Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 24, 2016, 03:23:42 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Discussion
| |-+  History (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | |-+  Should the Falklands War have required intervention from the rest of NATO?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Should the Falklands War have required intervention from the rest of NATO?  (Read 1348 times)
L'exquisite Douleur
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 76902
France


View Profile
« on: August 26, 2012, 01:49:54 pm »
Ignore

Argentina did in fact attack the United Kingdom after all.
Logged

Blue = Fake Austria
Green = Real Austria
Kalwejt
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 42749
Poland
View Profile
« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2012, 02:30:46 pm »
Ignore

I'm not sure about language of the treaty, but since British didn't request allies from NATO to participate, I guess not.
Logged

SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10076
Latvia


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2012, 03:05:42 pm »
Ignore

That would be awkward, albeit not unprecedented for the United States to have to fight against its own ally
Logged

minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58715
India


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2012, 04:03:56 pm »
Ignore

Argentina did in fact attack the United Kingdom after all.
In fact, it did nothing of the kind.

Quote
The 14 British Overseas Territories are under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, though they do not form part of it.

Tongue

Also, to be hyperformalistic, at the time of the Falklands War they were called the British Dependent Territories.
Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.
Pilchard
Rookie
*
Posts: 26
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.22

P P P
View Profile
« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2012, 05:44:20 pm »
Ignore

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:

  • on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France [2], on the territory of 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.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines