- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
What does the NATO treaty require if one member attacks another member?
Posted on 1/18/17 at 9:17 pm
Posted on 1/18/17 at 9:17 pm
I realize it's clear that other members treat an attack on a NATO member by an outside aggressor is treated as an attack on all members.
But what happens if, for example, Turkey attacks France for perceived injustices to Muslims in France? (I mean besides France surrenders immediately.)
Is there a NATO treaty article that addresses something like this?
But what happens if, for example, Turkey attacks France for perceived injustices to Muslims in France? (I mean besides France surrenders immediately.)
Is there a NATO treaty article that addresses something like this?
8
Posted on 1/18/17 at 9:18 pm to LSURussian
We tell Erdogan that Putin has tapes of him pissing on piglets
Posted on 1/18/17 at 9:21 pm to LSURussian
The attacker is likely branded as having broken the treaty and is therefore no longer a part of NATO.
Posted on 1/18/17 at 9:25 pm to LSURussian
You realize this happened LINK
Turkey and Greece went to war over Cyprus in 1974 (both joined NATO in 1952) with Greece pulling its forces from NATO til 1981. What would probably occur now is the leading powers would broker a solution of some type.
Turkey and Greece went to war over Cyprus in 1974 (both joined NATO in 1952) with Greece pulling its forces from NATO til 1981. What would probably occur now is the leading powers would broker a solution of some type.
Posted on 1/18/17 at 9:29 pm to crazy4lsu
Also the type of response within the alliance would depend on the countries and circumstances involved. In the Turkish and Greek case, I think the Council of Europe sided with the Turks.
I don't think there are hard and fast rules in this regard.
I don't think there are hard and fast rules in this regard.
Posted on 1/18/17 at 9:34 pm to Scruffy
quote:With the probable exception to this- the US and the Allied countries (Great Britain, France) can likely attack the smaller, newer countries to the organization, and get them expelled. Remember, NATO is not the EU or the UN, they are "Please, America, protect us from the Russians". So WE aren't going anywhere.
The attacker is likely branded as having broken the treaty and is therefore no longer a part of NATO.
Posted on 1/18/17 at 9:39 pm to LSURussian
No more Russian whores.
Posted on 1/18/17 at 9:40 pm to LSURussian
quote:
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 .
Posted on 1/18/17 at 9:41 pm to crazy4lsu
Actually I had forgotten about the Greece/Turkey skirmish over Cypress. Thanks for reminding me. 
I realize military action between two NATO members is highly unlikely.
But, I could see where a heated dispute might arise over how Muslim refugees are being treated that newly fanatical Islaamic Turkey might resent.
Or, maybe how Muslim refugees might not be rescued from their sinking boats trying to get to Europe from northern Africa.
I realize military action between two NATO members is highly unlikely.
But, I could see where a heated dispute might arise over how Muslim refugees are being treated that newly fanatical Islaamic Turkey might resent.
Or, maybe how Muslim refugees might not be rescued from their sinking boats trying to get to Europe from northern Africa.
Posted on 1/18/17 at 9:44 pm to LSURussian
quote:
I realize it's clear that other members treat an attack on a NATO member by an outside aggressor is treated as an attack on all members.
Trying to give everyone AIDS with this sentence?
Posted on 1/18/17 at 9:46 pm to Sleeping Tiger
Not everyone, just you.....
Posted on 1/18/17 at 9:54 pm to LSURussian
quote:
But, I could see where a heated dispute might arise over how Muslim refugees are being treated that newly fanatical Islaamic Turkey might resent.
I'd argue that Turkey's recent turn is regular authoritarianism, which we've seen again and again in the Islamic world, rather than Islamism. There are various reasons that Turkey is reluctant to turn to the Salafi model. Firstly the Salafi model is, by its very principles, a pan-Arabic one. The Turks have no interest in seeing the group of people they ruled for a millennia (I think the Seljuk Turks took over Jerusalem around 1100) suddenly usurp them. While they are more than willing to use ISIS to help achieve their own aims in the ME (as in the Mosul Question and a return to the borders established with the Treaty of Zuhab and the transfer of Persian Baghdad to Turkish control), they aren't interested in playing a secondary role to the Arabs, which is the implicit aspect of Salafi jihadism.
What is more likely than an attack on some European power for the sake of refugees is the Turks going to the Europeans and gaining their support for movements into the ME to expand Turkeys borders, with the argument being only the Turks can stem the flow of Islamism and refugees if only they had more control, which is the neo-Ottoman position, and essentially the worldview that Erdogan holds. Operation Euphrates Shield is a test run of sorts to see the viability of that position.
This post was edited on 1/18/17 at 9:55 pm
Posted on 1/18/17 at 10:02 pm to crazy4lsu
So, you're saying there's a chance.....?
Posted on 1/18/17 at 10:11 pm to LSURussian
Only if Turkey has something to gain by it. Maybe it will once it reforms the Empire.
Posted on 1/18/17 at 10:18 pm to LSURussian
I would imagine NATO would rally against the obvious aggressor.
If it happened due to circumstances where you could blame either side, you'd probably see NATO break up and some take one side and some take the other, and thus WW3
If it happened due to circumstances where you could blame either side, you'd probably see NATO break up and some take one side and some take the other, and thus WW3
Posted on 1/18/17 at 10:48 pm to LSURussian
I think Greece and Turkey used to go at it with each other and the response of NATO was to just let them sort it out between themselves.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News