But in modern warfare, airspaces matter more than walls. I recall in the 1986 airstrike against Libya:
For the Libyan raid, the United States was denied overflight rights by France, Spain, and Italy as well as the use of European continental bases, forcing the USAF portion of the operation to be flown around France and Spain, over Portugal and through the Straits of Gibraltar, adding 1,300 miles (2,100 km) each way and requiring multiple aerial refuelings.[15][16]
Any NATO response to an attack on Poland or Finland will include planes from all over Europe. Not having to route around smaller places like Switzerland will make planning and executing those missions far easier.
Yeah, but although I’d defer to a real expert, I doubt Switzerland would require much if any routing. Swiss air space is not huge and they are completely surrounded by NATO countries with multiple air bases. I can’t really see it impeding anybody.
I’d forgotten this incident. It’s good that there’s precedent for handling conflicts between NATO members.
It’s worth mentioning that Spain, Italy, etc. were NATO nations. So if NATO nations could block airspace to America during the 1986 Libyan raid, they similarly have the right to block airspace to American warplanes trying to assist Poland or Finland in a war in which they’ve been attacked by Russia. A NATO-in-name-only nation like Hungary may do that.
Yes, but that wasn’t a NATO conflict. An actual military attack on a NATO nation would be a very different beast, and any nation denying NATO overflight rights in such a case would find itself out of NATO pretty quickly, I suspect.