schnedan, 1 month ago

@darnell "I now understand why #EmmanuelMacron keeps raising the #nuclear bomb debate."

1.) France wants the lead
2.) France still has some scars from being taken by Germans in WWII
3.) the nuclear arms in France cost a fucking lot of money - so at least others (german) should fund it

PS: the US here only has some bombs meant to stop Russian tanks for some days until heavy airlift brings troops from the US to Europe. Thats the Idea.

J_aa_p, 1 month ago

@schnedan @darnell

"PS: the US here only has some bombs meant to stop Russian tanks for some days until heavy airlift brings troops from the US to Europe."

You sure about that? Well, I think you are, because you're posting this utter nonsense.

schnedan, 1 month ago

@J_aa_p @darnell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing

J_aa_p, 1 month ago

@schnedan @darnell Oh, you have found the Wikipedia page! Cool.

darnell, 1 month ago

@J_aa_p @schnedan I know the info is probably classified, but I assumed NATO boasted powerful nukes that would rival most nuclear weapons in Russia’s 🇷🇺 arsenal.

We have plenty of “convential” weapons that can stop tanks—like spent Uranium munitions which may have used by the United States 🇺🇸 against tanks in Iraq 🇮🇶. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/19/us-depleted-uranium-weapons-civilian-areas-iraq

J_aa_p, 1 month ago

@darnell @schnedan A) I replied because of this: "he US here only has some bombs meant to stop Russian tanks" which is not true. "some bombs to stop tanks". is a clueless understatement.

B) If Trump is reelected, the NATO does have a problem, but (IMO) it's not a big problem.

C) When NATO launches a nuke (that is only if one of the NATO countries has been attacked), life, as we know it, is over. That's what I think, so not a problem either.