posted on May, 1 2014 @ 04:41 PM
a reply to: Zaphod58
Zaph, and wrabbit2000, I thought struck yesterday and I'd like your feedback on it.
Just for arguments sake, lets assume that Putin's move in Crimea and eastern Ukraine would have been far less likely to have happened IF the Ukraine
had maintained it's nuclear arsenal.
That the Ukraine has insufficient conventional means to stop Putin.
Now let's assume this fact is not lost upon the European/NATO members as they also have limited conventional means and no nuclear deterrent
Now enter this gambit(?) with a new nuke deliverable by an F-35. A program suffering from borderline turkey perceptions world-wide with a huge
financial investment stateside. Let's assume those new nukes aren't delivered for now but are held back "in case of" I.E. no violation of the Non
Proliferation agreement...at this time.
But, if you buy F-35s, you have a chance of becoming a "nuclear power" over night...if the situation demands it. ( of course, once you have them,
your not giving them back) Now, if you don't have any F-35s and your neighbors do, you left out in the cold and looking like a political moron to
your own people.
The safe move becomes buy F-35s...just in case...... the real reason behind this "development"?