Should France and the UK share their nuclear weapons with the rest of Europe?
Yes, they should. Nuclear deterrence has worked very well so far and the US’s nuclear shield played a very important role in keeping the European NATO countries safe from Russia. France and the UK can’t afford to leave their allies vulnerable like that.
How does this pen out? If those weapons are meant to be used defencively, they have to be second-strike weapons.
This means that Germany needs nuclear submarines because everything else could be hit by Russian nuclear bombs in the assumed Russian attack.
Preparing nuclear weapons on fighter jets only helps to make Germany a target.
France and UK rightfully ask for support for their nuclear weapons program but there is no need to be further involved than financing it.
This means that Germany needs nuclear submarines because everything else could be hit by Russian nuclear bombs in the assumed Russian attack.
If Russia were to nuke Germany at the scale necessary to prevent a retaliatory strike, the entire planet would be fucked indefinitely.
France and UK rightfully ask for support for their nuclear weapons program but there is no need to be further involved than financing it.
There is a (not unreasonable) fear that the same brainworms infecting American politicians would take hold under a Nigel Farrage or Marine Le Pen government. In the same vein, an AfD takeover of the German government could mean Germany becomes a rogue state if it controls a nuclear stockpile. But again, in these kinds of scenarios, nuclear weapons don’t benefit anyone.
Even beyond that, what we’re talking about is still ICBMs, which functionally amount to a Space Program. And the EU has been fumbling the bag on advanced aeronautics practically since its inception. They’re trying to guard against the possibility that Russia throws another 400k of its conscripted civilians into a land war along the Carpathian Mountains to what possible end?
And all the while, you’ve got guys like Peter Thiel and Bernard Arnault reigniting a transcontinental strain of white supremacy not seen since Henry Ford whipped the first edition of “Protocols of the Elders Of Zion” off the press. While Europeans scramble to bar the gates against Trumpism/Putinism, the evil shit is leeching straight into their well water.
Bernard Arnault reigniting a transcontinental strain of white supremacy
Is there anything that links Arnauld to white supremacy? Or do you mean that he indirectly helps white supremacist viewpoints take hold?
Is there anything that links Arnauld to white supremacy?
Other than his constellation of right-wing news journals, including Le Parisien, and Les Echos newspapers, Radio Classique and magazines Challenges and Sciences et Avenir? The guy was literally sharing a table with the Silicon Valley goons at the Trump inauguration.
Or do you mean that he indirectly helps white supremacist viewpoints take hold?
He’s about as indirect as the Adelsons, the Mercers, the Murdochs, or the Cheneys in the US. Dude dumps tons of money into right wing political organizations, media, and activist groups across Europe, particularly with regards to anti-union efforts in and around the fashion industry.
And the EU has been fumbling the bag on advanced aeronautics practically since its inception.
This is disinformation.
Arianespace pioneered commercial satellite launches and in the 90s peaked at 60% of the market through domestic technology, with the French having developed ICBMs and SLBMs for national security. Meanwhile Airbus drove Northrop and McDonnell-Douglas out of the airliner market and is now out-competing Boeing. And regarding missiles MBDA is competitive as well, with some products like the Meteor leading the way in implementing ramjets.
Jet engines are dominated by the UK and US true, but Safran is still competitive enough to matter (through CFM for commercial or by themselves for military purposes), and although not in the EU Rolls-Royce is much friendlier to cooperation with the EU than American firms.
The EU is currently behind on drones, stealth, and reusable rockets. But that is not indicative of decades-long inability.
Even beyond that, what we’re talking about is still ICBMs, which functionally amount to a Space Program. And the EU has been fumbling the bag on advanced aeronautics practically since its inception.
They already have a space program, so it’s more like a new rocket, really.
They’re trying to guard against the possibility that Russia throws another 400k of its conscripted civilians into a land war along the Carpathian Mountains to what possible end?
Is it really only Russia that you folks worry about? Trump wants Greenland. China will eventually want something.
If European states rebuild a serious modern army, in another twenty years they’ll be bombing one another.
Why would you think that?
I mean, it’s not like they don’t have armies to start with. So I guess that happens either way?
This period of Pax Europa has been an anomaly, to be sure. But Balkanization appears to be coming for them all.
Germany has nuclear-capable subs. There was a whole thing about exporting subs to Israel because they might put nukes on them.
Nuclear-powered is a whole other thing. Type 212s can’t dive as long as nuclear subs but it’s definitely sufficient (18 days is publicly known, they probably can do way more), and on the upside they’re way less detectable than nuclear subs which are loud AF due to being powered by steam engines on angry steroids.
Far right is neck in neck with liberals for couple of months now in UK and France according to polls. Both have single mandate voting districts so it’s a tossup if they won’t have their own Trumps few years down the line unless they cancel elections like in Romania. Not a great outlook, not that great of a plan to rely on wishful thinking. Culturally close countries (Nordics, Baltics states, Eastern Europe) should be working on their nuclear programs ASAP.
Le Pen has already said, that she does not support French nuclear sharing with Germany. So really the only real option for Germany to get relibale nukes is to not share them, but own them.
Doubt that’s gonna happen, there would be huge public opposition in Germany
EVERYBODY GETS A NUKE! ＼(ﾟ∀ﾟ)／
Which UK party are you referring to when you say “liberals”?
Labour, Tories. Both keen on free market economics and austerity. If speaking broadly about EU politics then S&D, EPP and RE are just different faces of neoliberalism. All of them aspire to be perceived as centrist just so that their inhumane economic policies are seen as balanced.
And I assume that “far right” is UKIP? So you’re saying that UKIP is neck-and-neck with Labour and Conservatives combined?
Farrage won nearly half of the tory vote. He’s only growing in polling.
Single mandate voting districts produce very unpredictable results when there’s a tie this close. Add few more percent to anyone and things can flip immediately. You might not even need to because polling has become increasingly unreliable when it comes to far right. Some say this is Russian influence but I’m worried that we are simply out of touch with reality.
Right, but I’m just trying to get a feel for how big UKIP support is at the moment - but this sounds like it’s at the level of either Labour or the Conservatives (and presumably Labour, which I think is still far larger than the Convervatives?), right?
Correct. It’s pretty alarming (Reform is mostly ex-UKIP people):
https://bsky.app/profile/europeelects.bsky.social/post/3ljvdnhsfnk2d
https://bsky.app/profile/europeelects.bsky.social/post/3ljnuuefi2y2k
https://bsky.app/profile/europeelects.bsky.social/post/3ljlmhqdjnh2y
And brought the receipts :) Thanks! And ah yes, Reform is the current name, thanks.
Having Nuclear weapons is making your country (and it’s cities) a target in case of a nuclear war. It can act as a deterrence yes, but it is an all in move.
Oh and better not to give Germany nuclear weapons, you guys learned what they did in the past when they had a little more power than normal.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. And surely the Ukraine war shows that nukes are useful for deterrence. Biden was reluctant to give things to Ukraine (tanks and planes) because he feared escalation from Russia - i.e. the use of tactical nukes.
If Ukraine had nukes, maybe they wouldn’t have been invaded.
Not having nuclear weapons makes your country a target before the nuclear war. Also even the Afd would be unlikely to launch nukes for the same reason Putin hasn’t, it’s a suicide pact.
Isn’t that the reason Nato exists? In case of an invasion from Russia, countries with nuclear weapons will involved… So what the need of nukes exactly? Don’t fuel WW3 guys. Relax with the fucking arms race again.
In case you missed it, the US just effectively abandoned NATO. What security you think it has, it doesn’t. Which also means you can’t depend on any ally that depends on the US, which is all of them.
No one is calling for an arms race, no one needs a thousand nukes. But the ability to erase the dozen biggest cities of an invader is the only effective deterrent these days.
Yeah USA, not France and UK. Why the need to share nuclear weapons with Germany? And until USA officially pulls out (that won’t happen, the cost is too big for them too), they all are obliged to engage if any NATO member is invaded.
The idea of sharing nukes is really just a logistics solution. It’s the same reasoning that led Ukraine to get rid of their nukes. Upkeep is expensive. Sharing with France and UK splits that cost, without having to create duplicate infrastructures. It’s affordable nukes for all to balance the dual problem of, you have to have this thing you never want to use, and that thing you have to have is stupidly expensive.
Yeah never thought of that. Although i believe there are treaties prohibiting Germany to posses nuclear weapons. So i guess the only option for the nukes would be something with EU leadership in play.
Maybe, I’d have to wonder how many of those treaties are still validly in effect. Especially since they were probably set up at the same time Germany was partitioned after the war, and now it’s not. So the entities in agreement might not exist. I’m pretty sure a treaty with East Germany is only worth it’s value as a historical document these days.
You’re missing the point. They don’t have to commit to pulling out. The fact they can’t be trusted now is enough to shake faith that if Article 5 is invoked that they’ll live up their agreement.
Honestly, them exiting would be best, at least everyone will know where they stand. If Russia took a poke at another NATO country and Trump decided to do nothing, what is the rest of NATO gonna do? Send stern letters?
Collective defense only works if you trust your ally with your life. Do you trust the USA right now?
Russia knows that invasion of a NATO country is the start of WW3. That´s why they attacked Ukraine before they entered NATO.
I don’t believe they will exit. I believe that is their move to stop their front with Russia, concentrating to China (sacrificing Ukraine with the worst way possible, i mean Brutus is looking as an innocent guy in front of USA), and EU will increase dramatically their Army budget, something USA was begging for decades. And after the Trump era they will go back normal and act like nothing ever happened.
Europe is panicking (both people and politicians) and acting without a plan right now.
In case of a nuclear war everyone is a target.
This is not how it works. For example as it is, German cities in a case of war with Russia are not targets, because Germany has not nuclear weapons (like Ukraine, but Ukraine is not a Nato member, so no protection with nuclear weapons from Artikel 5).
Looking at the US and Israel I feel like this is a general issue with power tripping people. But looking at our current political climate… I have to agree with you: better keep them away from us :D
UK has American-supplied and maintained nukes so maybe not a great long-term prospect?
No it doesn’t, only the rockets are from a shared pool the war heads are entirely British.
