Does The US And NATO Defend A Menace NATO Member Nation? (9/11, support)

[dorado0359]

NATO's position is, if one member nation is attacked then all members are attacked and all NATO will attack the attacking nation. But, what if the NATO nation is the culprit, and troublemaker causing the non-NATO nation attack it in retaliation. IDK, just seems sort of one sided too me.

[elvis44102]

defense agreements means if the nation is attacked, not if and when they are the aggressor

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by dorado0359

NATO's position is, if one member nation is attacked then all members are attacked and all NATO will attack the attacking nation. But, what if the NATO nation is the culprit, and troublemaker causing the non-NATO nation attack it in retaliation. IDK, just seems sort of one sided too me.

You're going to have to define "troublemaker" a bit better.

The threshold in the NATO treaty (and in the United Nations charter, Article 51) is that of "armed attack". If the - as you put it - "culprit" carries out an armed attack, it is no longer a question of self-defense or collective self-defense.

It's a pretty clear line.

[Brave New World]

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

You're going to have to define "troublemaker" a bit better.

The threshold in the NATO treaty (and in the United Nations charter, Article 51) is that of "armed attack". If the - as you put it - "culprit" carries out an armed attack, it is no longer a question of self-defense or collective self-defense.

It's a pretty clear line.

Article 5 has only ever been invoked once and that was on 9/11, when the US was attacked.

NATO AWACS Aircraft left their base in Europe and headed for the US following the attack, whilst any other NATO support the US requested would have been considered.

[kitty61]

The offending NATO member will be removed and support terminated.