Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Take advantage of Black Friday with 15% off sitewide with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" on Slashdot Deals (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:I have an idea (Score 1) 583


I quoted party of the treaty explaining that the is not need to wait. You did not quote any contradicting part..

Article 6 wrote:
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; on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in whicH occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Even the simplified en wikipedia article mentions the question if/when/why the US/NATO would be involved

The Simple Wiki article does not. The en.wikipedia article says the US was thinking of getting involved, but there was no mention of NATO. The news may have suggested that NATO countries would help if asked, and indeed team-NATO has deployed outside of the treaty region as exceptions. For instance, in the former Yugoslavia and in the Gulf of Aden. In those cases, there is a a request to have a supplemental tasking. But, if France was invaded tomorrow by Russia, each NATO country is supposed to respond as they deem necessary to help ensure France's integrity, whether individually or in concert.

Comment Re:I have an idea (Score 1) 583

No it was not. And we are not talking about the "treaty" but geographical terms. 95% + of Turkey is not in Europe. Period.

When discussing whether there is a requirement to respond, the treaty matters. Who cares what the geography is. It's not relevant, it's only relevant what was decided. Period. And all of Turkey counts. Although I am corrected that "and the Territory of Turkey" was technically added to list of "North Atlantic Territory", not to the description of Europe which is a part of the North Atlantic Territory. So you're right in detail, but wrong on whether my interpertation would have been relevant.

Nevertheless the "call for defence" needs to be issued by the attacked member

The words "call for defence" don't appear in the treaty. The treaty explicitly requires uniltateral action by any member in defence of any other if considers it necessary. Article 5: "[each country reacts by] taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary,"

read up about the falkland wa

At 57S, it's literally quarter of a world away from 23.5N, the lowest point anyone gives a shit about.

The treaty applies to any attack on any nation in the treaty regardless of position on the globe.

Articles 6 disagree with you. Like, entirely. Since it defines in detail the areas it applies

Or do you think if a Russian sub sinks a USA ship in front of Australia the treaty would not apply?

Correct, it would not apply. Just like it didn't apply to the French colony uprisings, the Falklands, and many other things.

Comment Re: Litigious Much (Score 1) 794

Entrapment is when the illegal act would not have occurred but for the influence of the officer. We don't know if he influenced a harsher response, similar to how we don't often know if the cop was beating someone who wasn't resisting or if the criminal was resisting arrest.

We only allow temptations to a degree.

We have no clue if this kid did anything wrong. It depends on what was said inside the room. Arresting him seems over the top, but they arrest kids for using cellphones in class too. If he was disrupting the class with an electronic device, I don't see how the school necessarily fucked up in trying to get it away from him.

Comment Re:I have an idea (Score 1) 583

Turkey is (a) not in Europe.

This should be a duh point, but when Greece and Turkey were invited into NATO, the definition of Europe for the purpose of the treaty was clarified to include all the territory of those nations. Otherwise, why would they join a mutual defense pact? The boundary lines is always subject to negotiation

The treaty to come to aid, only works when the attacked nation calls for support.

Flat out wrong. An attack on Turkey is supposed to be considered by each member state as an attack on that state, and will take actions individually and/or in concert with each other/the primary victim. Now, de facto they can take a cue from Turkey in following their lead.

hint: Falkland War. The UK handled that alone, without calling NATO members for aid.

In the Atlantic, not north of the Tropic Of Cancer. North Atlantic Treat doesn't apply

Comment Re:Gwen Houston should be next (Score 2) 176

While correlation is not causation, it's a statsitically significant difference. Therefore, there is something separating those groups. It could be a confound (for instance, maybe the layoffs were limited to those with PhDs, and more women at MS had PhDs), but the test for "is the size of the delta worth talking about" passed.

Comment Re:I have an idea (Score 1) 583

What's the line then?

The line covers all of Europe, North America, the Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer, the Mediterranean Sea, and areas now moot in North Africa - and includes within those spaces other signatories' territory, forces, ships or aircraft come under attack by any other power, as spelled out by Articles 5 and 6 in the North Atlantic Treaty.

Turkey is (a) in Europe and (b) a NATO member. If Russia is overflying Turkey, the other NATO powers have a treaty to come to their aid and shoot down the Russian planes. And has for 60 years (or whenever the other states joined NATO, in the case of recent members)

Comment Re:I have an idea (Score 0) 583

Yes, but WWI was caused by many factors, including a network of western alliances, a rapid advance in communication technologies and globalization, a multiethnic region where nobody seemed to be able to get along, a rising industrial and economic power challenging the existing hegemon, and the last straw, Russia coming to the aid of a long time ally amidst a campaign of terrorist acts.

Fortunately that sounds nothing like the world today!

Hey now, I'd put Russia more in Germany's place. Kinda pissed off at everyone else, issues a carte-blanche to their weaker ally (Assad, not Austro-Hungarian Emperor) to be backed up doing whatever he wants.

Comment Re:OMFG! (Score 4, Informative) 176

OMFG! There was a fluctuation of 2.2 percent in the female employees of a major corporation that has bizzilions of employees that come and go!

The larger the corporation, and the less turnover it has in general, the more significant a small number is. If there are 49 employees, a 2.2% fluctuation is someone quitting. If there were 2 million employees, with say, 20% layoffs, that a 2.2% reduction between gender groups is extremely significant (p

Comment Re: Litigious Much (Score 1) 794

Both the school and the police fucked up royally. There is no other way to look at it.

Well, if the school board was specifically set up, I see it totally differently. We don't allow police entrapment for very good reasons. I don't think it's unreasonable to disallow citizen/b'crat entrapment for the same reasons.

Comment Re:No LEDS (Score 1) 491

TVs and DVDs use an Off LED as opposed to an On LED. A TV is, by definition, close the picture it displays when in use, and a DVD player is assumed to be. Therefore, the On LED would be more annoying. Since the power supply, etc. are already consuming an order of magnitude (or more) than the LED will draw, there's not much reason, energy wise, to leave them off. Bonus, if you dislike it so you unplug it, you'll save more than 10x what you think you're saving (assuming you're the average person just worrying about the cost of the light.)

Philosophy: A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing. -- Ambrose Bierce