USA Goes to War Against Iran

They have like 300 nuclear warheads.

It obviously was just a figure a speech. I don't recall ever "celebrating" a political event.

If a political leader was perpetrating an atrocity, the atrocity was unlikely to abet while the political leader remained in control, and the political leader's death put an end to the atrocity, then it would seem reasonable to be happy about the political leader's death.

How many of those were provided by NATO (i.e. U.S.A.)?

Idk that is a good question. Imma guess half what's your guess. One warhead changes the game.

Fair enough. To me it wasn't obviously a figure of speech, but then I'm dumb.

Makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

I'm too ignorant on that topic to even make a guess. I know that NATO is far more important for Europe than for the USA.

Europe would be extremely foolish to continue to rely on the US, and they are perfectly aware of this.

I agree. And that could be a problem for their Democratic-Socialist Utopias (TM Pending).

wasn't foreign dependence on the US military something the US instituted by design?

I can't imagine Lockhead is thrilled with Germany now ramping to its own military production, and it definitely doesn't make our State Department's job easier

Why would we not want established bases (footholds) all over the world?

We can't even feed the troops.

Well at least they'll get proper medical care and health services once they leave the military, right?

The French and British missile submarines, and the French nuclear-capable aircraft, carry exclusively French and British nuclear warheads. The French submarine and air-launched missiles themselves are of French s design and manufacture, though the British use US Trident D5 missile bodies (not warheads) from a common maintenance pool shared with the US Navy.

The British, for some reason, are thinking of standing up an F-35A squadron with US gravity-drop dual-key nuclear bombs as a NATO asset, but this is dumb -- first because a stand-off missile like the French one is more viable, and second because the US is now untrustworthy.

Not really. Trimming Europe's excess welfare spend to prioritise defence would be beneficial. In any case the US spends twice as much per head per annum on healthcare as any West European country (for rather worse coverage) and the US welfare bill is not slim.

Actually I believe France has approx 300 both sub based and air launched, UK slighlty less all on subs, so likely between 5-600 between them. US has about 100 forward based under their control, all gravity based so from bombers...

Damn France, you scary!

Just to circle back, we started this conversation with the claim that Europe has "no military strength".

To add a little to my previous post, France is completely independant, ie their delivery systems and warheads are all produced in France where the UK; based in Scotland is more integrated with the US. The warheads are produced in the UK but they use US trident missles for delivery.

Currently Germany allows US warheads deployed there but I wouldn't be surprised if they are (secretly) working on their own.

Any of the current nuclear powers if they want have enough firepower to put us ALL back to the stone age if it came to that, so you are damn right, scary...

This is completely irrelevant as they will never use them, except as a deterrent to being nuclear attacked themselves. And even then, who knows if they would even respond.

There is no geopolitical decision Russia, Iran, China or the US is making right now that factors in European warheads. As is, they dont really factor in conventional European militaries at all either, as they know Europe has no appetite for military confrontation (with the exception of supplying Ukraine just enough to fight a war of attrition against Russia). Every other geopolitical actor knows Europe is always willing to make a deal from a point of weakness with favorable terms to you.

Completely irrelevant. No political will for military confrontation. There is no scenario where you could imagine European militaries becoming directly involved in any conflict, except maybe some extremely minor symbolic stuff.

And everyone knows it. Whatever Iran, China, Russia, US, African dictatorships, Islamists militias, etc etc are planning; they are doing it knowing Europe militaries wont get involved in any meaningful way. And European countries are always willing to make a deal at favorable terms to any aggressive state.

The one glaring exception is Israel. European leaders are very willing to be aggressive rhetorically, and at some point possibly militarily, to Israel; mainly to play to their antisemitic Islamist and far left wing constituencies and curry geopolitical favor with the Muslim world at large.

The irony and reason I made that post is to show you what you sound like. You do the same exact thing. You look for an opening and take it. You’re the King of “gotchas”.

Somehow my simple question got under your skin.

Also, thank you for following me in the SE thread.

Sounds like a typical American with blinders on. History tends to repeat itself. aka Trump and Iran.. Note: I have dozens of American friends and they are generally warm and inviting so no personal beef other than with your current "leadership".

mongidig,

Can I give you some honest advice? Don't try and do this. You aren't good enough at it and you are just going to make yourself look even more foolish.

As for SE, I don't follow you or anyone else. I just happened to click into that thread and had a laugh when I saw that it was just you sitting in a closet talking to yourself.

In my entire time here, very, very few posters have ever gotten under my skin. You are not one of them.

My God you people are gullible.

I’ll let it go, I see you are getting upset.

.