NATO article 5 invoked against Libya

OK, this occured to me during talk with one member on FB.

During 1980s Libya was pissing on/off several NATO members. between La Belle bombing, Gulf of Sidre incident and firing Scuds against Italy these nations had sufficient justification to invoke NATO charter article 5. Why they didn't I can't say but I guess political decissions were made not to as potential problems would outweight whatever benefit there ight be had. Plus I guess in 1980s NATO didn't want to get in shooting war in Libya as it could easily spill in several directions.

But let's assume that Libyans manage to actually hit Lampedusa station and kill some Americans, since that is easiest way to raise the stakes. This would be clear attack, even clearer than first Gulf of Sidre incident.

Would that be enough for article 5 to be invoked and Libya fiding itself on wrong end of military action? This would be 1986 so after Grenada when US military was finding it's mojo again and US leadership ready to start fighting wars again.

If not what would it take? Obviously it would need to be political decission POD as act were clear.
 
The italian goverment will not demand it, the Colonel is a too important commercial patner and it will be a little...too problematic as the ex colonial power in control of Lybia.
 
The italian goverment will not demand it, the Colonel is a too important commercial patner and it will be a little...too problematic as the ex colonial power in control of Lybia.

What about US? In space of 5 years Libya managed to attack USN planes, bomb German disco frequented by US servicement and directly attack US base.

OK, in first case US retaliated. In second case USN got that shit covered so no harm done. But if they let third one slide or respond with minimal action they show to the world that US and NATO are allowing a two bit tin pot dictator to attack US base and get away with it, more or less.

I'm not saying they would but Soviets might start believing that bombing a camp or two in Pakistan would not be such a bad idea seeing how US was reluctant to do more than drop a few bombs as an answer to direct attack by a no account country.
 
What benefit would the US receive from invoking Article 5 though? Short of invading they would appear to be capable of doing anything themselves without having to bring in third parties, and even then it would probably most be for basing rights rather than direct support.
 
What benefit would the US receive from invoking Article 5 though? Short of invading they would appear to be capable of doing anything themselves without having to bring in third parties, and even then it would probably most be for basing rights rather than direct support.

Show that NATO is functioning, that NATO concept of collective defense is serious thing and that NATO as an alliance is standing together.

Besides, you can ask what benefits did US get from invoking it after 9/11. At best it gave some smaller coutries no choice but to send (token) forces and at worst it made it look like reasons for NATO's future have to be made up.
 
The Soviets backed Gaddafi and it should be noted he recognized the Coup in 1991 Russia (before it failed). Basically Libya was like Syria in that it was a client state of the Soviets.
 
Bombings of discos don't constitute an 'armed attack', I'm sure.

SCUD missiles against Italy might. Except they were in retaliation for a US attack on Libya, so I'm not sure that counts.

Anything over the Gulf of Sirte specifically does NOT count, because that's neither Europe nor America.

I think if the US tried to invoke it, several other NATO countries would laugh at them. Which would WEAKEN NATO, not strengthen it. Not that governments haven't engaged in such counterproductive efforts before.
 
Bombings of discos don't constitute an 'armed attack', I'm sure.

Well, said disco was on territory of a NATO member. Sort of like 9/11 attacks

SCUD missiles against Italy might. Except they were in retaliation for a US attack on Libya, so I'm not sure that counts.

Might? Firing missiles on territory of NATO member might constitute an attack?

Anything over the Gulf of Sirte specifically does NOT count, because that's neither Europe nor America.

NATO article 6 said:
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 (2), on the territory of 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.

So no, attacking USN planes was clearly covered by article 6

I think if the US tried to invoke it, several other NATO countries would laugh at them. Which would WEAKEN NATO, not strengthen it. Not that governments haven't engaged in such counterproductive efforts before.

Well, that's the gist of my question. There are clear legal reasons why article 5 can be invoked. OTL attacks could be brushed off because one was small, inderect and US responded and other was dealt with on site with planes defending themselves so US wans't willing to push further.

But I proposed a POD where Libyans actually hit Lampedusa station and kill some Americans there. That is whole different ketle of fish (or whatever wonderfully odd phrase British use) where you have one country directly attacking NATO member and causing casualties.

As I've said, the risk of not doing anything is that it shows to Soviets that no account country can pretty much get away with this crap so why should Soviets start hitting ujahedeen camps in Paksitan? Seeing how US would be unwilling to up the ante against Libya it would be reasonable to excepct they'll not up the ante agaisnt Soviets, seeing how Soviet acts woudn't be directed agaisnt US itself.
 
Well, said disco was on territory of a NATO member. Sort of like 9/11 attacks

NATO was specifically for collective defence against the Soviets. For the western powers to, let's be honest, gang up on Libya, for doing something that wasn't all that beyond the pale at the time (the US was doing worse via NORAID in Northern Ireland) would make the Western Powers look like the neo-colonial overlords the Communists were always saying they were.

Well, that's the gist of my question. There are clear legal reasons why article 5 can be invoked. OTL attacks could be brushed off because one was small, inderect and US responded and other was dealt with on site with planes defending themselves so US wans't willing to push further.

But I proposed a POD where Libyans actually hit Lampedusa station and kill some Americans there. That is whole different ketle of fish (or whatever wonderfully odd phrase British use) where you have one country directly attacking NATO member and causing casualties.

That wasn't as big a deal at the time. The Lebanese bombed an army barracks killing hundreds of American soldiers in 1983. Saint Ronald of Reagan, after some meagre face saving wrist slaps, turned tail and ran. He's not going to start WW3 over some Libyan pin pricks.

As I've said, the risk of not doing anything is that it shows to Soviets that no account country can pretty much get away with this crap so why should Soviets start hitting ujahedeen camps in Paksitan? Seeing how US would be unwilling to up the ante against Libya it would be reasonable to excepct they'll not up the ante agaisnt Soviets, seeing how Soviet acts woudn't be directed agaisnt US itself.

If anything, one of the affected countries would go in unilaterally. It's Libya ffs. The risk of a NATO response is starting WW3 and ending human civilisation. Libya's not worth it.
 
Last edited:
NATO was specifically for collective defence against the Soviets. For the western powers to, let's be honest, gang up on Libya, for doing something that wasn't all that beyond the pale at the time (the US was doing worse via NORAID in Northern Ireland) would make the Western Powers look like the neo-colonial overlords the Communists were always saying they were.

be as it may Libyan missile attack on Italy that caused casualties would be seen as direct challenge to both Italy and Us and indirectly to NATO. this wouldn't be proxy attack or intelligence service planting a bob, this would be direct military attack against ilitary instalation on NATO member's territory. The only way it could be clearer attack would be Libyans making ambhibious attack on Lampedusa, killing everybody there and then saying that is their clay now.

That wasn't as big a deal at the time. The Lebanese bombed an army barracks killing hundreds of American soldiers in 1983. Saint Ronald of Reagan, after some meagre face saving wrist slaps, turned tail and ran. He's not going to start WW3 over some Libyan pin pricks.

Lebanon was different case because it fell out of NATO charter's scope (and way to ignore dead French paras). As for pin-pricks, I agree it's one thing to retalliate for disco bombing with limited air strike or have USN planes on site defend themselves and say "that's over and done" and another to ignore direct attack on US military installation in Italy. Noit proxy attack by using terrorits group or covert intelligence action but direct military action.

Ignorin it shows that US will not respond in force to such acts and, as I've said, could ean world of problems in Pakistan.

If anything, one of the affected countries would go in unilaterally. It's Libya ffs. The risk of a NATO response is starting WW3 and ending human civilisation. Libya's not worth it.

Why would this result in WW3? Libya was bombed and no global nuclear war erupted. Would Soviets up the ante over Libya, when Libya was clarly provoking others? It's one thing to be a nuisance and at least trying to cover your tracks and another to openly attack NATO.
 
Top