Article 5 of the Washington Treaty (generally referred to as the NATO Charter, to avoid confusion with
Article 5 of the Washington Treaty:
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.
As an aside, apropos of nothing, I'm sure..., here are a few of the mornings headlines...
I am have tests coming up and no time to opine on these matters so instead I'll just leave this here.
Tam has comprehensive yet concise thoughts on the matter here
as well as worrying confirmation that it's not just me looking to Fred Thompson for insight on this matter.
I'm sure you'll be excited to know that Russians attacked ISIS with 26 cruise missiles today, launched by 3 MRK (Small Missile Ship) and 1 Missile Cruiser "Dagestan". If it's any consolation, MRKs expended their ordnance and had to return to base for re-arming. This being a 21st century, they posted an official video to Youtube
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at Wed Oct 7 19:53:48 2015 (RqRa5)
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at Wed Oct 7 22:46:25 2015 (LImEF)
Well yeah... It is logistically easier than driving ships through Bosphorus into Eastern Med, given that the missiles have sufficient range anyway. Note, however, that MRK can cross over between Black and Caspian sea, should the need arise. In fact I suspect Dagestan
might as well. It was launched well upstream and it's about 1/8th size of Moskva
(which is BTW nuclear powered) - only displaces 1400 tonnes. Despite the diminutive size, those are basically missile fregates and are supposedly seaworthy.
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at Thu Oct 8 00:19:38 2015 (RqRa5)
Actually, come to think of it... There's a channel that connects the Moskva river with Neva basin. I know about that because I heard of river cruises between Moscow and St. Pb.. But Neva is connected (through lakes) with White Sea. There was a famous canal, which Stalin built, basically lined with bones of dead prisoners. White Sea freezes in the winter, but otherwise those MRKs and frigates can go from Caspian to Baltics and to North sea. Well, technically.
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at Thu Oct 8 00:23:03 2015 (RqRa5)
Didn't I read that some of the missiles came short and landed in Iran?
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at Thu Oct 8 16:04:19 2015 (+rSRq)
CNN launched that rumour, without any kind of source. But frankly I would not be surprised. Flying 70 ft off the ground virtually guarantees hitting a bird or radio tower, if you do enough of it. I covered 3000 nautical miles last week and had to maneuver around a bird once, but I was between 1000 to 3000 ft off the ground. And I am quite certain those rusty Russian missiles are not entirely reliable. It's a surprise all 26 left the launch tubes this time.
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at Thu Oct 8 23:02:37 2015 (XOPVE)
hi, nice to meet you, i'm situs panda
Posted by: situspanda at Wed Oct 21 18:18:52 2015 (ULV6T)
| Add Comment