OOC

Once I flatten Palestine, could I get in?

I think you've got as much chance as I have of getting a permanent slot on the SC.

If he didn't flatten Palestine and even recognized it as a state, I'd be amenable to the proposition...oh wait, I'm the UK (dammit). Those words are not even worth their weight in the internetz.

Actually...

No wait no.

I would do it just to piss the Arabs off. Not only is Jerusalem in Jewish hands, but it's part of NATO. :lol:

Israeli troops will eventually roll into Jerusalem and prrrobably pay all the Palis to leave for good. Then establish a mostly Jewish religious city and move the capital there.... I'd let NATO scatter bases all over the place afterwards.

Who next? Maybe Saudi Arabia can join, India too and maybe South Korea? I can't see a single NATO state signing off on it frankly, especially if you launch an attack on Gaza. There'll be protests like last time across Europe and you'll alienate your Government something chronic...more so than attacking the French President which nobody seems to have given a shit about somehow :blink:

South Korea are already special members with the Kiwis, Australia and Japan for the purposes of military tech and some other benefits.

Would NATO be obliged to come to South Korea's defence though? What would Israel bring to NATO? I can't see it being anything other than diplomatic suicide for those that would contemplate such a move but the way a lot of people seem to take their real life non-fussed/pro-Israel attitude to IC issues seems to be a recurring pattern so I guess it's no surprise this came up!

The PA will formally declare war on Israel, and wage a ridiculous war on Israel for independence. Surely that counts as grounds for asswhipping?

Not if they declare war. Only when unrelated individuals from an entirely different country that is your ally blow up some buildings are you allowed to asswhoop them :P
Obvious Iraq reference is Obvious

I sense a realism call out. Declare war? On Israel? As a non-state-entity? Really?

Anonymous declared war on Israel, why not Palestine? :P But fair point, seriously. Very badly phrased. What I meant was Hamas will "declare a Jihad" on Israel and declare independence. It is basically because US vetoed the UN membership resolution so they're saying "Right, if not through diplomacy then fine." That was my logic anyway. Any better ideas for what could justify a proper m Israeli Asskicking

I distinctly recall some clause which requires candidates to not have any existing conflicts with their neighbors.

Israel? In a bad hood? Nah.

Any sentence involving "Israel" and "The Ghetto" immediately qualifies for awkwardness.

Just checking quickly that plane crash happened after the game started right during CR2012 so would not be in game occurance correct.

If the round started while CR2012 was happening and there was no RP involving it, it could go either way and I'd say we leave it up to those involved.

Well we don't have a Norway player now and they were the host and operator of the aircraft/airmen lost.

Since I am Russia, I must be nitpicky on your post, AndyZ.

The Baltic build up is perfectly provoked in the form of America's plans for missile defense in Europe.

The precedence I supposedly set in Georgia was set by the US in May 2011 when SOCOM went into Pakistan.

The Arctic I will admit you are mostly right. As soon as I see CR13 being up (I'll NPC it if I have to, being Norwegian), expect me.

And Cuba, well... Yes, I'm sticking a Naval base and air field there. No ballistic missiles... yet...

Also, Cold Response is an exercise held in Northern Norway. Denmark couldn't possibly hope to not only steal the exercise from Norway, but also to successfully hold it in this short notice. I can guarantee you, politicians in Northern Norway would be pissed if the Norwegian government didn't force you to grab it from our cold dead hands.

Also, a military exercise in Greenland would be marred by the environmental concerns. Now for me to go invade the North Pole. :P

Good point. In that case, consider it an invitation to take part in the summit and engage as necessary.

Over my cold dead body are you taking Canadian territory

Two words: Lomonosov Ridge.
Canada can go cry at Denmark over Hans Island :P

This, OOC, is fairly accurate. On the other hand, Denmark's comments aren't really that off base, are they? NATO is an organization that is primarily notable for it's exceptionable status.

Oh, and for Cuba, you can blame NATO expansion into Eastern Europe (where did that promise go?).

Guys, come on now. This is... awkward. Are you all really going to allow me to install an Islamist-leaning Turk in charge of overseeing NATO, by default?

Does America ever actually put forward candidates for the position of Secretary-General? I know they are never chosen as the Head General of NATO, or whatever his fancy title is, is American and thus a European usually fills the role.

There's only three active NATO countries. What'd you expect. Last time I can remember their being this much absentee imperial overlords NATO there was a kinda-sorta WWIII centered around Serbia.

Just to be totally clear to those involved in NATO (in the event there exists some confusion on this), you're too far away to intervene directly in the ongoing operation. So that's out.

Pretty much anything else (from diplomatic consensus to an invasion of your own) is fair game.

Well, that's not entirely true. The US has naval assets all over the place, and a lot of Europe has anti-piracy assets in the Indian Ocean. Granted, that gives us about 2 days or so before anything could be effectively forward deployed, but it's not out of the question if it escalates into bona fide conflict.

I am going to have a sail a carrier through your silly "blockade" aren't I? :P

If you can get it through the Straits, sure. Of course, aircraft carriers are banned through the Straits, at Turkey's discretion, under the Montreaux Convention. :-P

Turkey has historically allowed Russian carriers to pass freely. Legal precedent is against you on that point, Dax.

There is also the fact that it is not an aircraft carrier. It's a Task Force Support Ship :P

Its a nuclear powered vessel too isn't in, in which case trying to stop it would only cause an ecological disaster.

Assuming they tried to sink it, yeah. But I really don't think Turkey would open fire on a Russian warship acting in accordance with the Montreux Convention.

If Turkey wants to bar Russian aircraft carriers that aren't named aircraft carriers from transiting the strait then it'll have to get a legal addendum to the Convention. Which I'm pretty sure won't fly with the international community. And it'd take too long anyway.

Of course, because Russia and Turkey have never been 'at war'. The Montreux Convention gives Turkey full discretion to close the Straits to foreign warships - of any caliber - as well as merchant ships in a wartime scenario or "when it is threatened by aggression". If Moscow calls the blockade of Tartus 'an act of aggression' and proceeds to dispatch an aircraft carrier (pardon me, Aircraft Carrying Taskforce Support Cruiser) to the area, that's justification enough to say that Turkey is threatened by aggression. At that point, Russia's asking for conflict, and if a UNSC resolution passes authorizing a mission to protect civilians, the Russian Navy's threatening to interfere with an internationally-mandated operation.

And besides, if I close the Straits, citing Russia aggression against Turkey, Russia's got two options. It can go to the UN and protest, which would be an abject failure; or it can start shooting. I don't think I need to spell out the obvious implications of that.

It it can power the damn engines and sail through the straits forcing Turkey to stand down or fire. No options are really ideal. Just expect me to push your blockade around Syria, for general hilarity and such.

Also, it's Heavy Nuclear-Powered Aircraft-Carrying Task Force Support Ship. I think. I'm not really sure anymore.

I smell a good RP developing here. Also, why are we always on the opposite sides of conflicts in every round?

Now Russia's just being pretentious.
Putin. The original hipster.

Russia is a Black Sea Power under the terms of the Montreux Convention. This means it can send whatever the hell it wants through the Strait. For instance, Russia can legally send a submarine through. America can't. That's why there are never any American submarines in the Black Sea.

Now, I assume you're talking about invoking Article 20. That's all well and good but you're ignoring Article 21.

Unless you're specifically invoking Article 20 because of Russia, you can't actually deny those Russian warships right of transit. Unless Skye actually said they were based in the Black Sea. That would be one enormously huge mistake.

Now, whether or not Skye sends those ships to Tartus is another matter entirely.