Europe has nukes.Quote:
Originally Posted by 39TG
It's not invasion from outside it needs to worry about.
Printable View
Europe has nukes.Quote:
Originally Posted by 39TG
It's not invasion from outside it needs to worry about.
James O'Brien about truth and lies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkshYGLUxSo
No it doesn't. The frogs have nukes, as does the UK. The rest of Europe doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
That means Europe has nukes.
hmmm, the last two test firings suggest we have them its just they don't go anywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
By Jonathan Beale, defence correspondent, and Andre Rhoden-Paul
BBC News
The test firing of a Trident missile from a Royal Navy submarine has failed, for the second time in a row.
The latest test of the UK's nuclear deterrent was from HMS Vanguard and was seen by Defence Secretary Grant Shapps.
The missile's booster rockets failed and it landed in the sea close to the launch site, according to the Sun, external, which first reported the malfunction.
Mr Shapps said he has "absolute confidence" in Trident's submarines, missiles and nuclear warheads.
This is highly embarrassing for both the UK and the US manufacturer of the Trident missile.
British tests of Trident missiles are rare, not least because of the cost. Each missile is worth around £17m and the last test in 2016 also ended in failure when the missile veered off course. Test-fired missiles are not armed with their nuclear warheads.
What is Trident and how does it work?
Both Mr Shapps and the head of the Navy were on board HMS Vanguard when it fired the unarmed test missile in January.
The submarine had just had a more than seven-year refit.
In a written statement to Parliament, Mr Shapps confirmed "an anomaly did occur" during the test on 30 January this year, but said Trident was "the most reliable weapons system in the world".
He said: "The test reaffirmed the effectiveness of the UK's nuclear deterrent, in which the government has absolute confidence. The submarine and crew were successfully certified and will rejoin the operational cycle as planned.
"On this occasion, an anomaly did occur, but it was event specific and there are no implications for the reliability of the wider Trident missile systems and stockpiles.
"Nor are there any implications for our ability to fire our nuclear weapons, should the circumstances arise in which we need to do so."
He added Trident remained "effective, dependable, and formidable."
The missile was supposed to have flown several thousand miles before landing harmlessly in the Atlantic between Brazil and West Africa. Instead, it dropped into the ocean near to where it was launched.
At the time of the failed 2016 test, the Sunday Times reported that it was launched from HMS Vengeance off the coast of Florida.
The paper said the Trident II D5 missile was intended to be fired 3,700 miles (5,954 km) to a sea target off the west coast of Africa but veered towards the US.
The cause of what went wrong remains top secret, the paper reported, but quoted a senior naval source as saying the missile suffered an in-flight malfunction after launching out of the water.
Dr Matthew Harries, director of proliferation and nuclear policy at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi), said it was impossible to say how significant the test failure was.
He told BBC News: "There could be a variety of explanations for something going wrong in what HMS Vanguard was doing in test-launching this missile, and there isn't enough information on what exactly that was.
"The missiles the UK uses are drawn from a common pool that the US and UK both use, and the US has conducted multiple tests without these kind of problems.
"Of course it is embarrassing when the launch is announced in advance and the defence secretary is on board. It doesn't look good."
not really, France has them and like their stance with the weapons and NATO there is no guarrantee France will use them for its alliesQuote:
Originally Posted by cyrille
In English, that does not mean Europe does not have nukes.
It's like saying the US does not have nukes because there are none in Kentucky.
Dpends if you are defining Europe as the loose colalition of countries or the geographic region, you weren't clear on that. All the news focuses on "Europes" response, implying the former.
Oh get real. Do you really think that the UK would nuke ruzzia if Poland was invaded?Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrille
Exactly and they won't.Quote:
Originally Posted by malmomike77
Oh FFS.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrille
That is not the same thing at all. Not even close.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrille
What Trump is doing with walking away from Europe and Asia re military aid, all his tariff nonsense, border/illegals insanity, and DOGE purges will within months isolate the US militarily, economically and leave government agencies unable to serve the population.
Result, cost of living will go up dramatically and the security of the US will decrease.
Will the spineless Republicans in Congress challenge Trump the fool and put an end to the circus via legislation? If they don't, all you Trumpsters are gonna really be in bad shape. Hope you all enjoy. :)
"Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed.”
Albert Einstein
I always enjoy your posts snubby ..always factualQuote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
Im all for making America great again but it shouldn't be at other countries expense? It's sad that the billionaires get to call the shots.
http://youtu.be/Nyvxt1svxso?si=dqnYdXKIpOKC3cHaQuote:
Originally Posted by BLD
They always have and always will BLD. Carlin was spot on a decade ago.
Jonathan Pie has rev'd up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk0nUUqG_Ag
Well anyone who has even the slightest modicum of 20th century history knows what happened the last time the US chose to thumb its nose at what was happening in the rest of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLD
Btw, By April 2022, the US and all European NATO members should have had boots on the ground. At least half a million. Putin would have backed down and we wouldn't be discussing this now. Choosing to feed the Ukraine with arms and cash while leaving the Ukrainians to do all the fighting and dying was strategy doomed to fail!
So now here we (Europe) are scrambling to finally take an action to get troops on the ground.
Churchill had it right when he said, "I never worry about action, but only about inaction".
The west's failure to take action is predictably coming back to hurt us far more than action 3 years ago would have.
Worse. They were denied some weapons and were prohibited to use them efficiently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norton
And what if he didn’t? Russia currently holds the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, with over 5500 warheads. What if Putin said “fuck it”, and decided to launch a couple? Where would the world be? This war is crippling the Russian economy, costing them close to $1 billion a day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norton
If the Fuckhead-in-Chief doesn’t bail him out, Putin will be the first to blink.
I’ll bet he said that,Quote:
Originally Posted by Norton
pre-Fat Man and Little Boy.
Then we would have had a nuclear war. Your question implies Putin can do what ever he wants for fear he might use his nucs?Quote:
Originally Posted by beachbound
^we should stick two fingers up to Trump and the US and put a "peace keeping" force in Ukr whilst Putin is still in a mess personnel and equipment wise. Of course UK and European countries are similarly taxed in terms of consumables and there is no spetite in Germany so it won't happen unless there is a tri partite pact between UK, France and Poland.
It's a great opportunity to stick the middle finger up to Trump and call the War Criminals bluff.
That didn't deter aggresive dictator wishing to dominate Europe, While British Spanish and Portugeuse even Belgians had overseas conquests, post defeat of Napoleon the struggle has been teh Hun and the Bear.Quote:
Originally Posted by malmomike77
UK is not part of the continent and could choose to leave it to a EU force.
I cannot see Starmer or anyone bar former commie states introducing mass conscription , trainimg a command wartime economy.
So of course the fascist-in-chief has taken control of the White House press room.
Apparently him picking only brown nosers is "giving access back to the American people".
Quote:
The White House said Tuesday that its officials “will determine” which news outlets can regularly cover President Donald Trump up close — a sharp break from a century of tradition in which a pool of independently chosen news organizations go where the chief executive does and hold him accountable on behalf of regular Americans.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the changes would rotate traditional outlets from the group and include some streaming services. Leavitt cast the change as a modernization of the press pool, saying the move would be more inclusive and restore “access back to the American people” who elected Trump. But media experts said the move raised troubling First Amendment issues because the president is choosing who covers him.
White House says it '''will determine''' which news outlets cover Trump, rotating traditional ones - ABC News
It's because AP has continued to use the name 'Gulf of Mexico'.
:smileylaughing:
White House says it will decide which news outlets cover Trump | Trump administration | The Guardian
It's like the world's supposedly biggest superpower is being run by a nine year old.
Trump shares AI video of Gaza vision featuring golden statues, bearded belly dancers and Netanyahu on a sunbed | US News | Sky News
Trump Gaza
https://youtu.be/PslOp883rfI