5 ms·

What needs to happen for NATO to consider itself being “under attack”?

by beretguy 2y ago

KoolKat23 2y ago
The benefits need to outweigh the costs.
beardyw 2y ago
Well I suppose to consider what would be a proportionate response.
Rzor 2y ago
IIRC a member country has to declare it.
lm28469 2y ago
A lot of NATO countries already publicly consider being under "hybrid" attacks: disinformation, sabotage, espionnage, &c. There isn't much more you can do without going into an armed conflict, so what would be needed to happen is the will to sacrifice a large amount of their citizen and/or expose themselves to possible strikes
- rainworld 2y ago
  [flagged]
belter 2y ago
We had chemical and radioactive attacks by Russian agents in the UK, but in the name of no escalation nothing really happened. London was, and continued to be, a cesspool of Russian money and sweet real estate and football money from Russian Oligarchs. A forceful response then, from all Western countries, maybe would have stopped Putin actions that led to the current Ukraine War.
- inhumantsar 2y ago
  I don't disagree with you but that wouldn't have been an Article 5 issue anyway. Targeted assassinations of private citizens are terrible but they aren't in the same realm as attacking a country's infrastructure.
mediumsmart 2y ago
[flagged]
- mlindner 2y ago
  This kind of hyperbole/lies isn't really helpful.
jjk166 2y ago
> For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack: > on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; > on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer. This would not be considered an armed attack, and it's debatable whether satellites in orbit would be considered aircraft over the territories covered by the treaty.
- beretguy 2y ago
  How about an attack on an industrial plant in Berlin? Would that be worthy of Article 5? https://www.kyivpost.com/post/34662 https://www.kyivpost.com/post/34662
  - jjk166 2y ago
    Again, the key word here is armed - espionage related activities, even if they cause physical damage, don't generally count. There is some wiggle room, but the only attack that has led to an invocation of Article 5 to date has been the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

What needs to happen for NATO to consider itself being “under attack”?

KoolKat23 2y ago

The benefits need to outweigh the costs.

beardyw 2y ago

Well I suppose to consider what would be a proportionate response.

Rzor 2y ago

IIRC a member country has to declare it.

lm28469 2y ago

A lot of NATO countries already publicly consider being under "hybrid" attacks: disinformation, sabotage, espionnage, &c. There isn't much more you can do without going into an armed conflict, so what would be needed to happen is the will to sacrifice a large amount of their citizen and/or expose themselves to possible strikes

rainworld 2y ago
[flagged]

belter 2y ago

We had chemical and radioactive attacks by Russian agents in the UK, but in the name of no escalation nothing really happened. London was, and continued to be, a cesspool of Russian money and sweet real estate and football money from Russian Oligarchs. A forceful response then, from all Western countries, maybe would have stopped Putin actions that led to the current Ukraine War.

inhumantsar 2y ago
I don't disagree with you but that wouldn't have been an Article 5 issue anyway. Targeted assassinations of private citizens are terrible but they aren't in the same realm as attacking a country's infrastructure.

mediumsmart 2y ago

[flagged]

mlindner 2y ago
This kind of hyperbole/lies isn't really helpful.

jjk166 2y ago

> For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack: > on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; > on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer. This would not be considered an armed attack, and it's debatable whether satellites in orbit would be considered aircraft over the territories covered by the treaty.

beretguy 2y ago
How about an attack on an industrial plant in Berlin? Would that be worthy of Article 5? https://www.kyivpost.com/post/34662 https://www.kyivpost.com/post/34662
- jjk166 2y ago
  Again, the key word here is armed - espionage related activities, even if they cause physical damage, don't generally count. There is some wiggle room, but the only attack that has led to an invocation of Article 5 to date has been the 9/11 terrorist attacks.