The sad thing is that a little bird just told me there was no ‘nuclear umbrella’ anymore, not from the US at least. Nor from the UK (edit: since part of their nuclear arsenal is controlled by the USA), while the French one, if it’s effective and controlled by no one but France (and our president did mention he was willing to extend it to other European countries) is not large/powerful enough to do more than damage Russia. NATO is now merely an excuse for the US to easily pressure their ex-allies (us and all the others).
Meanwhile, the USA are busy preparing their war against China by invading, sorry, I mean by liberating whatever place and resources they consider a must have… To which one may rightfully object that telling one of your biggest allies they can go fuck themselves may not be the wisest choice ever while you’re preparing for your own little 3rd world war… But I would not call that administration, nor its president, the wisest either. To their credit, I will admit they’re one of the most focused I’ve seen on achieving their stated objectives, that’s impressively obvious, but that doesn’t make these objectives any wiser.
@Libb That is factually incorrect. The UK Tridents are under their control. That was part of the agreement made by MacMillan. They may depend on parts etc for maintenance though, I am not familiar on the details. But they can fire them unilaterally if they decide to.
The B-61s indeed I consider it doubtful that they would be released if we need them. But for now, the mere presence of the damned things will have to suffice for now.
The sad thing is that a little bird just told me there was no ‘nuclear umbrella’ anymore, not from the US at least. Nor from the UK (edit: since part of their nuclear arsenal is controlled by the USA), while the French one, if it’s effective and controlled by no one but France (and our president did mention he was willing to extend it to other European countries) is not large/powerful enough to do more than damage Russia. NATO is now merely an excuse for the US to easily pressure their ex-allies (us and all the others).
Meanwhile, the USA are busy preparing their war against China by invading, sorry, I mean by liberating whatever place and resources they consider a must have… To which one may rightfully object that telling one of your biggest allies they can go fuck themselves may not be the wisest choice ever while you’re preparing for your own little 3rd world war… But I would not call that administration, nor its president, the wisest either. To their credit, I will admit they’re one of the most focused I’ve seen on achieving their stated objectives, that’s impressively obvious, but that doesn’t make these objectives any wiser.
The US does not control the UK nuclear arsenal. There’s cooperation between them but the deployed deterrent subs are fully independent.
Thx for the clarification, I will update my post to reflect that
@Libb That is factually incorrect. The UK Tridents are under their control. That was part of the agreement made by MacMillan. They may depend on parts etc for maintenance though, I am not familiar on the details. But they can fire them unilaterally if they decide to.
The B-61s indeed I consider it doubtful that they would be released if we need them. But for now, the mere presence of the damned things will have to suffice for now.
Like with remote_control_conor, thx for the clarification, I updated my comment to somewhat reflect that.
deleted by creator