Snowdon is a dummy

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

We need to put some NSA / GCHQ people in jail. Otherwise this sort of stuff will never stop.

We need to smash up some of the little countries so they learn not to try to put our officials in jail.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

We need to smash up some of the little countries so they learn not to try to put our officials in jail.

LOL and the nations with enough of a military to defense themselves?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

LOL and the nations with enough of a military to defense themselves?

No such thing.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

No such thing.

So you thing that for example France, Germany and Russian could not put up a fight and harm us?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

So you thing that for example France, Germany and Russian could not put up a fight and harm us?

Put up a fight? Sure.

Harm us? Not without using nukes (and prompting us to use nukes back).

2 Replies

@oralloy,

If attacked, France would use its nuclear arsenal against the US without hesitation. We'd take you down with us... That's precisely what those weapons are made for: to be able to tell the US and the Russians to f... off if we want to. The boy is fantacising, as usual.

4 Replies

@Olivier5,

Unbelievably stupid, hell bent on Armageddon. Considering the situation in the ME, what sort of idiot would advocate attacking long term NATO ally Turkey?

How would that improve things?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I don't know, didn't mean to make it a big deal. I thought later perhaps it was because it reported the troops of NATO which would leaving would be replaced with US troops, I don't believe that was reported in the previous article. I guess I just didn't understand your point with posting the article directly to me since you didn't have any comments and that is what I meant by being obscure. I was being rude for no reason, was in a mood because of another thread.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

That's precisely what those weapons are made for: to be able to tell the US and the Russians to f... off if we want to

You are hardly unique in that, all countries have been doing that since the first was made. Some inventions are not good.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

That's the reason why too many countries with too many nukes only increases the possibility of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Harm us? Not without using nukes (and prompting us to use nukes back).

Oh they could not attacked our carriers and other military forces with out using nukes?

An if we would attacks their populations centers with out using nukes they could not return the favor by way of for example cruise missiles launch from subs off our coast?

2 Replies

@BillRM,

If America decided to attack NATO allies and Russia, what side do you think the rest of the world will take, countries like China, Pakistan, India, North Korea, (all nuclear powers,) not to mention all the Latin American countries?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Why are we even talking about such an unlikely event? Of course if the US goes after NATO and Russia the rest of the world would side NATO and Russia and rightfully so. Hopefully, with God in heaven, an event such as that would never in a million years happen. (excuse me for those who don't believe)

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

If attacked, France would use its nuclear arsenal against the US without hesitation.

Unlikely, unless the attack on France involved nukes to begin with.

Olivier5 wrote:

That's precisely what those weapons are made for: to be able to tell the US and the Russians to f... off if we want to.

The reason those weapons were made is to deter a nuclear attack against France.

In that, they are successful. I did not propose nuking France.

Well, I probably wouldn't have proposed it even without the deterrence, come to think of it. But anyway, not very likely that, if France were faced with a conventional war with the US, the French government would choose to instead have a nuclear war with the US.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Oh they could not attacked our carriers and other military forces with out using nukes?
An if we would attacks their populations centers with out using nukes they could not return the favor by way of for example cruise missiles launch from subs off our coast?

They could try. They might manage to cause some light damage.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

Why are we even talking about such an unlikely event?

Because the little countries like to mouth off at the US for no reason, and now and then it is good to remind them of their proper place.

revelette2 wrote:

Of course if the US goes after NATO and Russia the rest of the world would side NATO and Russia and rightfully so.

I'd think most of the world would sit out the fight. There is nothing particularly right about siding against the US.

We could likely take the entire world in a straight fight if we had to, be it nuclear or conventional.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Especially after the Iraq war. We now know the US military is rich but not particularly smart. The Turks would easily defeat them.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You wrote, (seriously?)

Quote:

We could likely take the entire world in a straight fight if we had to, be it nuclear or conventional.

It's no wonder this world gets closer to a world holocaust.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

France's deterrence strategy specifically mentions that France should use its nukes to deter a conventional aggression by a much larger force. That is what these nukes are designed to do, and why they exist. We don't need them to deal with Belgium or Mali. These nukes might also help 'deter a nuclear attack against France' but that's not their primary role.

If the US ever decides to invade us, they'd better shut down our nukes first. Otherwise they can kiss all their major cities and 3/4 of their population goodbye.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

France's deterrence strategy specifically mentions that France should use its nukes to deter a conventional aggression by a much larger force.

That would lead to an interesting dilemma for France then, if they were ever faced with such a conventional invasion.

If France used their strategic nukes and provoked a nuclear retaliation, the end result would likely be worse for France than if they had kept their strategic nukes in reserve.

Traditionally if a nuclear power wishes to use nukes to prevent overwhelming conventional invasion, they do not use deterrence by strategic nukes. Rather they develop tactical nukes which could destroy a large conventional army without rising to the level of strategic nuclear war.

1 Reply

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know