...I'm putting a new Molotov-Ribentrop pact on the board with like 3,000:1 odds.

Europe is split between Russia and America. North America and the islands (Greenland, Iceland, Great Britain, Ireland, Faroes, Canaries, Azores, *et cetera) go to America. Central and Eastern Europe go to Moscow. France, being a nuclear state, is left as a sovereign buffer state; maybe Iberia, Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy (basically, a rump of the First French Empire), go under their umbrella.

▲

jleyank 17 hours ago | parent [-]

Uk has nukes of some kind, and there’s Germany…. The problem with such a grand pact is that the pawns might not want to be on that particular chessboard. Lots of military tradition there, and guns, jeeps and trucks don’t take much to make in quantity.

And the us isn’t well positioned to hold land. The navy and Air Force can only destroy. Not that many grunts in the states, and they might be busy holding it together in such a scenario. And if they try to eject the women and undesirables from the us forces they’ll have significant gaps to fill. Enlisted troops don’t get paid squat to start.

▲

JumpCrisscross 16 hours ago | parent [-]

> Uk has nukes of some kind, and there’s Germany

Are the U.K.'s nukes on an independent platform?

Germany's military has no ranged capability to speak of--not in the same league.

> Lots of military tradition there, and guns, jeeps and trucks don’t take much to make in quantity

They do take time. If, as I suspect, we're at the precipice of the normalisation of tacitcal nukes, I don't think it would be too difficult to suppress. Or maybe it would! (I'd hope it would.) Either way, stupid aftermath doesn't seem to figure into the calculus of either Putin or Trump.

Btw, I'm not making odds for a deal that works. Just a deal that happens. Germany didn't keep anything from M-R.

> the us isn’t well positioned to hold land. The navy and Air Force can only destroy.

Holding Canada, Iceland, Greenland and--at arms length, perhaps as a territory, perhaps as a sovereign nation in name only--the U.K. and Ireland wouldn't take a lot of manpower or coercing.

▲

mna_ 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>the U.K. and Ireland wouldn't take a lot of manpower or coercing.

You don't know us if you think that.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		As a suzerainty? I’m not saying American annexation. When I think of what a suzerain UK would entail, I honestly struggle to see what would be different from now.

▲

jleyank 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Holding the blue states will take some effort.

▲

spacedcowboy 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Are the U.K.'s nukes on an independent platform?

Yes.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Is Polaris still fielded? I thought Britain had transitioned to Tridents.

▲

kashunstva 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Either way, stupid aftermath doesn't seem to figure into the calculus of either Putin or Trump.

Maybe they can share the Nobel Peace Prize that the U.S. president so covets.