Wer das Interview mit der Lage der Nation gehört hat, der weiß, dass es nicht wirklich darum gegangen sein wird, die Rechtsextremen zu "stellen". (In Unkenntnis der Diskussion formuliert) lagedernation.org/podcast/ldn3...
Naja, sein Handeln ist Folgerichtig unter der Voraussetzung, die Absatzmärkte fossiler Energielieferanten zu schützen. Rational ist das alles nicht mehr erklärbar.
Yes, I would disconnect them. The tools necessary for the deterrent to work is very different, isn't it? As I understand, nuclear deterrence only works within the MAD-doctrine. It is not a weapon of use, but one for presence. For conventional deterrence to work, it must be used. Huge difference, no?
The strength of Art5 is in the eye of the agressor, isn't it? So would a strong EU Army be able to make up for lack of US commitment to European peace?
Jokes aside, I was under the impression that the German Tornados (and future F35) were part of the triad? So keeping the nuclear deterrent active would not change in contrast to participation in a war Please keep in mind, I am genuinely curious and not trying to lecture someone working in the field
Personally, even a conventionally armed Tornado would deter me, but then again, I don't feel the urge to march into a neighbour country anyway - despite being German.
Nukleare Teilhabe. Isn't the delivery operated by D, although still controlled by the US?
Does the PotUS have enough power to render the nuclear deterrent ineffective? I could imagine that a conventional war in Europe would be seen critical by some US politicians, but that the nuclear deterrence would not be affected since some of the weapons would be operated by D anyway.
I was just curious if questioning Art.5 by Trump would really be enough to undermine its effectivity. I am no wxpert by all means, but at least german Milbloggers and commentators don't get tired to explain that Art 5 isn't triggered automatically anyway.