Russia’s deployed nuclear capacity overtakes US for first time since 2000

[Penguin]

Korean war, Vietnam, Gulf war, Afghanistan , Iraq, Libia, and many smaller conflicts were all drives by NATO, and no one ever said anything specifically about the cold war, although you are wrong either way.

No way! US, yes. But not NATO. The others: past 15 years, not 60 years,

NATO was little more than a political association until the Korean War galvanized the organization's member states, and an integrated military structure was built up under the direction of two U.S. supreme commanders.

On 25 June 1950, the UNSC unanimously condemned the North Korean invasion of the Republic of Korea, with UN Secority Council Resolution 82. After debating the matter, the Security Council, on 27 June 1950, published Resoluion 83 recommending member states provide military assistance to the Republic of Korea. On 27 June US president Truman ordered U.S. air and sea forces to help the South Korean régime. The Soviet Union, a veto-wielding power, had boycotted the Council meetings since January 1950, protesting that the Republic of China (Taiwan), not the People's Republic of China, held a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.

Australia was one of the very first to contribute military personnel from all three services. The single largest UN contributor was the United States of America (USA, a NATO member) which at one stage had 140,000 personnel deployed in direct combat roles in Korea. Great Britain (NATO), Canada (NATO), France (NATO), Belgium (NATO), the Netherlands (NATO), Colombia, Ethiopia, South Africa, New Zealand, Turkey (NATO), Greece (NATO), Thailand, Philippines and Luxembourg (NATO) sent fighting units. Norway (NATO), Sweden, Denmark (NATO), India, Italy (NATO) contributed military hospitals and field ambulances to the cause.

Article 5 of the Washington Treaty was never invoked. Denmark, Italy and Norway contributed (token) humanitarian assets only. Greece and Turkey joined NATO only in 1952 during the period of stalemate in the Korean War i.e. at best acted under bilateral agreements with US.

De facto, at the start of the conflict in 1950, it was mainly US, aided by the British Commonwealth nations (Great Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa) and four additional Nato nations (Belgium, France, Luxumbourg, Netherlands) of which three were token contributors due to small size and minute military capabilities (Be-Ne-Lux countries)

Nato countries by join date

As for Vietnam, post WW2, the French took repression over from Japan but failed, and were in turn superceeded by the US. Other countries' involment is as follows:
Pro Hanoi: People Republic of China, Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba
Pro Saigon: South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, Republic of China.
Note that none of these are NATO.

However, some were SEATO countries: SEATO mostly included countries located outside of the SEA region but with an interest either in the SEA region or the organization itself. They were Australia, France, New Zealand, Pakistan (including East Pakistan aka Bangladesh), Philippines, Thailand, UK and USA. SEATO came into being September 1954, during the Armistice period of the Korean war. Note also that many Seato countries involved in Korean war were also in the Vietnam war(s). Besides US, these are UK, France, New Zealand , Australia, Philippines, Thailand.

Seato counties

Your point? I can also post some obscure facts that do not relate to the topic, but again...where are you going with this random and unrelated operation?

NATO military operations started with those. Hence relevant.

Thank you for proving my point about NATO, but the security council means nothing to some NATO states.

What point ? 60 years NATO going to war on other nations? > BS.

Correction NATO's purpose is safeguard it's own interests. I'm not sure how the mess NATO created in Iraq had anything to do with safeguarding the freedom and security of other NATO states but i guess that's the new narrative now.

What interest do you think the Warsaw pact served??? I responded to a particular statement, not some general notions. Real politik rules for all major nations, including Russia and China : no difference whatsoever. And lets not forget Iraq is first and foremost a US operation. Nato involvement is a training mission to assist the Iraqi security forces in conjunction with the US led MNF-I. Small fry relative to US efforts.

Like bombing Libya and arming middle eastern terrorists?

Your point? Don't fault me for what NATO states.

I believe that....

Well Hurray

 

[Desertfalcon]

As an earlier poster pointed out, what difference does it really make? Even if every single thing in the OP is completely true, it means that Russia will have the capacity to destroy most life on the North American continent 110 times over, and America will only have the nuclear capacity to destroy all life in Russia 100 times over. Something to be terrified of, not proud of.

 

[Penguin]

loool still talking/upgrading nuclear weapons? jeez.....no country will ever dare attack/go to war with a nuclear armed country, no matter what, even small north korea hasn't been atacked by us due to its nuclear weapons(even though thye are crude)despite its aggressive stance and even sinking of a south korean ship killing hundreds.
So all of these stuffs is just a waste of time/cash to be honest. They should invest in other more credible sectors in defence like Radars, elctronic sytems, sensors etc....

Impressive, especially considering the ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772) was a Pohang-class corvette that had a crew of 104. A total of 58 crew were rescued, the remainder of 46 were unaccounted for. One South Korean naval diver died after losing consciousness whilst searching for survivors. Also, a private fishing boat involved in the rescue operations collided with a Cambodian freighter, which sank the fishing boat, killing at least two people in the proces, with seven reported missing. So, maximum number of deaths is 56.