|
Title: Should the Falklands War have required intervention from the rest of NATO? Post by: they don't love you like i love you on August 26, 2012, 01:49:54 PM Argentina did in fact attack the United Kingdom after all.
Title: Re: Should the Falklands War have required intervention from the rest of NATO? Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on August 26, 2012, 02:30:46 PM I'm not sure about language of the treaty, but since British didn't request allies from NATO to participate, I guess not.
Title: Re: Should the Falklands War have required intervention from the rest of NATO? Post by: SPC on August 26, 2012, 03:05:42 PM That would be awkward, albeit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._invasion_of_Panama) not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Invasion_of_Afghanistan) unprecedented (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_war) for the United States to have to fight against its own ally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor)
Title: Re: Should the Falklands War have required intervention from the rest of NATO? Post by: minionofmidas on August 26, 2012, 04:03:56 PM Argentina did in fact attack the United Kingdom after all. Quote The 14 British Overseas Territories are under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, though they do not form part of it. :P Also, to be hyperformalistic, at the time of the Falklands War they were called the British Dependent Territories. Title: Re: Should the Falklands War have required intervention from the rest of NATO? Post by: Pilchard on August 26, 2012, 05:44:20 PM Probably not, as Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty says an attack on a member would need to be north of the Tropic of Cancer to invoke the collective self defence of Article 5.
Quote For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
|