Originally Posted by
ORAC
BREAKING: Mysterious drone activity observed at the danish oil and gas field Halfdan B in the North Sea.
Danish police and government informed - Ekstrabladet
Not a brilliant plan
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 .
United Nations Charter 1945
Chapter VII — Action with respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression
Article 51
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
Not certain that the NS1/NS2 itself does
not have potential to trigger NATO Article 5. A national asset that is within the EEZ of a country or owned by that country would naturally allow a right of self defence against an armed attack, e.g., attack on a ship, a resource etc. If a drone attacked a Danish warship it is self evident that the warship would have a right of self defence and that is sanctioned by the UNC Article 51. It is therefore hard to say that an armed attack on an oil field, or on a pipeline that was owned by say, Germany would not permit a defensive response and therefore, so long as it was defined as an armed attack, it would potentially trigger Article 5. So, whodunnit?
The requirement is for the action to be an "armed attack", and the use of limpet mines, demo charges or an armed drone, would easily be more definitively armed than even 9/11 was, the arm on that day being box cutters... and 300,000 lbs of plane, people and jet fuel.
If NS1/NS2 was a deliberate attack using anything more than chewing gum, it could be argued to be a trigger event. Trashing the Danish oil fiends almost certainly would be as well, irrespective of being offshore.
Russia appears to easily meet the criteria of a terrorist state with their actions in Ukraine, Terrorists using PGMs, white phos, cluster bombs would be given no quarter, yet we have vacillated in calling Russia what it is. Glass houses... Armed Attack on German or Danish infrastructure in the Euro EEZ area is hard to dismiss, "terrorist" or not.
Not good.
---------------
Wanted: Adult supervisor. Immediate vacancy. Experience with sociopaths desirable. Must be good with petulant child. Bring iodine tablets.