gravitas_deficiency to NonCredibleDefense@lemmy.worldEnglish · edit-29 hours agoConsidering last night's results, I don't expect NATO to be credible 4 years from nowimagemessage-square136fedilinkarrow-up1406arrow-down115
arrow-up1391arrow-down1imageConsidering last night's results, I don't expect NATO to be credible 4 years from nowgravitas_deficiency to NonCredibleDefense@lemmy.worldEnglish · edit-29 hours agomessage-square136fedilink
minus-squaregravitas_deficiencyOPlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up13·3 hours agoBut with a fraction of the nukes, which is the actual big stick part of NATO
minus-squarediffusive@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up14·2 hours agoIn the game of nukes you don’t really need many. You can destroy the world just so many times. The rest is just for showing who has it bigger (the arsenal)
minus-squareResand@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·30 minutes agoA lot of that is because rest of NATO is under US umbrella. Not like nukes are high tech at this point. Most of Europe could get nukes real fast if they wanted, but everyone has been better served by it being to many Nuclear Powers up to this point
minus-squareHackworth@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·2 hours agoBut are we bringing nukes to a biological warfare… umm… party? Or hell, AI drones/nanobots?
But with a fraction of the nukes, which is the actual big stick part of NATO
In the game of nukes you don’t really need many.
You can destroy the world just so many times.
The rest is just for showing who has it bigger (the arsenal)
A lot of that is because rest of NATO is under US umbrella. Not like nukes are high tech at this point. Most of Europe could get nukes real fast if they wanted, but everyone has been better served by it being to many Nuclear Powers up to this point
But are we bringing nukes to a biological warfare… umm… party? Or hell, AI drones/nanobots?