Remove ads

Attempting to Fulfill the Plan MNKh Edition

Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Reader mode
stairmaster said:
we shouldn't base our decision making off of such superstitions
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

to be quite frank, no matter how dumb, or stupid, or incoherent their reasons are, everyone can vote however they wish. You are not here to dictate how people will vote, no matter how frustrating it is for you personally.

Beyond that, who let the actual wreckers in? There's nothing more bourgeois than nuclear annihilation! :V
 

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efLQqM8mkMU

Crazycryodude said:
UK and Benelux I think? And maybe also Italy + Spain.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
OK yeah.

The big effect of removing the nuclear weapons from France is that as long as American troops with tactical nukes are present in a country, it is effectively 100% likely that a Soviet invasion of that country results in American troops going nuclear in self-defense. So the very large American nuclear deterrent is in play against any case where the Soviets consider invading that country.

If the Americans withdraw the nukes from France, it means the French have to much more seriously consider the possibility that if the USSR did invade them, the Americans might choose not to go nuclear in solidarity with France, at which point the French have to try and beat down the USSR using only their own deterrent forces.
 
Simon_Jester said:
It beats "vaporization on our time."

[X]Advocate for Accepting the Terms

Do you... not believe in nuclear weapons? Like, are you under the impression that they are not a thing or cannot affect things?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I've said it before but I genuinely do not believe anyone is capable of pushing that button to end humanity, as based on the countless near misses we've had that by all rights shouldn't have been near misses, and thus simply do not consider nuclear Armageddon a potential outcome in any situation. In addition, us discounting it while our opponents are scared of it gives us an advantage as we will be willing to push harder then they will (obviusly in quest it is a potential result)

My go to reaction when someone says "if you cross this line we will nuke" is to completely ignore the threat and openly and publicly cross the line in full assurance they will not act (obviusly this is about strategic nukes, not tactical)
 
[X] Advocate for Accepting the Terms

It's a good deal, all we are really giving up is shipping weapons by sea. What we get are no US nukes in France for now, no nuclear war, we give win to US administration that was not terrible for us and way less racist than one that is about to replace it. We also don't keep nuclear forces on high alert risking accidents and get less economy disruption.
 
Last edited:
Simon_Jester said:
My honest impression is that the MiG-21 was always best suited for controlled interception. It's a short ranged interceptor, after all, not a general purpose air superiority fighter.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sure, but being able to offer it as a very discount general purpose fighter would be more attractive on the export market. Most nations that buy a few export fighters aren't going to have the sort of sophisticated interception environment it's supposed to work with. And we might not even be willing to upsell them on that- historically the Soviets ripped out most of the GCI integration because it was considered sensitive. It's quite likely we're selling a fighter that's dependent on GCI that it can't even use anymore.
Simon_Jester said:
The big effect of removing the nuclear weapons from France is that as long as American troops with tactical nukes are present in a country, it is effectively 100% likely that a Soviet invasion of that country results in American troops going nuclear in self-defense. So the very large American nuclear deterrent is in play against any case where the Soviets consider invading that country.

If the Americans withdraw the nukes from France, it means the French have to much more seriously consider the possibility that if the USSR did invade them, the Americans might choose not to go nuclear in solidarity with France, at which point the French have to try and beat down the USSR using only their own deterrent forces.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ultimately it's a step towards isolating France. If France has no friends then at some point we can stop listening to them because we could actually first strike them so hard that they couldn't hit back. Ashbrook unfortunately will likely give France some aid even if he probably won't undo steps to prevent WW3. But maybe some future French foolishness could lead to a scenario where France becomes Iran, basically.
 
Dice and Tarots are getting involved for the decision :V, I will trust in the heart of the cards and vote:
[X]Advocate for Accepting the Terms
 
Last edited:
[X]Advocate for Accepting the Terms

In balance France loses more in this exchange and we made it clear that our naval rights will be enforced.
 
DegenWeeb said:
Frankly we should've continued pushing west in 1944, the Capitalists and Imperialists would have stood no chance against the might of the Red Army and our boys would've been back by Christmas.

Anyone that mentions lend lease is a not only unpatriotic but a wrecker and saboteur.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I mean, lend-lease was much less important than OTL to our war production IATL, owing to our better economic starting base and the vastly lower success of Barbarossa. So yeah, we absolutely were in a position to militarily evict the WAllies from the continent but, well...

The problem would be the same that the Nazis faced in 1940 or that both the OTL and IATL Soviets would have faced in the late-40s, before Western nuclear forces matured in the early-50s: "Okay, we have Europe, but Britain and America are still fighting. Now what?"
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top