Dec 2 2025, 05:24 PM
QUOTE(smsid @ Dec 2 2025, 12:42 PM)
NATO highly recommended to place nuclear as deterrence.
https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/deterren...uclear%20forces
https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/deterren...uclear%20forces
QUOTE(smsid @ Dec 2 2025, 02:31 PM)
Lol, you just answered it yourself with your own statement above.
You don't need many nukes as a deterrence, nevertheless it is highly recommended to have it, it is NATO's core component for defense and deterrence.
Only need 1 engine as a core component to make a car drive, you don't need too many.
You don't need many nukes as a deterrence, nevertheless it is highly recommended to have it, it is NATO's core component for defense and deterrence.
Only need 1 engine as a core component to make a car drive, you don't need too many.
QUOTE(smsid @ Dec 2 2025, 03:22 PM)
Then it is NATO's own fault, for putting a conflicting statement on their own official website.
Nevertheless it is a core component for defense and deterrence, logically it is.
Mate, core component for defense & deterence =/= we are going to put nukes in Ukraine. Nevertheless it is a core component for defense and deterrence, logically it is.
There is nothing conflicting about "nukes beings core component for defense & deterence" and "no nukes in Ukraine".
The nukes can still be in France, Germany and it is still "core component for defense & deterence"
Quote
0.0111sec
0.34
6 queries
GZIP Disabled