Like if someone gave someone a weapon and they were knowingly going to use it for it’s intended purpose, you would technically be an accomplice? So why is this different.
Edit: Thank you everyone for your responses! I appreciate it!
In: 9
“Acts of war” are in the eye of the beholder and just because you don’t see it as one doesn’t mean Russia doesn’t see it as one. Look at the Cuban Missile crisis, a blockade of Cuba is considered an act of war, that doesn’t mean missiles were flying.
This is as old as time, look back to the founding of this country and it seeking funds and weapons from the French. Britain definitely interpreted this as a hostile act of war.
The same way Russia is not in a war. They proclaimed it a security action and actually punish people who call it “war”. So you can use whatever terminology you want, it’s not like there’s language police (unless you’re in Russia) to stop you from doing that. Formally, the US has not declared a war since 1942.
How is giving your kid a hamburger, you not eating?
Proxy wars have been going on since the time of man.
When England and France were going at it they would often hire Spanish, Portuguese and Italian ships to fight. Often changing sides for the higher payer.
when the USSR invaded Afghanistan the US government heavy funded the Taliban.
When the USA went to Vietnam the USSR funded the VC party and troops.
its dirty business.
Basically been this way since the Cold War. The major powers fight through proxy wars to contest each other on their imperial interests. Going to war with each other directly means mutually assured destruction with nuclear weapons.
Because your actual armed forces aren’t directly involved. No NATO boots on the ground, no NATO pilots flying sorties, no US cruisers conducting shore bombardments. OUR forces aren’t the ones firing the actual shots.
That’s it. That’s the only difference.
That’s why it’s called a “proxy war.” Instead of sending your own troops, you’re sending materiel, money, training, and intelligence to support an allied country against a rival major power. ETA: And yes, we are accomplices. *Accomplice* is just a pejorative synonym for *ally*.
Because major powers don’t want to fight each other directly due to the risk of escalating to World War and the probable nuclear exchange WW3 entails. And aiming blistering rhetoric (and diplomatic weapons like sanctions) at a rival for providing material support to the opposing belligerent is NOT the same as declaring war on them.
It’s how basically all the wars of the last half of the 20th and now the 21st have been/are being fought. Because the alternative is worse.
ETA2: But yes, countries can and have declared war on a 3rd party for providing material support to their original opponent. You just have to be *very* careful about doing that when both you and that 3rd party in question are nuclear-armed.
Because in the modern world nations trade weapons to each other all the time for profit aswell, would that then mean that the seller of these weapons were at war with any nation that happened to fight the one who bought from them?
But technically it *is* a form of warfare, but the big players don’t want to risk a direct confrontation because of those big, nasty weapons called nukes, which can blow up several cities in one shot and leave a poisonous ruin for a few centuries afterward….its just too costly for the big ones to face off directly…for the moment.
But…if there somehow *was* a way to not only successfully detect and intercept *every* missle that your enemy could fire, and somehow synchronize a surprise assault on a global scale to take out every sub and nuke sat an enemy has in one strike…then the bets would be off.
Don’t say this could be impossible either, the Ukraine alone has become very good at intercepting *most* of what Russia fires at them, but some still get through, and in the case of nukes, only one has to successfully reach target to kill millions in one go.
Latest Answers