Should the US and its allies in the Asia-Pacific region create a "new NATO" to counter China?

[Red Wall]

NATO was created to counter soviet and later russian influence in Europe and has been the most successful international organization in recent history.

However, the main threat to freedom in the world has switched to China, which means a Pacific equivalent to NATO (NPTO as I called it) is a possiblity that should start being discussed. Its core members would be the following ones: United States, Japan, Canada, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, India (not a Pacific state but it borders China, basically a more reliable version of Turkey), and New Zealand.

Other countries that could join the alliance: the Philippines (which would provide it a big boost in the south China sea), Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia and Vietnam (but thsse are less likely possibilities) and Colombia as an associate menber (it is the main US partner in South America among their Pacific states and already a big partner of NATO).

Although many of these countries already have a relationship with NATO they aren't member states, which means the need of a new China-centric military alliance that's independent from NATO increases every single day.

[dead0man]

yes, of course...or better yet, expand and rename NATO and make it Free Trade too.
(and kick Turkey out)

[Benjamin Frank]

There used to be a SEATO (South East Asia Treaty Organization)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia_Treaty_Organization

[2952-0-0]

The US, Japan, Australia, and India have formed a Quad and are increasingly co-ordinating their diplomatic and military ties, and are inviting other countries to participate. They all deny it's a precursor to an Asian NATO, but no one believes them.

[Benjamin Frank]

The US, Japan, Australia, and India have formed a Quad and are increasingly co-ordinating their diplomatic and military ties, and are inviting other countries to participate. They all deny it's a precursor to an Asian NATO, but no one believes them.

Interesting, surprised about India.  Modi seems more interested in internal matters and establishing Hindu supremacy. Maybe I don't know enough about him.

[Santander]

The US, Japan, Australia, and India have formed a Quad and are increasingly co-ordinating their diplomatic and military ties, and are inviting other countries to participate. They all deny it's a precursor to an Asian NATO, but no one believes them.

India is not a US ally, and never will be.

[Blue3]

yes, of course...or better yet, expand and rename NATO and make it Free Trade too.
(and kick Turkey out)

This.

Call it "the Free Alliance" or something.

And make it our only military alliance, and our only special trade agreement.
(Maybe a free movement agreement between us and Canada too)

[John Dule]

yes, of course...or better yet, expand and rename NATO and make it Free Trade too.
(and kick Turkey out)

Precisely my thoughts as well.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

There was SEATO in the early cold war, but nobody in SEATO backed the US in Vietnam, or the UK in the Malay Emergency. SEATO was just a group of anti Soviet countries, which was not willing to collectively fight.

You would have the same problem with a anti Chinese SEATO.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Yes, but honestly, it would be better to expand NATO into NATO/NPTO

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I'm pretty sure inviting Taiwan to such an alliance would quickly trigger WW3

[dead0man]

I'm pretty sure inviting Taiwan to such an alliance would quickly trigger WW3

Why would the PRC start a war they know they can't win?  If they thought they could win, why haven't they done something about it yet?

Also, better to fight this now than in some potential future where the PRC is stronger.

[Chips]

I'm pretty sure inviting Taiwan to such an alliance would quickly trigger WW3

[7,052,770]

I'm pretty sure inviting Taiwan to such an alliance would quickly trigger WW3

Why would the PRC start a war they know they can't win?  If they thought they could win, why haven't they done something about it yet?

Also, better to fight this now than in some potential future where the PRC is stronger.

Not that I'm an expert on these things, but I've read that a nuclear (or even huge conventional) bombing of the Three Gorges Dam would create such a massive flood that it would kill hundreds of millions and wreck the Chinese economy for decades. So it's probably smart for China to never be involved in a World War.

Granted, America would have to be super desperate to even consider doing something like that, but Russia might be willing if losing a China v. Russia WW3.

[dead0man]

I'm pretty sure inviting Taiwan to such an alliance would quickly trigger WW3

Why would the PRC start a war they know they can't win?  If they thought they could win, why haven't they done something about it yet?

Also, better to fight this now than in some potential future where the PRC is stronger.

Not that I'm an expert on these things, but I've read that a nuclear (or even huge conventional) bombing of the Three Gorges Dam would create such a massive flood that it would kill hundreds of millions and wreck the Chinese economy for decades. So it's probably smart for China to never be involved in a World War.

I watch a few Indian produced anti-PRC YouTube channels and they were just certain that the damn was going to fall on it's own last fall during some flooding.  There are some cracks in the concrete apparently and there are concerns (or wishes) that it might not be structurally sound.  Which could also be a metaphor for the CCP.

[Nightcore Nationalist]

Yes.

[Clark Kent]

Absolutely, I'm amazed we haven't done this already. The Cold War is back.

[Frodo]

Yes, with Japan, Australia, and India as the three-legged stool of this alliance (with the United States as the primus inter pares, naturally).  And we should consider letting Japan develop nuclear weapons to help protect itself.  

[Red Velvet]

Absolutely, I'm amazed we haven't done this already. The Cold War is back.

No it isn’t, although I’m sure many would love so in order to have a foreign enemy to unite against instead of fighting between themselves.

It’s simply a slow transition to a multipolarized world instead of an unipolarized or bipolarized world.

[beaver2.0]

Yes SEATO 2.

[Santander]

Yes, with Japan, Australia, and India as the three-legged stool of this alliance (with the United States as the primus inter pares, naturally).  And we should consider letting Japan develop nuclear weapons to help protect itself.  

It's not a matter of "letting" Japan do anything. They simply have no appetite or need for it. The US Navy already provides a nuclear deterrent to balance China and Russia in that neighborhood.

And India is is non-aligned, and will be for the foreseeable future.

[Frodo]

Yes, with Japan, Australia, and India as the three-legged stool of this alliance (with the United States as the primus inter pares, naturally).  And we should consider letting Japan develop nuclear weapons to help protect itself.  

It's not a matter of "letting" Japan do anything. They simply have no appetite or need for it. The US Navy already provides a nuclear deterrent to balance China and Russia in that neighborhood.

And India is is non-aligned, and will be for the foreseeable future.

An alliance is a process of deepening relationships that take time to develop.  We didn't automatically become an ally of Great Britain, for instance.  Even as we intervened in the First World War (albeit a bit late) on behalf of the Allies, we still regarded Britain as a potential threat in the interwar years.  It wasn't until we entered into the Second World War that we became full-fledged allies, and have remained as such ever since. It doubtless helped that the powers that ruled the British Empire regarded us as a natural successor, and were patient with us as we grew into the role and finally accepted the mantle of world leadership.  

India will get there too (we are already strategic allies of a sort with a common threat), though I do not think it will take quite as long between the initial warming of relations and a full alliance as it did between the United States and Great Britain (which took about forty years).

[Santander]

An alliance is a process of deepening relationships that take time to develop.  We didn't automatically become an ally of Great Britain, for instance.  Even as we intervened in the First World War (albeit a bit late) on behalf of the Allies, we still regarded Britain as a potential threat in the interwar years.  It wasn't until we entered into the Second World War that we became full-fledged allies. It doubtless helped that the powers that ruled the British Empire regarded us as a natural successor, and were patient with us as we grew into the role and finally accepted the mantle of world leadership.  

India will get there too, though I do not think it will take quite as long between the initial warming of relations and a full alliance as it did between the United States and Great Britain.

It's not about India and the US not getting along, it's about where India sees itself in the world. India's foreign policy goal is achieving supremacy in its own neighborhood (which nobody outside the region cares about) and becoming a great power at the global level. These goals don't align with US interests, especially as India is too large, distant, and uninterested to fall into China's sphere of influence. Anything deeper than a very specific alliance of convenience with India (or Pakistan) would require the US to take sides on that issue, which is obviously not in US interests. Why would India want to join a bunch of losers (every single major ally of the US, with the exception of Israel, is in decline), who have vastly different interests regarding China, when it can continue with an independent foreign policy that works well enough for them?

[Frodo]

An alliance is a process of deepening relationships that take time to develop.  We didn't automatically become an ally of Great Britain, for instance.  Even as we intervened in the First World War (albeit a bit late) on behalf of the Allies, we still regarded Britain as a potential threat in the interwar years.  It wasn't until we entered into the Second World War that we became full-fledged allies. It doubtless helped that the powers that ruled the British Empire regarded us as a natural successor, and were patient with us as we grew into the role and finally accepted the mantle of world leadership.  

India will get there too, though I do not think it will take quite as long between the initial warming of relations and a full alliance as it did between the United States and Great Britain.

It's not about India and the US not getting along, it's about where India sees itself in the world. India's foreign policy goal is achieving supremacy in its own neighborhood (which nobody outside the region cares about) and becoming a great power at the global level.

None of which can be accomplished without our acquiescence or active assistance.  We could not have enforced the Monroe Doctrine without the Royal Navy through the 19th century, for example, until we had built up our own naval strength.  And India cannot achieve supremacy in the Indian Ocean region without the assistance of the US Navy.  And we would only do that if we saw it in our interest for India to achieve its ambitions.  And it just so happens that it is.

These goals don't align with US interests, especially as India is too large, distant, and uninterested to fall into China's sphere of influence.

Yes, they do?  India is the world's largest democracy; China is an autocracy.  As the world's oldest democracy, we want India to counterbalance Chinese hegemonic ambitions in Asia.  So we help India realize its ambitions to accomplish that mission.  

Anything deeper than a very specific alliance of convenience with India (or Pakistan) would require the US to take sides on that issue, which is obviously not in US interests.

If by 'that issue' you are referring to the seventy-year conflict between India and Pakistan since the Partition, we have already pretty much tipped our hand to all and sundry in favor of India.  That bird has flown.  Though we should be encouraging all the countries that once composed British India (I am primarily referring to India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) to begin the process of reconciliation and eventual reunification.  A united India is more useful and desirable than a divided India.  But we'll work with what we've got.  For the religious divisions that led to the Partition, I will always curse the British...  

Why would India want to join a bunch of losers (every single major ally of the US, with the exception of Israel, is in decline), who have vastly different interests regarding China, when it can continue with an independent foreign policy that works well enough for them?

Because it can't do it alone?  Why do you think India has turned to the United States in the first place?  It cannot confront China by itself -it currently lacks the strength.  And as for our 'declining loser allies' as you put it, they still pack quite a punch, especially when they stand united.  For example, China is still terrified of Japan re-arming despite its less-than-optimal demographic trends.  

[PMHusky]

Yes we should, anything to counter China