yeah, they're going to have to build a new NATO-like alliance and go it alone. Seems like it would be a good thing if the EU had some military teeth of their own to give them more leverage in all the Bad Things going on now.
Some folks are arguing even further, "Japan, South Korea, and Poland need nuclear weapons immediately":
> The modern world is a place where nuclear-armed great powers, led by authoritarian leaders, often feel the impulse to bully smaller nations. If those smaller nations lack nuclear weapons, they lie prostrate and vulnerable at the feet of the bullies. But if they have nukes, they are much harder to push around. This doesn’t mean they’re impervious to attack — Israel has been struck by Iran and its proxies — but having nukes dramatically improves a small country’s security.
Given that the Trump administration aligns itself with Russia and North Korea, the EU will need it. The US convinced Ukraine to scrap their nukes as they promised they would come to Ukraine's aid if needed. Trump is basically exploiting the situation to gain access to their natural resources. He's also telling them to let Russia keep the territory they stole when they Invaded Ukraine. Yes imagine that, Russia starting a war. Our country is so gaslit, our own citizens don't know right from wrong; fact from fiction. Protect your networks ppl. It's only going to get worse.
The speed at which EU defense integration precedes is dizzying. In only:
– one month after the US openly said it won't be the primary security guarantor of Europe
– a month and a half after the second inauguration of a NATO sceptical president
– three years after the start of a major european land war bordering the EU
– 14 years after another US administration formally announced it's "Pivot to Asia"
… a European country has announced it's "open to discussion" about extending its nuclear umbrella. Not that it's offering the umbrella. Not that it has discussed offering the umbrella. But that it's open to start those discussions.
Just wondering what Australia might think now after having rejected the French nuclear sub deal for a US one. Perhaps DJT might consider "buying" Australia soon? Lots more minerals than Ukraine.
I was listening to an interview with the Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson about this. He said it's good that Europe has nuclear weapons capacity. Then he says something like "it's not relevant to us right now but could be in the future".
For several reasons, France is uniquely positioned to be the leader of Europe.
Nuclear arms, a lot of nuclear energy, defense industry, food independence. All of this thanks to Charles De Gaulle, who insisted that France must be autonomous in most important domains.
With hindsight, this was extremely important. Without France's nuclear energy and arms, Europe would be in a very very bad position right now.
I think it's interesting that the Trump administration hasn't breathed a word about the nuclear-sharing arrangements currently in place. It's low-hanging fruit, sends an extremely clear message, and relatively straightforward to accomplish, yet he hasn't made a move towards emptying the WS3 vaults in places like Kleine Brogel and Aviano.
I suspect right now we're seeing a lot of public noise designed largely to get Europe to spend more on both internal defense and their NATO commitments, while privately the attaches continue to conduct business as usual, at least when it comes to the American-supplied nuclear deterrent.
It is obvious that Sweden, Denmark and Norway and Germany, Poland and of course Ukraine need nuclear weapons now.
They had been threatened by Russia with nuclear weapons and it looks like when push comes to shove the US is not going to defend them(go to ww3) using nuclear weapons.
Trump's actions about WW3 means that countries that have nukes are first class, and the rest are third class. It looks like a Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in which nuclear countries divide the non nuclear's territories.
When Russia invaded Ukraine it had almost nobody defending the border, that was the reason of Kursk offensive success.
The official story was that "Russia had to defend itself from NATO invasion". In reality they knew nobody was going to invade a nuclear power not having nukes, while they could invade freely.
No country will risk its own annihilation to defend the borders of another country. That's why de Gaulle left NATO in the first place, he didn't want anyone else's finger on the french nuclear button than his own, he didn't trust the US would go nuclear with the USSR over France. Third party nuclear protections are little more than warm reassurances, but will amount to nothing when the day comes.
And to be honest I am not even sure first party nuclear protection is worth that much. French president Giscard d'Estaing famously said he would probably not have used nukes if France had been invaded under his presidency. What a moronic thing to say (it massively undermines French nuclear deterrence).
Russia's invasion of Ukraine is the main cause. Countries can't count on agreements or treaties to keep them safe. Russia would have never invaded if Ukraine had its ICBMs and hundreds of nuclear warheads.
I’m simple on that notion: Russia is our adversary.
They have assassinated people in the EU and UK. Sabotaged our pipelines. Paid anti EU politicians. Threatened EU powers. Shot down civilian flights. Made plans to invade the Baltics.
They are an adversary. We have weapons and an army. We should neutralize that adversary.
Russia has currently lost momentum in Ukraine. So they are seeking a temporary peace, to rebuild. Logic dictates that we start behaving as their adversary. To not give them any benefit, and build on that momentum to keep them diminished.
The last time a US president has used that phrase Nord Stream was blown up.
There is a high chance that all of this is political theater designed to get the EU to spend more on its military and take over the Ukraine war so the EU will be the culprit while the US can trade with Russia and China. Playing off continental powers against each other has historically been the hallmark of Britain and now the US, both of whom live in splendid isolation.
The EU should hedge against this scenario and seek better relations with Russia.
If Trump is serious and none of this is theater, the EU should also seek better relations with Russia, otherwise it will have a two front war against the two superpowers.
It would be nice to have a substantive discussion of the topic without falling into the well worn rhetorical traps.
In that sprit, I'm curious what advantages Euro-nukes offer relative to the existing French arsenal. What is the current status and limitation of French nuclear protection through NATO and European Union security guarantees, and how do these limitations compare to what nuclear protections the USA has historically provided?
Whoops, you're not connected to Mailchimp. You need to enter a valid Mailchimp API key.
Our site uses cookies. Learn more about our use of cookies: cookie policyACCEPTREJECT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
23 Comments
zzzeek
yeah, they're going to have to build a new NATO-like alliance and go it alone. Seems like it would be a good thing if the EU had some military teeth of their own to give them more leverage in all the Bad Things going on now.
woodpanel
Every now and then, a French president floats the idea of Euronukes:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09662839.2020.1…
Yeul
Power comes from the barrel of a gun. Once again the Chinese were right but we didn't listen…
throw0101d
Some folks are arguing even further, "Japan, South Korea, and Poland need nuclear weapons immediately":
> The modern world is a place where nuclear-armed great powers, led by authoritarian leaders, often feel the impulse to bully smaller nations. If those smaller nations lack nuclear weapons, they lie prostrate and vulnerable at the feet of the bullies. But if they have nukes, they are much harder to push around. This doesn’t mean they’re impervious to attack — Israel has been struck by Iran and its proxies — but having nukes dramatically improves a small country’s security.
* https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/japan-south-korea-and-poland-n…
onepremise
Given that the Trump administration aligns itself with Russia and North Korea, the EU will need it. The US convinced Ukraine to scrap their nukes as they promised they would come to Ukraine's aid if needed. Trump is basically exploiting the situation to gain access to their natural resources. He's also telling them to let Russia keep the territory they stole when they Invaded Ukraine. Yes imagine that, Russia starting a war. Our country is so gaslit, our own citizens don't know right from wrong; fact from fiction. Protect your networks ppl. It's only going to get worse.
LAC-Tech
The speed at which EU defense integration precedes is dizzying. In only:
– one month after the US openly said it won't be the primary security guarantor of Europe
– a month and a half after the second inauguration of a NATO sceptical president
– three years after the start of a major european land war bordering the EU
– 14 years after another US administration formally announced it's "Pivot to Asia"
… a European country has announced it's "open to discussion" about extending its nuclear umbrella. Not that it's offering the umbrella. Not that it has discussed offering the umbrella. But that it's open to start those discussions.
bureaucratsux
[flagged]
rKarpinski
> France and Britain are Europe's only two nuclear powers.
What about the European power with the worlds largest nuclear arsenal?
cjbenedikt
Just wondering what Australia might think now after having rejected the French nuclear sub deal for a US one. Perhaps DJT might consider "buying" Australia soon? Lots more minerals than Ukraine.
madspindel
I was listening to an interview with the Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson about this. He said it's good that Europe has nuclear weapons capacity. Then he says something like "it's not relevant to us right now but could be in the future".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_progra…
TheAlchemist
For several reasons, France is uniquely positioned to be the leader of Europe.
Nuclear arms, a lot of nuclear energy, defense industry, food independence. All of this thanks to Charles De Gaulle, who insisted that France must be autonomous in most important domains.
With hindsight, this was extremely important. Without France's nuclear energy and arms, Europe would be in a very very bad position right now.
ph4evers
Full speech with transcript and translations https://app.fluentsubs.com/stream?v=cm7wc02s201x3zgxl5v85c6b…
aerostable_slug
I think it's interesting that the Trump administration hasn't breathed a word about the nuclear-sharing arrangements currently in place. It's low-hanging fruit, sends an extremely clear message, and relatively straightforward to accomplish, yet he hasn't made a move towards emptying the WS3 vaults in places like Kleine Brogel and Aviano.
I suspect right now we're seeing a lot of public noise designed largely to get Europe to spend more on both internal defense and their NATO commitments, while privately the attaches continue to conduct business as usual, at least when it comes to the American-supplied nuclear deterrent.
ssssvd
Ah, the formation of German-lead coalition to oppose Russia AND US, how fresh. Surely third time will be the charm.
lostmsu
Viva la France
elzbardico
Have one comment for that: LOL
lostmsu
Can someone clarify if this applies to Ukraine as well?
cladopa
It is obvious that Sweden, Denmark and Norway and Germany, Poland and of course Ukraine need nuclear weapons now.
They had been threatened by Russia with nuclear weapons and it looks like when push comes to shove the US is not going to defend them(go to ww3) using nuclear weapons.
Trump's actions about WW3 means that countries that have nukes are first class, and the rest are third class. It looks like a Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in which nuclear countries divide the non nuclear's territories.
When Russia invaded Ukraine it had almost nobody defending the border, that was the reason of Kursk offensive success.
The official story was that "Russia had to defend itself from NATO invasion". In reality they knew nobody was going to invade a nuclear power not having nukes, while they could invade freely.
cm2187
No country will risk its own annihilation to defend the borders of another country. That's why de Gaulle left NATO in the first place, he didn't want anyone else's finger on the french nuclear button than his own, he didn't trust the US would go nuclear with the USSR over France. Third party nuclear protections are little more than warm reassurances, but will amount to nothing when the day comes.
And to be honest I am not even sure first party nuclear protection is worth that much. French president Giscard d'Estaing famously said he would probably not have used nukes if France had been invaded under his presidency. What a moronic thing to say (it massively undermines French nuclear deterrence).
adrr
Russia's invasion of Ukraine is the main cause. Countries can't count on agreements or treaties to keep them safe. Russia would have never invaded if Ukraine had its ICBMs and hundreds of nuclear warheads.
leshokunin
I’m simple on that notion: Russia is our adversary.
They have assassinated people in the EU and UK. Sabotaged our pipelines. Paid anti EU politicians. Threatened EU powers. Shot down civilian flights. Made plans to invade the Baltics.
They are an adversary. We have weapons and an army. We should neutralize that adversary.
Russia has currently lost momentum in Ukraine. So they are seeking a temporary peace, to rebuild. Logic dictates that we start behaving as their adversary. To not give them any benefit, and build on that momentum to keep them diminished.
bluehornet
A two front war is tough. Trump has also said the he'll get Greenland, "one way or the other":
https://www.politico.eu/article/us-will-take-greenland-one-w…
The last time a US president has used that phrase Nord Stream was blown up.
There is a high chance that all of this is political theater designed to get the EU to spend more on its military and take over the Ukraine war so the EU will be the culprit while the US can trade with Russia and China. Playing off continental powers against each other has historically been the hallmark of Britain and now the US, both of whom live in splendid isolation.
The EU should hedge against this scenario and seek better relations with Russia.
If Trump is serious and none of this is theater, the EU should also seek better relations with Russia, otherwise it will have a two front war against the two superpowers.
s1artibartfast
It would be nice to have a substantive discussion of the topic without falling into the well worn rhetorical traps.
In that sprit, I'm curious what advantages Euro-nukes offer relative to the existing French arsenal. What is the current status and limitation of French nuclear protection through NATO and European Union security guarantees, and how do these limitations compare to what nuclear protections the USA has historically provided?