US President Donald Trump’s abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on January 3 has emboldened him to proceed with the annexation of Greenland, a Danish-owned, self-governed territory, spelling the effective end of NATO and furthering Russia’s war aims in Ukraine, experts tell Al Jazeera.
“The move on Venezuela illustrates the Trump administration’s determination to dominate the Western Hemisphere – of which Greenland geographically is a part,” said Anna Wieslander, Northern Europe director for the Atlantic Council, a think tank.
“If the United States decides to attack another NATO country, then everything would stop – that includes NATO and therefore post-World War II security,” Frederiksen said.
“The pandering to Trump has been an element of our strategy over the last year, leaving observers hoping, but not entirely trusting, that another element of the strategy is preparing urgently for the final rupture with the United States,” Giles said.
Giles told Al Jazeera that Europe’s best option was to place a military deterrent on Greenland now, believing that putting allied troops in the Baltic States and Poland after 2017 deterred a Russian attack there.
\7. France nukes everyone. (That’s their policy, anyone uses nukes, they launch everything they have against all nuclear powers, which isn’t a lot, but that’s a lot of major cities gone.)
Isn’t that Israel’s nuclear doctrine?
Yea, it is. Not true of France.
Officially Israel “doesn’t have nukes,” unofficially they have very few that could be used in short order before they are nuked. They don’t have the capability to nuke more than a few countries in the Middle East
That’s not an answer to my question. What you described sounds most like Israel’s Samson Option and not anything like I’ve ever heard of France’s nuclear doctrine.
Israel doesn’t have the capability to deliver. That’s about as useful as saying North Korea will nuke everyone. They literally can’t.
France adopted the policies I listed, with some small nuance in the 1970s and haven’t changed their stance.
Source ?
I can’t find the articles that I read about this, but if you look up their nuclear policies, they won’t use in first strike scenarios, but the will use for defensive strikes, which amounts to exactly what I said. In defensive scenarios, someone else already used them, so may as well unload your entire stockpile. Everyone else is going to unload theirs.
Just for reference the US, Russia, and China have similar contingencies. Once Israel or anyone launches a nuke or uses a bomb in very short order all the stockpiles get emptied. France just was pretty blatant about it in the '70s.
How does defensive nuclear strikes amounts exactly to:
?
They only have a few hundred, and the entire point of them is if anyone uses one you launch everything, because there isn’t going to be another chance. Especially since Russia, the US, and China have thousands and will probably be launching the same time France does. Defensive strikes in nuclear warfare are military speak oxymorons. That’s the entire point of MAD. France just made sure that they had a stockpile to point at the bigger powers because of previous wars in Europe getting them involved whether they wanted to or not.