4 ms·

Countries without a strong nuclear deterrence don't have a seat at the table in this new geopolitical era. Looking at you, Ukraine, Taiwan and (can't believe I'

Countries without a strong nuclear deterrence don't have a seat at the table in this new geopolitical era. Looking at you, Ukraine, Taiwan and (can't believe I'm saying this) Denmark.

k__ 9mo ago
Yeah, maybe this will make the case for converting France's arsenal to an EU arsenal.
- blargthorwars 9mo ago
  This would be bad for the EU. France has a first-strike doctrine. It's unique in the world, and it scares the shit out of everybody. An EU arsenal would be a typical retaliatory-strike doctrine.
  - k__ 9mo ago
    The conversion could include a doctrine change.
gregoriol 9mo ago
How would nuclear deterrence work for small entities like Denmark or Taiwan against huge entities like US or China? it only works at similar sizes
- Steve16384 9mo ago
  A nuclear deterrent is still a deterrent, no matter how small. No country (hopefully) wants to risk any kind of nuclear war. Ukraine would never have been invaded if it still had its nukes.
  - etyhhgfff 9mo ago
    We cannot know. My best guess is that at some point in the future there will be a military conflict between two parties that have nukes. Pakistan vs India for instance. And although they have nukes they would fight conventionally unless one party is about to lose.
    - JohnFen 9mo ago
      > And although they have nukes they would fight conventionally unless one party is about to lose. In every war, eventually, one side will be about to lose.
- flyinglizard 9mo ago
  It made North Korea essentially invulnerable.
  - etyhhgfff 9mo ago
    If absolutely necessary you could take them out in an preemptive strike. They have no second strike capabilities such as SLBMs. It is still risky of course and not advisable.
- dragonwriter 9mo ago
  > How would nuclear deterrence work for small entities like Denmark or Taiwan against huge entities like US or China? it only works at similar sizes It works as long as the harm that can be threatened is sufficient to outweigh any perceived gain of winning. Small states may not be able to sustain as large of an arsenal, but they also rarely offer as much value to a victor.
luke5441 9mo ago
There is a French tripwire force on the ground now as well. Denmark has allies.
- 0928374082 9mo ago
  pics (for anyone who prefers a bit more subtlety in their international relations): https://bilder.deutschlandfunk.de/72/d7/aa/c5/72d7aac5-be14-4a67-a869-c1e6ce16fcd8/frankreich-daenemark-praesident-macron-premierministerin-frederiksen-ostsee-unterwasserkabel-beschaedigungen-100-1920x1080.jpg https://bilder.deutschlandfunk.de/72/d7/aa/c5/72d7aac5-be14-... https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/170705083720-04-emmanuel-macron-submarine.jpg https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/17070508372...
- goldforever 9mo ago
  [dead]

Countries without a strong nuclear deterrence don't have a seat at the table in this new geopolitical era. Looking at you, Ukraine, Taiwan and (can't believe I'm saying this) Denmark.

k__ 9mo ago

Yeah, maybe this will make the case for converting France's arsenal to an EU arsenal.

blargthorwars 9mo ago
This would be bad for the EU. France has a first-strike doctrine. It's unique in the world, and it scares the shit out of everybody. An EU arsenal would be a typical retaliatory-strike doctrine.
- k__ 9mo ago
  The conversion could include a doctrine change.

gregoriol 9mo ago

How would nuclear deterrence work for small entities like Denmark or Taiwan against huge entities like US or China? it only works at similar sizes

Steve16384 9mo ago
A nuclear deterrent is still a deterrent, no matter how small. No country (hopefully) wants to risk any kind of nuclear war. Ukraine would never have been invaded if it still had its nukes.
- etyhhgfff 9mo ago
  We cannot know. My best guess is that at some point in the future there will be a military conflict between two parties that have nukes. Pakistan vs India for instance. And although they have nukes they would fight conventionally unless one party is about to lose.
  - JohnFen 9mo ago
    > And although they have nukes they would fight conventionally unless one party is about to lose. In every war, eventually, one side will be about to lose.
flyinglizard 9mo ago
It made North Korea essentially invulnerable.
- etyhhgfff 9mo ago
  If absolutely necessary you could take them out in an preemptive strike. They have no second strike capabilities such as SLBMs. It is still risky of course and not advisable.
dragonwriter 9mo ago
> How would nuclear deterrence work for small entities like Denmark or Taiwan against huge entities like US or China? it only works at similar sizes It works as long as the harm that can be threatened is sufficient to outweigh any perceived gain of winning. Small states may not be able to sustain as large of an arsenal, but they also rarely offer as much value to a victor.

luke5441 9mo ago

There is a French tripwire force on the ground now as well. Denmark has allies.

0928374082 9mo ago
pics (for anyone who prefers a bit more subtlety in their international relations): https://bilder.deutschlandfunk.de/72/d7/aa/c5/72d7aac5-be14-4a67-a869-c1e6ce16fcd8/frankreich-daenemark-praesident-macron-premierministerin-frederiksen-ostsee-unterwasserkabel-beschaedigungen-100-1920x1080.jpg https://bilder.deutschlandfunk.de/72/d7/aa/c5/72d7aac5-be14-... https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/170705083720-04-emmanuel-macron-submarine.jpg https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/17070508372...
goldforever 9mo ago
[dead]