4 ms·
lol, lmao even Both the French and the Brits have nukes. They're at no risk of hostile foreign invasion and everybody knows it. Entire libraries of books and
by A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
lol, lmao even
Both the French and the Brits have nukes. They're at no risk of hostile foreign invasion and everybody knows it. Entire libraries of books and whitepapers have been written about it.
If it were about self-defense: Build more nukes, build some mobile launchers capable of also launching targeting satellites, maintain the missile and submarine fleets, and your job is done. This can be done on current military budgets, or even smaller budgets.
It's not for "self defense". It's for foreign adventurism and geopolitical posturing. Like the opposite of realpolitik.
- pseudony 2y agoHaving Russia roll through the states of all your principal trading partners is probably no fun. Adventurism is such a poor take in this case.
- A_D_E_P_T 2y agoAll of them? Really? Besides, waging proxy wars is very far removed from self-defense. Building outposts in, e.g., Cameroon to ward against Russian aggression over there is perhaps justifiable in some abstract respect, but it's rather the opposite of self-defense. (Without getting into complicated game-theoretical "we have to stop them over there so we don't fight them over here" justifications, which have long been discredited and have even become something of a joke.)
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]