The United States has never activated article 5. Get your facts straight before attempting to use an LLM to reply to me.

The coalition for Afghanistan was voluntary. This isn't even that, it's just flying our planes over Spain's airspace.

Even as a joint contributor I see no reason for the US to pay for bases it's never going to be allowed to use.

▲

ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

https://2001-2009.state.gov/s/ct/intl/io/nato/index.htm

> After the 9/11 attacks on the United States, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Allies invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, the collective-defense clause, for the first time in NATO's history.

No LLM needed, nor used. Direct from the US State Department!

> Even as a joint contributor I see no reason for the US to pay for bases it's never going to be allowed to use.

It continues to be able to use them. It has never been allowed to use them for things Spain finds objectionable.

▲

yesco 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Glad we are on the same page, because yes, as you pointed out, it literally says here in plaintext that it was NATO Allies that activated it, not the United States.

	▲	ceejayoz 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Is the US not one of those "NATO allies"? I'm not clear on how a semantic quibble that amounts to "Spain and the rest of Europe proactively affirmed their Article 5 obligations to the US" helps your case here. You have, if anything, effectively demonstrated Spain's commitment to the agreement.

▲

Octoth0rpe 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I hate to say this, but they're correct, if only pedantically. The claim was:

> The United States has never activated article 5

The US didn't activate it. It was:

> The decision to invoke NATO's collective self-defense provisions was undertaken at NATO's own initiative, without a request by the United States

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_NATO_Article_5_contingenc...

Regardless, article 5 was activated _on behalf_ of the US, if not at the US's request.

▲

ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent [-]

If we're gonna go to that level of splitting hairs, then I'd suggest "NATO - including Spain - did it without us even having to ask" is quite supportive of my position.

	▲	Octoth0rpe 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I tend to agree.

▲

Octoth0rpe 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I see no reason for the US to pay for bases it's never going to be allowed to use.

Which isn't the situation being imposed by Spain. They're being told they can't use the airspace for one specific military action. They maintain use of their bases in other ways (training, presumably ship refueling, maintenance, etc). They may be able to use the airspace for _other_ military actions in the future.