Today marks 42 years since Argentina tried to colonise and ethnically cleanse the Falklands Islands only for progressive decolonial thought-leader Margaret Thatcher to support land back and defend the indigenous people's right to self determination against fascist imperialism.

Yes because the part of nato that everyone fears wouldn't by definition be drawn into a war on the US.

Oh no not the island nation of $11 gallons of milk and fat drug addict abbos on EBT

"Japan did not have enough of a logistic tail to invade California, let alone Hawaii, let alone Midway."

This sounds like cope by the people in the US military during ww2.

Japan absolutely could have overrun California in 1941. They did not do so, only because it did not fit their strategic goals. If they did so, they would have been counter-attacked by an army lead by Patton.

So here's something that could have happened:

December 1941 or January 1942: Japan conquers the western US as far as Denver. At this point I should point out that I am not a weeb. In fact I do not like Japanese culture. I am an American conservative. I am just skeptical about the whole "Japan did not threaten the west coast" thing.

January 1941: Goerge Patton pushes back with infantry divisions. He pushes the Japanese back into the sea.

January 1942: America institutes its island-hopping campaign, as in real life. America overruns Hawaii and Midway. Japan has ignored northern Australia as in real life. By this time, America has developed nuclear weapons. Tokyo is vaporized by multiple nuclear bombs. Japan surrenders.

Februrary 1941: The American southwest is still recovering from its occupation from a hostile power. There are concentration camps set up by the japanese in places like Phoenix, San Francisco, Deadwood, etc.

March 1941: "B-29's have delivered thousands of nuclear weapons upon Moscow; rendering western uninhabited for millions of years."

2xst century: White people, speaking a form of English, establish a colony on Europa, a moon of Jupiter.

Imagine if we allowed them to ever have a standing military again.

Yes, it's just protected by the US...

yeah this is why the US doesn't really care. Also while hawaii is technically not protected by NATO, invoking article 5 is a political decision, so if the US convinced enough people NATO would invoke it anyway

Hawaii has fallen, billions must eat pineapple

They would probably still invoke article 5. At the end of the day, invoking article 5 is a political decision, you just need the 32 member states to agree to invoke it, and if a NATO country got nuked i'd find it hard to believe that they wouldn't do it.

however if they did refuse to invoke it, they would absoultely cite article 6 as a reason