6 ms·
Does being in NATO obligate you to respond militarily if another member is attacked (as is commonly believed)? I failed to find this clause in the text last tim
by dataflow 3y ago
Does being in NATO obligate you to respond militarily if another member is attacked (as is commonly believed)? I failed to find this clause in the text last time I looked.
Edit: for everyone telling me to read article 5: I already have, hence this question. It says each member "will assist [...] by taking [...] such action as it deems necessary". That very much doesn't appear to obligate a military response, or any response at all.
To put it another way, the treaty really doesn't seem to mean much, so far as I can tell? Countries could already help each other out (or not) anyway... no?
- hyggetrold 3y agoYes - Article 5 - the absolutely key piece of NATO.
- jedberg 3y agoArticle 5 https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
- SamBam 3y agoDid you actually take a look at the text of the treaty? It's very short and readable. Article 5 is what you're looking for. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.ht...
- dataflow 3y agoYes? It says "will assist" and "such action as it deems necessary". That doesn't obligate them to provide a military response. What makes you believe otherwise?
- thatwasunusual 3y agoBecause no member wants to be seen as unreliable, risking their own security in the future, so everyone will in practice assist in any way they can.
- dataflow 3y agoOr they might calculate WWIII isn't worth it? Imagine Russia attacks Latvia. Would the US really risk getting into direct conflict with Russia over it?
- sph 3y agoWould the US really risk its name and face ignoring their biggest and most powerful military alliance? Honour and keeping your word are very important in geopolitics, especially among countries that have been allied for almost a century, and you won't remain the top dog very long if you avoid your duties at the first difficulty. So yes, if Russia attacks Latvia, you better believe the US is gonna send everything they have against Russia. That's the whole point of NATO.
- xdennis 3y agoI'm pro NATO, but I don't think the support of the US is guaranteed. The US has always been an unreliable partner: it depends on who's in power. If the republican war hawks or moderate Democrats are in power they would support Latvia, but libertarians and far leftists would say "it's not our problem".
- SamBam 3y agoIs Trump a libertarian or a far leftist? Because he's currently the cause of these discussions -- he's the one that people have the most doubts would agree to defending Latvia.
- sph 3y agoHe's neither. He's a big State conservative populist that cozies up to the far-right cretins as they represent what a lot of the silent, dissatisfied majority thinks.
- sph 3y agoThere are no libertarians or far left politicians in the Oval Office, now or in the near future. I cannot speak to how the US would behave in 50 years, but being true to its word it is mandatory for the US to project itself as the "world leader". The day the Oval Office is able to ignore its allies, it is the day the US is no longer a global leader. That's simply the cost to pay to be seen as the leader of the free world. The fact that some US politicians openly want to go down the route of reneging its allies speaks volumes about how long the US empire will last.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- thebeardisred 3y agoThanks for asking this question. In reading the links to Article 5 I discovered that Ireland is not a member of NATO in an attempt to have a Swiss type of military neutrality.
- alexisbear 3y agoIt doesn't obligate members to respond militarily, it obligates NATO members to consider an attack against a member as an attack against them. Retaliation and any other action needs to be discussed by NATO members and can also be vetoed. A lot of people seem to think that if article 5 is brandished, war will result, it absolutely depends on what the council will agree upon.
- dragonwriter 3y agoWhile Article 5 is important, its not in a "technical legal mandate" way, and there is a lot more to the alliance than Article 5, there's integrated military command, training, defense strategy, forward deployments to threatened countries, etc. And there is Article 4 collective regional security, which has ultimately resulted in more NATO combat operations than Article 5, which has been invoked exactly once, even though the former has even less explicit obligation than Article 5.
- empath-nirvana 3y agoOnly if they ask. If you've got it handled, you don't need to invoke article 5.
- dataflow 3y agoEven if they ask, it seems to me you get to decide how you want to get involved (if at all).
- red-iron-pine 3y agosure. you don't have to show up. but then you're out of the club.
- danlugo92 3y agoWhat if the USA "doesn't show up"?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mig39 3y agoNATO invoked Article 5 after 9/11, BTW.
- evanb 3y agoLawfare had an interesting discussion recently: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-lawfare-podcast-how-much-trouble-is-nato-really-in-with-scott-r.-anderson https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-lawfare-podcast-how...