US Nuclear Guarantees to Allies

[Aurielius]

I'm for each nation looking after their own, and putting the interests of their own citizens above that of anything or anyone else. Such a promise makes the US an even bigger target for a nuclear attack, which is detrimental to the safety and security of its own citizens.

It's the age of interdependence even for the US, we are already the biggest target nothing is going to change that and hiding won't help, so guaranteeing the nuclear security of our closest allies is valid , guaranteeing just anybody though.... not so much. I have already stated that we still have pilots and planes who could and would in the main reach their drop point, not all navigation is satellite dependent.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Aurielius

[Beriallord]

I'm for each nation looking after their own, and putting the interests of their own citizens above that of anything or anyone else. Such a promise makes the US an even bigger target for a nuclear attack, which is detrimental to the safety and security of its own citizens.

It's the age of interdependence even for the US, we are already the biggest target nothing is going to change that and hiding won't help, so guaranteeing the nuclear security of our closest allies is valid , guaranteeing just anybody though.... not so much.

 

But still the idea of if you nuke anyone you may as well nuke us first guarantee doesn't look like it would be in the best interests for the safety of our people. Things are going to go nuclear eventually and the technology is going to become more widely available, its guaranteed. May as well let each country be responsible for their own defenses. I don't really care if Finland wants to have a nuclear program.

 

There are already enough nukes around to destroy this planet 10x over.

 

China and Russia can both defend their borders without playing the role of the World's police force. And nobody is going to think either of those 2 countries are militarily weak just because they don't export their military presence around the world.

 

America is situated in a perfect position from the other powers, 2 large oceans, which would make it next to impossible for China or Russia to actually invade and put boots on the ground in the 48 states. Either country or even both at once would be miserably defeated by our navy.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Beriallord

[Aurielius]

I'm for each nation looking after their own, and putting the interests of their own citizens above that of anything or anyone else. Such a promise makes the US an even bigger target for a nuclear attack, which is detrimental to the safety and security of its own citizens.

It's the age of interdependence even for the US, we are already the biggest target nothing is going to change that and hiding won't help, so guaranteeing the nuclear security of our closest allies is valid , guaranteeing just anybody though.... not so much.

 

But still the idea of if you nuke anyone you may as well nuke us first guarantee doesn't look like it would be in the best interests for the safety of our people. Things are going to go nuclear eventually and the technology is going to become more widely available, its guaranteed. May as well let each country be responsible for their own defenses. I don't really care if Finland wants to have a nuclear program.

 

There are already enough nukes around to destroy this planet 10x over.

 

China and Russia can both defend their borders without playing the role of the World's police force. And nobody is going to think either of those 2 countries are militarily weak just because they don't export their military presence around the world.

So just which allies do think we should toss overboard? And when you do what do you think their response will be? Bringing up Finland is extraneous since we have no nuclear reciprocity agreements with them or are ever likely to either.

[Beriallord]

I'm for each nation looking after their own, and putting the interests of their own citizens above that of anything or anyone else. Such a promise makes the US an even bigger target for a nuclear attack, which is detrimental to the safety and security of its own citizens.

It's the age of interdependence even for the US, we are already the biggest target nothing is going to change that and hiding won't help, so guaranteeing the nuclear security of our closest allies is valid , guaranteeing just anybody though.... not so much.

 

But still the idea of if you nuke anyone you may as well nuke us first guarantee doesn't look like it would be in the best interests for the safety of our people. Things are going to go nuclear eventually and the technology is going to become more widely available, its guaranteed. May as well let each country be responsible for their own defenses. I don't really care if Finland wants to have a nuclear program.

 

There are already enough nukes around to destroy this planet 10x over.

 

China and Russia can both defend their borders without playing the role of the World's police force. And nobody is going to think either of those 2 countries are militarily weak just because they don't export their military presence around the world.

So just which allies do think we should toss overboard? And when you do what do you think their response will be? Bringing up Finland is extraneous since we have no nuclear reciprocity agreements with them or are ever likely to either.

 

The first so-called ally I would toss overboard is Israel. I don't approve of their treatment of the Palestinians, and I would send a strong message, you either return to 1948 borders, or you will get no more assistance from us in any way, shape or form.

[zegh8578]

alliances are always a double edged sword

 

on one hand, they are a deterrance: if you want to attack 1 country, be prepared to fight 20

but

as we have seen in history, sometimes a nation is prepared to fight 20

 

and thats the other hand: all out total war, involving several nations - instead of only 2

[Beriallord]

alliances are always a double edged sword

 

on one hand, they are a deterrance: if you want to attack 1 country, be prepared to fight 20

but

as we have seen in history, sometimes a nation is prepared to fight 20

 

and thats the other hand: all out total war, involving several nations - instead of only 2

 

That is a good point, if something major does happen, its going to be a world war instead of a regional one.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Beriallord

[Aurielius]

The first so-called ally I would toss overboard is Israel. I don't approve of their treatment of the Palestinians, and I would send a strong message, you either return to 1948 borders, or you will get no more assistance from us in any way, shape or form.

So called,..hmm when Israel was being targeted by Scuds in the first Gulf War and we asked them to do nothing and they did much against their usual military reaction levels..were they a 'so called ally' then? Without getting sidetracked there is more than enough blame to go around in the Israeli / Palestinian issue. Despite your distaste for the Israeli's they serve as the ONLY steadfast ally in all of the middle east and the likelihood of turning our back on them is about as likely as the Ice Capades in Hell given their vocal ethnic voting support at home. Military allies are not picked for their sterling moral character, they are picked out of geopolitical necessity, welcome to the world of real politic. If we did business with only stand up righteous states then you might as well close down the State Dept and send Hilary back to Arkansas.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Aurielius

[raatorotta]

So, let us presume that Finland someday joins NATO and receives these guarantees from the US government and then Russia our age old enemy, which is never officially stated by the military but which is known to everyone as there can be only one direction the enemy is coming from and it is not west (Sweden),

 

Finland's independence was given by Russia. Whitout that, we would still be part of Sweden! Also Russia can't expand anywhere as it's strugling to keep all smaller nations(who want independency) to be part of it (Exaple Tshetsenia).

 

I'm mainly against NATO as Finnish, because we don't need our small forces scattered around the world. Our forces should be home, defending our country, not run around in NATO-operations.

[Werne]

I'm mainly against NATO as Finnish, because we don't need our small forces scattered around the world. Our forces should be home, defending our country, not run around in NATO-operations.

 

What do you think, why was I getting my arse shot in Afghanistan? Because Croatia joined the darn NATO, that's why. Atleast I've got a 500$ extra for serving three months in that hell-hole.

 

Anyway, back to the nukes. The one that fires nukes must be well aware they will be targeted too. And since it's in the human nature to take revenge, if two countries with a nuclear arsenal start a war against each other and one fires a nuke, all hell will break loose. If Russia fires a nuke on Finland, America probably won't react out of fear of retaliation since Russia posesses a large arsenal of nuclear weaponry and going into a nuclear war with them is certanly not a smart option.

[Beriallord]

The first so-called ally I would toss overboard is Israel. I don't approve of their treatment of the Palestinians, and I would send a strong message, you either return to 1948 borders, or you will get no more assistance from us in any way, shape or form.

So called,..hmm when Israel was being targeted by Scuds in the first Gulf War and we asked them to do nothing and they did much against their usual military reaction levels..were they a 'so called ally' then? Without getting sidetracked there is more than enough blame to go around in the Israeli / Palestinian issue. Despite your distaste for the Israeli's they serve as the ONLY steadfast ally in all of the middle east and the likelihood of turning our back on them is about as likely as the Ice Capades in Hell given their vocal ethnic voting support at home. Military allies are not picked for their sterling moral character, they are picked out of geopolitical necessity, welcome to the world of real politic. If we did business with only stand up righteous states then you might as well close down the State Dept and send Hilary back to Arkansas.

 

Well, you see that is the problem, I am opposed to the entire way foreign policy has been handled for a very long time. The main reason the Muslim world hates the US is we side with Israel. I dunno what is more important, many nations with vast oil wealth, or a small nation they call Israel? Tensions in the middle east are being created by our presence there. I don't like the way America exports its military. Our nation is broke, and cuts should be made to defense spending, and we could make lots of cuts and still be able to provide a superior defense for our nation and borders if we just pull back troops from many of these bases from overseas. America's foreign policy is Imperialism.

 

I think Israel could probably handle the Iranian situation, just like they held their own in the 6 day war. If it came down to just an exchange of missiles and some dog fights, Israel would definitely win on both fronts.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Beriallord