Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Well, even if we didn't have the Americans to help us out we would still need NATO to get a common military system, to coordinate our actions.

Furthermore, without the Americans we would se huge nuclear proliferation in Europe. To put it bluntly, most people don't think the French or British are as aggressive and badass as the Americans when it comes to the nuclear posture. Does anyone seriously think they'd risk Paris or London for Tallinn or Bratislava?

Europe would not be a safer place with Hungarian, Polish, Swedish and German nuclear weapons.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Sun Aug 17th, 2008 at 05:07:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Do you really think that the US would risk nuclear war with Russia more than France if a European country were attacked?

If you take a narrow view of national interests, then neither will. If you ask which one is the most likely to act, I'd still say France, today.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Aug 18th, 2008 at 11:55:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, I do. That's what NATO was all about for almost 50 years.

France isn't even a full member of NATO. This does create a certain image when it comes to solidarity.

Of course Sweden is even worse, but we don't claim to protect anyone else with our non-existant nuclear weapons.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Tue Aug 19th, 2008 at 05:55:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

What happens now?

by IdiotSavant - Jan 15
11 comments

Too little, too late

by Frank Schnittger - Jan 12
72 comments

A TITANIC success

by Frank Schnittger - Jan 7
36 comments

Perils of a No Deal BrExit

by Oui - Jan 7
88 comments

Review of 2018

by Frank Schnittger - Dec 26
43 comments

Star Over Bethlehem

by Oui - Dec 25
1 comment

Occasional Series