this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

3744 readers
153 users here now

Rules:

  1. Posts must abide by lemmy.world terms and conditions
  2. No spam or soliciting for money.
  3. No racism or other bigotry allowed.
  4. Obviously nothing illegal.

If you see these please report them.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RangerJosie@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It isn't credible now. It likely won't exist at all in 4 years. Unless it cedes even more decision making authority to the US and becomes even more of a puppet.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The main point I was making is that Trump is almost certainly going to pull the US out of NATO altogether.

[–] RangerJosie@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If not attempt to destroy it outright in an attempt to extort it.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Only if he gets attention or money for doing so. Those are his two gods, and he serves no others.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] tormeh@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Doesn't all authority already lie with the USA? If we're going to be real, I mean. I'm sure France thinks otherwise but let's be real: NATO was always the "Uncle Sam will protect Europe from Russia"-treaty.

[–] Miaou@jlai.lu 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

France knows this, that's why it wasn't in NATO for most its history. This only changed when one of our president needed war crime buddies

[–] Estiar@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

C'est faux. France is one of the founding members of NATO, however for much of the time it was under a French Command instead of a combined command.

[–] vordalack@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Good.

NATO is a trash organization. It's basically Reich Lite.

[–] RubicTopaz@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It is the Fourth Reich

Oh wait, that's just post-WW2 West GermanyThere were more Nazis in West Germany's justice department after WWII than during Third Reich

Fully 77 percent of senior ministry officials in 1957 were former members of Adolf Hitler's Nazi party, a higher proportion even than during the 1933-45 Third Reich, the study found.

Nazis in post-WW2 Germany's government

From 1949 to 1973, 90 of the 170 leading lawyers and judges in the then-West German Justice Ministry had been members of the Nazi Party.

Of those 90 officials, 34 had been members of the Sturmabteilung (SA), Nazi Party paramilitaries who aided Hitler's rise and took part in Kristallnacht, a night of violence that is believed to have left 91 Jewish people dead.

[–] Chee_Koala@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It seems like a very real possibility. A new, EU followup seems like a natural next step to protect the borders and peace.

[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Next stage of russian ops will focus more heavily on splitting Europe now that UK and US have been severed off

[–] Uranium_Green@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

Straight out of Alexander Dugins book...

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

NATO colonies deserve their freedom. They need a backbone to stop being US slaves, and Trump demeaning demand terms, is an opportunity for that backbone. It is categorically absurd that Russia threatens to invade current NATO members, and the idiocy of continuing a war on Russia needs to be more obvious to the colonies.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The fuck are you smoking bro

[–] Nasan@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 months ago

Their comment reads like a bad MAGAcid trip

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The biggest thing will be all those nato countries who can't do anything with their US weapons if the US says so.

[–] ziggurat@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That is only if they want to continue to buy new weapons, not if they intend to male weapons in Europe

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No. I mean the weapons they have now. F35 for example. If a war happens in Europe, will those planes be useful without US support and authorizations? US can do a lot of harm to Europe with that.

[–] ziggurat@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yes let me explain my answer I didn't elaborate properly.

I think the only recourse the US has if European countries use these weapons without authorization is that the US will not sell more weapons.

And if Europe continues to intreases it's weapon and ammunition production like they have the last two years that might not be a deal breaker for Europe

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure Europe can make F35 parts for example, which will not fly for long without it, or ammunitions for various US weapons. I hope it'll be a wake up call to make and use EU instead.

[–] TacticsConsort@yiffit.net 2 points 3 months ago

Just my two cents as an assembly line guy: Parts on aircraft fall into three categories

-Big custom fuckoff parts. They're not high tech but they're huge and they're a specific shape so you need a huge, precise and very expensive mould/die/whatever to make them. Anyone with the aircraft and a decent engineer could design a machine to make these parts but they would be left with a smoking crater where their wallet was after getting the mould made.

-Easy parts. Sure, an aircraft fuel pipe is worth 20k, but the civilian parts are made to higher standards anyways, we can find one no problem.

-Secret technical complex parts. Proprietary cutting edge stuff, which is frankly just bolted onto already complete aircraft. Obviously you can't replace it if you don't even know how it works, but the US doesn't let that stuff out of their direct control very often anyways.

Don't fucking talk to me about engines though, those are a whole different beast

TLDR: We can totally keep our F35s in the air as long as the parts we're replacing aren't the skin panels, the engines, or the Secret Third Thing. And as long as we have the money.

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

I mean if Europe wants to increase their military funding and move items in house I think that would be a wonderful idea. Because America is not a reliable partner in this at all in the past two decades.

[–] Kalkaline@leminal.space 1 points 3 months ago

The perfect excuse for the military industrial complex to move manufacturing overseas.

[–] twinnie@feddit.uk 1 points 3 months ago

The problem is that America has all the money.

[–] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago (5 children)

If Europe gets into a war of course the US will help. But the same can't really be said if the US gets into a war. The rest of NATO needs to be able to hold the fort if the US were to get suddenly ....distracted in the Pacific

[–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

If Europe gets into a war of course the US will help.

How sure are you of that? Sure, if Russia marches towards the Atlantic Ocean, but if Russia decides to create a security buffer zone in Finland? Or the Baltic countries?

NATO has only survived for as long because of the commitment of the US. Come January NATO is dead as well as a sovereign Ukraine.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Let’s just kick America out if need be.

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

No need, Republicans will leave it at the behest of their Russian handlers.

[–] ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Nato without USA is still bigger military than Russia.

[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

We would eventually crush Russia in a real war, the problem is that without going to actual war, we get to use only a small part of that.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

But with a fraction of the nukes, which is the actual big stick part of NATO

[–] chaosppe@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It took two nukes for Japan to wave the white flag. Do we really need 5,000+ nukes for anything? France has 290 and UK has 225. Thats enough to wipe one or multiple countries clean off of the map without any form of surrender.

[–] scoobford@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 months ago (10 children)

Yes, antimissile systems will shoot down most of your missile volley, so you need to launch enough that they become overwhelmed and the few that make it through accomplish your goal.

We don't know exactly how much "most" is, but its enough that the powers that be consider our current level of armament to be necessary.

[–] chaosppe@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

This is where I think there is a misunderstanding. You don't just fire only nukes at a country. You fire a multi pronged attack with regular bombardment aswell.

[–] LordCrom@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Will the ones shit down rain down radioactive dust everywhere?

[–] Madison@feddit.org 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yes, but to a way lesser degree.

The bombs become really nasty by creating a big chain reaction (boom) and then radiating the dust the explosion creates (aftermath) which then spreads everywhere.

Without a controlled explosion there will be significantly less radiating reactions and radioactive dust.

It's like deep inhaling the smoke of a package of burning fire starters VS throwing said burning fire starter into a warehouse full of fireworks (and for the sake of this argument you cant leave the warehouse and have no equipment whatsoever)

Both will probably fuck you up a bit if you're to close, but one is comparably insignificant.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Resand@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

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

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net -1 points 3 months ago

Hopefully the EU takes over. It has a lot more economic strength then NATO. Also the UK is strong as well, but that can be managed. Turkey does its own things anyway and I would not trust them. Norway and Iceland are not that important. Canada is going to go with the US anyway. The advantage is easier common funding for projects, due to the EU having more direct access to money. There are also a lot of the basics in the works already.

load more comments
view more: next ›