5 ms·

Not the OP, but in context, the US is a huge part of NATO's overall defense (and offense/force projection) capabilities. The EU on its own would have a harder t

Not the OP, but in context, the US is a huge part of NATO's overall defense (and offense/force projection) capabilities. The EU on its own would have a harder time defending itself against aggression.

somenameforme 3y ago
It's effectively impossible to invade a country that has nuclear weapons. There might be small scale border skirmishes, but large scale organized invasions are essentially a nonstarter. The main purpose of conventional weaponry, for nuclear nations, is to invade non-nuclear nations, or to engage in proxy skirmishes to try to expand one's geopolitical power. We're rapidly approaching a century with 0 major and unrestrained wars between two nuclear powers. That's completely unprecedented in the entirety of our history, and it's not a coincidence.
- eduction 3y ago
  Do you think UK or France would use nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear Russian attack on other NATO members (e.g. Germany)? Are they obligated to do so?
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    >> Article 5 >> The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. >> such action as it seems necessary, including the use of armed force There's no mandatory requirement to deploy specific weapons, but I believe all NATO forces would be subordinate to CMC (rotating) and SACEUR (has always been a US leader)? Inasmuch as multinational command structures work.
    - eduction 3y ago
      Right but OP said it’s “effectively impossible to invade a country that has nuclear weapons” and I’m curious how that is relevant to non nuclear NATO members like Germany. I don’t see how it helps Germany (or Finland, Poland etc etc) that France and UK have nuclear weapons, apart from deterrence against specifically nuclear Russian attacks. A conventional land invasion against a non nuclear NATO power would likely be very difficult to stop without US support, at current defense levels, or without UK or France threatening a universal nuclear defense of other nato members.
      - ethbr1 3y ago
        It's ambiguous (or I haven't seen it written) under what conditions NATO would retaliate with NATO-controlled nuclear weapons to an attack on a NATO member. But it's definitely shy of 'never' I know during the 80s there were detailed plans to tactically nuke the larg(er) Soviet armored formations in eastern Germany et al. in the event of hostilities. I believe even before Soviet nuclear escalation.
        somenameforme 3y ago
        I'm unaware of those, but I do know that US nuclear targets from the 50s were relatively recently declassified [1], and they were far more macabre. We focused on taking out Soviet air forces (to eliminate their ability to deliver nukes of their own - as this was before the USSR had developed ICBMs), but also focused on targets marked simply as "population" as well as medical production facilities. The goal was not to just defeat the military, but to literally destroy the nation. And I'm certain the USSR had, more or less, identical plans. And I suspect those still remain the plans for both sides to this day. Nukes aren't going to falling out in the middle of nowhere trying to take out military bases, they're going to be falling in NYC, San Francisco, Moscow, and St. Petersburg - to try to completely take out the other country's population and economy. Nuclear war is do or die. The goal is going to be to eliminate the enemy's country from the face of this Earth, so that they can't just recover to become a threat 10 years down the line. [1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/us/politics/1950s-us-nuclear-target-list-offers-chilling-insight.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/us/politics/1950s-us-nucl...
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    I think the most likely scenario is that they would transfer control of a number of nuclear weapons to Germany in such a scenario. And that would be more than enough to end the war, or to end the world.
- Log_out_ 3y ago
  Which is why everyone bordering any empire currently looks for nukes or nuke eqivalents,as the American reliability falls apart. Must be fun to work at the iaa nowadays.
  - eduction 3y ago
    I’m not sure we’d have these new NATO members if American reliability were actually so bad.
- fifilura 3y ago
  This could be a good place to Post a reminder that in 1995, Ukraine agreed to hand over all its nuclear weapons to Russia in return of a promise to not threaten or use military force against Ukraine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
  - chasd00 3y ago
    Ukraine had the weapons but no means to use them. Russia had the keys.
    - FartinMowler 3y ago
      Then why did Russia feel the need to enter into the agreement if holding the keys was sufficient?
      - orbital-decay 3y ago
        Maybe because these were radically different times, and the "we've always been at war with X or Y" is just a narrative? No, of course not, what a nonsense.
    - Paradigma11 3y ago
      Sure, the Ukrainians would have needed some months to refit those weapons.

somenameforme 3y ago

It's effectively impossible to invade a country that has nuclear weapons. There might be small scale border skirmishes, but large scale organized invasions are essentially a nonstarter. The main purpose of conventional weaponry, for nuclear nations, is to invade non-nuclear nations, or to engage in proxy skirmishes to try to expand one's geopolitical power. We're rapidly approaching a century with 0 major and unrestrained wars between two nuclear powers. That's completely unprecedented in the entirety of our history, and it's not a coincidence.

eduction 3y ago
Do you think UK or France would use nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear Russian attack on other NATO members (e.g. Germany)? Are they obligated to do so?
- ethbr1 3y ago
  >> Article 5 >> The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. >> such action as it seems necessary, including the use of armed force There's no mandatory requirement to deploy specific weapons, but I believe all NATO forces would be subordinate to CMC (rotating) and SACEUR (has always been a US leader)? Inasmuch as multinational command structures work.
  - eduction 3y ago
    Right but OP said it’s “effectively impossible to invade a country that has nuclear weapons” and I’m curious how that is relevant to non nuclear NATO members like Germany. I don’t see how it helps Germany (or Finland, Poland etc etc) that France and UK have nuclear weapons, apart from deterrence against specifically nuclear Russian attacks. A conventional land invasion against a non nuclear NATO power would likely be very difficult to stop without US support, at current defense levels, or without UK or France threatening a universal nuclear defense of other nato members.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      It's ambiguous (or I haven't seen it written) under what conditions NATO would retaliate with NATO-controlled nuclear weapons to an attack on a NATO member. But it's definitely shy of 'never' I know during the 80s there were detailed plans to tactically nuke the larg(er) Soviet armored formations in eastern Germany et al. in the event of hostilities. I believe even before Soviet nuclear escalation.
      - somenameforme 3y ago
        I'm unaware of those, but I do know that US nuclear targets from the 50s were relatively recently declassified [1], and they were far more macabre. We focused on taking out Soviet air forces (to eliminate their ability to deliver nukes of their own - as this was before the USSR had developed ICBMs), but also focused on targets marked simply as "population" as well as medical production facilities. The goal was not to just defeat the military, but to literally destroy the nation. And I'm certain the USSR had, more or less, identical plans. And I suspect those still remain the plans for both sides to this day. Nukes aren't going to falling out in the middle of nowhere trying to take out military bases, they're going to be falling in NYC, San Francisco, Moscow, and St. Petersburg - to try to completely take out the other country's population and economy. Nuclear war is do or die. The goal is going to be to eliminate the enemy's country from the face of this Earth, so that they can't just recover to become a threat 10 years down the line. [1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/us/politics/1950s-us-nuclear-target-list-offers-chilling-insight.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/us/politics/1950s-us-nucl...
- somenameforme 3y ago
  I think the most likely scenario is that they would transfer control of a number of nuclear weapons to Germany in such a scenario. And that would be more than enough to end the war, or to end the world.
Log_out_ 3y ago
Which is why everyone bordering any empire currently looks for nukes or nuke eqivalents,as the American reliability falls apart. Must be fun to work at the iaa nowadays.
- eduction 3y ago
  I’m not sure we’d have these new NATO members if American reliability were actually so bad.
fifilura 3y ago
This could be a good place to Post a reminder that in 1995, Ukraine agreed to hand over all its nuclear weapons to Russia in return of a promise to not threaten or use military force against Ukraine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
- chasd00 3y ago
  Ukraine had the weapons but no means to use them. Russia had the keys.
  - FartinMowler 3y ago
    Then why did Russia feel the need to enter into the agreement if holding the keys was sufficient?
    - orbital-decay 3y ago
      Maybe because these were radically different times, and the "we've always been at war with X or Y" is just a narrative? No, of course not, what a nonsense.
  - Paradigma11 3y ago
    Sure, the Ukrainians would have needed some months to refit those weapons.