The US already threatened to invade the Netherlands not so long ago, worked like a charm. I'm pretty sure your scenario would be resolved just as easily
The US isn't even willing to send troops to deal with the Houthis and now you're treating an invasion of the Netherlands as credible? Maybe you should cool it with the propaganda here.
> and now you're treating an invasion of the Netherlands as credible?
It is as credible as it gets. The explicit threat is in the American Service-Members' Protection Act and it was signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 2, 2002.
It's as uncredible as it gets the moment you spend more than 1 minute thinking about it. Let's play this logically through.
In order to coerce the Netherlands to align with ASML Export Controls (With the assumption they do not already align with such policy), the US (Who exactly in the US, the famously No-New-Wars Donald Trump, or an isolationist Congress) is going to the invoke the Hague Invasion Act, to "free" nonexistent American officials that are held up by nonexistent criminal convictions by the Hague? And this will somehow coerce the Netherlands despite being completely unrelated to ASML which is located 137 KM away in Veldhoven?
Even the gritty details, how exactly is this "invasion" of yours going to work? You are going to send a battallion of Marines to attack the Hague, or are you going to Veldhoven 137 KM away to occupy ASML Factories or capture the ASML CEO? Which of the two? All the while provoking a kinetic war with a technologically-peer nation? Even if you do manage to do it, what then? Your supply lines are completely cut, enemy troops are moving in with greater firepower and numbers. Or are you assuming some kind of national invasion where the US Military is going to direct a CSG to attack the Dutch then some sort of occupation, likely within wider war against Europe which likely lead to quagmire of massive American casualties, all for the sake of "coercing" ASML not to export to China? And American people, US Congress, political rivals and the Democrats will just stand by instead of likely removing the incumbent?
The nonalignment is dubious. The motivation within individuals is non-credible. The mechanism does not exist. The invasion is highly improbable and self-defeating. The very fact that you label this as "as credible as it gets" should tell anyone that you and OP are either extremely uninformed, or being intellectually dishonest with an agenda to divide.
> In order to coerce the Netherlands to align with ASML Export Controls
Oops. You went down the wrong route. The credible threat I'm talking about is over the International Criminal Court potentially prosecuting American service members.
That is as credible as it gets. Elected politicians got together, and signed their promise of it happening into literal law. There is no more credible way for America to signal that they are going to do something besides actually doing it.
Please re-read my comment more carefully. I'm not talking about the ASML or export controls.
> The very fact that you label this as "as credible as it gets" should tell anyone that you and OP are either extremely uninformed, or being intellectually dishonest with an agenda to divide.
You sling a lot of accusations. Try to not guess what I might think. Read my actual words. Thanks.
America did in fact threaten the Netherland with invasion. Credibly. This is a fact. I precisely named my source in my previous comment.
No. They did not do this in context of ASML, nor did I say that they did that.
> The credible threat I'm talking about is over the International Criminal Court potentially prosecuting American service members
The ICC doesn't execute its arrest warrants. Even if it were stupid enough to issue one for an American's arrest, there would be plenty of time for de-escalation between its issuance and execution.
Sorry, but I think it's bullshit. I understand why they would write some paper with threats to put some pressure on Netherlands, but actually acting on it is completely ridiculous if you do a very simple pros and cons balance.
>Please re-read my comment more carefully. I'm not talking about the ASML or export controls.
So you're intellectually dishonest then. You reply to my comment criticising
the framing of an US invasion in the context of ASML export controls, disputing such framing as propaganda and then now you say it's not at all about ASML exports in a thread about ASML exports and instead some pendantic nitpick about the Hague Act?
> The credible threat I'm talking about is over the International Criminal Court potentially prosecuting American service
Declaring war on America and then firing missiles at their cities is also a way for an credible invasion of any country by America to occur. Does that mean then that the invasion of X country by America is a "credible threat" then?
Either you using your own made up definition that is so generalized that it is a pointless statement, or No. Because such a scenario relies upon a series of prior actions (and even the mechanics of the invasion itself) that would be considered highly improbable, which is what makes it non-credible. You'd have to explain how such a realistic chain of events could occur given contemporary context.
