Originally Posted by
The Helpful Stacker
Incredibly patronising but I'll let it slide.
So, in your humble opinion, what would constitute an actionable Article 5 breach/attack? When is an attack on a member of NATO actually an attack on a member of NATO?
Good question. A simple example would be a flight / squadron of bombers crossing into {for example} Polish airspace and dropping their munitions on Poland. Likewise, a barrage of cruise missiles, or TBMs like Scuds.
In the modern age - remember that Article V was based on the Europe of the Cold War - it could be a variety of things. Interestingly, it was applied to, and resulted in NATO Ops in Afghanistan, the WTC bombing.
The size and shape of 'what's an attack that gets the Article V response' is ultimately decided by the 30 nations involved. We had a variety of Con Plans in NATO that had their own triggers (one I worked on had to do with attacks into Turkey from various states in the Middle East).
I suspect that a single case of sabotage would not constitute an Article V response .. but that depends on the scale and the magnitude...again,
it's not an If/Then idiot switch.
@NutLoose: thanks for the link - the analysis on what did or didn't hit the building. The slaughter of the prisoners disgusts me.