you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 42 points 2 years ago (11 children)

Wouldn't this invoke NATO against the UK and demand a lot of reparations?

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [โ€“] 30 points 2 years ago* (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [โ€“] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [โ€“] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Yes I meant article 5 but did not remember the number ๐Ÿ™ˆ๐Ÿ™ˆ. Thanks!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [โ€“] 11 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Thats the same question as with Greece and Turkey.

    But in the end the entire EU would stand against them for shure. And USA would either not interfere or be on EUs side.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment