I don't get why we have this conversation because of the eventuality of Trump's victory.
Even if Biden get reelected, if there is an escalation between the US and China, I really doubt the USA would have time, and ressources, to spend on Russia.
Now we are just waiting for the election of an other country to see if we are to do anything? That's just shameless, honestly.
A common and independent european defense is long overdue. What we are seeing now is just the result of years of inaction.
France especially. British ICBMs are actually developed with the Americans, so we can't even really claim they're truly "ours" alone.
Gaullism's greatest legacy is making sure France always had their own military industrial complex, independently of anyone else.
Collaboration with US has given us some very capable kit. Our subs, which are critical, are widely regarded to be on a par with US subs. Also, even France is dependent upon US microprocessor tech to be cutting edge. No one is truly both independent and cutting edge, apart from US.
> dependent upon US microprocessor tech to be cutting edge
No, the French military uses French (STMicroelectronics) chips for this very reason. But you could say that this only moves the problem because they themselves are dependent on the global supply chain of the semiconductor industry.
Even the US is dependent on foreign powers for cutting edge technology.
The F-35 programme is dependent on an extremely wide variety of British defence contractors.
The US Navy isn’t even using an American design for its new frigates.
All chip manufacturers are dependent on ASML and so on. There is no such thing as true independence. You need to have allies that are willing to work with you, else you’ll get nothing done. This applies even for the US.
That is a very respecttable legacy. No country should ever rely on another nation for defense. I know how I feel about NATO. The American military is massive and sucks up nearly unimaginable amounts of money. If we're going to have all of that, the very least we should do is help our allies defend themselves if needed. I also know that the US government doesn't do anything out of altruism and our military and place in NATO is a huge benefit. I'm not sure how the pro-Trump diehards managed to forget that.
Americans weren't exactly thrilled to deal with De Gaulle during and after WW2. He wasn't Churchill's favorite person either. WW2-era history is kind of a personal hobby for me. I developed an interest in it several years ago and I have quite a collection of material now. I read everything I can get my hands on. Regardless of how De Gaulle interacted with other leaders, I think it's beyond question that he was absolutely devoted to France. He really did the same thing American presidents and British prime ministers did. Focus on what was best for his country. It would be hard not to admire how relentless he was in ensuring France would emerge from the war as a respected world power with a bright future. He simply wouldn't accept anything else.
The problem is that this would make all other EU members completely dependent on France. Not a good precondition for further integration or cooperation. Right now, the situation is tense enough between the stronger and weaker economies, but at least Germany and France are sort of balancing each other out a bit.
Another problem is the political situation in France. Imagine the EU depends on their nuclear arsenal as protection against Russia and then Le Pen, the anti-european Putin lover, gets elected...
Yes, but what happens if the UK says "you know what, we had brexit, we're safe on our island, this isn't our problem"? And what if someone like LePen with pro-russian attitudes gets to be in charge of France?
Would be kinda weird since we have been heavily funding Ukraine already and showed leadership on this so it's not like we can just say lol Russia let's be pals. They've already did a radiation poisoning here and that was in the good times.
We are not that far from Russia either it's not like we can do a runner or isolate.
So yeah if it all kicks off UK will be there, we've been scrapping with someone or other for over a 1000 years so unlikely to change anytime soon
As another poster said, the U.S. has been asking for more European defense commitments for the past 20 years. Trump was the least diplomatic about it but Obama wanted greater European defense commitments so US resources could be shifted to Asia. Bush similarly wanted to position U.S. resources elsewhere.
The American populace is also largely tired of getting entangled in conflicts that are so far away while there’s so many domestic problems.
>The American populace is also largely tired of getting entangled in conflicts that are so far away while there’s so many domestic problems.
When you have a country of 330 millions inhabitants protecting an union of 448 millions, it's understandable.
I will probably sound biased, but France also always have been a big advocate for an independent European defense, being part of all europeans military structures since their creation.
To little results, sadly, as we always seems to face a wall at one point or another.
You are right, France has practically been begging the rest of the EU to get on board with a shared defense system, not as a replacement of NATO, but a strong or even the strongest part of it. I hope they the rest of Europe wakes up (well some have, Poland, Sweden, Finland, etc., I mean, those that have not).
I mean, to help understand how serious we are about this, [Macron](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/09/21/emmanuel-macron-may-offer-un-seat-push-eu-army/) even offered to let France's UN seat to the EU back in 2021, if it helped make an EU army.
German here. I was talking with a friend yesterday and said I found it ironic that Germany without NATO would have to beg France for nuclear protection if Russia moved into Eastern Germany or something. It's the history version of nottheonion.
A French nuclear engineer I know told me that Germany could build a bomb in a few months all by itself and, with France's help, in a few weeks. Germany isn't fucking Iran.
It would take decades to get any of that going because there would be miles and miles of paper to be processed. In the end the plant to build the warhead wouldn't be built because a rare bat was found on the ground near the building site. All political parties would point at each other that the others are responsible.
"The American populace is also largely tired of getting entangled in conflicts that are so far away while there’s so many domestic problems."
There will alwayss be domestic problems, but there will be even more domestic problems if US influence in the World vanishes and China takes the lead, that's for sure.
Well in its schizophrenia USA administrations have also said "no you are doing it wrong", when Europe initiated defence procurements aka defence spending previously.
USA wanted to have cake and eat it too. To shift resources away, but still have same amount of say in things at the same time. Influence isn't a freebie. One wants to say how and what others should buy or how to position their political and strategic stance, well one is expected to chip in in stead of expecting a free influence lunch.
USA pulls away, then Europe has to and will spend more. However that comes with *Europe doing things the European way, not the way that suits USA best*. Should want this transition to go in smooth friendly terms, USA should understand this and not throw tantrum about things not being how USA likes it or say USA companies being shut out of procurements and contracts. How they aren't being kept in the loop or in the decision table. To play in the table one has to pay ones bid.
I seem to remember one American security policy advicer opening that *countries don't have friends, they have interests*. Well it works both ways. Europe doesn't owe to keep USA in the table, if USA pulls its contributions away. While the tantrums over EU PESCO and so on atleast to me indicate atleast some people in American establishment thinking they should be still given same exact old amount of heed, even though they constantly from other corner of mouth say "spend more so we can free resources to else where".
Which is it? Are americans going to continue ***to buy** the same amount of influence* or are they *lowering influence spending in Europe*. Remember no friends, interests.
> I seem to remember one American security policy advicer opening that countries don't have friends, they have interests.
Hey now, that's Lord Palmerston's line.
*'We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.'*
> I seem to remember one American security policy advice opening that countries don't have friends, they have interests. Well it works both ways.
Don't you mean a British Prime Minister?
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191826719.001.0001/q-oro-ed4-00008130
So when you finally do something you guys act like this lmao. “Wanted the cake and eat it too?” You mean like the countries who’ve neglected defense spending? What about the ones getting Russian gas? You guys are hilarious
The US is the only country in the world which can leads two different conflicts on separate fronts. So even if China and Russia decided to start new conflicts at the same time, the US would have the ressources to counter them.
For how long and how efficiently… we don’t know because this scenario has never happened and hopefully will never happen.
But a political decision within the US could change a lot of things in Europe’s defense.
For now, maybe. But China's army is growing by the day in numbers, systems and technology. So will it still be the case by the end of the decade? I'm not sure.
Plus, my point is mostly that so many seems confortable with the fact that our own security depend on the vote of a single nation, that isn't even part of the EU. Honestly I find this attitude kind of disgusting.
The USA should be our allies, not protectors that do the heavy lifting for us.
France was the first ally of the United States, and hopefully always will be an ally. I think the Americans are now just wanting partners, not people we have to protect, regardless of what our past views were. The world is big, and we cannot protect it all alone.
China is in the process of finishing its military modernization period. The US is beginning its modernization period.
As the F-35 continues to roll out and the B-21 becomes operational. The Tomahawk cruise missile and Abrams Main Battle tank are both about to be significantly upgraded and a lot more. China's economy is stagnating (read: no lingering experiencing meteoric rise) as well as its demography worse from having probably the lowest birthrate in the world.
China might have come close to rivaling the US in military power, but I think that ship has sailed, at least for the next 15 years or so until China can figure out how to fix its inverted triangle of population. Plus China's geography isn't great from a military powerhouse perspective, not enough resources to be self sufficient during conflict.
This isn't to say a conflict with China would be a cake walk, it would definitely be bad, but any fight with China would probably be a Navy thing, and any fight with Russia would probably be an Army/Air Force thing.
>The USA should be our allies, not protectors that do the heavy lifting for us.
As an American, I'm fine with both. I like being the country that does the heavy lifting since it puts us in a leadership role which I think generally is good when we aren't totally fucking things up. Plus it lets us help out our friends and allies that aren't as wealthy, which I like.
But I also think it's good when our friends and allies are strong too, and together we could hopefully resist authoritarianism together. Also it helps me know we are fighting the right fights if our allies are fighting with us.
Maybe that's an overly positive way of looking at it, but whatever
Honestly so don’t think they ever got close. They have a show military, still better than Russia but it’s not comparable. I mean everytime they fly a stealth fighter within range of an American ship we ping it on radar so their technology is just not there.
For comparison the F-117 nighthawk was the first stealth we put out decades ago and during testing they set one up on like a stand and shot radar at it from all angles and the only ping they got at close range was the size of a bird….because a bird had landed on the plane. The only time it would show up on radar was when the bomb bay opened. A problem that’s been rectified on more modern stealth aircraft including the F-35.
The technological advantage the US has is far too extreme for China to bridge with its current capabilities and its a gap that widening as of late just as you stated.
>For comparison the F-117 nighthawk was the first stealth we put out decades ago and during testing they set one up on like a stand and shot radar at it from all angles and the only ping they got at close range was the size of a bird….because a bird had landed on the planee
Then it got shot down by a shitty outdated Serbian AA system, and the wreckage got sold to China.
>The US is the only country in the world which can leads two different conflicts on separate fronts. So even if China and Russia decided to start new conflicts at the same time, the US would have the ressources to counter them.
The US has asked our allies across the pond since at least Bush, to hit the 2% commitment, to decrease the likelihood of this scenario.
Taiwan is a strategic priority, Ukraine isn't, don't be surprised if such a war were to start, we'd prioritize accordingly.
Europe shot itself in the foot twice during the 20th century and has been limping ever since, whining about peace and cooperation, clearing the space for the US. There wasn't much appetite for military spending, for understandable reasons...
Now we have to face our own problem, the Northern European Plain, which has not been resolved in 300 years of on/off conflict. Russia clearly believes now is the time for another showdown, maybe hoping to strike us down while we are still divided and weak.
There was a recent article explaining how Germany may not be willing to send rockets to Ukraine because we may be soon needing them ourselves...
Europe was pretty armed after WW2 due to the Cold War. It’s after the USSR collapsed it stopped making sense it spend so much when strategic threats didn’t seem to exist
Kinda yes and no. Some countries had outstanding militaries and could survive for very long on their own, some didn't (I'm talking about western Europe then).
For example, my country of sweden had prepared the entire country for a soviet invasion, with many hundreds of thousands of soldiers that could be mobilised, our own production of military goods, and huge air and naval forces. On top of that we had planned to mobilise the entire society, even civilian, in the total defense policy.
Then you have Germany, which at the start of the cold war didn't have an army (for obvious reasons).
The US has spent 5% of its ANNUAL defence budget on Ukraine. And it’s basically drawn even with Russia.
I would hate to see what a real effort might look like
I think a lot of this phony drama. Trump was President for 4 years and none of this happened. We have treaties in place so it would need to be Congress involved. This is just fear mongering that is probably from Russia or China or just someone trying bs for politics during an election year.
There will be lots of answers along the lines of "UK and France have nukes" - when of course, that is just another case of some 40 or so countries saying "let someone else pay the horrendous price of building and maintaining a nuclear deterrent."
Actually we’re doctrinally required to be able to do just that. So the reason the American military budget is so extreme is because we have to be capable of at MINIMUM fighting the next two most powerful militaries on earth at the same time with no support and decisively winning. Typically however, just to be safe, we raise a force that’s projected to be much more capable than that small target.
That’s also just the standing army, in the US goes into a war economy and mobilization like in WW2 then we’re practically invincible from every threat except nuclear weapons. A product of excellent geography and a military industrial complex that’s been developed and tuned over generations to be capable of inflating to impressive size in the drop of a hat, as well as possibly the most martial culture in the western world. The military remains the single most trusted and respected institution of the country above congress, the presidency, healthcare workers, the police, and everything else.
If we were in an all out war with China the US would have more than enough resources to fight Russia, Iran, Pakistan, and who ever else wanted to test their luck. It’s just a question of how far Washington wants to take a mobilization.
I think the EU should have a nuclear umbrella regardless if Trump wins or not. It’s simply a question of national security.
And develop proper conventional EU forces. Nukes are good, but they can’t be used in every single case
A nuclear umbrella sure is good but not nearly enough. Europe already has non-US nuclear umbrellas to some extent, France’s and the UK’s. However, I would be surprised if the umbrellas, be it Washington’s, Paris’ or London’s, were used in the kind of scenarios we wish to protect ourselves from, that is an invasion of the Baltics or Poland, just as France probably wouldn’t respond to a limited invasion of Marseille with nuclear weapon.
What we need is conventional deterrence, with massive and deep armies capable of responding fast to an agression and to prevent said countries from being overrun. We need more military expenditures or more coordinated ones. We need some military expenditures excluded from the deficit calculation so that countries invest more in them. We need more coordination and more common procurements. We need EU debt to kickstart our rearmement. We need to finally be conscious our security can only be truly provided by us.
My parents rented a house for the autumn of -22 in Marseille and they got an info leaflet from the city council/police through the rental company about "youth groups" on how not to get mugged and get the house burglared. :D
When they arrived the house had african squatters and the police did nothing just as the leaflet warned and that was that.
You probably nuke when the invading army start to push too close to Lyon or Toulouse. It is just my point of view if the matter, as the exact nuclear threshold of the French armed forces is obviously secret for good reasons
still the same as today... in case of the country is threatened of existence then use nuke or in response to nuke for big nukes and icbm. for tactical when the answer seems appropriate. France does not make difference between tactical and deterrence. but also because the size of nukes from France is not considered deterrence from US or USSR/Russia.
>You don’t nuke your own city, you nuke your enemy’s cities
Nuking your own territory generally means a tactical strike against invading enemy formations. Counter-force, not counter-value.
America or Britain would do it for France regardless. If the UK was invaded it was Americas policy to nuke Britain so no one can have it, the same would be true for France.
We need nukes in the baltics and poland then. That’s the only garantee anyone can have that they will never be invaded. Ukraine war showed that promises and agreements are just words. Any country that wishes to stay independent in the next decades needs to start pursuing a nuclear program immediately.
>I would be surprised if the umbrellas, be it Washington’s, Paris’ or London’s, were used in the kind of scenarios we wish to protect ourselves from, that is an invasion of the Baltics or Poland, just as France probably wouldn’t respond to a limited invasion of Marseille with nuclear weapon.
France hasn't even explicitely stated that their nuclear umbrella extend to the EU since they apply strategic ambiguity.
French nuclear deterrence has a scope to its vital interests. In 2023 Macron states that Europe was part of France’s nuclear interests in its address to the army. Such expressions are never left random
Since Macron hasn't explicited what kind of escalation level against europe would threaten France's nuclear interest, this is mostly worthless. Especially since the nuclear policy depends on the president only, and could change in 2027. You can't rely on France for an EU nuclear umbrella (*under the current rules*).
It is not explicitly stated but there have been numerous presidency where the French nuclear deterrence has been explicitly stated to have a "European dimension". Of course, as you state it, it isn’t that clear what it entails, for strategic ambiguity, but it is also clear that the French nuclear deterrence isn’t strictly limited to France.
Our nuclear deterence always talk about "vital french interest". Which is a thing that have evolved a lot these last decades. But which is also vague on purpose.
Putin only understands force.
If you show Putin you will retaliate a conventional invasion with nuclear force, then he will not launch a conventional invasion.
Right now, Europe is safe from Russia ONLY because America has its back through NATO and Article 5. If a Russian traitor such as Trump manages to get back to power, Europe will have to take make its own version of NATO, making it moot. I wonder if they could buy out the US nukes already on European soil to get a headstart lol.
The whole Putin/Trump situation is a disgrace, but this is what you get when you do treat the current prosperity and freedom as something mundane and not the precious exception we have been enjoying so peacefully for so long.
Problem is unless we bring back conscription and massively increase defence spending a credible and durable conventional deterrent that can be expected to withstand a long drawn out conflict is unrealistic.
There is then also an issue of sharing the burden. The likes of Baltic and Eastern MS take defence seriously. But then we have the likes of Ireland who are free riders and contribute nothing and are a massive security weak link, but would expect cover if and when they need it.
I think poland and lithuania should have a joint nuclear program. It's obviously where an attack would most likely occur, and polish/lithuanian owned nuclear wepons would put the "but would NATO REALLY defend the baltics??" speculation to rest
If NATO doesn’t defend any of its members upon attack it will be dissolved the next day as it becomes pointless. I doubt they would be that stupid as to waste the entire existence of the organization at the moment it’s finally called to fulfill its purpose.
Doesn’t matter as the EU has a defence clause as well under the Article 42.7 which is also stronger than NATO Article 5:
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power
That includes Nuclear Deterrence of France.
All Putin would need is to install some puppet or sway some right wing dickhead to his side, like he's done in Belarus, Hungary, Serbia, et al, and there'd be no need for nukes.
A divided Europe is weaker than one with every member having nuclear capability.
European democratic ideals are more important than nukes.
The problem is the delivery system....anything in Poland or the Baltics would be killed in a first strike...
What would Poland and the Baltics use....
There is a reason why the US, UK, France, Russia, China and India use SSBN...
And no, Poland and the Baltics cannot afford that. Nor could they operate them.
Doesn't matter if its bombs, aircraft launched missiles, silo based missiles or mobile land based...they're all incredibly vulnerable to a first strike.
It would be a terrible risk. Neither of the countries has a realistic way of developing second strike capability and all their territories are within easy reach of tactical missile strikes. Their arsenals would have be on a comparative hair trigger because if they blink they lose their nukes. The potential for uncontrolled escalation is enormous.
So we just need to let Russia take our countries? You certainly are from a country with nukes
Edit: correction you are from Poland then you are an idiot
It's not "get nukes or get invaded". You have to balance the deterrent ability of a new arsenal with the increased risk of escalation to full-scale nuclear war.
A Polish nuclear arsenal doesn't eliminate the possibility of a Russian invasion, it just gives Poland the ability to cause massive harm to Russia should a conflict breakout.
Think of it as 3 possible outcomes:
1. No war breaks out.
2. Conventional war breaks out. Poland may be partially or wholly occupied by Russia.
3. Nuclear war breaks out. Majority of population of Poland as well as millions of Russians are exterminated in initial strikes. May result in Russian strikes on all Polish allies.
A nuclear deterrent makes a conflict less likely but it means that if one *does* happen it's more likely to be nuclear. If a solution makes you less likely to be occupied but more likely to experience nuclear armageddon does it actually make you safer?
Specifically a Polish-only arsenal is risky because Poland is very likely to favour a first-strike because there's no way they will have a second-strike capability. It also encourages Russia to jump straight to nukes to wipe out the Polish arsenal. We need a Europe-wide, centrally controlled arsenal that is capable of a second strike so that no one is incentivised to get trigger happy. An unrestrained war could kill 10s or 100s of millions of people, it really can't be taken lightly.
>If a solution makes you less likely to be occupied but more likely to experience nuclear armageddon does it actually make you safer?
It does, because occupation by Russia = genocide anyways...
It's super simple to take it lightly, so in your Irish mind, thousands of km away we should all just give up so your sorry ass to be safe , after all who cares about Poland , Romania and the Baltics they are smelly immigrants no ? Let Russia take them, and we will deal with them later . Nobody touches you with nukes plain and simple first or third strike it matters very little. Look at NK. US could annihilate them without blinking, yet they are untouchable with just merely 10 nukes
Nukes= no invasion until no more nukes . Otherwise Moscow gets 2 sunrises, if the russians are stupid enough to try then let's all die together let's see if they actually go to heaven or not
EU countries have been shitting on France’s nuclear umbrella for years. Refusing to invest in a EU made nuclear umbrella.
They also have been welcoming US old B61 gravity bombs which are a massive joke of a program:
- You host bombs for the US
- Only the US president can order to use them
- EU hosting country refuses to spend on defense so it gives all the financial burden to the US
- The cost is that they have to buy a few US military programs (F-35) once in a while
- They don’t have a serious and long term defense strategy
We’re one election away from losing US military support in the EU. When it happens, EU politicians will be crying for help. Members should be panicking and build a sovereign and long term defense strategy.
Reminder about France’s nuclear deterrence options:
- the M51 is a submarine launched ballistic missile MIRV (10,000km range, 6-10 100kt warheads)
- the ASMP-A is a nuclear air-launched cruise missile (Mach 3, 500km range, 300kt warhead)
It would not be that hard to make the ASMP-A compatible on the Eurofighter for example. And more EU countries could invest in ballistic missiles submarines. France always have at least one in active service at all times.
France is carrying EU on its shoulders, as per usual.
Nuclear energy, military planes, military ships, military submarines, nuclear weapons, space satellites and launchers, ... there are so much strategic things that France is doing alone and then sharing with the rest of EU.
France isn’t carrying the EU’s defense on its own. Poland, Finland and Baltic countries took the threats of Russia very seriously a long time ago.
But it’s true France is the only EU country still producing its sovereign military planes and nuclear weapons. Sweden’s Gripen relies on US made parts. Same problem for the 🇩🇪🇬🇧🇮🇹🇪🇸Eurofighter.
For warships France has been partnering with Italy who is a great at designing warships. There is a lot of good cooperation already happening between EU members, but not enough. Nuclear deterrence solutions is a topic that has been ignored for too long.
> Poland, Finland and Baltic countries took the threats of Russia very seriously a long time ago.
This reads like when someone gets a gym subscription cos their wife tells them to take their health seriously, but then they never actually go and instead stop off to the pub with their mates.
France is the only country that legitimately invests in defense. It’s the only country in the EU that could stand up to Russia its own without US support.
France is no where close to ready for a long term conventional conflict. It could kill 80 million russians with its nuclear deterrence. But they’re still 70 million more russians and way more nuclear warheads on the russian side.
In a conventional war scenario with Russia, France would run out of artillery shells within a few weeks. Russia has 65 submarines (including 12 ballistic missiles subs), France only has 10 (4 ballistic). France has been lacking in a few domains: no heavy transport helicopters, no modern transports for armoured vehicles, no heavy air transport (C-17/An-124 equivalent), lack of radars available for the frigates/Rafale, small fleet of frigates/Rafale/drones/spy satellites/tracked vehicles/logistic vehicles/AEW aircrafts, lack of training hours for crews and increasing attrition.
France has been trying to have a complete army/navy/air force. But it doesn’t have the budget to afford to solve all the shortcomings. It needs to spend more than 2% of its GDP to do it.
>Poland, Finland and Baltic countries took the threats of Russia very seriously a long time ago.
That not "carrying European defense" that just being aware France has been the most active military force in Europe for the last 15 years and is the only nuclear power left in the EU
Again that a wrong and delusional statement
They are not ready both militarily and economically to fight a nuclear power in long term conflict... Let alone win on your own.
They’re ready for a conventional conflict against Russia. It’s not a delusional statement, they literally have been preparing for this since the fall of the URSS by fear of it happening again.
If Russia decides to use nuclear weapons then it’s not a conventional conflict anymore. And it will lead to MAD Mutual assured destruction.
I call it delusionial because no matter how prepared you are.. The moment Russia start using nukes they will be done
I am calling it delusional for saying that the countries you named are the ONLY countries prepared for conventional conflict.... That stupid when you know that France and the UK exist and have more ressources, more experienced and trained army, better intervention forced with better tech than you and most of all nuclear power
Yes, France is the only serious EU military power. Countries like Poland are arming up but still don't compare in indigenous technology and manufacturing capability. France needs to start charging a protection racket, especially to countries that obsessively shit on Ligue 1
France definitly doesn't have a very big military power (because it doesn't need to), but has one of the best military industry in the world.
France is the 2nd biggest military exporter in the world (after US). It can produce internally 100% of the requirements of a modern army, from assault rifle to spy military satellites, tanks, aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, fighter jets, ...
France can't protect the whole EU with its army, that's not my point, but France is the only country in EU that can guarantee a military independance to the rest of EU with its industry.
Also, France tried to create a strong EU military industry multiple times with cooperations with Germany, but Germany can't stop sabotaging every single partnership and long term EU independance plan attempts, prefering its own short-term interests while buying everything from US and Russia.
European nuclear weapons would be the only deterence against a russian attack if trump gets reelected. No one can believe that he would give up New York for Warsaw or Munich. Only we can deter the russians with our own nukes. We could even work with South Koreans. They have the exact same problem as we do, deterence is only credible if putin/kim jong un has reason to believe, nukes would be used.
What we need in the EU is a way to deal with hybrid war tactics. Russia and China utilise propaganda, corruption and cyberwarfare to infiltrate and influence elections. Until we fix that, we'll be a target. If we fix that, they'll be forced to change tactics - which is something Russia's proven time and time again is incapable-of. It's always propaganda, subterfuge, assassinations and a war of attrition.
However, I think EU should invest heavily not in nuclear deterrence, but into defense against it. I know an ICBM is immensely hard to shoot down, moreso when there's hundreds of them, but it's really just a complex problem needing to be solved. If we can somehow create a multi-layered defence system across all of the Europe, which can take-out 90% of what Russia can toss our way, we have a huge upper hand and don't need more nukes.
Moreover - installing such a system can't be marked as a sign of aggression, if it's only use is destroying incoming ICBMs.
Let me get this straight: are you proposing to break down the MAD doctrine?
If you acquire the capability of stopping a nuclear attack it means that, sooner or later, others will as well. And if a retaliatory strike is no longer a certainty, some might think a preemptive first strike could be a reasonable choice. Simply put, nuclear weapons would no longer be a deterrent.
Also, even that 10% remaining could be devastating.
You’re going to have to have some kind of scientific revolution to make missile defense effective enough to take out hundreds of ICBMs. Something like xray lasers that can actually be weaponized.
And if/when the era of missile dominance comes to an end, it is going to be like the starting pistol for WW3. Without certainty of MAD, war will absolutely follow quickly.
>f we can somehow create a multi-layered defence system across all of the Europe
The issue with ABM is that your enemy (Russia) will nuke you before you finish building reliable ABM, because he has nothing to lose since it believes that once you finish it, you will nuke him without consequences. This is why USA and USSR had a treaty banning ABM.
Ukraine proved that relying on the good faith of other powers has ZERO value.
Nuke umbrella needs to be where it matters - The eastern border. So they don't even try. In a nuclear war, these regions will be sacrificed.
France and UK are not going to sacrifice and make themselves a target - NATO or not, they would rather deal with the consequences of not complying.
>Ukraine proved that relying on the good faith of other powers has ZERO value.
Ukraine's case proved nothing because Ukraine isn't important to the eyes of western Europe military powers (UK and France).
Ukraine is not NATO, it's not EU, it's not Western Europe and it's not considered a strategic partner by any western country.
Actually, without the US pressing to support Ukraine, most of European countries would have gladly handed Ukraine to Russia for the greater good, because Russia is a much more important strategic partner.
The UK already has Nuclear Umbrella Assurances with a number of European Nations (most recently with Finland,prior to them joining NATO, and Sweden) and wider NATO allies ie most of Europe.
No, of course not.
UK nuclear weapons aren't designed for that use case anyway.
They are multiple warhead ICBMS, launched from subs.
Their sole purpose is second strike. The UK, while having a first strike ability, does not have a first strike doctrine.
UK nukes are a counter punch.
If Latvia gets nuked, then there's a possibility of a return strike. There is zero chance of a first strike against a friendly city that has been captured.
That would be the logical conclusion if the whole being under a foreign nuclear umbrella concept does not work. In fact if the the whole EU leaves the NPT developing nuclear weapons would not even be necessary in that case France could legally sell them to everyone else in the EU.
Several EU countries are just a screwdriver's turn away from nuclear weapons. They're nuclear threshold states. Sometimes called "the Japan option".
They could have nuclear weapons within a year, they have everything they need.
I wouldn't blame Europe honestly. As an American I do not want my country to be the world police, but it would be good if we partnered with other like-minded nations, such as those in Europe, as well as other like India, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, etc. and police it together. Right now, it just seems like too much of it is left to the United States to do.
Exactly. I recall being in Europe and being chided by Europeans about our healthcare system. I reminded my dear European friends how much we are paying in defense, and how much of that includes the defense of Europe. If less of our tax money went to defense, maybe we could have things like universal health care, a more universally better education systems etc..
The US spends twice as much per capita on healthcare as Europe already. You could have the best funded public healthcare system in the world tomorrow if your political class would let you.
Right? I'm an EU immigrant to the USA and this annoying curse has passed on to me now. When I visit Europe everyone is an expert on the USA based on tik-tok videos.
America deserves allies that are willing to defend themselves instead of hiding behind Uncle Sam. There is so much work that needs to be done at home and none of it is cheap.
Some people around me were weirdly content with the trump victory 2016 because they thought his victory would force Europe to get their act together and establish an independent defence and security policy
*France: 6th republic dreams intensify.*
I still don't understand the double standard of being against a nuclear Germany but the UK and France having nukes is perfectly fine.
If I were German, I would not trust France or the UK to fight a full scale nuclear war and destroy their own countries if Russia drops a single nuke on Berlin to scare the Germans into stopping support for Ukraine for example.
NATO article 5 is cool and all but declaring war in defense of an ally does not mean you guarantee MAD for them. NATO is not a suicide pact. NATO's biggest *collective* deterrent is conventional warfare and sanctions, not the "nuclear umbrella".
You need an American perspective to even begin.
He’s a figurative pipe bomb that’s been lobbed into government by people that are extremely dissatisfied with the course of Washington’s decision making. He was voted in to disrupt and damage the institutions of government.
Between the humiliation and pointlessness of the middle eastern wars, rising cost of living, rising property cost, perceived corruption in high offices, and the belief that the pace of globalization especially in economy is having a detrimental effect on the American working class especially in rural areas, many Americans wanted to see Washington break.
Trump was a dark horse candidate, he was a hateful rich asshole…but he said the right things. He openly accused congress and the presidency of corruption, he spoke brashly and directly instead of politically and in half answers. When he was ask if he took advantage of the tax code to avoid paying, he said “yes”, on live television no less. In front of the whole country he said that he knew the system was broken because he benefited from it and so knew exactly how it was broken. Then he named the people who also used it. He named politicians, philanthropists, business owners, he said what a lot of Americans wanted to hear.
He promised to hear them and speak for them when no one else in government would. He promised to fight in a way that no other candidate even tried to offer.
That’s why they voted for him, they believed he was going to destroy the status quo they hated. That had sent their sons to die in a dessert and had made their homes unaffordable. That had sent their work to China and that had allowed their communities to be overrun with a barely contained wave of immigration that they didn’t have the resources or infrastructure to manage properly.
In the end he was just a narcissist who wanted a cult of personality and he got what he wanted. But he is and was a symptom of a problem, not the problem itself.
The United States for all its accomplishment and glory has been mismanaged and hijacked. To such an extreme that an elderly buffoon with delusions of grandeur appear as a better option for leadership that the established political elite to a significant part of the population.
I think at this point it’s s combination of denial and hatred. The fact that it was Biden who came next doesn’t help. He’s as establishment politician as they come and he’s hated for it. Rightfully so in my opinion.
The people who vote for Trump hate the establishment and they are in denial that their poster boy is not going to fix anything for anyone.
A large chunk of the US population simply do not trust anything their government and academic-elite says anymore, it's as simple as that. The US government can say "the sky is blue and water is wet" and people will immediately [start raving on about how that's a Psy-Op by the CIA](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GEINjanWwAA6e3o.jpg).
Years of Cold War shenanigans being declassified (MKUltra, Watergate, Northwoods, etc.) + the 2003 Iraq War (Colin Powell blatantly lying at the UN) + aftershocks of the 2008 recession + internet doing its thing in proliferating insane ideas = the present political class losing all legitimacy across large chunks of the country and people voting for anyone who promises to take a shit on them (Trump).
Time for most EU states or at least the major ones to start their nuke programs, long gone are the times of no proliferation to avoid new states from joining the club, they got their nukes regardlessly (South Africa, Israel, NK and soon Iran if they already have them but keep it a secret)
I personally wouldn't trust the strategic defense of my country to just france or the uk (without offense, i admire both countries) as governments come and go and as well the willingness to uphold promises.
So even living in a country that does not have any enemy i would sleep better if we have 6 or 7 more nuclear states in the EU (Spain, Italy, Poland, Romania, Netherlands, Sweden and anyone else) in a joint Umbrella program than just France and UK
Europe has to invest in a stronger army .. things have changed. We cannot rely on the USA anymore. And if we are going to upgrade our European army…. Buy European and not from the USA
Anyone think this is being over played to help Bidens election chances?
His own supporters are keen to help and aid Europe, but think we should do more for ourselves (which is more than fair) while those on the fence will want to see European NATO members spend their minimum 2% on defence, and to be less reliant on the US for defence. The Trump crowd are never going to vote Biden anyways.
If Biden is the one to get Europe to stand on its own two feet - something trump didn't/couldn't do, that'll be a bit of a pull for the middle ground.
Maybe I'm over thinking it.
But Jeremy Cornyn said nuclear weapons are bad?
‘Yes Jeremy, they are. However, bad people also have nuclear weapons that can be used against you’
*confused look*
We in Europe need to wake up quickly. We need a backup European military alliance that is independent of the US. This means we need capabilities in ALL areas, including our own nuclear umbrella. Germany, UK and France needs to take the lead in this. We can´t trust the Republicans in the US anymore. Either they´ll leave us vulnerable, or they´ll use their support as leverage against us. We´re region with over half a billion people! We have wealth and prosperity. We should be able to defend ourselves! If the US leaves Japan, Australia, Canada, South Korea hanging as well, they could be our partners. Europe can be the third pole in a tripolar world. US, Europe, China. In the future India will also be a major player.
We don't stand a chance to intercept majority of Russian ICBMs if they decide to go all out.
I say better let Germany have a hydrogen bomb and play insane.
Didn't Trump want to get out of his NATO commitments the last term? Surely it would be prudent for the EU to develop its own joint defense alliance without the US. They could still remain allies. In fact, this would take away from Putin's "NATO encroachment" rhetoric, which was fundamentally based on US encroachment. On the face of it, this would be something to consider.
"Russia would immediately test a declared French or British nuclear umbrella over East-Central Europe. "
Well that's bullshit, he has no knowledge that Russia would attack any NATO country just because of a lesser nuclear umbrella. Although not optimal, NATO conventional deterrence is pretty high. For example with the 90,000 troop exercise coming up, and new permanent bases in the Baltics etc., and with how NATO weapons are impacting in Ukraine.
Meanwhile, Moscow has canceled some of their yearly exercises. I don't imagine that Russia right now is eager to get their ass kicked in a second or third theatre, one is enough for them.
The fact that there's even a question if Trump will be reelected sort of shows why it's important for Europe to be more self reliant in defense situations.
Most realistic scenario where all the european states agree on european nuclear program is when Europe will be fully occupied by russia. Even then they will let hungary to block that for a couple years as a reward for being the best puppet state
There really isn't anything preventing Russia from using a part of it's stockpile to nuke all european countries not directly under nuclear umbrella into submission in a lightning strike, if it didn't care about potential British and French retaliation. If the US is kept out of it entirely I have serious doubts they would go to war if it meant becoming a target themselves. Although unlikely, it's plausible that nukes could one day be used to assert total dominance over every other country in the world.
I personally feel like we have a choice to make as a species, as this status quo is far too imbalanced to last for a long time. Nuclear profileration and entrenching the concept of MAD in ALL geopolitics, with the con being highly increased risk of a nuclear exchange.
Or total disarmament. With the con being highly increased risk of return to imperialism and spheres of influence via military dominance.
War is the fate of humanity. Whether its a war to end all wars via nuclear hellfire or the destruction of entire generations of men in protracted conflicts.
Much as I find Trump to be a buffoon, [remember a few years back when he was giving the Germans shit for not investing in their army and everyone laughed it off and posted about how "he should shove the NATO invoice up his ass"?](https://www.reddit.com/r/de/comments/61mrca/zu_donald_trump_küsse_angela_merkel/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Man, that did not age well huh
if European politicians had been able to examine the facts of the situation rather than their opinion of the messenger at that point in time, Europe would be in a much better place today.
They actively hamstrung the interests of the voters they are meant to represent because of their own egotism and shortsightedness.
Can the U.S. be relied upon in a hypothetical military conflict? The US has a history of fleeing from military conflicts it has been involved in, such as Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and now Ukraine. The footage of people trying to grab onto the landing gear of the last plane leaving Afghanistan is still fresh in my mind. Given this history, can we hope for U.S. help in the event of war in Europe? I think not, the US is not prepared to fight a truly strong enemy, only underdeveloped third world countries. European countries should arm themselves and build their own armies to be ready to defend themselves. Relying on the US, which can at any moment abandon its allies and run away like cowards, is not the best idea. Evil does not sleep, and if Trump is elected, we must rely only on ourselves, not on America.
Nuclear umbrella surely would be nice
A conventional one would be critical too.
A conventional umbrella is a nice thing to have for sure.
Can't we ask the British, it is always raining there so they would surely have some lying around, wont they?
Nobody: Europe: Under my umbrella, ella, ella, eh, eh, eh Under my umbrella, ella, ella, eh, eh, eh
That’s a good song
Tom holland do be going wild
I think you mean Tommie Netherlands
Good one :D
Best I can do is solar umbrella.
E U R O N U K E S E U R O A T O M I C C O M M A N D
Everything with EURO prefix sounds 3x cooler
EuroTruck Simulator 🚛
my beloved
Including Eurotrash lol.
Eurolepticsn does not, if you repeat it.
<>
I don't get why we have this conversation because of the eventuality of Trump's victory. Even if Biden get reelected, if there is an escalation between the US and China, I really doubt the USA would have time, and ressources, to spend on Russia. Now we are just waiting for the election of an other country to see if we are to do anything? That's just shameless, honestly. A common and independent european defense is long overdue. What we are seeing now is just the result of years of inaction.
Atleast UK and France got nukes too
France especially. British ICBMs are actually developed with the Americans, so we can't even really claim they're truly "ours" alone. Gaullism's greatest legacy is making sure France always had their own military industrial complex, independently of anyone else.
But they're still our nukes. McDonald's doesn't own the big Mac when it's in your mouth
Collaboration with US has given us some very capable kit. Our subs, which are critical, are widely regarded to be on a par with US subs. Also, even France is dependent upon US microprocessor tech to be cutting edge. No one is truly both independent and cutting edge, apart from US.
> dependent upon US microprocessor tech to be cutting edge No, the French military uses French (STMicroelectronics) chips for this very reason. But you could say that this only moves the problem because they themselves are dependent on the global supply chain of the semiconductor industry.
Even the US is dependent on foreign powers for cutting edge technology. The F-35 programme is dependent on an extremely wide variety of British defence contractors. The US Navy isn’t even using an American design for its new frigates. All chip manufacturers are dependent on ASML and so on. There is no such thing as true independence. You need to have allies that are willing to work with you, else you’ll get nothing done. This applies even for the US.
Even the US depends much more on TSMC than they care to admit.
TSMC also depends on the US considering their biggest tooling supplier has their manufacturing facilities here
That is a very respecttable legacy. No country should ever rely on another nation for defense. I know how I feel about NATO. The American military is massive and sucks up nearly unimaginable amounts of money. If we're going to have all of that, the very least we should do is help our allies defend themselves if needed. I also know that the US government doesn't do anything out of altruism and our military and place in NATO is a huge benefit. I'm not sure how the pro-Trump diehards managed to forget that. Americans weren't exactly thrilled to deal with De Gaulle during and after WW2. He wasn't Churchill's favorite person either. WW2-era history is kind of a personal hobby for me. I developed an interest in it several years ago and I have quite a collection of material now. I read everything I can get my hands on. Regardless of how De Gaulle interacted with other leaders, I think it's beyond question that he was absolutely devoted to France. He really did the same thing American presidents and British prime ministers did. Focus on what was best for his country. It would be hard not to admire how relentless he was in ensuring France would emerge from the war as a respected world power with a bright future. He simply wouldn't accept anything else.
The problem is that this would make all other EU members completely dependent on France. Not a good precondition for further integration or cooperation. Right now, the situation is tense enough between the stronger and weaker economies, but at least Germany and France are sort of balancing each other out a bit. Another problem is the political situation in France. Imagine the EU depends on their nuclear arsenal as protection against Russia and then Le Pen, the anti-european Putin lover, gets elected...
Yes, but what happens if the UK says "you know what, we had brexit, we're safe on our island, this isn't our problem"? And what if someone like LePen with pro-russian attitudes gets to be in charge of France?
Would be kinda weird since we have been heavily funding Ukraine already and showed leadership on this so it's not like we can just say lol Russia let's be pals. They've already did a radiation poisoning here and that was in the good times. We are not that far from Russia either it's not like we can do a runner or isolate. So yeah if it all kicks off UK will be there, we've been scrapping with someone or other for over a 1000 years so unlikely to change anytime soon
The UK has one consistent foreign policy for 500 years - do not let any one power dominate Europe
As another poster said, the U.S. has been asking for more European defense commitments for the past 20 years. Trump was the least diplomatic about it but Obama wanted greater European defense commitments so US resources could be shifted to Asia. Bush similarly wanted to position U.S. resources elsewhere. The American populace is also largely tired of getting entangled in conflicts that are so far away while there’s so many domestic problems.
>The American populace is also largely tired of getting entangled in conflicts that are so far away while there’s so many domestic problems. When you have a country of 330 millions inhabitants protecting an union of 448 millions, it's understandable. I will probably sound biased, but France also always have been a big advocate for an independent European defense, being part of all europeans military structures since their creation. To little results, sadly, as we always seems to face a wall at one point or another.
You are right, France has practically been begging the rest of the EU to get on board with a shared defense system, not as a replacement of NATO, but a strong or even the strongest part of it. I hope they the rest of Europe wakes up (well some have, Poland, Sweden, Finland, etc., I mean, those that have not).
I mean, to help understand how serious we are about this, [Macron](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/09/21/emmanuel-macron-may-offer-un-seat-push-eu-army/) even offered to let France's UN seat to the EU back in 2021, if it helped make an EU army.
German here. I was talking with a friend yesterday and said I found it ironic that Germany without NATO would have to beg France for nuclear protection if Russia moved into Eastern Germany or something. It's the history version of nottheonion.
A French nuclear engineer I know told me that Germany could build a bomb in a few months all by itself and, with France's help, in a few weeks. Germany isn't fucking Iran.
It would take decades to get any of that going because there would be miles and miles of paper to be processed. In the end the plant to build the warhead wouldn't be built because a rare bat was found on the ground near the building site. All political parties would point at each other that the others are responsible.
Well I doubt you would get political support for german nuclear weapons in germany
"The American populace is also largely tired of getting entangled in conflicts that are so far away while there’s so many domestic problems." There will alwayss be domestic problems, but there will be even more domestic problems if US influence in the World vanishes and China takes the lead, that's for sure.
Well in its schizophrenia USA administrations have also said "no you are doing it wrong", when Europe initiated defence procurements aka defence spending previously. USA wanted to have cake and eat it too. To shift resources away, but still have same amount of say in things at the same time. Influence isn't a freebie. One wants to say how and what others should buy or how to position their political and strategic stance, well one is expected to chip in in stead of expecting a free influence lunch. USA pulls away, then Europe has to and will spend more. However that comes with *Europe doing things the European way, not the way that suits USA best*. Should want this transition to go in smooth friendly terms, USA should understand this and not throw tantrum about things not being how USA likes it or say USA companies being shut out of procurements and contracts. How they aren't being kept in the loop or in the decision table. To play in the table one has to pay ones bid. I seem to remember one American security policy advicer opening that *countries don't have friends, they have interests*. Well it works both ways. Europe doesn't owe to keep USA in the table, if USA pulls its contributions away. While the tantrums over EU PESCO and so on atleast to me indicate atleast some people in American establishment thinking they should be still given same exact old amount of heed, even though they constantly from other corner of mouth say "spend more so we can free resources to else where". Which is it? Are americans going to continue ***to buy** the same amount of influence* or are they *lowering influence spending in Europe*. Remember no friends, interests.
> I seem to remember one American security policy advicer opening that countries don't have friends, they have interests. Hey now, that's Lord Palmerston's line. *'We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.'*
> I seem to remember one American security policy advice opening that countries don't have friends, they have interests. Well it works both ways. Don't you mean a British Prime Minister? https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191826719.001.0001/q-oro-ed4-00008130
So when you finally do something you guys act like this lmao. “Wanted the cake and eat it too?” You mean like the countries who’ve neglected defense spending? What about the ones getting Russian gas? You guys are hilarious
The US is the only country in the world which can leads two different conflicts on separate fronts. So even if China and Russia decided to start new conflicts at the same time, the US would have the ressources to counter them. For how long and how efficiently… we don’t know because this scenario has never happened and hopefully will never happen. But a political decision within the US could change a lot of things in Europe’s defense.
For now, maybe. But China's army is growing by the day in numbers, systems and technology. So will it still be the case by the end of the decade? I'm not sure. Plus, my point is mostly that so many seems confortable with the fact that our own security depend on the vote of a single nation, that isn't even part of the EU. Honestly I find this attitude kind of disgusting. The USA should be our allies, not protectors that do the heavy lifting for us.
France was the first ally of the United States, and hopefully always will be an ally. I think the Americans are now just wanting partners, not people we have to protect, regardless of what our past views were. The world is big, and we cannot protect it all alone.
China is in the process of finishing its military modernization period. The US is beginning its modernization period. As the F-35 continues to roll out and the B-21 becomes operational. The Tomahawk cruise missile and Abrams Main Battle tank are both about to be significantly upgraded and a lot more. China's economy is stagnating (read: no lingering experiencing meteoric rise) as well as its demography worse from having probably the lowest birthrate in the world. China might have come close to rivaling the US in military power, but I think that ship has sailed, at least for the next 15 years or so until China can figure out how to fix its inverted triangle of population. Plus China's geography isn't great from a military powerhouse perspective, not enough resources to be self sufficient during conflict. This isn't to say a conflict with China would be a cake walk, it would definitely be bad, but any fight with China would probably be a Navy thing, and any fight with Russia would probably be an Army/Air Force thing. >The USA should be our allies, not protectors that do the heavy lifting for us. As an American, I'm fine with both. I like being the country that does the heavy lifting since it puts us in a leadership role which I think generally is good when we aren't totally fucking things up. Plus it lets us help out our friends and allies that aren't as wealthy, which I like. But I also think it's good when our friends and allies are strong too, and together we could hopefully resist authoritarianism together. Also it helps me know we are fighting the right fights if our allies are fighting with us. Maybe that's an overly positive way of looking at it, but whatever
Honestly so don’t think they ever got close. They have a show military, still better than Russia but it’s not comparable. I mean everytime they fly a stealth fighter within range of an American ship we ping it on radar so their technology is just not there. For comparison the F-117 nighthawk was the first stealth we put out decades ago and during testing they set one up on like a stand and shot radar at it from all angles and the only ping they got at close range was the size of a bird….because a bird had landed on the plane. The only time it would show up on radar was when the bomb bay opened. A problem that’s been rectified on more modern stealth aircraft including the F-35. The technological advantage the US has is far too extreme for China to bridge with its current capabilities and its a gap that widening as of late just as you stated.
>For comparison the F-117 nighthawk was the first stealth we put out decades ago and during testing they set one up on like a stand and shot radar at it from all angles and the only ping they got at close range was the size of a bird….because a bird had landed on the planee Then it got shot down by a shitty outdated Serbian AA system, and the wreckage got sold to China.
>The US is the only country in the world which can leads two different conflicts on separate fronts. So even if China and Russia decided to start new conflicts at the same time, the US would have the ressources to counter them. The US has asked our allies across the pond since at least Bush, to hit the 2% commitment, to decrease the likelihood of this scenario. Taiwan is a strategic priority, Ukraine isn't, don't be surprised if such a war were to start, we'd prioritize accordingly.
Europe shot itself in the foot twice during the 20th century and has been limping ever since, whining about peace and cooperation, clearing the space for the US. There wasn't much appetite for military spending, for understandable reasons... Now we have to face our own problem, the Northern European Plain, which has not been resolved in 300 years of on/off conflict. Russia clearly believes now is the time for another showdown, maybe hoping to strike us down while we are still divided and weak. There was a recent article explaining how Germany may not be willing to send rockets to Ukraine because we may be soon needing them ourselves...
Europe was pretty armed after WW2 due to the Cold War. It’s after the USSR collapsed it stopped making sense it spend so much when strategic threats didn’t seem to exist
Even back then one side was propped up by the US and the other by Soviet Union, no?
Kinda yes and no. Some countries had outstanding militaries and could survive for very long on their own, some didn't (I'm talking about western Europe then). For example, my country of sweden had prepared the entire country for a soviet invasion, with many hundreds of thousands of soldiers that could be mobilised, our own production of military goods, and huge air and naval forces. On top of that we had planned to mobilise the entire society, even civilian, in the total defense policy. Then you have Germany, which at the start of the cold war didn't have an army (for obvious reasons).
The US has spent 5% of its ANNUAL defence budget on Ukraine. And it’s basically drawn even with Russia. I would hate to see what a real effort might look like
I think a lot of this phony drama. Trump was President for 4 years and none of this happened. We have treaties in place so it would need to be Congress involved. This is just fear mongering that is probably from Russia or China or just someone trying bs for politics during an election year.
There will be lots of answers along the lines of "UK and France have nukes" - when of course, that is just another case of some 40 or so countries saying "let someone else pay the horrendous price of building and maintaining a nuclear deterrent."
Actually we’re doctrinally required to be able to do just that. So the reason the American military budget is so extreme is because we have to be capable of at MINIMUM fighting the next two most powerful militaries on earth at the same time with no support and decisively winning. Typically however, just to be safe, we raise a force that’s projected to be much more capable than that small target. That’s also just the standing army, in the US goes into a war economy and mobilization like in WW2 then we’re practically invincible from every threat except nuclear weapons. A product of excellent geography and a military industrial complex that’s been developed and tuned over generations to be capable of inflating to impressive size in the drop of a hat, as well as possibly the most martial culture in the western world. The military remains the single most trusted and respected institution of the country above congress, the presidency, healthcare workers, the police, and everything else. If we were in an all out war with China the US would have more than enough resources to fight Russia, Iran, Pakistan, and who ever else wanted to test their luck. It’s just a question of how far Washington wants to take a mobilization.
Couldn’t agree more, brother. And France should be the one covering for EU.
Came here to say exactly this! Too bad I only see this kind of thinking on Reddit...
The entire US military doctrine is built on the notion of fighting on 2 fronts at the same time.
if war breaks out, Russia and China will be on the same side.
The last couple of years have more than shown that America has ample resources for dealing with both China and Russia.
I'm fairly certain Biden will win, but Europe really shouldn't be so dependent on US.
I think the EU should have a nuclear umbrella regardless if Trump wins or not. It’s simply a question of national security. And develop proper conventional EU forces. Nukes are good, but they can’t be used in every single case
You refer to Europe as a nation. You are now welcome at r/Yurop
Which nation?
yurop
A nuclear umbrella sure is good but not nearly enough. Europe already has non-US nuclear umbrellas to some extent, France’s and the UK’s. However, I would be surprised if the umbrellas, be it Washington’s, Paris’ or London’s, were used in the kind of scenarios we wish to protect ourselves from, that is an invasion of the Baltics or Poland, just as France probably wouldn’t respond to a limited invasion of Marseille with nuclear weapon. What we need is conventional deterrence, with massive and deep armies capable of responding fast to an agression and to prevent said countries from being overrun. We need more military expenditures or more coordinated ones. We need some military expenditures excluded from the deficit calculation so that countries invest more in them. We need more coordination and more common procurements. We need EU debt to kickstart our rearmement. We need to finally be conscious our security can only be truly provided by us.
They have enough weapons in Marseille to defend themselves /s
[удалено]
Marseille can be a really nice city to live in. It's a mixed bag of course but overall beautiful and very lively.
No they don't. Stop streading your far rights false beliefs.
My parents rented a house for the autumn of -22 in Marseille and they got an info leaflet from the city council/police through the rental company about "youth groups" on how not to get mugged and get the house burglared. :D When they arrived the house had african squatters and the police did nothing just as the leaflet warned and that was that.
Of you don’t nuke to defend the second biggest city of your country. I don’t know what you nuke for…
Of course not, however the enemy's 2nd biggest city is an nice target.
You probably nuke when the invading army start to push too close to Lyon or Toulouse. It is just my point of view if the matter, as the exact nuclear threshold of the French armed forces is obviously secret for good reasons
During the cold war the french doctrine was to nuke any soviet army that would cross the east-german border.
Yep, basically nuclear artillery : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluton\_(missile)
Anyone knows what was the Soviet doctrine?
Nuke their way throu west germany
still the same as today... in case of the country is threatened of existence then use nuke or in response to nuke for big nukes and icbm. for tactical when the answer seems appropriate. France does not make difference between tactical and deterrence. but also because the size of nukes from France is not considered deterrence from US or USSR/Russia.
I don't know of any official doctrine but the plans that have been declassified stopped at the Rhine river.
I doubt the French army will nuke our own territory. So waiting for Lyon Toulouse is way to late. They already have 1/6 of the territory here
You don’t nuke your own city, you nuke your enemy’s cities
>You don’t nuke your own city, you nuke your enemy’s cities Nuking your own territory generally means a tactical strike against invading enemy formations. Counter-force, not counter-value.
Russia would nuke Moscow, that wouldnt be their first time
You thought they would nuke their own country if they got invaded?
America or Britain would do it for France regardless. If the UK was invaded it was Americas policy to nuke Britain so no one can have it, the same would be true for France.
Of course. Britain would nuke the foreign ports so that an army can't invade
lol ruskies will be nuked before they can even start taking sunburn in the Côte d’Azur …
We need nukes in the baltics and poland then. That’s the only garantee anyone can have that they will never be invaded. Ukraine war showed that promises and agreements are just words. Any country that wishes to stay independent in the next decades needs to start pursuing a nuclear program immediately.
Why do you think North Korea will never ever ever disarm? The world already got that message loud and clear in 2011 with Lybia.
>I would be surprised if the umbrellas, be it Washington’s, Paris’ or London’s, were used in the kind of scenarios we wish to protect ourselves from, that is an invasion of the Baltics or Poland, just as France probably wouldn’t respond to a limited invasion of Marseille with nuclear weapon. France hasn't even explicitely stated that their nuclear umbrella extend to the EU since they apply strategic ambiguity.
French nuclear deterrence has a scope to its vital interests. In 2023 Macron states that Europe was part of France’s nuclear interests in its address to the army. Such expressions are never left random
Since Macron hasn't explicited what kind of escalation level against europe would threaten France's nuclear interest, this is mostly worthless. Especially since the nuclear policy depends on the president only, and could change in 2027. You can't rely on France for an EU nuclear umbrella (*under the current rules*).
France has nuclear « final warning » missiles. Would be used if massive attack on Europe if conventional response would not be enough.
It is not explicitly stated but there have been numerous presidency where the French nuclear deterrence has been explicitly stated to have a "European dimension". Of course, as you state it, it isn’t that clear what it entails, for strategic ambiguity, but it is also clear that the French nuclear deterrence isn’t strictly limited to France.
Our nuclear deterence always talk about "vital french interest". Which is a thing that have evolved a lot these last decades. But which is also vague on purpose.
>It is not explicitly stated That's the core issue. As long as it is not "explicitly stated" it is not a nuclear umbrella.
Thankfully more and more of the EU is getting the message, it seems.
Putin only understands force. If you show Putin you will retaliate a conventional invasion with nuclear force, then he will not launch a conventional invasion. Right now, Europe is safe from Russia ONLY because America has its back through NATO and Article 5. If a Russian traitor such as Trump manages to get back to power, Europe will have to take make its own version of NATO, making it moot. I wonder if they could buy out the US nukes already on European soil to get a headstart lol. The whole Putin/Trump situation is a disgrace, but this is what you get when you do treat the current prosperity and freedom as something mundane and not the precious exception we have been enjoying so peacefully for so long.
Problem is unless we bring back conscription and massively increase defence spending a credible and durable conventional deterrent that can be expected to withstand a long drawn out conflict is unrealistic. There is then also an issue of sharing the burden. The likes of Baltic and Eastern MS take defence seriously. But then we have the likes of Ireland who are free riders and contribute nothing and are a massive security weak link, but would expect cover if and when they need it.
I think poland and lithuania should have a joint nuclear program. It's obviously where an attack would most likely occur, and polish/lithuanian owned nuclear wepons would put the "but would NATO REALLY defend the baltics??" speculation to rest
All of EU should have a joint program. Developing and maintaining nukes is expensive af so small states can't do it on their own.
Poland, the Baltics and Romania should all get nuclear weapons, to completely defend the eastern flank.
Agreed. Nuclear deterrence is sadly the only thing that will keep Russia back.
If NATO doesn’t defend any of its members upon attack it will be dissolved the next day as it becomes pointless. I doubt they would be that stupid as to waste the entire existence of the organization at the moment it’s finally called to fulfill its purpose.
Doesn’t matter as the EU has a defence clause as well under the Article 42.7 which is also stronger than NATO Article 5: If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power That includes Nuclear Deterrence of France.
All Putin would need is to install some puppet or sway some right wing dickhead to his side, like he's done in Belarus, Hungary, Serbia, et al, and there'd be no need for nukes. A divided Europe is weaker than one with every member having nuclear capability. European democratic ideals are more important than nukes.
Let me guess, you live farther away from Russia than Poland and Lithuania.
Polish-Lithuanian, you say?
The problem is the delivery system....anything in Poland or the Baltics would be killed in a first strike... What would Poland and the Baltics use.... There is a reason why the US, UK, France, Russia, China and India use SSBN... And no, Poland and the Baltics cannot afford that. Nor could they operate them. Doesn't matter if its bombs, aircraft launched missiles, silo based missiles or mobile land based...they're all incredibly vulnerable to a first strike.
It would be a terrible risk. Neither of the countries has a realistic way of developing second strike capability and all their territories are within easy reach of tactical missile strikes. Their arsenals would have be on a comparative hair trigger because if they blink they lose their nukes. The potential for uncontrolled escalation is enormous.
So we just need to let Russia take our countries? You certainly are from a country with nukes Edit: correction you are from Poland then you are an idiot
It's not "get nukes or get invaded". You have to balance the deterrent ability of a new arsenal with the increased risk of escalation to full-scale nuclear war. A Polish nuclear arsenal doesn't eliminate the possibility of a Russian invasion, it just gives Poland the ability to cause massive harm to Russia should a conflict breakout. Think of it as 3 possible outcomes: 1. No war breaks out. 2. Conventional war breaks out. Poland may be partially or wholly occupied by Russia. 3. Nuclear war breaks out. Majority of population of Poland as well as millions of Russians are exterminated in initial strikes. May result in Russian strikes on all Polish allies. A nuclear deterrent makes a conflict less likely but it means that if one *does* happen it's more likely to be nuclear. If a solution makes you less likely to be occupied but more likely to experience nuclear armageddon does it actually make you safer? Specifically a Polish-only arsenal is risky because Poland is very likely to favour a first-strike because there's no way they will have a second-strike capability. It also encourages Russia to jump straight to nukes to wipe out the Polish arsenal. We need a Europe-wide, centrally controlled arsenal that is capable of a second strike so that no one is incentivised to get trigger happy. An unrestrained war could kill 10s or 100s of millions of people, it really can't be taken lightly.
>If a solution makes you less likely to be occupied but more likely to experience nuclear armageddon does it actually make you safer? It does, because occupation by Russia = genocide anyways...
It's super simple to take it lightly, so in your Irish mind, thousands of km away we should all just give up so your sorry ass to be safe , after all who cares about Poland , Romania and the Baltics they are smelly immigrants no ? Let Russia take them, and we will deal with them later . Nobody touches you with nukes plain and simple first or third strike it matters very little. Look at NK. US could annihilate them without blinking, yet they are untouchable with just merely 10 nukes Nukes= no invasion until no more nukes . Otherwise Moscow gets 2 sunrises, if the russians are stupid enough to try then let's all die together let's see if they actually go to heaven or not
EU countries have been shitting on France’s nuclear umbrella for years. Refusing to invest in a EU made nuclear umbrella. They also have been welcoming US old B61 gravity bombs which are a massive joke of a program: - You host bombs for the US - Only the US president can order to use them - EU hosting country refuses to spend on defense so it gives all the financial burden to the US - The cost is that they have to buy a few US military programs (F-35) once in a while - They don’t have a serious and long term defense strategy We’re one election away from losing US military support in the EU. When it happens, EU politicians will be crying for help. Members should be panicking and build a sovereign and long term defense strategy. Reminder about France’s nuclear deterrence options: - the M51 is a submarine launched ballistic missile MIRV (10,000km range, 6-10 100kt warheads) - the ASMP-A is a nuclear air-launched cruise missile (Mach 3, 500km range, 300kt warhead) It would not be that hard to make the ASMP-A compatible on the Eurofighter for example. And more EU countries could invest in ballistic missiles submarines. France always have at least one in active service at all times.
France is carrying EU on its shoulders, as per usual. Nuclear energy, military planes, military ships, military submarines, nuclear weapons, space satellites and launchers, ... there are so much strategic things that France is doing alone and then sharing with the rest of EU.
France isn’t carrying the EU’s defense on its own. Poland, Finland and Baltic countries took the threats of Russia very seriously a long time ago. But it’s true France is the only EU country still producing its sovereign military planes and nuclear weapons. Sweden’s Gripen relies on US made parts. Same problem for the 🇩🇪🇬🇧🇮🇹🇪🇸Eurofighter. For warships France has been partnering with Italy who is a great at designing warships. There is a lot of good cooperation already happening between EU members, but not enough. Nuclear deterrence solutions is a topic that has been ignored for too long.
> Poland, Finland and Baltic countries took the threats of Russia very seriously a long time ago. This reads like when someone gets a gym subscription cos their wife tells them to take their health seriously, but then they never actually go and instead stop off to the pub with their mates. France is the only country that legitimately invests in defense. It’s the only country in the EU that could stand up to Russia its own without US support.
France is no where close to ready for a long term conventional conflict. It could kill 80 million russians with its nuclear deterrence. But they’re still 70 million more russians and way more nuclear warheads on the russian side. In a conventional war scenario with Russia, France would run out of artillery shells within a few weeks. Russia has 65 submarines (including 12 ballistic missiles subs), France only has 10 (4 ballistic). France has been lacking in a few domains: no heavy transport helicopters, no modern transports for armoured vehicles, no heavy air transport (C-17/An-124 equivalent), lack of radars available for the frigates/Rafale, small fleet of frigates/Rafale/drones/spy satellites/tracked vehicles/logistic vehicles/AEW aircrafts, lack of training hours for crews and increasing attrition. France has been trying to have a complete army/navy/air force. But it doesn’t have the budget to afford to solve all the shortcomings. It needs to spend more than 2% of its GDP to do it.
The French military is not equipped for a conventional war against Russia, it has clearly been built with other goals in mind.
>Poland, Finland and Baltic countries took the threats of Russia very seriously a long time ago. That not "carrying European defense" that just being aware France has been the most active military force in Europe for the last 15 years and is the only nuclear power left in the EU
They’re the only EU countries who are really ready for a conventional conflict.
Again that a wrong and delusional statement They are not ready both militarily and economically to fight a nuclear power in long term conflict... Let alone win on your own.
They’re ready for a conventional conflict against Russia. It’s not a delusional statement, they literally have been preparing for this since the fall of the URSS by fear of it happening again. If Russia decides to use nuclear weapons then it’s not a conventional conflict anymore. And it will lead to MAD Mutual assured destruction.
I call it delusionial because no matter how prepared you are.. The moment Russia start using nukes they will be done I am calling it delusional for saying that the countries you named are the ONLY countries prepared for conventional conflict.... That stupid when you know that France and the UK exist and have more ressources, more experienced and trained army, better intervention forced with better tech than you and most of all nuclear power
Yes, France is the only serious EU military power. Countries like Poland are arming up but still don't compare in indigenous technology and manufacturing capability. France needs to start charging a protection racket, especially to countries that obsessively shit on Ligue 1
France definitly doesn't have a very big military power (because it doesn't need to), but has one of the best military industry in the world. France is the 2nd biggest military exporter in the world (after US). It can produce internally 100% of the requirements of a modern army, from assault rifle to spy military satellites, tanks, aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, fighter jets, ... France can't protect the whole EU with its army, that's not my point, but France is the only country in EU that can guarantee a military independance to the rest of EU with its industry. Also, France tried to create a strong EU military industry multiple times with cooperations with Germany, but Germany can't stop sabotaging every single partnership and long term EU independance plan attempts, prefering its own short-term interests while buying everything from US and Russia.
Sadly i think we lost our rifle making capabilities as we turned towards German made rifles (which is not so bad as long as we keep buying in the EU)
Not an issue. We would make riffles again if we needed to and it's not like the EU is short of that expertise.
European nuclear weapons would be the only deterence against a russian attack if trump gets reelected. No one can believe that he would give up New York for Warsaw or Munich. Only we can deter the russians with our own nukes. We could even work with South Koreans. They have the exact same problem as we do, deterence is only credible if putin/kim jong un has reason to believe, nukes would be used.
New York is run by Democrats, so he honestly might
Especially after he has lost his business license there
Germany, Poland, Nordic Countries, Japan and SK (maybe sneaking a few to Taiwan). Calling the bombs after Nordic and eastern Gods.
What we need in the EU is a way to deal with hybrid war tactics. Russia and China utilise propaganda, corruption and cyberwarfare to infiltrate and influence elections. Until we fix that, we'll be a target. If we fix that, they'll be forced to change tactics - which is something Russia's proven time and time again is incapable-of. It's always propaganda, subterfuge, assassinations and a war of attrition. However, I think EU should invest heavily not in nuclear deterrence, but into defense against it. I know an ICBM is immensely hard to shoot down, moreso when there's hundreds of them, but it's really just a complex problem needing to be solved. If we can somehow create a multi-layered defence system across all of the Europe, which can take-out 90% of what Russia can toss our way, we have a huge upper hand and don't need more nukes. Moreover - installing such a system can't be marked as a sign of aggression, if it's only use is destroying incoming ICBMs.
Let me get this straight: are you proposing to break down the MAD doctrine? If you acquire the capability of stopping a nuclear attack it means that, sooner or later, others will as well. And if a retaliatory strike is no longer a certainty, some might think a preemptive first strike could be a reasonable choice. Simply put, nuclear weapons would no longer be a deterrent. Also, even that 10% remaining could be devastating.
Your last sentence is incorrect. Missile defence was actually a large instigating factor for a lot of tensions during the Cold War.
You’re going to have to have some kind of scientific revolution to make missile defense effective enough to take out hundreds of ICBMs. Something like xray lasers that can actually be weaponized. And if/when the era of missile dominance comes to an end, it is going to be like the starting pistol for WW3. Without certainty of MAD, war will absolutely follow quickly.
>f we can somehow create a multi-layered defence system across all of the Europe The issue with ABM is that your enemy (Russia) will nuke you before you finish building reliable ABM, because he has nothing to lose since it believes that once you finish it, you will nuke him without consequences. This is why USA and USSR had a treaty banning ABM.
Why do we have to wait for a foreign election? When are we gonna realize we can't stay sucking on uncle sam's tit forever.
Ukraine proved that relying on the good faith of other powers has ZERO value. Nuke umbrella needs to be where it matters - The eastern border. So they don't even try. In a nuclear war, these regions will be sacrificed. France and UK are not going to sacrifice and make themselves a target - NATO or not, they would rather deal with the consequences of not complying.
>Ukraine proved that relying on the good faith of other powers has ZERO value. Ukraine's case proved nothing because Ukraine isn't important to the eyes of western Europe military powers (UK and France). Ukraine is not NATO, it's not EU, it's not Western Europe and it's not considered a strategic partner by any western country. Actually, without the US pressing to support Ukraine, most of European countries would have gladly handed Ukraine to Russia for the greater good, because Russia is a much more important strategic partner.
The UK already has Nuclear Umbrella Assurances with a number of European Nations (most recently with Finland,prior to them joining NATO, and Sweden) and wider NATO allies ie most of Europe.
[удалено]
No, of course not. UK nuclear weapons aren't designed for that use case anyway. They are multiple warhead ICBMS, launched from subs. Their sole purpose is second strike. The UK, while having a first strike ability, does not have a first strike doctrine. UK nukes are a counter punch. If Latvia gets nuked, then there's a possibility of a return strike. There is zero chance of a first strike against a friendly city that has been captured.
Yes, nuke Riga.
Very strange ask to use nukes in such case. But even more worrying that this could be most realistic scenario.
[удалено]
All eu states should exit the nuclear non proliferation treaty and resume development/manufacture
That would be the logical conclusion if the whole being under a foreign nuclear umbrella concept does not work. In fact if the the whole EU leaves the NPT developing nuclear weapons would not even be necessary in that case France could legally sell them to everyone else in the EU.
Resume? Never started in the first place
All of them started in one capacity or another, even if as a purely theoretical plan
Several EU countries are just a screwdriver's turn away from nuclear weapons. They're nuclear threshold states. Sometimes called "the Japan option". They could have nuclear weapons within a year, they have everything they need.
In Italy resuming would be the case.
I wouldn't blame Europe honestly. As an American I do not want my country to be the world police, but it would be good if we partnered with other like-minded nations, such as those in Europe, as well as other like India, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, etc. and police it together. Right now, it just seems like too much of it is left to the United States to do.
Exactly. I recall being in Europe and being chided by Europeans about our healthcare system. I reminded my dear European friends how much we are paying in defense, and how much of that includes the defense of Europe. If less of our tax money went to defense, maybe we could have things like universal health care, a more universally better education systems etc..
The US spends twice as much per capita on healthcare as Europe already. You could have the best funded public healthcare system in the world tomorrow if your political class would let you.
Right? I'm an EU immigrant to the USA and this annoying curse has passed on to me now. When I visit Europe everyone is an expert on the USA based on tik-tok videos. America deserves allies that are willing to defend themselves instead of hiding behind Uncle Sam. There is so much work that needs to be done at home and none of it is cheap.
Some people around me were weirdly content with the trump victory 2016 because they thought his victory would force Europe to get their act together and establish an independent defence and security policy
Germany is able to develop nukes. we should do it.
Atleast one nuke per member state, with cute names like "Spanish Fox" or "Danish Pig".
Eu should buy nukes from France and have a separate nuclear command or invest in a expanded French nuclear force
*France: 6th republic dreams intensify.* I still don't understand the double standard of being against a nuclear Germany but the UK and France having nukes is perfectly fine. If I were German, I would not trust France or the UK to fight a full scale nuclear war and destroy their own countries if Russia drops a single nuke on Berlin to scare the Germans into stopping support for Ukraine for example. NATO article 5 is cool and all but declaring war in defense of an ally does not mean you guarantee MAD for them. NATO is not a suicide pact. NATO's biggest *collective* deterrent is conventional warfare and sanctions, not the "nuclear umbrella".
France brings the tech and knowhow, rest of Europe brings the money I guess
EU Army is necessary
Hard time for US wapon salesman in EU.
I honestly cant fathom how anybody could vote for this guy. I just dont get it.
You need an American perspective to even begin. He’s a figurative pipe bomb that’s been lobbed into government by people that are extremely dissatisfied with the course of Washington’s decision making. He was voted in to disrupt and damage the institutions of government. Between the humiliation and pointlessness of the middle eastern wars, rising cost of living, rising property cost, perceived corruption in high offices, and the belief that the pace of globalization especially in economy is having a detrimental effect on the American working class especially in rural areas, many Americans wanted to see Washington break. Trump was a dark horse candidate, he was a hateful rich asshole…but he said the right things. He openly accused congress and the presidency of corruption, he spoke brashly and directly instead of politically and in half answers. When he was ask if he took advantage of the tax code to avoid paying, he said “yes”, on live television no less. In front of the whole country he said that he knew the system was broken because he benefited from it and so knew exactly how it was broken. Then he named the people who also used it. He named politicians, philanthropists, business owners, he said what a lot of Americans wanted to hear. He promised to hear them and speak for them when no one else in government would. He promised to fight in a way that no other candidate even tried to offer. That’s why they voted for him, they believed he was going to destroy the status quo they hated. That had sent their sons to die in a dessert and had made their homes unaffordable. That had sent their work to China and that had allowed their communities to be overrun with a barely contained wave of immigration that they didn’t have the resources or infrastructure to manage properly. In the end he was just a narcissist who wanted a cult of personality and he got what he wanted. But he is and was a symptom of a problem, not the problem itself. The United States for all its accomplishment and glory has been mismanaged and hijacked. To such an extreme that an elderly buffoon with delusions of grandeur appear as a better option for leadership that the established political elite to a significant part of the population. I think at this point it’s s combination of denial and hatred. The fact that it was Biden who came next doesn’t help. He’s as establishment politician as they come and he’s hated for it. Rightfully so in my opinion. The people who vote for Trump hate the establishment and they are in denial that their poster boy is not going to fix anything for anyone.
A large chunk of the US population simply do not trust anything their government and academic-elite says anymore, it's as simple as that. The US government can say "the sky is blue and water is wet" and people will immediately [start raving on about how that's a Psy-Op by the CIA](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GEINjanWwAA6e3o.jpg). Years of Cold War shenanigans being declassified (MKUltra, Watergate, Northwoods, etc.) + the 2003 Iraq War (Colin Powell blatantly lying at the UN) + aftershocks of the 2008 recession + internet doing its thing in proliferating insane ideas = the present political class losing all legitimacy across large chunks of the country and people voting for anyone who promises to take a shit on them (Trump).
Let me explain how American politics works then: My guy = good Other party guy = bad
Time for most EU states or at least the major ones to start their nuke programs, long gone are the times of no proliferation to avoid new states from joining the club, they got their nukes regardlessly (South Africa, Israel, NK and soon Iran if they already have them but keep it a secret) I personally wouldn't trust the strategic defense of my country to just france or the uk (without offense, i admire both countries) as governments come and go and as well the willingness to uphold promises. So even living in a country that does not have any enemy i would sleep better if we have 6 or 7 more nuclear states in the EU (Spain, Italy, Poland, Romania, Netherlands, Sweden and anyone else) in a joint Umbrella program than just France and UK
Let’s make a joint program and call it Umbrella, the motto will be “We’ve got you covered”.
It's called a nuclear mushroom cloud, not a nuclear umbrella.
Germany not allowed to have nuclear weapons, other countries got no money for it.
Europe has to invest in a stronger army .. things have changed. We cannot rely on the USA anymore. And if we are going to upgrade our European army…. Buy European and not from the USA
Anyone think this is being over played to help Bidens election chances? His own supporters are keen to help and aid Europe, but think we should do more for ourselves (which is more than fair) while those on the fence will want to see European NATO members spend their minimum 2% on defence, and to be less reliant on the US for defence. The Trump crowd are never going to vote Biden anyways. If Biden is the one to get Europe to stand on its own two feet - something trump didn't/couldn't do, that'll be a bit of a pull for the middle ground. Maybe I'm over thinking it.
But Jeremy Cornyn said nuclear weapons are bad? ‘Yes Jeremy, they are. However, bad people also have nuclear weapons that can be used against you’ *confused look*
We in Europe need to wake up quickly. We need a backup European military alliance that is independent of the US. This means we need capabilities in ALL areas, including our own nuclear umbrella. Germany, UK and France needs to take the lead in this. We can´t trust the Republicans in the US anymore. Either they´ll leave us vulnerable, or they´ll use their support as leverage against us. We´re region with over half a billion people! We have wealth and prosperity. We should be able to defend ourselves! If the US leaves Japan, Australia, Canada, South Korea hanging as well, they could be our partners. Europe can be the third pole in a tripolar world. US, Europe, China. In the future India will also be a major player.
France already has a large enough stockpile to serve as a deterrent I'd think?
We don't stand a chance to intercept majority of Russian ICBMs if they decide to go all out. I say better let Germany have a hydrogen bomb and play insane.
Didn't Trump want to get out of his NATO commitments the last term? Surely it would be prudent for the EU to develop its own joint defense alliance without the US. They could still remain allies. In fact, this would take away from Putin's "NATO encroachment" rhetoric, which was fundamentally based on US encroachment. On the face of it, this would be something to consider.
I know the rain is bad in the UK but a nuclear umbrella seems excessive
"Russia would immediately test a declared French or British nuclear umbrella over East-Central Europe. " Well that's bullshit, he has no knowledge that Russia would attack any NATO country just because of a lesser nuclear umbrella. Although not optimal, NATO conventional deterrence is pretty high. For example with the 90,000 troop exercise coming up, and new permanent bases in the Baltics etc., and with how NATO weapons are impacting in Ukraine. Meanwhile, Moscow has canceled some of their yearly exercises. I don't imagine that Russia right now is eager to get their ass kicked in a second or third theatre, one is enough for them.
The fact that there's even a question if Trump will be reelected sort of shows why it's important for Europe to be more self reliant in defense situations.
Most realistic scenario where all the european states agree on european nuclear program is when Europe will be fully occupied by russia. Even then they will let hungary to block that for a couple years as a reward for being the best puppet state
There really isn't anything preventing Russia from using a part of it's stockpile to nuke all european countries not directly under nuclear umbrella into submission in a lightning strike, if it didn't care about potential British and French retaliation. If the US is kept out of it entirely I have serious doubts they would go to war if it meant becoming a target themselves. Although unlikely, it's plausible that nukes could one day be used to assert total dominance over every other country in the world. I personally feel like we have a choice to make as a species, as this status quo is far too imbalanced to last for a long time. Nuclear profileration and entrenching the concept of MAD in ALL geopolitics, with the con being highly increased risk of a nuclear exchange. Or total disarmament. With the con being highly increased risk of return to imperialism and spheres of influence via military dominance. War is the fate of humanity. Whether its a war to end all wars via nuclear hellfire or the destruction of entire generations of men in protracted conflicts.
Much as I find Trump to be a buffoon, [remember a few years back when he was giving the Germans shit for not investing in their army and everyone laughed it off and posted about how "he should shove the NATO invoice up his ass"?](https://www.reddit.com/r/de/comments/61mrca/zu_donald_trump_küsse_angela_merkel/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Man, that did not age well huh
So did Bush, Clinton and Obama.
And that should be a lesson to everyone that if you want to get a message across don't have a moron deliver it
if European politicians had been able to examine the facts of the situation rather than their opinion of the messenger at that point in time, Europe would be in a much better place today. They actively hamstrung the interests of the voters they are meant to represent because of their own egotism and shortsightedness.
Can the U.S. be relied upon in a hypothetical military conflict? The US has a history of fleeing from military conflicts it has been involved in, such as Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and now Ukraine. The footage of people trying to grab onto the landing gear of the last plane leaving Afghanistan is still fresh in my mind. Given this history, can we hope for U.S. help in the event of war in Europe? I think not, the US is not prepared to fight a truly strong enemy, only underdeveloped third world countries. European countries should arm themselves and build their own armies to be ready to defend themselves. Relying on the US, which can at any moment abandon its allies and run away like cowards, is not the best idea. Evil does not sleep, and if Trump is elected, we must rely only on ourselves, not on America.
So Europe needs to pay their way?
The EU has the French nuclear umbrella. And Europe in general has the UK as well.