politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
If I were the "Boss of all Europe", I'd have nuclear weapons in Greenland/Canada already; you could launch and wreck the USA long before the USA could retaliate against Europe (Greenland/Canada would be "taking one for the team").
Ironically, that's what Trump wants to prevent (security risk and so on).
By "Trump" I mean whomever has inspired our impaired, senile POTUS to take Greenland.
This probably means that the USA is planning moves against Europe/EU/NATO in the future, so it wants lots of ocean between us, as much as possible. This has always been the best defense for the USA, it's allowed us to punch, but not be punched back. So far.
Europe has nuclear weapons closer to the US than Greenland.
Technically, if everything works as if on paper, an attack on Greenland is an attack on Denmark. An attack on Denmark is an attack on France, according to EU articles, which are more tightly binding than NATO ones. And the French have nukes on subs floating under the Atlantic in undisclosed places, and their nuclear doctrine is basically "we use nukes as warning shots".
In practice, just selling all US securities and cash reserves held by Europe would basically cause the US economy to implode overnight, and the US government to have to declare bankruptcy, and stop being able to pay or even feed its soldiers.
The problem is that it would also cause a deep recession in the EU and basically all over the world, so that's why we're playing chicken.
Oh, good.
We've had one mutually assured destruction, but what about second mutually assured destruction?
I don't particularly mind the economic MAD. That'll heal in mere decades.
And also hurt rich people with bunkers as well.
That's very interesting, thank you, I will read up on the "French Connection"
I did not know that!
I do know USA has launch sites in Europe and submarines, also. I'm not sure if NATO or the USA controls them the sites in Europe.
IIRC the USA does not have intercontinental missile launch sites in anywhere but the US. The US nukes in Europe are all plane borne bombs.
Those can't really be launched unless both the US and the host country agree, and France and the UK have a bunch of those as well.
You're right on paper, they are weapons to be loaded on to planes...
Maybe I'm paranoid, but I think they probably have nuclear missiles on US military bases in spite of any agreements.
An IBCM is hard to hide. And they don't need to.
They never needed to do any of this crap.
They want to.
Also, they wouldn't need to use an ICBM, their targets are very close.
They just need nuclear warheads and a fast delivery system.