• circuscritic@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I assume you mean Article 5, and no, yes, maybe, but probably no.

    Article 5’s requirement is that the members convene to discuss a response to an attack, not an obligation to attack.

    Furthermore, this sounds more like an even dumber dumb Watergate, but with arguably, a moral justification i.e. covert burglary, maybe even armed robbery, for vaccines contracted to the UK.

    • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      It is not armed robbery when the military is sent to another country. war is ultimately always about ressources, so you could argue every war to just be an armed robbery gone wrong.

      If someone sends their military to another coubtry without this countries explicit consent it is an act of war.

      • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        You can semantically argue anything you want, but ultimately I can’t imagine any scenario where this would have been an actual war, or even resembling one.

        If the goal was to seize assets contained within a one, or just several buildings, the most likely way this would have played out would have been covert foreign intelligence teams, not an SAS commando raid with a bodycount.

        Would it have been incredibly dumb, and probably end up with the intelligence officers/assets arrested? Sure.

        Would it have been anything like a HVT snatch and grab in Afghanistan? No. Just no.

        Like I said, an even dumber, dumb Watergate.

      • AEsheron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        Article 5 has been invoked once, the US invoked it during 9/11. They asked for some extra air reconnaissance around the middle east, and basically to have allies be ready for joint action that never materialized. Article 5 is not an immediate declaration of war or anything.

        • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          I always thought ISAF was the NATO 5 action.

          I must admit I didn’t really pay attention to the legalities back then though.