Is anyone even remotely discussing putting nukes in Finland or Sweden? The Russian threat of putting nukes on the Baltic fell flat because everyone knows they already installed them in Kaliningrad.
“What would you call it if China were to put a nuclear missal base on Cuba or in Mexico?”
This trope was old a month ago. No one cares about a hypothetical that simply isn’t on the horizon right now.
Update your script.
I have read this argument made a number of times on FR. If the US were threatening to invade Cuba or Mexico there would be some justification for these two countries to seek Chinese help and deploy missiles. But we are not. If anything, it's the US that faces a threat of 'invasion' from the south, though not in a military sense . Nato on the other hand is a 100% defensive organization. It's role is to protect Europe from exactly the kind of aggression the world is witnessing right now. Russia has always been an aggressor- since the start of the cold war, so if these countries want to join Nato there is a very good reason. It's not to threaten Russia.
Bad diplomacy on our part. No. And no.
“What would you call it if China were to put a nuclear missal base on Cuba or in Mexico?”
Well, since a missal is a book used to follow the Catholic Mass, I’d say go for it! I didn’t know such books were nuclear, though; I just thought they were made of paper and a leather cover.
“Would that be China invading America?”
No.
“Would we have the right to stop it with military might?”
No. I mean, why would we? Anti-Catholics may squawk, but that’s hardly war-worthy.
“What would you call it if China were to put a nuclear missal base on Cuba or in Mexico.”
Nice strawman. No one is calling for American nuclear weapons in Finland or Sweden.
And it’s called a question mark. Familiarize yourself with it.
L
The USA is not putting nuclear missiles in sweden or Finland. Heck they didn’t even put missiles or troops in countries that joined after 1996.
Your questions are a non sequitur.
Furthermore, for over a century now, the US has prioritized good relations with its neighbors. If the US were constantly trying to annex territory from Mexico and Canada the way Russia is trying to do with Ukraine, and Georgia and China is trying to do with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, and India (did I forget any?) then our rivals would be able to take advantage of that. By not prioritizing peace with their neighbors, Russia and China make it clear to their neighbours to not trust them.
Mexico’s border with the US has been essentially stable since the end of the US/Mexico war, except for a couple remnant areas which were resolved over the next 50–70 years. The last of these, the Chamizal, was a debated subject of discussion for some time, and it eventually in 1963 ended up being agreed to be given… to Mexico, reaffirming an understanding from 1911. In this entire time, neither Mexico nor the US militarized the area. This is a big difference. Ask Crimea if it’s not. In fact, the Mexico/US border is historically more stable than the borders of most of Europe, not having substantially changed in 150 years.