[ryanx435]

do YOU understand the MAD doctrine?

it only works if your enemy believes that you will use nuclear weapons. If they don't think you will use nukes, than the threat of mutually assured destruction isn't a real threat, so MAD doesn't work.

purely in terms of MAD, it is actually good that everyone thinks that trump is eager to launch the nukes.

[greenshackle2]

He doesn't seem to understand NATO though. He made every security expert shit their pants by stating he wouldn't necessarily defend NATO countries.

It makes me question his understanding of the strategic value of unconditional retaliation, which underpins MAD.

(Alternatively, he understands, but doesn't care if Europe gets stomped by Russia.)

[ryanx435]

He negotiated a better deal. The majority of countries that were not contributing to NATO in accordance with the treaty are now doing so.

He very clearly explained his thought process for this type of thing in the Art of the deal. To paraphrase, he started with an extreme position (disbanding NATO) so that he can meet the other party somewhere in the middle (they pay their fair share and do their part militarily).

Overall it would seem he was very successful with this.

[greenshackle2]

NATO is not a business deal. That's a very dangerous game to play when Russia is waiting for an opening to stomp the baltic countries. It's not worth risking the integrity of NATO over 2% of the GDP of 3 broke-ass (but strategically important) countries.

[ryanx435]

> That's a very dangerous game to play when Russia is waiting for an opening to stomp the baltic countries.

politics has always been a dangerous game. This didn't just start this election cycle.

> It's not worth risking the integrity of NATO over 2% of the GDP of 3 broke-ass (but strategically important) countries.

NATO has no integrity if member countries do not follow the terms of the agreement. How can we expect them to support us if needed against Russia in the future if they aren't doing it now? Just because the US has a strong enough military to stand against russia alone doesn't mean that it would not be better if all the NATO countries helped out. I mean, thats the whole point of the treaty: stronger together, united against a common enemy.

[zo1]

Do you seriously believe that Russia will invade Europe the moment that USA stops supporting NATO?

[monodeldiablo]

I live in Croatia. As of last month, there was an attempted coup in Montenegro (our neighbors to the south). In Serbia (our neighbors to the east), the president is currently in hiding because of a series of assassination attempts, as well as the discovery of a large weapons cache indicative of a coup attempt. Both sets of conspirators were Russian-trained operatives, fresh from fighting in Ukraine for Mother Russia. Some were caught. Most fled back to Russia.

Meanwhile, in Bosnia (our next-door neighbors, sharing the overwhelming majority of our eastern border), the president of Republika Srpska (which controls half of Bosnia) has been in talks with Putin directly for months. The content of those discussions is undisclosed, but just this month he called a referendum on statehood -- a direct violation of the Dayton Agreement and a prelude to yet another Balkan War.

If you think Russia hasn't already begun invading Europe, you've really not been paying attention. With Ukraine looking likely to fall, I'd tremble if I lived in a Baltic state. Hell, I'm trembling over here and -- to give you an idea of how close to Western Europe the threat is coming -- I can see Italy on a clear day.

[monodeldiablo]

Trump didn't write The Art of the Deal, and its author freely admits he made most of it up because he couldn't convince Trump to sit still for more than 5 minutes.