American Politics Discussion Thread

[Mjmd]

Today, U.S. tactical nuclear weapons remain at six bases in five NATO member countries: Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. The UK and France have their own nuclear forces and no longer host U.S. weapons

You really should be a politician. Seems you can talk and talk and circle back, back peddle some more, and still go on and on without answering the question. Slippery.

As stated nothing in the former eastern bloc and if you look at the numbers it has been going down in cooperation with Russia. Heck the US helped Russia get nukes out of Ukraine the first time round.

I believe my answer was not invade in case you missed it. There was even a bolded underliined section when comparing Russia stating Belarus would get nukes.

[KingOfPain]

You mean we would just let Russia and China set up military bases with nukes at, say, Mexico, Bermuda, Cuba without any fuss? That would be a GoodThing™

A better balance of power would mean a better chance for peace.

[KingOfPain]

i think snowden did a good thing, and we need more like him

Interesting story too. More so following the story as it unfolded than the movie.

[Mjmd]

I'm sure there would be some kind of political reaction. Again its more about how things feel to the people nowadays. If they are in Russia or in Canada (nearest country to me) it doesn't really matter. Dead is dead. Countries have nuke carrying subs in international water all the time and that can get pretty close.

And lets be VERY clear. There wasn't a threat of US nukes in Ukraine. Its an extremely unlikely hypothetical. And again from a technical perspective its a stupid hypothetical just to get peoples blood up. Just like moving nukes to Belarus doesn't matter one bit from a "if nukes are used very bad things happen perspective". Should countries be invaded for extremely stupid unlikely hypotheticals. NO.

[KingOfPain]

Still going to say the US and its allies would more than 90% likely defend Taiwan in some form. Japan, South Korea and some other nations in the area have been building up as well to prevent China from pushing them around. Especially with their "i made this man made island so obviously this area is now under china rule" And stating that the Whole china sea is theirs (its not).  Notably Japan has vastly increased their defensive budget.

South Korea is very nervous if the election goes to Trump. Trump might put more pressure on South Korea to pay more for the U.S. military presence and resume his personal diplomacy with Kim Jong Un.

[Mjmd]

Back in January there was news that South Korea and US had already started negotiating an extension. Most agree its specifically to try to calm South Korean worry about a potential Trump presidency.

[Charr Babies]

I'm sure there would be some kind of political reaction. Again its more about how things feel to the people nowadays. If they are in Russia or in Canada (nearest country to me) it doesn't really matter. Dead is dead. Countries have nuke carrying subs in international water all the time and that can get pretty close.

And lets be VERY clear. There wasn't a threat of US nukes in Ukraine. Its an extremely unlikely hypothetical. And again from a technical perspective its a stupid hypothetical just to get peoples blood up. Just like moving nukes to Belarus doesn't matter one bit from a "if nukes are used very bad things happen perspective". Should countries be invaded for extremely stupid unlikely hypotheticals. NO.

The danger of having opposing nukes so close together is that there is almost no time for corrective measures as seen in some movies. (A bit far fetched, but we are talking about human behavior)

That's one way to look at it, dead is dead. But that doesn't mean people would just stand there and be sitting ducks in the face of danger. Survival instinct always kicks in whether it be fight or flight. In nuclear deterrence, assuring mutual destruction, there is, however unlikely, always a hope for survival. if only to survive long enough to retaliate. The further the enemy's nukes are the better the chance to succeed.

[Mjmd]

When you are talking THOUSANDS of nukes, having 10, 20, or 30 nearer doesn't really matter. There really aren't good counter measures either. Again, there is a reason submarines are part of nuclear deterrence. They also can get a lot closer than Cuba. Also again, war is not justified with a stupid unlikely hypothetical.

[KingOfPain]

Just as people would duck after they hear the gunshot

[Charr Babies]

When you are talking THOUSANDS of nukes, having 10, 20, or 30 nearer doesn't really matter. There  really aren't good counter measures either. Again, there is a reason submarines are part of nuclear deterrence. They also can get a lot closer than Cuba. Also again, war is not justified with a stupid unlikely hypothetical.

Tell that to the US then we wouldn't have had the Cuban Missile Crisis