Tbh, that’s not surprising and actually fair: who would want critical infrastructure (CNI) in the hands of foreign actors?

Right, Europe? Who would want that…?

Waging a war of aggression for more than three years, massacring villages, abducting children… I don’t think the bar is particularly low here…

Let me fix that for you, Bart:

“If countries see that central bank money can disappear if European politicians see fit you wage a war of aggression in Europe, they might decide to withdraw their reserves from the eurozone,” he added.

Doesn’t sound so bad anymore, does it?

1. Shevchenkivski District, Kyiv.
2. Looking southeast over St Volodymyr’s Cathedral, Kyiv.

The last one can surely be also geolocated properly, but should you have any doubts that this was also showing Kyiv, I can show you another one that shows Kyiv landmarks more clearly.

Not complying with our rules and losing access to our market entirely will most certainly threaten their income or monopoly even more.

Phase out business with China as fast as possible.

On the other hand, imagine 5000 US troops stationed there

You know what? Why not both? While I see your point and agree with it, I can also understand the symbolic value of the nukes. I think it’s only fair if we provide what gives the countries most exposed and at risk the largest sense of security.

Also, if Russia would somehow get a hold of a B61, the damage would mostly be in prestige to the US

Exactly.

So what value are you talking about?

Valuable as in: no military will let it fall into enemy hands.

Plus, haven’t conservatives complained about Europe leaning too heavily on the U.S., and encouraged them to stand on their own?

Yes. But they want us to stay on our own by buying their stuff.

Which I hope we won’t.

Why not? It is probably the most valuable asset an army has and positioning it there shows the clear determination to defend the area at all costs.

The point would be: sending the message that there are no “2nd class NATO countries” which we eventually wouldn’t bother defending if push comes to shove. Its the determination that full defence begins from the first centimetre of allied territory and no country will be sacrified.

Exactly. There never was a doubt that a company like Dassault could build such a plane alone, but that, given the Rafale experience, it is financially unviable to do so.

Not sure if /s

The EF Typhoon is in service with four large European airforces, among others, and has seen a wide range of deployments in its operational history.

If you want to think that, that’s fine with me.

I think: if you know that strategy, the Chinese know that strategy. And they won’t accept the possibility to be nuked exempt from punishment and hence will adapt their doctrine. No nuclear power can allow MAD to be threatened. So, in the end, every nuclear conflict will escalate into a global one, as escalation cannot be stopped.

We can’t worry about a war that others want to fight. We only have to prepare to increase the risk for said war for everyone to the highest possible level.

And nuclear war is not containable.

I wouldn’t believe in a ‘containable’ nuclear war for one second. FR and UK won’t just watch Paris and London being glassed without retaliating on St Petersburg/Moscow. And as soon as the second most important Russian city is vaporised, they in turn won’t let the US go unharmed.

In a nuclear war, everyone is a target, no-one is a winner

If there was nuclear war, you don’t need that many bombs to have “enough for everybody”. MAD would be global, no matter where you (or the bombs, for that matter) are.

TIL nuclear war stops at the border