Also article 5 wasn’t designed with the idea of ever protecting against nuclear powers, it’s purpose is to intimidate imperialisms victims out of being too uppity and fighting back too far.
No, that’s what NATO’s been retooled into. NATO, and article 5, were designed with the idea of encircling and “protecting against” the USSR
While true at the surface it was more to fight against groups funded by the USSR (such as in Afghanistan) to contain influence gains as far as I’m aware at least.
Which is a slight but very important distinction as it meant direct nuclear power clashes were far less likely and action even if perfunctory could be taken to avoid being seen as unreliable as it was against proxies, even if it became incredibly close at times.
For example if the US was arming Syria to invade Iran as opposed to doing it itself an Article 5 style agreement would make a lot more sense.
No, that’s what NATO’s been retooled into. NATO, and article 5, were designed with the idea of encircling and “protecting against” the USSR
While true at the surface it was more to fight against groups funded by the USSR (such as in Afghanistan) to contain influence gains as far as I’m aware at least.
Which is a slight but very important distinction as it meant direct nuclear power clashes were far less likely and action even if perfunctory could be taken to avoid being seen as unreliable as it was against proxies, even if it became incredibly close at times.
For example if the US was arming Syria to invade Iran as opposed to doing it itself an Article 5 style agreement would make a lot more sense.