"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Admiral Beez said:
So, had Argentina's Type 209 submarine ARA San Luis managed to get herself prewar to a position north of the Tropic of Cancer (perhaps via a visit to Cuba, with Argentina being one of the first e-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba in 1973), and torpedoed RN ships north of the Tropic of Cancer as the Task Force was heading southward, does NATO care? As for Hawaii, as part of the USA, I can't believe that NATO would stand by if Russia attacked the place. Surely that's not a viable loophole?
Click to expand...

There was a big article on the WP or NYT or CNN a while back that says Hawaii is definitely not covered. From memory the reason was that Hawaii was not part of the US when NATO was formed PLUS it is in the Pacific.
 
MiTasol said:
There was a big article on the WP or NYT or CNN a while back that says Hawaii is definitely not covered. From memory the reason was that Hawaii was not part of the US when NATO was formed PLUS it is in the Pacific.
Click to expand...
That is from the Tropic of Cancer being decided on as the dividing line and is why it was.
 
It would be helpful if everyone read Art 6 which I posted in post# 29563 on page 1479 if full and not just bits of it.

"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again."

There's a few sure things in life that are an absolute: Death, taxes and Ukraine will not ceed one inch to Russia. The media is having a field day hyping up the waffling in the U.S. with the aid package. Meanwhile, Europe has stepped up and is committing a staggering amount of support that...
ww2aircraft.net ww2aircraft.net


Article 6

"For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
  • on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
Note it is Islands in the North Atlantic. No mention of thePacific. So no, an attack on Hawaii would not commit NATO members to coming to the assistance of the USA under Article 5. Add to that Hawaii is not in North America.

So unless there is a commitment under one of the other Treaties.....
 
EwenS said:
It would be helpful if everyone read Art 6 which I posted in post# 29563 on page 1479 if full and not just bits of it.

"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again."

There's a few sure things in life that are an absolute: Death, taxes and Ukraine will not ceed one inch to Russia. The media is having a field day hyping up the waffling in the U.S. with the aid package. Meanwhile, Europe has stepped up and is committing a staggering amount of support that...
ww2aircraft.net ww2aircraft.net


Article 6

"For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
  • on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
Note it is Islands in the North Atlantic. No mention of thePacific. So no, an attack on Hawaii would not commit NATO members to coming to the assistance of the USA under Article 5. Add to that Hawaii is not in North America.

So unless there is a commitment under one of the other Treaties.....
Click to expand...

The clue is in NATO's name...NORTH ATLANTIC Treaty Organization. :)

That said, while Afghanistan is north of the Tropic of Cancer, it hardly counts as anywhere near the Atlantic...so one wonders why NATO was even involved there (that's a rhetorical question...we all know why).
 
One point that's being missed in the comparison between Hawai'i and the Falklands is that the people in Hawai'i have a right to reside in the Continental US; the Falklanders did not have the right to reside in the UK.

I'm not sure there is a US possession with a comparable status to the Falklands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

M
All V-22's Grounded
Replies
2
Views
736
GTX
GTX
M
All This For The Low, Low Price of .....
Replies
19
Views
1K
MIflyer
M
A
Canada seeks to join non-nuclear pillar of AUKUS alliance
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
Admiral Beez
A
S
Request help identifying type of aircraft
Replies
4
Views
588
MiTasol
MiTasol
M
What Happened To All Those Advanced Missiles?
Replies
1
Views
695
Admiral Beez
A
Back