NATO treaty doesn't include attacks on Hawaii - islanders are on their own

I didn’t know that.

This US state is not covered by the NATO treaty. Some experts say that needs to change | CNN

intercst

5 Likes

Yes, but let’s say, hypothetically of course, a theoretical U.S. presidential candidate (who of course does not exist in reality) publicly stated that a theoretical Russian dictator who is known for helping his political enemies to jump out of tall buildings (I’m just making that part up) can “do what ever the heck he wants” (not a real quote) to NATO countries (OK, it’s crazy, but remember, I’m just creating a straw man argument here).

In that highly fictional, totally made up, bat-crazy scenario, Hawaii would be perfectly safe. :innocent:

2 Likes

Hello, does the date 12/7/1941 ring a bell? Don’t you think pretty much anyone who is in a position to actually implement an attack on Hawaii already knows what happened after that?

Wendy

4 Likes

Today, of course, I’m pretty sure it would be a cyber-attack.

DB2

2 Likes

Does the name Kim Jong-un ring a bell?
Wendy

2 Likes

Typical Haole treaty.

We had a treaty organization covering the Pacific basin: SEATO.

3 Likes

By the time “a date that will live in infamy” rolled around, WW2 had been going on for 2 years and 3 months.

…and NATO, eight years in the future, was just a pigment in someone’s colorful imagination.

Pete

1 Like

In a war over Taiwan, Hawaii is an open target.

1 Like

This is bizarre. I understand that Hawaii is not technically in the “North Atlantic”, but then neither is California. If California is attacked, does NATO say “well, that doesn’t count.”? Weird.

(Yes, it’s an artifact of the time the treaty was signed, but it’s still weird.)

1 Like