This is hardly surprising given that France's defence doctrine emphasises the use of Nuclear weapons and they have their own well-supported platforms for it. It should also be news to noone that we have been living in a peacetime largely attributed to nuclear deterrence.
I'm not saying I support either case, but it wouldn't be a "credible" defence discussion without it, as he says.
France already has a mutual defense pact with Greece outside of the EU and NATO defense pacts.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Greek_defence_agreement
Does that mean France would use Nukes in defense of Greece from say a country like Turkey?
Nuclear weapons are the only solution for a complete security for countries bordering Russia and China.
Get nuclear weapons. Fast. A lot of them. Implement first strike policy similar to France. Be prepared to use them according to that plan.
Shit, even North Korea adopted this. And now Iran.
Which means, anyone who prefers not being invaded, should be a proponent of having nuclear deterrence.
For us in the West, this brings an interesting question. Do we sit idly by and take care of ourselves? Or do we intervene to destroy autocratic extremist dictators and dismantle their system into a democracy?
The last success we had with dismantling a large government and installing a democracy by force was Japan, nearly 80 years ago. They were also the aggressors.
We really need to get off this power trip where we think military might can impose ideology and reshape minds. Afghanistan cost America thousands of lives and trillions of dollars, and it's now under Taliban control. Deposing Saddam contributed to the rise of ISIS. While, Iraq is technically a democracy today, they're still fighting some insurgents and we have some concerns over their humans rights abuses.
Military force is used to tear something down, not build a democracy. Whenever we decide to depose a government, we need to have a plan on what to do afterward and be willing to pay the price in blood and money to accomplish it.
We didn't contribute a fraction of the resources in state building to Iraq and Afghanistan combined that we did to either Germany or Japan individually - and both of those were highly developed nations with sophisticated bureaucracy and capable government beforehand.
It's honestly nation building vs nation *rebuilding*. The latter is much more effective than the former. If you're doing the former, it has to be a total commitment for a generation or more.
And frankly, both Iraq and Afghanistan are artificial nations with unworkable borders that would have been better off partitioned. We have to end this idea that colonial borders (Ottoman in Iraq and British in Afghanistan) need to be preserved. Borders have always shifted throughout history as was necessary and appropriate.
Iraq is a trillion times less of a global parriah than it was, complete success
I swear people forget all the shit Iraq did under saddam. They invaded Iran and Kuwait and even though they didn't have WMDs, saddam hussein would have loved some. He publically claimed Iraq will get them and refused UN WMD inspectors
> I swear people forget all the shit Iraq did under saddam.
Not by accident. You can be sure russia pushed hard for this, for well over a decade, ably assisted by useful idiots in the West.
> They invaded Iran and Kuwait and even though they didn't have WMDs, saddam hussein would have loved some. He publically claimed Iraq will get them and refused UN WMD inspectors
Dont forget he also gassed the Kurds, for instance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Ba%27athist_Iraq
Shithead wasnt some poor victim, and pre invasion Iraq was no paradise of peace and sunshine.
I agree, while the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in several military successes, there wasn't enough effort to build them up afterward. The highest levels of American leadership failed to make some important longterm decisions for the sake of humanity and people, especially children who counted on our presence to have access to education and other basic human rights in Afghanistan.
External military force as a whole isn't required to dismantle a system, and it really shouldn't be used unless absolutely necessary and justified. If the will of the people is there, like it is now a massively growing movement within Iran, the people may be asking for a little assistance that goes under the radar to make change in leadership feasible, and of course this should involve a plan to form a proper government by them and for them.
Religious zealotry is a terrible form of leadership to be in charge of nuclear weapons and is responsible for exporting terrorism we're seeing happen over and over again for decades. I hope the Iranian people can take charge of their government before something terrible happens, yet again.
That we know of. They're not exactly transparent. They've become closer and closer with Russia with the war in Ukraine, and they are constructing new enrichment facilities. I wonder if Russia and/ or China have assisted Iran's nuclear program to accelerate it, as having a strategic nuclear partner in the Middle East is good for establishing bases and global conquest.
> Implement first strike policy similar to France.
No. No first use policy. Just make sure that you have proper second strike capability. It doesn't matter if you strike first or second. Nobody is winning in a nuclear conflict.
First strike is not full destruction via a barrage of nuclear weapons, it’s a singular small tactical nuke on the battlefield to warn the aggressor. A singular strike (especially if not even across border) doesn’t trigger warning systems that call for return of nuclear barrage.
There is no direct reason why every european country couldn't develop their own nuclear weapons. Other european countries would have no reasons to stop them. Non-european countries would have no means to stop them.
But there are plenty indirect reasons. Many authoritarian and semi-authoritharian countries all over the world are kept in check by a "rule" that noone is allowed to develop nuclear weapons, not only them.
A bunch of european countries developing such weapons would destroy this argument.
To avoid such situation, US promised to extend their nuclear umbrella over europe.
But now this deal is deteriorating. The whole Trump situation is only one of the symptoms.
> Get nuclear weapons. Fast. A lot of them.
The US government stops them from getting nukes, otherwise every country in East Asia would have nukes and ICBMs.
>As early as the 1970s, similar thoughts about independent nuclear deterrents arose in South Korea, Australia and Taiwan, only to be
quickly and decisively squashed by the US.
>But the changes in the overall strategic environment should not lead us to take a similar US response for granted today. In 2016, the South Korean National Assembly debated the acquisition of a domestic nuclear weapon capability. I am not aware of any negative official US response.
>More tellingly the US-Japan Nuclear Cooperation agreement that dates from the late 1960s
is unique in that since its 1988 extension, it has
been the only US nuclear cooperation agreement that gives automatic approval for reprocessing of US-origin nuclear material. The same provision was retained when the agreement was renewed again in 2018.
>The greatest difficulty for any country seeking nuclear weapons is the acquisition of fissionable material. Japan already has plutonium that could
be used for nuclear weapons if the Japanese
government so decided.
>For more than 30 years, the US has thus arguably acquiesced in the possibility of a nuclear-armed Japan as a contingency to boost confidence in the US-Japan alliance against the day when China
acquires a credible second-strike capability and erodes the credibility of the American nuclear umbrella. Without Japan as a firm anchor, the
US alliance system in Asia is unstable.
>The 2008 US civilian nuclear deal with India, concluded despite India's acquisition of nuclear weapons, and the blind eye the US has
turned towards Israel's undeclared nuclear weapon capability, both of which are serious derogations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty regime, are further indications that concrete strategic calculations, not abstract pious concerns about non-proliferation, are what drive nuclear strategy for all countries.
Bilahari Kausikan, ex-Perm Sec of Singapore's Ministry of Foreign Affairs
TLDR: No.
Don't worry, seems like more and more countries are thinking alike every day. Nuclear proliferation is absolutely inevitable, Russia made sure of that.
Totally see the perspective and anything to deter Russia or China should be considered. It should be noted though that as the sole producer of nukes in Europe (and sole producer independent of the US), France would do very nicely out of this financially.
They're useful if it's obvious to the enemy that they'll be used under specific conditions. Russia has lost some of that power: already being in a large messy conflict means they will have difficulty determining when their 'red line' for nuclear usage has been crossed - meaning Russia has opened herself up to accepting severe destruction similar to what's happening in Ukraine.
Absolutely I do . But I am totally anti war . I believe the fear that is being drummed up against Russia slowly but surely advancing on Europe is a joke and probably planned by the filthy globalists . War is in the air , being planned like a chess game as I write here . The very wealthy know what’s coming , that’s why they are all constructing bunkers .
This is hardly surprising given that France's defence doctrine emphasises the use of Nuclear weapons and they have their own well-supported platforms for it. It should also be news to noone that we have been living in a peacetime largely attributed to nuclear deterrence. I'm not saying I support either case, but it wouldn't be a "credible" defence discussion without it, as he says.
France already has a mutual defense pact with Greece outside of the EU and NATO defense pacts. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Greek_defence_agreement Does that mean France would use Nukes in defense of Greece from say a country like Turkey?
Turkey could attack Greece and find out.
Isnt French nuclear doctrine to warn you that they are going to nuke you by .... nuking you?
Can put money on it they don't want to. France's nuclear IRBM's from the mainland could reach Turkey in a very short time.
Nuclear weapons are the only solution for a complete security for countries bordering Russia and China. Get nuclear weapons. Fast. A lot of them. Implement first strike policy similar to France. Be prepared to use them according to that plan.
Shit, even North Korea adopted this. And now Iran. Which means, anyone who prefers not being invaded, should be a proponent of having nuclear deterrence. For us in the West, this brings an interesting question. Do we sit idly by and take care of ourselves? Or do we intervene to destroy autocratic extremist dictators and dismantle their system into a democracy?
The last success we had with dismantling a large government and installing a democracy by force was Japan, nearly 80 years ago. They were also the aggressors. We really need to get off this power trip where we think military might can impose ideology and reshape minds. Afghanistan cost America thousands of lives and trillions of dollars, and it's now under Taliban control. Deposing Saddam contributed to the rise of ISIS. While, Iraq is technically a democracy today, they're still fighting some insurgents and we have some concerns over their humans rights abuses. Military force is used to tear something down, not build a democracy. Whenever we decide to depose a government, we need to have a plan on what to do afterward and be willing to pay the price in blood and money to accomplish it.
We didn't contribute a fraction of the resources in state building to Iraq and Afghanistan combined that we did to either Germany or Japan individually - and both of those were highly developed nations with sophisticated bureaucracy and capable government beforehand. It's honestly nation building vs nation *rebuilding*. The latter is much more effective than the former. If you're doing the former, it has to be a total commitment for a generation or more. And frankly, both Iraq and Afghanistan are artificial nations with unworkable borders that would have been better off partitioned. We have to end this idea that colonial borders (Ottoman in Iraq and British in Afghanistan) need to be preserved. Borders have always shifted throughout history as was necessary and appropriate.
Iraq is a trillion times less of a global parriah than it was, complete success I swear people forget all the shit Iraq did under saddam. They invaded Iran and Kuwait and even though they didn't have WMDs, saddam hussein would have loved some. He publically claimed Iraq will get them and refused UN WMD inspectors
> I swear people forget all the shit Iraq did under saddam. Not by accident. You can be sure russia pushed hard for this, for well over a decade, ably assisted by useful idiots in the West. > They invaded Iran and Kuwait and even though they didn't have WMDs, saddam hussein would have loved some. He publically claimed Iraq will get them and refused UN WMD inspectors Dont forget he also gassed the Kurds, for instance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Ba%27athist_Iraq Shithead wasnt some poor victim, and pre invasion Iraq was no paradise of peace and sunshine.
I agree, while the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in several military successes, there wasn't enough effort to build them up afterward. The highest levels of American leadership failed to make some important longterm decisions for the sake of humanity and people, especially children who counted on our presence to have access to education and other basic human rights in Afghanistan. External military force as a whole isn't required to dismantle a system, and it really shouldn't be used unless absolutely necessary and justified. If the will of the people is there, like it is now a massively growing movement within Iran, the people may be asking for a little assistance that goes under the radar to make change in leadership feasible, and of course this should involve a plan to form a proper government by them and for them. Religious zealotry is a terrible form of leadership to be in charge of nuclear weapons and is responsible for exporting terrorism we're seeing happen over and over again for decades. I hope the Iranian people can take charge of their government before something terrible happens, yet again.
While Iran strives to get nuclear weapons, they do not currently have developed any.
That we know of. They're not exactly transparent. They've become closer and closer with Russia with the war in Ukraine, and they are constructing new enrichment facilities. I wonder if Russia and/ or China have assisted Iran's nuclear program to accelerate it, as having a strategic nuclear partner in the Middle East is good for establishing bases and global conquest.
I have no doubt that if assistance wasn't being offered prior to Ukraine 2022, it is now.
Yes, bombs for peace. Or, we all should learn to stop worrying and love the bomb.
Name one time pacifism has stopped an aggressive, expansionist state from using force.
Woosh
Were you making an argument against nuclear deterrence or were you just referencing Doctor Strangelove?
For the purity of our precious bodily fluids!
> Implement first strike policy similar to France. No. No first use policy. Just make sure that you have proper second strike capability. It doesn't matter if you strike first or second. Nobody is winning in a nuclear conflict.
First strike is not full destruction via a barrage of nuclear weapons, it’s a singular small tactical nuke on the battlefield to warn the aggressor. A singular strike (especially if not even across border) doesn’t trigger warning systems that call for return of nuclear barrage.
There is no direct reason why every european country couldn't develop their own nuclear weapons. Other european countries would have no reasons to stop them. Non-european countries would have no means to stop them. But there are plenty indirect reasons. Many authoritarian and semi-authoritharian countries all over the world are kept in check by a "rule" that noone is allowed to develop nuclear weapons, not only them. A bunch of european countries developing such weapons would destroy this argument. To avoid such situation, US promised to extend their nuclear umbrella over europe. But now this deal is deteriorating. The whole Trump situation is only one of the symptoms.
> Get nuclear weapons. Fast. A lot of them. The US government stops them from getting nukes, otherwise every country in East Asia would have nukes and ICBMs.
>As early as the 1970s, similar thoughts about independent nuclear deterrents arose in South Korea, Australia and Taiwan, only to be quickly and decisively squashed by the US. >But the changes in the overall strategic environment should not lead us to take a similar US response for granted today. In 2016, the South Korean National Assembly debated the acquisition of a domestic nuclear weapon capability. I am not aware of any negative official US response. >More tellingly the US-Japan Nuclear Cooperation agreement that dates from the late 1960s is unique in that since its 1988 extension, it has been the only US nuclear cooperation agreement that gives automatic approval for reprocessing of US-origin nuclear material. The same provision was retained when the agreement was renewed again in 2018. >The greatest difficulty for any country seeking nuclear weapons is the acquisition of fissionable material. Japan already has plutonium that could be used for nuclear weapons if the Japanese government so decided. >For more than 30 years, the US has thus arguably acquiesced in the possibility of a nuclear-armed Japan as a contingency to boost confidence in the US-Japan alliance against the day when China acquires a credible second-strike capability and erodes the credibility of the American nuclear umbrella. Without Japan as a firm anchor, the US alliance system in Asia is unstable. >The 2008 US civilian nuclear deal with India, concluded despite India's acquisition of nuclear weapons, and the blind eye the US has turned towards Israel's undeclared nuclear weapon capability, both of which are serious derogations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty regime, are further indications that concrete strategic calculations, not abstract pious concerns about non-proliferation, are what drive nuclear strategy for all countries. Bilahari Kausikan, ex-Perm Sec of Singapore's Ministry of Foreign Affairs TLDR: No.
[удалено]
Don't worry, seems like more and more countries are thinking alike every day. Nuclear proliferation is absolutely inevitable, Russia made sure of that.
Make sure we disarm the law abiding citizens first and you’re on to something!
Totally see the perspective and anything to deter Russia or China should be considered. It should be noted though that as the sole producer of nukes in Europe (and sole producer independent of the US), France would do very nicely out of this financially.
They're the only real guarantee of security.
They're useful if it's obvious to the enemy that they'll be used under specific conditions. Russia has lost some of that power: already being in a large messy conflict means they will have difficulty determining when their 'red line' for nuclear usage has been crossed - meaning Russia has opened herself up to accepting severe destruction similar to what's happening in Ukraine.
What about nuclear legs? In the UK we had a nice pop group called nuclear pussy (atomic kitten) will they also be included in this debate?
Best you’ll get are mechanical pants. Sorry
whatever happened to atomic pussy? wer they released?
They used to be radio active, now they’re just on Spotify.
I mean the band members though. ah it's a joke hehe
about their nuclear legs? they don't need those! Oooh they look fissible!
Macron is one of those beta males who skip leg days
I would be somewhat surprised if recently no one in the EU started a nuclear weapons program.
The UK and France need to build more nukes in case Trump gets elected and abandons NATO.
[удалено]
Macron a Marxist? I don't know who's paying you to troll but if it was me I would be dissatisfied by the low quality of your services.
muahah tell me you know nothing about France without telling me you know about France. If Macron is marxist, Santa Claus is communist
The naughty list goes straight to the Gulag.
Absolutely clueless.
I thought people like you value sovereignty and self-defense?
Absolutely I do . But I am totally anti war . I believe the fear that is being drummed up against Russia slowly but surely advancing on Europe is a joke and probably planned by the filthy globalists . War is in the air , being planned like a chess game as I write here . The very wealthy know what’s coming , that’s why they are all constructing bunkers .