Hat tip LGF. Leave aside the French bashing for a moment--I normally enjoy it myself, but just for a moment--and consider what is being proposed by the French:
She said that rogue states "could one day point their missiles toward France and its neighbours. We could say to those countries: 'Watch out, if you try to carry out your threats we will destroy you before you know what's hit you.'It is probable? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a nuclear DPRK with improved ballistic capability, or indeed any other rogue state, were indeed to threaten Germany. How protected would you feel by an alliance with a state that will "probably" defend you? How effective is that in deterring attack?"If Germany asked us for help, it is probable that European solidarity would come into play," she told the Berliner Zeitung newspaper, and added: "For us, nuclear weapons are the ultimate protection against a threat from abroad."
Let's say you're the head of a rogue state. What does the calculation look like from your side? "France says it will probably retaliate if we hit Germany," you think. "On the other hand, they know that if they do so they will become a target themselves. If they don't, Paris doesn't get turned into ash. So how 'probable' is 'probable'?"
Not very, I suspect.
No comments:
Post a Comment