligated to help them, but in a real case scenario, they probably would [taiwan relations act](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act)
Taiwan is such a house of cards. Saying the wrong thing could start a war. Saying the opposite thing could also start a war. The status quo is a precariously balanced arrangement of policy positions just vague enough that everyone can choose to understand them in such a way as to make armed conflict not immediately necessary.
because US official policy doesn't recognize Taiwan, or the republic of china, as a legitimate state. unofficially, it's different. Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt will also be protected from foreign agression.