Ship of Fools: Nuclear weapons

Thread: Nuclear weapons - please explain. Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020233

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Imagine the worst happened and NK let loose a nuclear weapon, maybe destined for South Korea or Japan or maybe the USA.

Do they think their own country wouldn't be as badly affected as any other by the cloud/fallout/nuclear winter/whatever else?

I don't understand. Is it all simply small willies waving large phallic symbols?

Or should I invest in wind-up torches?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Any posturing with nuclear weapons is ultimately one giant game of chicken - you keep threatening and pushing and pushing and convincing everyone you're crazy and/or evil enough to do this thing until they give you what you want to make them stop.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Boogie:

quote:
Is it all simply small willies waving large phallic symbols?

*high five* You broke the code!

That's really why we have Trident, you know. If your entire foreign policy consists of willy-waving, you need something to wave.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

There is a reason why the nickname 'Tiny Fingers' enrages the current American incumbent.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Imagine the worst happened and NK let loose a nuclear weapon, maybe destined for South Korea or Japan or maybe the USA.

Do they think their own country wouldn't be as badly affected as any other by the cloud/fallout/nuclear winter/whatever else?

Historically, nations have developed nuclear weapons not because they wanted to use them but because they were afraid of other nuclear-armed nations. The U.S. launched the Manhattan Project largely out of fear that the Third Reich was developing the bomb. The Soviet Union initiated a nuclear crash program because they feared the American nuclear monopoly. The U.K. and France built their bombs because they were worried about the Soviet Union and didn't want to have to rely on the Americans. China built its bomb because they were scared of the Soviets, which caused India to build the bomb because they were scared of China, which caused Pakistan to build the bomb because they were scared of India.

North Korea is a charter member of what a former U.S. president dubbed an "Axis of Evil", along with Iraq and Iran. These nations were singled out as being particularly problematic because of their alleged nuclear ambitions. It could be argued that, from a foreign policy perspective, North Korea is acting rationally. The object lesson of Iraq would seem to be pretty clear to other members of the AoE: that not having WMDs (preferably nuclear) is to invite an American invasion. Given the reluctance of the U.S. to start wars with other nuclear-armed nations it's hard to disagree with this line of reasoning. A delivery system that could reach the U.S. is simply the next logical step. Pyongyang may be uncertain if the U.S. would consider North Korea nuking Seoul to be "acceptable losses", but they seem pretty sure the U.S. would consider a war where Hawaii or Los Angeles got vaporized to be unacceptable.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Wrong questions. What would force Kim Wrong-Un to launch?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Imagine the worst happened and NK let loose a nuclear weapon, maybe destined for South Korea or Japan or maybe the USA.

Do they think their own country wouldn't be as badly affected as any other by the cloud/fallout/nuclear winter/whatever else?

If North Korea nuked Seoul then it would naturally experience some of the fallout. Seoul would be affected to a considerably greater extent though.

quote:
I don't understand. Is it all simply small willies waving large phallic symbols?

There's an element of that, sure - Kim has to put on a good show for his countrymen and allies. But there's also much more to it - nuclear deterrence and Mutually Assured Destruction are still viable geopolitical tools.

Pyongyang cannot fail to have noticed what has happened to other "rogue states" to which the West has taken a dislike. Thus far it has avoided a similar fate by hiding under the nuclear umbrella of China, but China seems to be getting tired of supporting the Kims whatever they do (no doubt because it sees a more profitable future in trading with the West rather than antagonising it). For Kim, this means only one thing - he has to stand up for himself rather than relying on one of the big boys to protect him. And the best way to protect oneself at the national level is to have nuclear weapons - the ultimate deterrent against another country deciding to attack, regardless of any disparity in conventional armed strength.

If Kim eschewed nuclear weapons and China decided to look the other way, America would bomb Pyongyang back to the stone age in order to reunite the Koreas under a West-friendly regime. NK may have a massive army, but that won't help against a foe who can park their fleet a hundred miles off the coast and send waves of bombers and missiles to pound them into the dust. Without Chinese support the only thing stopping America from doing so is the promise that if they do, some of their own cities will be levelled as well.

Deride it as willy-waving if you like, but if I was in charge of a small country with wavering allies and a dangerous enemy that was already moving its fleet into position off my coastline then gaining a nuclear capability would be my first priority as well.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I think Marvin is right, but I'd add to it.

Why wouldn't North Korea's leadership be worried? The USA destroyed Iraq. You can view the hanging of Saddam on these internets if you want to. And there's an additional long history of what the USA does to countries when it doesn't like the government or wants some sort of economic advantage.

Another question might be where on the insane-o-meter the various leaders score.

But I think what is likely to happen is that the USA keeps threatening, and China decides to do it. Why not? Like Russia and Crimea, not much to do about it except wave hands and say how bad it all is.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

The U.K. and France built their bombs because they were worried about the Soviet Union and didn't want to have to rely on the Americans.

I think in both cases it had more to do with trying to cling on to Great Power status in a changing world. After the U.S. reneged on its agreement to share nuclear technology with the U.K. after WW2, the development of a British bomb was initially ruled out on grounds of cost. Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin experienced at first hand the humiliation of no longer being one of the big boys, and told Attlee "we've got to have this thing, Clem, whatever it costs", and the money was found. (Strange how austerity can be put aside when it comes to propping up ministerial egos.)

The French started working towards a nuclear capability after France and Britain were humiliated by Eisenhower over the Suez fiasco. The final decision to build a nuclear arsenal was taken by De Gaulle, naturellement.

In both cases the possession of nuclear weapons is more a matter of national prestige. I doubt anyone thinks that the British or French nuclear forces have much strategic value, or that any Soviet/Russian leader has ever lost much sleep over them.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

And Iran? Shia-nerves in the face of a nuclear Sunni-Pakistan?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

It is all down to Mutually Assured Destruction, with the most appropriate ever acronym. The idea that nobody would ever fire missiles because they would know that their own destruction would be guaranteed.

It is still the basis of having Trident. And, of course it makes absolutely no sense in todays society.

In fact, I am not sure it ever did make sense, even when the major world leaders were frightened rats rather then arrogant dicks. You have to assume that They are as scared as you.

As I have said in other places, modern day warfare is mainly terrorist guerrilla tactics, against which nuclear weapons are meaningless. Even the much heralded MOAB that Trump dropped in Afghanistan was not very effective.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
And Iran? Shia-nerves in the face of a nuclear Sunni-Pakistan?

Iran is involved in a proxy war against Saudi Arabia in Yemen just now. The USA is arming the Saudis, who knows why they want to do that? Maybe Russia is supporting Iran at another level of proxy? (Nice that the French have signed an energy deal with Iran. It'll make for a better plot when John le Carré writes a novel about it.)

Posted by wabale (# 18715) on :

Up till now it could be argued that ‘our’ having nuclear weapons has been a good thing. During the Cold War the existence of nuclear weapons prevented the USA and the USSR going to war directly with each other: one result of this was that there was no ground war in Europe, and its frontiers remained static for nearly half a century. There was a nuclear balance, and a nuclear doctrine called Mutual Assured Destruction, which rested on the belief that no country would survive a nuclear exchange. Whatever might be said about this doctrine both Russia and the West believed in it, and that was the basis of the S.A.L.T. agreements which reduced the number and type of nuclear weapons to an agreed level. Since then, nuclear disarmament has been stymied by the development of anti-ballistic missiles (which when you come to think about it remove the ‘Assured’ part of Mutual Assured Destruction) and the failure of international efforts to prevent the spreading of nuclear weapons.
However alongside the cosy agreements of the Superpowers, the number of countries possessing nuclear weapons has grown. North Korea’s development of an Inter Continental Ballistic Missile marks the final failure of international efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

What has been spectacularly missing for the last twenty years is the ‘T’ in S.A.L.T. - which I am slightly bemused to rediscover stood for ‘Talks’.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

SC:

quote:
In fact, I am not sure it ever did make sense, even when the major world leaders were frightened rats rather then arrogant dicks. You have to assume that They are as scared as you.

That's where MAD falls down - in the case of North Korea, if not in others closer to home; it relies on the other country's leaders actually caring about protecting their people.

I think we've been in Dr Strangelove territory for some time.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

North Korea is not the nuclear power that scares me most at the moment.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Of course, the Emperor would never stand for being humiliated, and the boy, his village and the countryside all around would be razed. Nevertheless, it's interesting to hear his voice starting to be heard. Some of us never saw the Emperor as other than utterly naked. And of course, we were the delusional ones.

[ 06. July 2017, 17:33: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
And Iran? Shia-nerves in the face of a nuclear Sunni-Pakistan?

Nuclear Israel might be more the issue.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Israel's had them for 50 years.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Israel's had them for 50 years.

And Pakistan has had them for over 30. Israel's ability to target Iran directly (via the Jericho II nuclear missile) is more recent than that.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Aye. Iran and Israel are no threat to each other whatsoever by comparison with the Sonny and Cher divide.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I think Marvin is right, but I'd add to it.

Why wouldn't North Korea's leadership be worried? The USA destroyed Iraq. You can view the hanging of Saddam on these internets if you want to.

And there's the example of what happened to Gaddaffi shortly after he gave up his WMD programme.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

A rogue Nation that builds a huge conventional army and goes goose-stepping across borders is a problem.
A rogue Nation that feeds terror groups nukes is a bigger problem.
A rogue Nation that launches a nuke on the US or one of it's Allies is toast.

A Billion could die, life will go on for the remaining six.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
A rogue Nation that builds a huge conventional army and goes goose-stepping across borders is a problem.
A rogue Nation that feeds terror groups nukes is a bigger problem.
A rogue Nation that launches a nuke on the US or one of it's Allies is toast.

A Billion could die, life will go on for the remaining six.

6 billion twisted wrecks of men under the stormclouds of a nuclear winter, giving birth to crippled children with short painful lives.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

If a nuclear exchange killed a billion people in hours, the rest would follow in days.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

Depends on how massive the exchange is. It it's very limited, well, life went on for the Japanese who weren't in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Not to mention all those above ground tests we conducted.

Edited to add, obviously if it's killing billions it's a pretty massive exchange.

[ 07. July 2017, 14:48: Message edited by: Nicolemr ]

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I think Marvin is right, but I'd add to it.

Why wouldn't North Korea's leadership be worried? The USA destroyed Iraq. You can view the hanging of Saddam on these internets if you want to.
And there's the example of what happened to Gaddaffi shortly after he gave up his WMD programme.

To be fair, if nuclear armaments could keep tyrants in power, the Soviet Union would still be with us.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

But some of these bombs are hundreds of Hiroshimas. They're measured in Megatons yield, Hiroshima was 20kT.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

If a billion died directly from the explosions, fires, primary irradiation and fallout within a year, at least a billion more would die of famine, disease and resources wars, also within that year. The ultimate resource being human meat. We'd be back to 1800 and falling fast within a handful of years.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I think Marvin is right, but I'd add to it.

Why wouldn't North Korea's leadership be worried? The USA destroyed Iraq. You can view the hanging of Saddam on these internets if you want to.
And there's the example of what happened to Gaddaffi shortly after he gave up his WMD programme.
To be fair, if nuclear armaments could keep tyrants in power, the Soviet Union would still be with us.

But that's not quite the argument being made. The idea is not that Kim thinks nuclear arms will keep him in power. The idea is that Kim thinks nuclear arms will keep the US from invading North Korea in order to remove him from power. Now, a US invasion of North Korea has been off the table for a long time simply because of the high level of casualties we and South Korea would suffer, but Kim either doesn't know that or doesn't want to know that.

The USSR came apart mainly due to internal reasons, and chances are that internal reasons will be what brings regime change to North Korea, if and when that ever happens.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But some of these bombs are hundreds of Hiroshimas. They're measured in Megatons yield, Hiroshima was 20kT.

There was famously, a gentleman who was present at Hiroshima when the bomb dropped, but being nowhere near the blast radius was able to catch a train to Nagasaki, where the second bomb dropped. Amazingly he survived and lived on to age of 93. If we go on to the full Threads scenario, it's fair to say that we will look back on Southern Rail as a golden era of transport infrastructure in the UK.

However, there are grounds for moderate optimism. The first of which is that possession of nuclear weapons does tend to induce a certain seriousness into their possessors. During the Cuban missile crisis the real hawks (irony, you are dead to me) were the Cuban communists. The Russians, who had seen the confidential briefings, were much more inclined to cut a deal. Similarly Chairman Mao regarded nuclear weapons as a 'paper tiger' until China got hold of some, at which point, he moderated his position to the extent that he ended up entertaining the Nixons and Doctor Kissinger.

Secondly, the sane elements within undesirable regimes are wont to move swiftly against the more turbulent elements if things are seen to be spiralling out of control. Kruschev, famously, lost his job over the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Soviet Politburo had little, ostensibly, with the guiding lights of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament but they had surprisingly similar views as to the undesirability of living through an immersive performance of 'The War Game'.

So, an alternative proposition to everything ending in a series of big bangs followed by small whimpers is either Trump and Kim sharing haute cuisine and pussy grabbing anecdotes in Pyongyang or a grim faced staff officer explaining in several words of one syllable ("My gun knows eight words and they are all the same" - Fritz Leiber) that the current policies of the regime are no longer tenable. I think it likelier that the grim faced staff officer would be North Korean but I do not rule out a similar intervention on the US side, in the current climate.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I think Marvin is right, but I'd add to it.

Why wouldn't North Korea's leadership be worried? The USA destroyed Iraq. You can view the hanging of Saddam on these internets if you want to.
And there's the example of what happened to Gaddaffi shortly after he gave up his WMD programme.
To be fair, if nuclear armaments could keep tyrants in power, the Soviet Union would still be with us.
But that's not quite the argument being made. The idea is not that Kim thinks nuclear arms will keep him in power. The idea is that Kim thinks nuclear arms will keep the US from invading North Korea in order to remove him from power. Now, a US invasion of North Korea has been off the table for a long time simply because of the high level of casualties we and South Korea would suffer, but Kim either doesn't know that or doesn't want to know that.

The USSR came apart mainly due to internal reasons, and chances are that internal reasons will be what brings regime change to North Korea, if and when that ever happens.

Kim knows it. Western democracies can't take casualties. They couldn't in WWII, tried to prove they could in 'Nam and failed. They're prepared to use overwhelming firepower as in Panama, Grenada, Syria, Kuwait, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya but in the meantime Seoul would be battered by artillery. The opening salvo alone would be the equivalent of nearly 4 'Nam Arc Light raids. Is South Korea prepared to pay that price?

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Even if Kim did not have nuclear weapons, or if he chose not to use them, he has the huge bargaining chip of being able to kill a huge amount of the millions of people in Seoul before the South Korean and US defences there could stop him, using only conventional weapons. Now that he has nukes, any attempt at a tactical strike to take out his nuclear weapons, or attempts to assassinate him, could be met with a non-nuclear response that is too catastrophic for South Korea or the US to imagine. There really are no good options for the US, South Korea, or Japan in trying to get him to give up his nukes, or even in trying to get him to stop doing all kinds of crazed provocations.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Kim knows it. Western democracies can't take casualties.

If Kim knew this, he'd know that the high number of casualties the US and South Korea would suffer in attempting to invade and defeat North Korea are sufficient to keep that invasion from taking place. But he think he needs nuclear weapons to prevent that, or at least that's what he says.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
. There really are no good options for the US, South Korea, or Japan in trying to get him to give up his nukes, or even in trying to get him to stop doing all kinds of crazed provocations.

So long as those provocations continue to be unarmed missiles plopping into the sea the World has to live with it. He might even clonk one on land somewhere and we'll still have to suck it up.

But of course the longer North K. Is left to build up a fleet of Trident equivalent subs the more damage it will do even in the aftermath of trying to annihilate it. So yes, war with such a Country is looking less great with each passing year. Peaceful negotiation if possible please.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

The other aspect to it is that the way to win a game of chicken is by making your opponent think you are a total psycho who will happily blow up your own car just for the lulz.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Kim knows it. Western democracies can't take casualties.
If Kim knew this, he'd know that the high number of casualties the US and South Korea would suffer in attempting to invade and defeat North Korea are sufficient to keep that invasion from taking place. But he think he needs nuclear weapons to prevent that, or at least that's what he says.

True. Very true. Having nukes means they can do and SAY nothing. India says nowt to Pakistan nowadays, nor China to India. Respect.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Kim knows it. Western democracies can't take casualties.
If Kim knew this, he'd know that the high number of casualties the US and South Korea would suffer in attempting to invade and defeat North Korea are sufficient to keep that invasion from taking place. But he think he needs nuclear weapons to prevent that, or at least that's what he says.
True. Very true. Having nukes means they can do and SAY nothing. India says nowt to Pakistan nowadays, nor China to India. Respect.

Are you sure about that. Frankly I'm more concerned about Pakistan and India than North Korea.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
True. Very true. Having nukes means they can do and SAY nothing. India says nowt to Pakistan nowadays, nor China to India. Respect.
Are you sure about that. Frankly I'm more concerned about Pakistan and India than North Korea.

Pakistan having nukes is one thing, but regime change there could make them available to Iran and Afghanistan. If Iran has nuclear weapons who can tell what Israel will do.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

It would be very surprising if Iran hasn't already got the Bomb tucked away in a deep bunker somewhere. They've been fiddling around with centrifuges for long enough to cook one up.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Kim knows it. Western democracies can't take casualties.
If Kim knew this, he'd know that the high number of casualties the US and South Korea would suffer in attempting to invade and defeat North Korea are sufficient to keep that invasion from taking place. But he think he needs nuclear weapons to prevent that, or at least that's what he says.
True. Very true. Having nukes means they can do and SAY nothing. India says nowt to Pakistan nowadays, nor China to India. Respect.
Are you sure about that. Frankly I'm more concerned about Pakistan and India than North Korea.

Ha! Thanks Prester John. Kids eh?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
True. Very true. Having nukes means they can do and SAY nothing. India says nowt to Pakistan nowadays, nor China to India. Respect.
Are you sure about that. Frankly I'm more concerned about Pakistan and India than North Korea.
Pakistan having nukes is one thing, but regime change there could make them available to Iran and Afghanistan. If Iran has nuclear weapons who can tell what Israel will do.

America would not allow that. Period. And why would Sunni give Shia nukes? And what would Afghanistan do with them? Israel can and will do nothing. And no she doesn't Rolyn.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Thank goodness for that.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

If she had them, she'd prove it. With an underground test. And Israel would do nothing. She doesn't have them due to the US-Israeli Stuxnet computer virus. It trashed those centrifuges.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Those futuristic visions of how war would be fought in the 21st century seem to be turning into fact.
Oh yes, there will always be blood spilt, sadly also fact since Cain, but the giant Mushroom fest? Maybe that will only ever exist in our fearful imagination.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

Thought this little bit of humor was apropos to the discussion:

Tom Lehrer "Who's Next?"

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Also, some good news, to prove that not all nations in the world are completely nuts. Though it's still only a step towards ridding ourselves of the obscenity of nuclear weapons - but the substantial reduction in the prevalence of biological and chemical weapons, landmines and other indiscriminate weapons started the same way with UN treaties.

[ 08. July 2017, 22:17: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Aspirational Allan. It is a nice idea, which will be endorsed by countries which haven't got nukses. Those with will keep them.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

You have to aspire, or you get no where.

quote:
You gotta have a dream
if you don't have a dream
How you gonna have a dream come true?

AIUI, it only takes 50 nations to sign the treaty and it becomes international law, and more than twice that number voted in favour yesterday. It may not be enforceable in any strict legal sense, but it will be a clear signal that the majority of the international community does not consider it acceptable to maintain, let alone develop, a nuclear arsenal. And, that those nations which continue to openly flaunt their nuclear capability will be increasingly considered as out of step with world opinion. That probably won't bother some world leaders, but it will affect the policies of many. At the very least, if nukes come to be considered in the same way as biological or chemical weapons - something everyone knows world powers have but their very hush hush - that will be a step towards significantly reducing the number there are around.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

Here is the text. It enters into force 90 days after the 50th country ratifies it, but it says nothing about any duties or expectations of countries that don't sign up.

Here is the voting record. Only one "no" vote (Netherlands) and one abstention (Singapore); 69 countries didn't even bother to abstain.

I wonder if maybe some of the "yes" votes aren't entirely serious - a number of those countries host large US naval bases, and it would be awkward for them to refuse the stationing of nuclear-armed ships, which is prohibited under Article 1(g).

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:

Here is the voting record. Only one "no" vote (Netherlands) and one abstention (Singapore); 69 countries didn't even bother to abstain.

I wonder if maybe some of the "yes" votes aren't entirely serious - a number of those countries host large US naval bases, and it would be awkward for them to refuse the stationing of nuclear-armed ships, which is prohibited under Article 1(g). [/QB]

I think people have missed the story within this - leading to some bafflement on the part of many as to why the Netherlands voted no...

NATO governments agreed a unilateral No position on this and deputed the Netherlands to vote no on behalf of every country in the alliance while the rest made a show of not even turning up. Given this is an inter-governmental agreed position the list of countries either voting no or actively staying away to indicate a lack of legitimacy of the vote is actually:

ALBANIA (2009)
BELGIUM (1949)
BULGARIA (2004)
CANADA (1949)
CROATIA (2009)
CZECH REPUBLIC (1999)
DENMARK (1949)
ESTONIA (2004)
FRANCE (1949)
GERMANY (1955)
GREECE (1952)
HUNGARY (1999)
ICELAND (1949)
ITALY (1949)
LATVIA (2004)
LITHUANIA (2004)
LUXEMBOURG (1949)
MONTENEGRO (2017)
NETHERLANDS (1949)
NORWAY (1949)
POLAND (1999)
PORTUGAL (1949)
ROMANIA (2004)
SLOVAKIA (2004)
SLOVENIA (2004)
SPAIN (1982)
TURKEY (1952)
THE UNITED KINGDOM (1949)
THE UNITED STATES (1949)

to which can be added all the other countries who didn't vote for whatever reason. But overall the Netherlands were the ones to "take one for the team"

[ 09. July 2017, 13:50: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

the position within NATO is even more nuanced - even some Germans IME don't appreciate that Germany has NATO issued nuclear weapons which it undertakes to use on NATO's orders.

Germany isn't a nuclear power per se, but it does hold, and has agreed to use on NATO's behalf, nuclear weapons. As do Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey. These are issued by the US, but would be used by the forces of those countries, NOT US forces in those countries.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

"Nine he gave to Mortal Men, proud and great, and so ensnared them. Long ago they fell under the domination of the One, and they became Ringwraiths, shadows under his great Shadow"

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0