SteeperSideCandles

@BIforPeace @HorribleFour @Alberto_Rizzi_ I’m not suggesting France would launch a nuke if Russia invaded the Baltics. The issue is whether invading EU free movement territory could potentially lead to French people being killed by Russia, escalating to combat between the two countries, which could then spiral

@Chuttnise @HorribleFour @Alberto_Rizzi_ Not enough for meaningful counterforce strikes only for countervalue strikes, like nuking Moscow and the response to that would be the total destruction of France(except the overseas departments). French nukes can credibly deter a nuclear attack against France, but that's it.

No serious person in Europe actually believes the US will honour its Art. 5 commitment if Russia attacks any European country. That trust is long gone.

@HorribleFour @BIforPeace @Alberto_Rizzi_ It being costly for both sides is the essence of deterrence though

@Chuttnise @BIforPeace @Alberto_Rizzi_ Catastrophic? Sure. But not the apocalyptic level scenario many people seem to want it to be...I still heavily doubt Russia tries it, even with the US staying out of it, but it would still be costly for both sides. More so without US assistance.

@HorribleFour @BIforPeace @Alberto_Rizzi_ Each submarine carries 16 missiles, and each missile can carry 6 warheads. Surely a launch of those would be catastrophic?

@Chuttnise @BIforPeace @Alberto_Rizzi_ A big part of people's misinterpretation of nuclear warfare is they think every nuke has the same destruction potential as a whole nuclear power plant. Which is incorrect.

@BotNumber323231 @ThatTimeYouSaw @StrategicTrends Yes, it is. Trump is not a reliable ally. That’s the conclusion we all reached, and we reached it based on years of cumulative statements that long preceded the Iran war. The reason we don’t value the alliance anymore is because we don’t believe it’s worth much

@Chuttnise @ThatTimeYouSaw @StrategicTrends time to deal with it then, no?

>threaten to invade allies >say they are useless >humiliate them in the WH >start a war without them cause you don't need them >have no idea what you're doing >they don't provide assistance >somehow shocked and outraged that they aren't helping you You really cant make this up

@BIforPeace @Alberto_Rizzi_ Well France still has nukes. The fact they have far fewer than either Russia or the US is scarcely relevant when assessing the risks posed by nuclear war, because a nuclear exchange between Russia and France is effectively the end of the world

@Alberto_Rizzi_ I do not think so. If Russia would be not deterred by NATO they would regularly strike not only Ukraine but logistical bases in Poland, Germany, Romania, military industry, they would shoot down reconnaisance drones and aircraft,etc.

@BotNumber323231 @ThatTimeYouSaw @StrategicTrends The value of US troops in Europe is because adversaries are supposed to believe they will actually fight to defend European territory if they invade it. Trump threatened not to defend allies for years. He’s killed the deterrence. It IS our problem, but it’s our problem already

@Chuttnise @ThatTimeYouSaw @StrategicTrends trump seems to be planning on removing all troops from europe, that's going to turn into a you problem quickly lol

@BotNumber323231 @ThatTimeYouSaw @StrategicTrends You won’t accept cause & effect here. Weighing up whether to invade an ally in public for a month is going to see your access to the military bases of that alliance curtailed. Trump can’t claim credit for being proven right when his own actions made the outcome inevitable anyway

@Chuttnise @ThatTimeYouSaw @StrategicTrends and look at what is happening now, they just proved trump right.

@ThatTimeYouSaw @BotNumber323231 @StrategicTrends Trump said in Davos, when he finally ruled out taking Greenland by force, that he had wanted the territory because you can’t defend a territory if you don’t fully control it. Defending a territory that another country owns and controls is what NATO is. It’s what alliances are

@Chuttnise @BotNumber323231 @StrategicTrends No one said it was.

@ThatTimeYouSaw @BotNumber323231 @StrategicTrends No country on earth would allow other countries to establish military bases on their territory if it was tantamount to them then effectively owning the country!

@Chuttnise @BotNumber323231 @StrategicTrends That is the issue, isn't it?

@ThatTimeYouSaw @BotNumber323231 @StrategicTrends You’re conflating access and defence policy. Establishing a military base in another country’s territory is not the equivalent of planting a flag somewhere and declaring it your land. You have a base there, you don’t own the land!

@Chuttnise @BotNumber323231 @StrategicTrends Nope, Denmark has insisted for decades that they control the defense policy of US forces on Greenland, look it up.

@BotNumber323231 @ThatTimeYouSaw @StrategicTrends Yes, because once a country has spent weeks publicly debating whether or not to use the military to take the territory of allies, they aren’t behaving like an ally anymore. They’re behaving like a potential threat.

@Chuttnise @ThatTimeYouSaw @StrategicTrends same thing a lot of countries said about airspace...

@ThatTimeYouSaw @BotNumber323231 @StrategicTrends They said America could use them any time they wanted. The increasing conditions being placed on the US doing so followed Trump continuing to refuse to rule out military annexation. That is an entirely rational response to such behaviour.

@Chuttnise @BotNumber323231 @StrategicTrends They said we could use the bases IF THEY APPROVED.

@ThatTimeYouSaw @BotNumber323231 @StrategicTrends Denmark said repeatedly that the US could use its bases there. Even after Trump said he wanted to acquire Greenland, they said it again. He still refused to rule it out.

@Chuttnise @BotNumber323231 @StrategicTrends Let's be clear here the military sites are US built and maintained and not Denmark's. Denmark wants to control how the US uses its military sites.

@ThatTimeYouSaw @BotNumber323231 @StrategicTrends You are seriously saying to me that a country could say they were considering invading Hawaii or Alaska to annex it, but as long as they said it was only an option but not a certainty, the US would welcome that country to use its military sites?

@Chuttnise @BotNumber323231 @StrategicTrends I mean the whole reason Trump sees it as a critical national security issue is that you guys think use of bases is conditional on your mood at the time.

@ThatTimeYouSaw @BotNumber323231 @StrategicTrends Do you think saying you MIGHT use the military to take allied territory is acceptable? And we should allow US forces to use our military bases, because they just said attacking NATO was an option, not a certainty?

@Chuttnise @BotNumber323231 @StrategicTrends It's not a threat, it's at worse ambiguous. A threat is a statement of intent.

@ThatTimeYouSaw @BotNumber323231 @StrategicTrends How? How is saying you want to acquire another country’s territory and won’t rule out using the military to do so not a threat?

@Chuttnise @BotNumber323231 @StrategicTrends That's not a threat and it certainly is not an explicit threat.

@P_vonOberstein @anticommie123 What’s this? It’s a White House press release. It was reported across the media. You can find it everywhere. It explicitly refuses to rule out using the military to acquire Greenland!

@Chuttnise @anticommie123 No threats were made, but you all acted like there were, and sent a laughable, unrealistic force in a pure display that made it clear even your own leaders didn't believe in such threats. You were tricked by political signaling from weak Euro politicians.

>Blows up Nordstream >Openly threatens to take Greenland from Denmark who actually backed them well above the expectations during GWOT >Bombs Iran, which leads to Hormuz getting closed >"Why TF are those smug Europeans so ungrateful, we Americans never did anything wrong"

@ThatTimeYouSaw @BotNumber323231 @StrategicTrends Trump “made it known that acquiring Greenland is national security priority… Utilising the US military is always an option.” The same statement was reported by all news outlets because the literal White House press secretary put it out!

@Chuttnise @BotNumber323231 @StrategicTrends Share one with me they should be easy to find.

@ThatTimeYouSaw @BotNumber323231 @StrategicTrends He finally ruled out using force after explicitly threatening to USE force over and over. They put out official White House press releases threatening to use force to take Greenland, for God’s sake. Where have you been?

@BotNumber323231 @StrategicTrends He never threatened force. He in fact explicitly ruled it out.

@P_vonOberstein @anticommie123 The rejection of US access to the bases came AFTER the Greenland threats! Would America let countries that had been threatening to attack its territory in January have access to US military facilities in February and March? What sort of mad country would do that?

@anticommie123 >Openly threatens to take Greenland Yeah, all these European countries closing their airspace and trying to place other restrictions on U.S. military operations completely justify the U.S. want to control Greenland. Good job, you dolts.