Post Left Wing looniness here

WTH??
" French President Emmanuel Macron said Wednesday he will discuss with European allies the possibility of using France’s nuclear deterrent to protect the continent from Russian threats, amid concerns over potential U.S. disengagement."

apnews.com

Macron says he'll confer with allies on protecting Europe with French nuclear deterrence

French President Emmanuel Macron said Wednesday he will confer with European allies on the idea of using France’s nuclear deterrent to protect the continent in the face of Russia’s threat.
apnews.com apnews.com
 
Horn6721 said:
WTH??
" French President Emmanuel Macron said Wednesday he will discuss with European allies the possibility of using France’s nuclear deterrent to protect the continent from Russian threats, amid concerns over potential U.S. disengagement."

apnews.com

Macron says he'll confer with allies on protecting Europe with French nuclear deterrence

French President Emmanuel Macron said Wednesday he will confer with European allies on the idea of using France’s nuclear deterrent to protect the continent in the face of Russia’s threat.
apnews.com apnews.com
Click to expand...
Hey, if France wants to fill our role of protection and waste their funds, I say have at it.
 
Horn6721 said:
WTH??
" French President Emmanuel Macron said Wednesday he will discuss with European allies the possibility of using France’s nuclear deterrent to protect the continent from Russian threats, amid concerns over potential U.S. disengagement."

apnews.com

Macron says he'll confer with allies on protecting Europe with French nuclear deterrence

French President Emmanuel Macron said Wednesday he will confer with European allies on the idea of using France’s nuclear deterrent to protect the continent in the face of Russia’s threat.
apnews.com apnews.com
Click to expand...

Look at his words closely. He's not saying he'd use nuclear weapons regarding Ukraine. They don't have the balls to do that. He's saying he's open to the French nuclear arsenal as a deterrent against Russian aggression against French allies on the continent.
 
No, this is not scary. For 60+ years, the West has not been willing to keep a conventional military force in Europe sufficient to prevent Russia from invading. Consequently, we initially said we would “nuke” them if they tried. Next, they developed their own ICBMs, and their play was that if they invaded Europe, we would not fire our ICBMs at them because it would trigger mutual suicide. Then we developed “tactical” nuclear weapons—smaller, closer— and we said that if they invaded, we would fire them at their conventional forces. (They tried to claim there was no such thing as limited nuclear war, and they would respond with all out mutual destruction, but we were willing to call their bluff; if they invade Europe with conventional forces and we fire tactical nukes, why would they trigger their own suicide?)
So, unless we want to keep a standing army in Europe much larger than we do (we don’t; can’t), the threat of firing tactical nukes at invading Russians IS our defense. Macron is just saying that if for some reason USA won’t be providing that deterrent, France will.
 
BTW—I was saying “Europe,” but more technically, NATO. Adding NATO countries (now there are 30+, such as Albania, etc) is explicitly adding places in the world where WE ARE COMMITTED TO STRIKE FiRST with nukes to protect that real estate. Ukraine is NOT in NATO—aren’t you glad about that right now??
 
Horn6721 said:
Mr D
Even the veiled reference is frightening as hell
Click to expand...

It really shouldn't be. As VYFan showed, it's a normal part of NATO policy. It's what the US uses to deter Russia and previously detered the Soviet Union from invading from East Germany.

Keep in mind that France is a member of NATO just as the US is. It also has a nuclear arsenal - deployed mostly by aircraft and SLBMs. It's not as big as ours, but it's big enough to cause a hell of a mess if necessary. If we're looking for Europe to carry more of its own weight, isn't this a good thing?
 
VYFan said:
For 60+ years, the West has not been willing to keep a conventional military force in Europe sufficient to prevent Russia from invading.
Click to expand...

Yes. And keep in mind that this was true during the Cold War, when the US had well over 300,000 troops in Europe and the Brits had about 55,000 (not counting those in the UK). During REFORGER exercises, we would temporarily deploy about 100K more. Sounds like a lot, but the Soviets had over 300K just in Germany and over 1M total in Eastern Europe. Our presence was basically big enough to slow them down long enough to deploy nukes and send more troops.

Today, we have about 1/5 of that, and the Brits have almost none. We can't deter anything substantial in Europe without nukes. Trump talks as though we have some huge presence in Europe, and we don't. Our overall defense budget is big, but in terms of actual military power on the continent, we really don't have much.
 
VYFan said:
Macron is just saying that if for some reason USA won’t be providing that deterrent, France will.
Click to expand...
That will put the world at peace - NOT. Eisenhower and Patton had no time for de Gaulle, but FDR and Churchill forced them to treat de Gaulle as a peer. The French Military (sans the Foreign Legion) is a paper military, but probably the best outside of the UK.
 
Compared to the Euro forces our 20k look stout. Trump doesn't want to see ONE American soldier die in Europe or overseas. Period

To be absolutely clear I am totally in favor of Euros sending troops etc to help Ukraine. Even Turkey just announced they would also send troops. Yea Turkeys

What I questioned and do question is France bringing Nukes into it and now Russia is responding back reminding everyone they have over 6000 nukes.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Look at his words closely. He's not saying he'd use nuclear weapons regarding Ukraine. They don't have the balls to do that. He's saying he's open to the French nuclear arsenal as a deterrent against Russian aggression against French allies on the continent.
Click to expand...

I think that comes naturally out of the existence of the nukes, right? The existence means there is a capability. If there is a capability, there is a condition under which it will be utilized. The goal for us all is to avoid such condition.
 
VYFan said:
(They tried to claim there was no such thing as limited nuclear war, and they would respond with all out mutual destruction, but we were willing to call their bluff; if they invade Europe with conventional forces and we fire tactical nukes, why would they trigger their own suicide?)
Click to expand...

According to the war games the US has carried out over several decades limited nuclear war always goes general, especially if you have an Aggie making decisions (no that isn't a joke).
 
Monahorns said:
I think that comes naturally out of the existence of the nukes, right? The existence means there is a capability.
Click to expand...

Basically, yes. You also need a system for effectively deploying the weapons.

Monahorns said:
If there is a capability, there is a condition under which it will be utilized. The goal for us all is to avoid such condition.
Click to expand...

That should certainly be the goal, particularly when it comes to strategic nuclear weapons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top