I know next to nothing about air combat, and less about the Mirage. But isn’t having more airframes in the air to shoot down more things still a net positive? It doesn’t look like anything it can carry has a long range. However even if they’re not used for anything close to Russian AA, can’t they still be quite valuable for, missile/drone defense in western Ukraine?

But nobody died?

You should trust the words of experts, then, and make sure that you put pressure on your government to adhere to the text of the treaty rather than trying to inject doubt about it.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep10238

Where does it say it’s voluntary?! And, again, you need to take it in line with literally every other treaty in effect, which emphasizes the ways that defense works.

It can’t be automatic because US domestic laws prohibit the president from declaring war without congressional approval, not because taking part in a defensive pact is somehow optional. And, again, sovereignty is baked into all international laws, especially those having to do with the United States (it’s always been really serious about maintaining this more or less absolutely).

You’re stating a “fact” that’s incorrect, and works in the interest of countries that would benefit a great deal from a lack of adherence to Article 5. Stop it. If any country decided to not participate when Article 5 is invoked, the alliance would end. It’s quite literally the cornerstone of the whole deal.

Edit: I went ahead and found another source that explains what I have been saying: https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep10238

What the action is, is indeed ambiguous, not the requirement to take action, which is not.

None of that says what you are saying.

Maybe you could highlight where it says that any NATO members did not participate in NATO operations in Afghanistan? Or that any participation is voluntary?

Seriously, man, you don’t know what you are talking about. It’s not voluntary, otherwise the alliance wouldn’t exist. States have the discretion to decide the kinds of aid they would send, but any decision not to respond at all would be counter to both the letter and the spirit of the treaty. It’s mandatory, if a country wants to abide by its treaty terms. Full stop.

The only flexibility involved is exactly how it responds. Here’s a source that explains it, but I’ll quote the relevant bit for you. The excerpt follows the text of Art. 5 in the source.

“This language is relatively flexible. It permits each NATO member to decide for itself what action should be taken to address an armed attack on a NATO ally. It does not require any member to respond with military force, although it permits such responses as a matter of international law. A member may decide that instead of responding with force, it will send military equipment to NATO allies or impose sanctions on the aggressor.”

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/natos-article-5-collective-defense-obligations-explained

Here’s the information about what the NATO exercises that occurred as a direct result of 9/11. It’s a lot, but here’s the relevant bit, where it outlines what the actions of the alliance were:

“After 9/11, there were consultations among the Allies and collective action was decided by the Council. The United States could also carry out independent actions, consistent with its rights and obligations under the United Nations Charter.

On 4 October, once it had been determined that the attacks came from abroad, NATO agreed on a package of eight measures to support the United States. On the request of the United States, it launched its first ever anti-terror operation – Eagle Assist – from mid-October 2001 to mid-May 2002. It consisted in seven NATO AWACS radar aircraft that helped patrol the skies over the United States; in total 830 crew members from 13 NATO countries flew over 360 sorties. This was the first time that NATO military assets were deployed in support of an Article 5 operation.

On 26 October, the Alliance launched its second counter-terrorism operation in response to the attacks on the United States, Active Endeavour. Elements of NATO’s Standing Naval Forces were sent to patrol the Eastern Mediterranean and monitor shipping to detect and deter terrorist activity, including illegal trafficking. In March 2004, the operation was expanded to include the entire Mediterranean.

The eight measures to support the United States, as agreed by NATO were:

to enhance intelligence-sharing and cooperation, both bilaterally and in appropriate NATO bodies, relating to the threats posed by terrorism and the actions to be taken against it; to provide, individually or collectively, as appropriate and according to their capabilities, assistance to Allies and other countries which are or may be subject to increased terrorist threats as a result of their support for the campaign against terrorism; to take necessary measures to provide increased security for facilities of the United States and other Allies on their territory; to backfill selected Allied assets in NATO’s area of responsibility that are required to directly support operations against terrorism; to provide blanket overflight clearances for the United States and other Allies’ aircraft, in accordance with the necessary air traffic arrangements and national procedures, for military flights related to operations against terrorism; to provide access for the United States and other Allies to ports and airfields on the territory of NATO member countries for operations against terrorism, including for refuelling, in accordance with national procedures; that the Alliance is ready to deploy elements of its Standing Naval Forces to the Eastern Mediterranean in order to provide a NATO presence and demonstrate resolve; that the Alliance is similarly ready to deploy elements of its NATO Airborne Early Warning Force to support operations against terrorism.”

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/110496.htm

I have to assume you don’t have any interest in good faith argumentation at this point, and it’s time for me to call it quits on trying to convince you. But please stop spreading Russian disinformation and in the future remain silent when it comes to Article 5.

Edit: I’ll put the Wikipedia link for the ISAF, the NATO-led force in Afghanistan, too, but if you go to the tab “participants,” you’ll read this:

“All NATO member states have contributed troops to the ISAF, as well as some other partner states of the NATO alliance.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force

All NATO members did get involved after Article 5 was invoked, so I’m not sure what your point is.

Because yes, that’s exactly what Article 5 says. It’s mandatory to respond, it’s not ambiguous. All members respond if one is attacked, and they did after 9/11.

If you can illustrate a country that sat out of the global response to 9/11/01, I would love to hear it.

Here, you can go read the Wikipedia about NATO. If you look at the section about the various articles, you will find your questions answered, and see the myriad other ways NATO works and enables mutual assistance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty

This suggests a complete misunderstanding of international law and state sovereignty, then. I was being overly charitable, apparently.

Sovereignty is a concept that is baked into the UN Charter explicitly, which the NATO treaty names over and over again.

In order for a treaty article to take effect, it has to be triggered by a member state. It’s strange that you would interpret mandatory response as being, potentially, against the actual request of the state(s) in question.

It seems either painfully lacking knowledge or as being in bad faith. In either case I would suggest you refrain from talking about international treaties in the future.

… and was Article 5 triggered any of those times? Did any of those states ask for help from the alliance? And most of those examples have drawn support (or offers of support) from NATO allies.

You’re also missing the geographical scope of the treaty, which over and over again refers to the security situation in North America and Europe.

Or are you understanding what I’m saying as making it mandatory if anything happens to these countries, and the country being attacked doesn’t get a say in the matter? Because a country try still needs to actually ask for help.

In (as far as I’m aware) every single security treaty in effect across the world the first responsibility lies with the states in question, and all assistance has to be requested by those states.

Listen. You’re just incorrect, and that’s ok. But in the scope of the treaty (which, yes, must actually be triggered), a response from all member states is mandatory.

No? The burden is on you here to assert your point, after your first point was incorrect and you moved the goalpost.

You’re the one that says we should turn to precedent, and said there have been multiple occasions NATO could have triggered Article 5 but wasn’t. When were these other times? You made the statement, now provide evidence.

My point is that when it’s triggered, it’s not optional. And so far, that’s been the case, since it’s been triggered exactly once, and there was a universal response to it.

It’s not an option to respond, according to the words of the treaty. Any other interpretation of it would be based on politics, not the interpretation of the treaty itself. Any idea that the treaty doesn’t mandate collective action is incorrect.

When has there been an attack on a member state that has not resulted in support of some kind from the alliance?

“will assist such Party or Parties” comes right before that, though. Supporting an attacked treaty member is not optional.

And the clause which follows your quotes takes as granted that action has occurred, since it specifically states an intended result is a return to stability in North America or Europe. The action it deems necessary is predicated on the fact that it’s responding.

The way you are interpreting this quote is taken out of its context, which is not how the law works.

In any case, both of these arguments are technically valid, and it comes down to a whole lot of other factors, including political will, to enforce a response among members.

However it’s not ambiguous that an attack on a member of NATO will have a joint response, and a member neglecting to undertake such action would not have a valid legal argument for its inaction.

Edit: made a sentence real English instead of gibberish.

This is true, but it still makes some kind of action necessary, even if it’s not necessarily direct military action.

It’s not iron clad, but nor is it voluntary as the person I responded to made it seem to be.

That’s not true, the language is pretty clear:

“Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”

It’s not an option to respond to an attack on one, it’s mandatory according to the text of the treaty.

This is such a delightful cultural mash-up.

That specific email was when I knew my mom was irrevocably radicalized.

She wasn’t, and still isn’t, religious. But she was fucking convinced that Obama was literally the antichrist.

Not my claim.

And my understanding of the person you responded to is that China has a space station, and they are capable of travel to both the Moon and Mars.

You seemed surprised at that, so I went ahead and gave you a Wikipedia that’s all about China’s space program.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_space_program

I don’t think anybody ever really withheld information about how defense contracting works. It’s not a NYT thing.

It’s a big part of the way the current US Presidential administration has been talking about the Ukraine arms funding: that it will mostly be spent here, manufacturing things for war.

Edit: changed one word.

I think it’s important to consider just how… ickily inviolable most (if not all) of the right wing feels about the second amendment. I don’t think this line of logic would carry much weight with that crowd.

But I agree with what you’re saying. We need much more stringent controls on who is eligible for office.