Wouldn't a country like Luxembourg have an agreement with an ally? You have countries where the US has no diplomatic presence - e.g. the US doesn't have an embassy in North Korea, and Americans have to use the Swedish embassy if they need protection.
Pretty much any instance where the military has been sent in to rescue a country's nationals abroad is limited to the countries that have that kind of military capability, the ability to deploy it rapidly and the willingness to use it. Examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barras http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/9... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_8969 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Peacemaker_hostage_c...
Is this to say that the US or UK will always rescue its citizens abroad? No. But there are types of rescues that only the US, UK, France, and maybe Russia are capable of mounting.
In Hollywood movies. In real life, from a lot of accounts I've read over the years, the local embassies/consulate/etc are not much help and not very eager to help either...
British Paras showed up to evacuate the city; most people decided to stay because now the city was secure...
The USG's propensity to help its own citizens abroad is a function of local power politics and the ability of the petitioner to create waves in Washington. Tread carefully before getting into trouble abroad.
Yes they do. In small countries the situation is even more personal and usually the PM himself is involved every time a citizen is caught behind enemy lines.
Happened quite a lot when the US started messing around with Gaddafi. Lots of Europeans working there were very reluctant to leave and then they returned there immediately after and had to be rescued again.
If you're a citizen of somewhere like Luxembourg they just don't have the capability to reach across the world into somewhere like Syria and rescue you like the US or UK would attempt to.
Mass evacuations usually get several governments involved and they all contribute proportionally, or France sends a few planes and basks in the glory.
Regarding military operations to solve such situations it seems to me as if it's a matter not just of capability but of willingness as well. Europeans tend to think 50 cents to the foreign ministry is a better investment than $1 to the military, and that approach carries over in crisis. Empirically, my impression is that military action has about a 33/33/33% rate of success/dead hostages/"we just scared a grandma and couldn't find any hostages". Diplomacy has a higher success rate but it can take years. That's the sort of trade-off I don't envy politicians for.
Furthermore, if you get in trouble with terrorists, I think the US passport is probably among the worst to have.
It would be very interesting to get some hard facts on this from international insurers or so that deal with these things. It's unclear to me whether that eigenvector's (fairly prevalent) opinion holds water outside Hollywood movies.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-06-04/u-s-ranso...
With the Irish passport, you will have an easier time getting into and travelling between many countries, but if things go south, the UK passport may help in getting out of the Country.
This will become more prominent after Brexit, as Northern Irish citizens will still be able to move and work freely throughout the EU with their Irish passport, whilst retaining the benefits of their British one (unless a United Ireland happens).
If being a US citizen was such an advantage, Americans wouldn't be traveling the world with Canadian flags sown onto their backpacks.
Nor US. (Didn't evacuate citizens)
Pick any country you think does this well and I'll find examples where the country dropped the ball.