NATO, SEATO, nor the UN were utilized in the Vietnam War. The war's controversy had affected the members. However, ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand, United States), even though there were some disagreements there to, did take effect. ANZUS, created in '51, called for defense to protect nations in the immediate Pacific area, thus ANZUS responded.
SEATO would've done the same thing, however the SEATO members of Britain, France, and Pakistan refused to deploy troops to Vietnam; thus, again, ANZUS had to hold the line.
NO
nations should act together to promote peace
no you dont.
In the context of World War II, including the years just prior to its outbreak in 1939, the historical record is generally quite clear: the most effective response to the aggression of nations such as Germany and Italy during the 1930s would have been collective security -- galvanized by the will to take military action when necessary. While appeasement proved effective in buying time for Allied preparations for war, it did so at the cost of territorial losses, betrayal of national sovereignty (in the case of Czechoslovakia), and a strengthening of the aggressor-nations.
No there where not.
== ==
i dont know maybe collective security in my opinion.
Collective security is Group security; the priority of society over the individual. Communism over free society.
NO
nations should act together to promote peace
Customs and security officials
Security Council
National security during wartime.
None... Social Security (the government program) did not exist during WW1.
no you dont.
The six policies of the cold war were detente, containment, brinkmanship, collective security, non-alignment and detterance.
In the context of World War II, including the years just prior to its outbreak in 1939, the historical record is generally quite clear: the most effective response to the aggression of nations such as Germany and Italy during the 1930s would have been collective security -- galvanized by the will to take military action when necessary. While appeasement proved effective in buying time for Allied preparations for war, it did so at the cost of territorial losses, betrayal of national sovereignty (in the case of Czechoslovakia), and a strengthening of the aggressor-nations.