France to consider protecting European allies with its nuclear arsenal, Macron says

[DancesWithWife]

The opening statement of the story states this:

"France will consider extending the protection of its nuclear arsenal to its allies, French President Emmanuel Macron said Wednesday, while warning that Europe needs to be ready for the United States to not “remain by our side” in the Ukraine-Russia war.

 

“I’ve decided to open the strategic debate on the protection by our deterrence of our allies on the European continent,” he said in a live broadcast on his official social media channels, during which he stressed the need for Europe to continue assisting Ukraine and strengthen its own defense."

 

It's going to be interesting to see how this will have any effect on the cry of peace and security!

 

Story source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/france-to-consider-protecting-european-allies-with-its-nuclear-arsenal-macron-says/ar-AA1Alf2q?ocid=BingNewsBrowse

Edited March 6 by DancesWithWife
spelling grammar

[LeolaRootStew]

I hope the cry is because WWIII was prevented instead of finished.

 

Do you think it's possible that after BtG is destroyed that WWIII could happen during the GT?

[Shawnster]

  On 3/6/2025 at 5:19 PM, LeolaRootStew said:

Do you think it's possible that after BtG is destroyed that WWIII could happen during the GT?

Expand  

I do not see how a WWIII could happen that does not involve nuclear weapons. 

 

I do not see many people surviving a nuclear war. In my opinion Jehovah would have to stop the missiles from launching or reaching their target. 

 

Yes, Jehovah can do anything, including instantly removing the radiation and damage from a nuclear explosion. My question is how many Christians would survive? There needs to be a great crowd that will survive Armageddon. 

 

Im not saying I don't think any nuclear weapons will ever be used, I just think such use will be extremely limited and not involved in a full scale nuclear war. 

 

[LeolaRootStew]

Am I the only one not afraid of nukes? Who cares if most of the world gets destroyed...right before it gets destroyed??

 

If WWIII happens during the GT, the GB will have already evacuated major buildings and Witnesses will be disbursed across the world - most probably already live in rural areas.

 

How many legitimate targets (major cities, government buildings) would destroy a significant amount of God's people?

 

Even if the majority of us were killed, still a Great Crowd would survive Armageddon.

 

What about that scenario makes it impossible?

[Shawnster]

  On 3/6/2025 at 6:43 PM, LeolaRootStew said:

Witnesses will be disbursed across the world - most probably already live in rural areas.

Expand  

Why will we be distributed? How? Many Witnesses live in major population centers - aka ground zero 

 

  On 3/6/2025 at 6:43 PM, LeolaRootStew said:

How many legitimate targets (major cities, government buildings) would destroy a significant amount of God's people?

Expand  

 

Not just the immediate destruction from the explosion, but the radiation that spreads will kill more. Then the famine sets in because those rural areas are irradiated.  Then the food that does grow cannot be distributed because the entire infrastructure has collapsed. The electric grid is shorted out. 

 

No electricity means no internet. No internet means no emails from WHQ directing God's people. 

 

Plus the looting and mob violence as people struggle to simply survive. 

 

In such a situation, would the people know that Jehovah is God and his time of judgement is at hand? Will the nations know that he is Jehovah? Would they really be able to tell the difference between divine judgement and a man made holocaust? 

 

  On 3/6/2025 at 6:43 PM, LeolaRootStew said:

How many legitimate targets (major cities, government buildings) would destroy a significant amount of God's people

Expand  

Worldwide we are 1 tenth of 1% of the total population. However, we are not evenly spread across the globe. So, it might make sense that there are more Witnesses in NYC, LA, or London in contrast with Moscow or Shanghai. 

Edited March 6 by Shawnster

[LeolaRootStew]

  On 3/6/2025 at 7:01 PM, Shawnster said:

Why will we be distributed? How? Many Witnesses live in major population centers - aka ground zero 

Expand  

 

Witnesses are already spread out, but those who live in Bethels will probably leave when religion is banned - that's the dispersion.

 

As for the destruction, I'll refer you to my first answer. 

 

Jehovah's arm is not too short.

Edited March 6 by LeolaRootStew

[LeolaRootStew]

The fear of nukes if overblown, in my opinion. Pardon the pun.

Edited March 6 by LeolaRootStew

[Michał]

I don’t fear nukes either, I just think it’s not something Jehovah wants.

He doesn’t want people to die, he wants people to see his name vindicated. If they die before Armagedon in a nuclear blast they won’t see his glory.

I just can’t see how mass nuclear war fits Jehovah purpose.

(There could be nuclear attacks or disasters of course but in a limited areas)


Wysłane z iPhone za pomocą Tapatalk

[DancesWithWife]

  On 3/9/2025 at 4:34 PM, Michał said:

I just think it’s not something Jehovah wants.

Expand  

DId Jehovah want 6 million Jews dies during the Holocaust? No. But it happened. Hundreds of thousands have died at the hands of so called natural disasters. Earthquakes alone have killed millions it's estimated. Up to 246,000 died in the atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan during WW2. Jehovah has the ability to make sure none of these things happen but they did happen. Is there a possibility of nuclear bombs being dropped again? Yes. How many could dies possibly? Millions. 

 

In the past 150 years alone in China almost 6 million died from floods (1931 and 1887). There has been great amounts of death some by natural disasters and some by the hand of man. Am I fearful of a nuclear attack? Not really, if it happens in my area it happens. The one thing I know for sure is what is written in Matthew and Mark that if Jehovah did not step in no flesh would be saved. "In fact, unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short."-Matthew 24:22 and Mark 13:20 "In fact, unless Jehovah* had cut short the days, no flesh would be saved. But on account of the chosen ones whom he has chosen, he has cut short the days." Matthew 24:21 tells us how how bad the last days will be "for then there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again".  

 

 

[Qapla]

  On 3/6/2025 at 6:12 PM, Shawnster said:

Expand  

 

[chuck83]

  On 3/9/2025 at 4:34 PM, Michał said:

I don’t fear nukes either, I just think it’s not something Jehovah wants.

Expand  

 

I don't think it'd happen. Maybe a tactical low yield but not a strategic.

 

Realistically I live in LA and a 20-50 megaton nuke strapped to an ICBM would wipe out most of LA/OC/Ventura/some parts of SB. We'd have 20 minutes or less. Even in NY it's be 30 minutes or less. Nuclear fallout/radiation poisoning beyond 50+ miles from ground zero. We would need AMPLE warning to flee.  Otherwise, personally it's not something Jehovah would allow. Just my thoughts.

[Michał]

  On 3/9/2025 at 4:56 PM, DancesWithWife said:

DId Jehovah want 6 million Jews dies during the Holocaust? No. But it happened. Hundreds of thousands have died at the hands of so called natural disasters. Earthquakes alone have killed millions it's estimated. Up to 246,000 died in the atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan during WW2. Jehovah has the ability to make sure none of these things happen but they did happen. Is there a possibility of nuclear bombs being dropped again? Yes. How many could dies possibly? Millions. 
 
In the past 150 years alone in China almost 6 million died from floods (1931 and 1887). There has been great amounts of death some by natural disasters and some by the hand of man. Am I fearful of a nuclear attack? Not really, if it happens in my area it happens. The one thing I know for sure is what is written in Matthew and Mark that if Jehovah did not step in no flesh would be saved. "In fact, unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short."-Matthew 24:22 and Mark 13:20 "In fact, unless Jehovah* had cut short the days, no flesh would be saved. But on account of the chosen ones whom he has chosen, he has cut short the days." Matthew 24:21 tells us how how bad the last days will be "for then there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again".  
 
 

I think I didn’t express myself clearly and that’s why you misunderstood my comment

What I wanted to say is that it doesn’t make sense to me that global nuclear war occurs because then 1/4 of global population dies either immediately or within months. Event of that scale would make people think it’s Armageddon and it would obscure the actual Armageddon.

On the other hand a nuclear explosion either during a war, breakdown or terrorist attack that annihilates a whole 5 mln city is still possible - I just hope it doesn’t happen.


Wysłane z iPhone za pomocą Tapatalk

[LeolaRootStew]

  On 3/10/2025 at 7:56 AM, Michał said:

I think I didn’t express myself clearly and that’s why you misunderstood my comment

What I wanted to say is that it doesn’t make sense to me that global nuclear war occurs because then 1/4 of global population dies either immediately or within months. Event of that scale would make people think it’s Armageddon and it would obscure the actual Armageddon.

On the other hand a nuclear explosion either during a war, breakdown or terrorist attack that annihilates a whole 5 mln city is still possible - I just hope it doesn’t happen.


Wysłane z iPhone za pomocą Tapatalk

Expand  

 

1) The people who died in a nuclear holocaust would still be eligible for the resurrection.

 

2) If Jesus appeared in the sky it would be a pretty good way to highlight that this is Armageddon. Plus, His people will be there to announce it, which could be the hailstone message.

 

3) There's no such thing as "too much tribulation" during the Great Tribulation.

[Shawnster]

  On 3/10/2025 at 7:56 AM, Michał said:

On the other hand a nuclear explosion either during a war, breakdown or terrorist attack that annihilates a whole 5 mln city is still possible - I just hope it doesn’t happen.

Expand  

agreed. I can easily see a city or two or three being bombed. Especially a religious city like Jerusalem or Mecca. 

 

Even a dirty bomb is not out of the question. Low yield, mostly radiation with little explosive force. 

[DancesWithWife]

  On 3/10/2025 at 7:56 AM, Michał said:

What I wanted to say is that it doesn’t make sense to me that global nuclear war occurs

Expand  

One would hope that this does not occur. That part I understand. But it could happen enough that scares the whole world for a short time. Thank you for clarifying your statement. 

[Michał]

  On 3/10/2025 at 12:15 PM, LeolaRootStew said:

 
1) The people who died in a nuclear holocaust would still be eligible for the resurrection.
 
2) If Jesus appeared in the sky it would be a pretty good way to highlight that this is Armageddon. Plus, His people will be there to announce it, which could be the hailstone message.
 
3) There's no such thing as "too much tribulation" during the Great Tribulation.

I peacefully disagree I think *global* nuclear war doesn’t make sense, it would be too much of a distraction. One or a few explosions will make sure that unruly see of wicked people will roar but 1/4 to 1/2 of global population seems to be too much.

Anyway, we may think this or that but the reality is going to surpass our expectations.

It’s nice to exchange ideas @LeolaRootStew


Wysłane z iPhone za pomocą Tapatalk

[Cool.As.Ice]

  On 3/6/2025 at 4:21 PM, DancesWithWife said:

The opening statement of the story states this:

"France will consider extending the protection of its nuclear arsenal to its allies, French President Emmanuel Macron said Wednesday, while warning that Europe needs to be ready for the United States to not “remain by our side” in the Ukraine-Russia war.

 

“I’ve decided to open the strategic debate on the protection by our deterrence of our allies on the European continent,” he said in a live broadcast on his official social media channels, during which he stressed the need for Europe to continue assisting Ukraine and strengthen its own defense."

 

It's going to be interesting to see how this will have any effect on the cry of peace and security!

 

Story source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/france-to-consider-protecting-european-allies-with-its-nuclear-arsenal-macron-says/ar-AA1Alf2q?ocid=BingNewsBrowse

Expand  

France has only a few hundred nukes compared to the US, which has thousands and can match Russia.

[DancesWithWife]

  On 3/14/2025 at 3:04 PM, Cool.As.Ice said:

France has only a few hundred nukes compared to the US,

Expand  

One nuke is too many. A single nuclear bomb, like those in the French arsenal, could cause catastrophic destruction, potentially leveling a city and causing widespread death and injuries, with the effects extending for miles in terms of blast, heat, and radiation. There are no winners in a nuclear exchange, no matter the ability to match them. Maybe a deferent not to use even one. Maybe.

[Cool.As.Ice]

I see your point, however, Russia has no fear whatsoever of Britain or France. The only opponent they are truly afraid of is the US.

Edited Friday at 04:32 PM by Cool.As.Ice
Adding a point

[Tortuga]

  On 3/14/2025 at 3:52 PM, DancesWithWife said:

One nuke is too many. A single nuclear bomb, like those in the French arsenal, could cause catastrophic destruction, potentially leveling a city and causing widespread death and injuries, with the effects extending for miles in terms of blast, heat, and radiation. There are no winners in a nuclear exchange, no matter the ability to match them. Maybe a deferent not to use even one. Maybe.

Expand  

Any conversation about a nuclear attack reminds me of a story I wrote.

 

https://jwtalk.net/topic/30018-new-system-story-ideas/?do=findComment&comment=597401

 

[Osprey]

It is true that one nuke can make an enormous damage however there IS a difference if country only has a few, few hundred, or thousands of them. If there would be no reason then US and Russia would not produce so many of them. You have to know that although it is really difficult to intercept nukes, especially ICBMs, it is not impossible, and some would be intercepted in nuclear exchange for sure. If they explode higher in the atmosphere then damage on the ground will be very much reduced, if any at all. It may also happen that some nukes would be destroyed on the ground before launch or immobilised by cyber attack or sabotage or similar. So because of these and similar reasons Russia is really much more afraid of US arsenal than that of France.

Although of course extending nuclear umbrella of France to other countries does have some effect too, its just somewhat limited.

Edited Friday at 05:40 PM by Osprey

[Shawnster]

  On 3/14/2025 at 4:31 PM, Cool.As.Ice said:

I see your point, however, Russia has no fear whatsoever of Britain or France. The only opponent they are truly afraid of is the US.

Expand  

 

NATO. An attack on one is an attack on all. France is no doubt counting on its allies to have its back. 

[ChrisC]

I think POTUS recently said, ‘Wouldn’t it be good if we got rid of nuclear weapons?’

So I expect that will happen any day now. (Attempt at humour.)

 

Looking back, during the 1980’s I was actually quite panicky about WW3/nuclear attacks.

Coming into the truth and seeing the big picture was such a relief.

[Dustparticle]

  On 3/14/2025 at 6:49 PM, Shawnster said:

 

NATO. An attack on one is an attack on all. France is no doubt counting on its allies to have its back. 

Expand  

 Being part French, I always want someone to watch my back too. I do not know it’s in us or not, but being the safe side is make us feel good.

[Shawnster]

  On 3/14/2025 at 10:37 PM, Dustparticle said:

 Being part French, I always want someone to watch my back too. I do not know it’s in us or not, but being the safe side is make us feel good.

Expand  

They aren't watching your back. They are eyeing your chocolate