tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post352871054772551314..comments2024-02-29T02:10:56.878-08:00Comments on J O S H U A P U N D I T: How Scottish Independence Could End Britain's Nuclear DeterrentFreedom Fighterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-77237562605229389842014-08-28T12:51:50.921-07:002014-08-28T12:51:50.921-07:00"As for the military aspect, neither an indep..."As for the military aspect, neither an independent Scotland nor what constitutes Britain's current government seem overly valuable as allies right now." I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, the same thing generally applies to all of our traditional Western European allies. As an example, given Germany's close business ties to Russia any support they might offer us in countering Russia is going to fickle at best. As for France, at least one report indicates 1/6 of French support ISIS. <br /><br />It would seem as if the entire concept of NATO itself no longer fits with current geo political realities and new strategies need to be developed. According to some reports a number of Eastern European nations want the US to base military assets there. <br /><br />If European basing is really needed, then basing in these places and redeploying away from traditional positions may be an option. Of course if we are going to base in Eastern Europe, this is going to further inflame the Russians and place us at even greater risk of conflict with them. In order to handle such a conflict, we are going to need to improve our military capabilities significantly which frankly at 18 trillion or so in debt and a struggling economy I don't see how we can afford!!<br /><br />As for the notion that having a nuclear deterent is going to place one at greater risk of attack, such thinking is ridiculous. A robust nuclear deterent kept the US and its European allies free from an invasion by vastly superior Soviet and allied conventional forces during the entire Cold War. Nevertheless the Scots may have a point here. If the primary concern is Russia, then 160 or so nuclear weapons are not likely to make much difference against a vastly larger and superior Russian arsenal. As such, the best approach would seem to be expand the arsenal rather than scrap it. <br /><br />A similar logic applied to missile defense in places like Poland and the Czech Republic. The populaces of these nations rightly opposed these systems because they were/are wholly inadequate to counter Russia and were only serving to agitate the Russians. The best approach here would seem to be scrap the system entirely or to upgrade the system to one that could counter Russian missiles. Since the US does not have the technological capability to do such a thing, it would seem opposition to an inadequate system was/is the correct approach.<br /><br />Clearly our entire national defense needs to be completely rethought. Unfortunately sound strategic and tactical planning and analysis are completely absent from the US government at this time and seem to be absent from the entire "West" at this time as well. B.Posternoreply@blogger.com