You were not talking about nuclear proliferation in the comment I was responding to, but made the ridiculous claim that Norway turned itself into a vassal of France. Following up towards another poster with a smear against “French people”. That said, I take back my comment towards you in respect of the rules. Maybe you should take back yours too.
I am not sure how arguing for nuclear proliferation means being a Russian bot. Is there a “not” missing? In that case how is nuclear proliferation when it does not change the number of nuclear war heads, does not spread nuclear war heads to another nation nor does it give any additional government control over nuclear warheads.
I was, you assumed otherwise. Norway submitting to France’s ‘protection,’ means they must always agree with France, they cannot ever go against France, otherwise they’d lose protection.
That’s being a vassal state. Vassal states are and were states not powerful enough to defend themselves, so they sought protection from Empires that felt it would be too costly to conquer them but still needed some of their resources.
Nuclear proliferation is the solution to prevent vassal states, and have an actually independent Norway. Unless you’re a nuclear power, you do not have an army. You do not have any form of defense. It does not matter what you do, you are under the vassalage of a nuclear power. Picking France over Russia is fine, I guess, but the effect will always be the same.
So you are arguing really for proper nuclear proliferation with Norway getting its own independent nuclear capabilities like France. The only small country having nuclear capabilities is Israel, and they surely pay a hefty price for it and are extremely dependend on the support of another major power nonetheless, probably more than Norway is dependent on France, even after this deal.
If France renegades on that deal, the worst thing that happens to Norway is being in the situation form before that deal.
Ukraine has no nuclear warheads and is bombing a nuclear power heavily (defending against its aggression), damaging a lot of its strategically important oil and gas industry btw. A nuclear deterrent is a strong power but it is not the only way to exert hard power, nor does the lack of having nuclear weapons make a country necessarily easy prey.
Ukraine has essentially received materials and nuclear protection from the entire western world. The US has explicitly stated they will retaliate (well Biden did) if nuclear weapons are used. They are lucky they are white enough. They also just genuinely surprised the western world in the first two weeks, as it was assumed they would fall, given the country’s history of extreme corruption and multiple intelligence agencies presuming their lack of military capability would fail them long before Russia ran out of steam.
While e.g. Norway is white, and notably less corrupt, there’s only so many times the entire western world can rally behind a country being attacked. If any multi-polar attack were to be launched but not turned nuclear, there’s very little that could be done for some of the victims. Some country would fail to be protected, and they would fail.
Nuclear protection for Ukraine, do you have any credible source for that claim?
Materials and arms from other countries, hardly makes a case against your point that you have no army unless you have nuclear arms.
Even if Biden said anything. Biden isn’t in power anymore and even with him it was far fetched to believe the US would risk nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. This whole premise has become entirely absurd under Trump. Yet, the counter attacks against Russia have vastly intensified since Biden is out of office.
Your racist classifications are not necessarily as central to foreign policy as you might believe.
You were not talking about nuclear proliferation in the comment I was responding to, but made the ridiculous claim that Norway turned itself into a vassal of France. Following up towards another poster with a smear against “French people”. That said, I take back my comment towards you in respect of the rules. Maybe you should take back yours too.
I am not sure how arguing for nuclear proliferation means being a Russian bot. Is there a “not” missing? In that case how is nuclear proliferation when it does not change the number of nuclear war heads, does not spread nuclear war heads to another nation nor does it give any additional government control over nuclear warheads.
I was, you assumed otherwise. Norway submitting to France’s ‘protection,’ means they must always agree with France, they cannot ever go against France, otherwise they’d lose protection.
That’s being a vassal state. Vassal states are and were states not powerful enough to defend themselves, so they sought protection from Empires that felt it would be too costly to conquer them but still needed some of their resources.
Nuclear proliferation is the solution to prevent vassal states, and have an actually independent Norway. Unless you’re a nuclear power, you do not have an army. You do not have any form of defense. It does not matter what you do, you are under the vassalage of a nuclear power. Picking France over Russia is fine, I guess, but the effect will always be the same.
I see, I did indeed misunderstand you.
So you are arguing really for proper nuclear proliferation with Norway getting its own independent nuclear capabilities like France. The only small country having nuclear capabilities is Israel, and they surely pay a hefty price for it and are extremely dependend on the support of another major power nonetheless, probably more than Norway is dependent on France, even after this deal.
If France renegades on that deal, the worst thing that happens to Norway is being in the situation form before that deal.
Ukraine has no nuclear warheads and is bombing a nuclear power heavily (defending against its aggression), damaging a lot of its strategically important oil and gas industry btw. A nuclear deterrent is a strong power but it is not the only way to exert hard power, nor does the lack of having nuclear weapons make a country necessarily easy prey.
Ukraine has essentially received materials and nuclear protection from the entire western world. The US has explicitly stated they will retaliate (well Biden did) if nuclear weapons are used. They are lucky they are white enough. They also just genuinely surprised the western world in the first two weeks, as it was assumed they would fall, given the country’s history of extreme corruption and multiple intelligence agencies presuming their lack of military capability would fail them long before Russia ran out of steam.
While e.g. Norway is white, and notably less corrupt, there’s only so many times the entire western world can rally behind a country being attacked. If any multi-polar attack were to be launched but not turned nuclear, there’s very little that could be done for some of the victims. Some country would fail to be protected, and they would fail.
Nuclear protection for Ukraine, do you have any credible source for that claim? Materials and arms from other countries, hardly makes a case against your point that you have no army unless you have nuclear arms.
Even if Biden said anything. Biden isn’t in power anymore and even with him it was far fetched to believe the US would risk nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. This whole premise has become entirely absurd under Trump. Yet, the counter attacks against Russia have vastly intensified since Biden is out of office.
Your racist classifications are not necessarily as central to foreign policy as you might believe.