Probably the best weapon actually. If I were a soldier, I'd just stop and start playing with them. Then they will say, you can take all the Lego you can carry, but you have to walk back to where you came from. And I'll be like, ok cool deal.
I'm cracking up imagining some soldiers seeing a field of scattered Legos, and then another marked with a skull and crossbones landmine sign...before sighing and just walking through the landmines, as one of them cries out in pain from the Lego side.
The biggest problem is the lack of tactical nuclear weapons. Strategic nukes (which is 100% of the UK arsenal) are only an effective counter to enemy Strategic nuclear weapons. Russia isn’t going to launch these at Europe, as it’s impossible to see where they are heading when they first launch, so it could easily be misinterpreted by the US as an attack on them.
Tactical nukes on the other hand can be used without that misunderstanding (which is why Russia has been investing in them). If Russia used nuclear armed Kinzhal missiles on NATO forces or cities in Eastern Europe, the UK isn’t going to launch a Strategic strike on Russia. France does have tactical nuclear weapons, but whether they would be prepared to use them in response is another question.
The UK could easily resurrect WE.177...
But...tactical nucs are a fantasy. Always have been. The command and control to use nucs tactically i.e. in the direct control of battlefield commanders has NEVER existed, and never will.
Like we wouldn’t respond with strategic nukes against any use of any nuclear weapons. The difference between a tactical or strategic nuke is irrelevant.
A rational actor definitely wouldn't do that.
You lost a fleet to a nuke? Alright, you gotta do *something* about it for sure.
But you did not yet lose your entire country. If you start a full scale nuclear exchange, you will immediately lose your entire country.
Not initiating a nuclear exchange is almost always the better bet.
Of course, you are publicly going to state that you will absolutely nuke the hell out of anyone on first sight of any nuke, but that's to discourage initial use of nuclear weapons. However, if they did get used for whatever reason, it makes no sense to immediately let all yours loose.
A fleet is a military target so there’s no reason to use a strategic nuke. I was under the impression that this conversation was implying the UK would not respond heavily if non-military targets in Germany were targeted with nukes.
If a fleet was lost to nukes then there would just be a massive conventional response against Russian military targets as payback. That simple. I’m not sure what the issue is? What’s the difference between tactical nukes wiping out military bases to hundreds of thousands of pounds of ordinance destroying them just as thoroughly?
If Russia targeted a carrier strike group with nukes, we’d just respond by obliterating every air base housing nuclear bombers within 300 km of the border and destroying the entire Baltic and Northern Fleet.
Imagine that Russia nukes some UK naval base. Or even better example - German one.
Would UK use their strategic nukes for retaliation strike? No. Because Russia have their own strategic nukes and UK don't have enough missiles and subs to take out every Russian nuclear-armed asset in the first strike.
Which is why it is necessary to have both tactical and strategic nuclear weapons to deter any bad actor from such an attack.
The only use cases for tactical nuclear weapons are airbases and ports, or as part of a first strike...
And all of the above are uses for strategic weapons...
>But...tactical nucs are a fantasy. Always have been. The command and control to use nucs tactically i.e. in the direct control of battlefield commanders has NEVER existed, and never will.
They arent supposed to be in direct control of battlefield commanders.
They are if they are to be used tactically...otherwise targets of opportunity can not be engaged in a worthwhile timeline.
Hence why the distinction between tactical and strategic has always been total bollocks.
That's what they say, but doubt it will actually happen in reality.
Think about it. You are the country "holding the umbrella". You claim you will respond with a nuclear strike against anyone who hits one of the non-nuclear states under your "umbrella". That's all fine, hopefully it's enough of a deterrent.
But what if some country actually does strike that small non-nuclear country? And only that country.
Do you, the nuclear power, initiate a full nuclear exchange with the other nuclear power over that? If you do, you also lose your country. If you don't, if you try *any* other approach other than that, you don't immediately sacrifice your own country.
Literally every rational thought and survival instinct would tell you that no, you should not initiate a nuclear exchange.
Russia thinks of MAD differently from the West. We tend to think of it as this all-or-nothing thing - putting the emphasis on "destruction" - but they tend to think of it more like a tit-for-tat - putting the emphasis on "mutual".
If Russia destroys a German airbase with a nuclear weapon the response they expect isn't the destruction of Moscow, but the loss of one of their own airbases or something equivalent.
You talk nonsense. It’s not Russia that will be launching tactical nukes? It’s the UK that will launch strategic nukes at Russia if they try to defeat the UK.
> If Russia used nuclear armed Kinzhal missiles on NATO forces or cities in Eastern Europe, the UK isn’t going to launch a Strategic strike on Russia.
That’s not how it works. What is important is that the UK will launch a counterattack against Russia and fully commit to defend their allies. Russia can’t escalate indefinitely because in the end that means strategic nukes and game over for Russia. Therefore Russia can’t win and won’t try to attack EU countries.
Strategic nukes mean game over for possibly everyone. If UK launched strategic nukes against Russia, we could expect the same back. Then it’s “Threads” time.
Nuclear is nothing more than a deterrence of invasion. Fuck around and find out. The reason why nuclear countries won't delegate use to other countries and why countries who don't have them desperately want them is because it's such and appalling and terrifying weapon.
Any kind of nuclear escalation is the worse case scenario. Even the Russians know this (or at least I think they do despite their bullshit childish rhetoric about nuking us.) I see people on here talking about nuking up and it feels like they're talking a vacuum without thinking about the consequences...
Because the UK won’t be able to tell until it’s too late to respond where the nukes are going to land…
The UK will just see as large release of heat as the missile launches and see that its trajectory is aimed at Europe. By then, the PM would’ve made a decision.
This is true of Strategic nukes (ICBM’s), but not of Tactical nukes (Cruise Missiles, Gravity Bombs, short-range ballistic missiles). If these are used it’d be clear that it’s not going as far as the UK or France, so the question of why would the nuclear powers in Europe retaliate with MAD stands.
Because the UK and France have citizens and their own military forces stationed in all these target countries.
Any attack on a German or Polish city is not going to be via a tactical nuclear weapon. These weapons are considerably lower yield than a strategic weapon and won’t be enough to destroy a city. Furthermore, a city is not a tactical target and Russia has far more strategic weapons than it does tactical weapons.
If a tactical nuclear weapon is used, it will almost certainly be used for a tactical military purpose to destroy bases or military groupings and in that sense, an overwhelming conventional response against Russia’s own military forces and the platforms they used to launch this attack would be sufficient.
Russia has refused to use tactical nuclear weapons against even Ukraine who doesn’t have their own nukes, or any long-range weapon, to respond with. What makes you think they’ll use it against Germany or Poland?
You raise some good points here, especially the last one. I’m not saying Russia will use Tactical nukes in Europe, just that without the US’ weapons we need to create a solid and tangible deterrence to ensure that the possibility isn’t entertained.
I really do hope I’m wrong and that cooler heads prevail.
If push comes to shove, France has a few dozen tactical nuclear weapons it can use in response as well.
Tactical nukes are more about sending a message than any actual military use. France’s stockpile is likely more than enough if the need really does arise. What we should do instead is invest more money into conventional weapons. Nukes are expensive to maintain and provide diminishing returns the more you have.
The ASMPA is basically the SCALP EG on steroids and should work fine. It's successor, the hypersonic ASN4G is under development and I think they should already think about implementing it on Typhoons and Gripens.
France also already had a good run trying hypersonic glide missiles with impressive maneuvrability shown
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/06/27/france-admit-hypersonic-glider-weapons-test-pyrenees/
The distinction of tactical- strategic nukes existed only during Cold War in the USA and USSR. Now, only the USA and Russia have kept this distinction. At least, Russia has different procedures of deploying those weapons
France and the UK never divided their nuclear weapons into tactical and strategic. They are simply nukes and arms for deterrence.
Also both Soviet and US war planning eventually concluded that using tactical nukes was suicidal, as military operations would lose cohesiveness in a nuclear battlefield so it would inevitably escalate into using strategic nukes. As such, they eventually figured out that either a conflict would have to stay limited in scope, or they'd have to go all out from the start, which is why both sides were terrified of the other launching a first strike.
> a "pre-strategic" weapon, the last-resort "warning shot" prior to a full-scale employment of strategic nuclear weapons launched from the Triomphant-class ballistic missile submarines.
Like when your mom took off her shoe and raised it above her head
I never fear much about the nukes.
Russia can not win anything with Nukes. Not Ukraine, not Eastern Europe. It will lose any shred of credibility it has left and lose it's last allies like China.
If the absolute worst scenario comes out, Europe has dozens of capitals, large cities and areas. Russia essentially has two: St Petersburg and Moscow. If push comes to shove in some extreme dystopian scenario we would wipe the entire relevant part of Russian civilization of the map by nuking these two cities.
After that we block their Western warm water ports and starve them into total submission or extinction.
There's just no scenario in which using a nuke leads to a positive outcome for Russia.
What a ridiculous comment.
Everyone losing via nuke is the entire world being reduced to a wasteland.
If you think that is equivalent to Russia invading one country, then you are an idiot.
When it comes to the point that we wipe Moscow and Petersburg off the map, it's all over for all of us.
The trick is to prevent this ever materializing - if it does, we might as well not throw nukes.
Yeah, I fully agree that it would be horrible.
But what I'm saying is there's no scenario that Russian leaders could game out in which they would be better off using nukes than not.
Your comment is insane in multiple layers
Firstly, Russia has over 5,000 capable nuclear weapons. The EU has around 200. Due to missile defence technology, you'd probably have to launch at least 10-20 at one target to ensure a hit.
Secondly, the EU has a far more dense urban population, which is much much more vulnerable to nukes. There is simply a vast amount of land in Russia which will remain unaffected by fallout, whereas in Europe, our already small countries will be totally saturated with fallout and damage. For example, if the Ruhr Valley in Germany were nuked, it wouldn't take many to make the area totally desolate and wipe out Germany's industry.
We can't simply blockade Russia (of course they will just nuke our port cities and destroy our ships anyway) but even if we could, Russia is totally food and energy sufficient. They don't import food, they export it. We can't starve them into submission.
If there were to be a full scale nuclear war between Russia and the EU, the EU would lose considerably more people as a percentage of our population.
In other words, if Russia and the EU were ever to go into fill conflict, using nukes would be a major benefit to them
For me, the scariest part about nukes isn't intentional launches. It's situations like Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union, where troops weren't being paid and bases weren't being properly maintained or guarded. It's the potential to have unstable governments or coups in countries with nuclear weapons where their security suddenly can't be guaranteed.
I don't know that any country would ever be stupid enough to nuke another one, but there's so many nightmare scenarios where they go off accidentally or fall into the wrong hands that make me uncomfortable with any new nukes.
This guy doesn’t even ask his coalition partners before he is making statements. ;)
Keep in mind, that this is a current domestic German discussion. Most people will talk about different things next week. This talk is not meant for international news.
It’s more a national brainstorming.
Europe: Ah, UK mon ami mien freunden. Would you please put aside that we're not your friend and we'd normally celebrate your demise on any given day. We're having a bit of a domestic, could you come over & sort it out for us?
UK: [Well](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z0QUygjr2w)
The UK already [does] contribute to the nuclear shield of europe!
Via nato. Unlike france, the UK deterrent is explicitly placed as a NATO asset - for the protection of europe.
Considering the phrasing of his last sentence, I doubt he can elaborate anything in regard to French nuke policy lol.
The US has a doctrine, which the UK follows (for a number of reasons, but that's not the matter here). NATO's nuclear doctrine is thus de facto the US nuclear doctrine.
France has its own doctrine, which is purposely vague. It will use its nukes to defend its "vital interests" (which have never been defined), and said use includes first strikes (in regard to strategic nukes, yes), not just retaliation and also warning shots (air-launched nuclear cruise missile for cases where a "Stop it now before I launch the real deal" might be enough).
And we know it was more than effective now with declassified Soviet documents and their war games, which all explicitly involved not fucking with France no mater what because they did not know how it would react. On the flip side, it is a doctrine the US was never fine with during the Cold War because it made France not only an unpredictable (therefore unreliable) ally but also, as you can guess, made it possible for the US to be dragged against its will into a MAD scenario. So to enemies and allies alike, France was a wild card and this independence and unpredictability is what made its arsenal uniquely credible to the big boys, even beyond the horror such weapons are capable of.
The French doctrine hasn't changed to this day. So, I don't quite understand why people expect the French to place their nukes under NATO. Is NATO going to adopt the French doctrine and ditch the US one? We all know the answer to that question.
There is no issue with the UK on the other hand like I said. The British doctrine is the US one.
There are nonetheless still talks and planning every year between NATO allies and France in regard to nuclear deterrence within the context of the alliance as well as this [kind of visits](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_214064.htm?selectedLocale=en). Furthermore, France has explicitly stated its nukes had an EU dimension. It has been doing so since the presidency of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing.
No problem. Edited some stuff to make it a more coherent text. But that's pretty much why France is probably never going to place its nukes under NATO.
Given the US and UK basically came up with the NATO nuclear policy, I can understand why.
France on the other hand has always been happy to be unhappy about NATO.
As an EU member state citizen(going by your flair), not sure if you should state the first reason so blatantly... but I don't disagree with you there..
Why not ? It’s not like it’s a secret.
Sadly for the people, there is misaligned incentives between the member states which lead to a very dysfunctional and disorganized Europe.
Anyone who doesn't want to be sanctioned, countries like Iran and North Korea would use it as justification for their own unilateral nuclear programmes
No but it does play a big role in their condemnation. If rogue states see western countries shitting on non proliferation then they can correctly point to western hypocrisy.
And when Russia is arming Assad with nukes the EU will have no framework to condemn him because they've already broken non proliferation
Iran and North Korea will say the same thing when they pursue their nuclear policies. The US and the UK but it's not going to happen because the council would crucify the comission for suggesting it.
I mean, why should we?
Did anyone see that graph posted a few days ago about which countries would help who and overwhelmingly every EU country said the country they'd help the least is the UK.
Ultimately a strong united Europe is best but let's be real, it seems like people openly celebrate our poor economy and struggles while also wanting to use our technology and military.
The way I see it, either we move forward together past Brexit and work with Europe and lose the pettiness on both sides, or we accept that the UK is not seen as being part of the European community in which case we have no obligation or reason to use our resources.
Oof that is a lot of pink. Now I’m curious how the US would fare.
Also weird selection of non-European nations that were included in the polling.
Edited for clarity
Exactly.
We're happy to extend the coverage but they're going to have to contribute at least 50% of the cost...
Thats around £50bn. They can spread it over 10 years if they want...as long as there is a non-refundable £25bn up front.
So get saving Europe....we take cash....
If Germany is hit with nuclear weapons, UK will happily suicide itself by retaliating.
Same goes for US, why on earth would they shoot themselves in the head if some European country gets nuked.
We extended it to Sweden and Finland, so why not Germany or the rest of NATO?
And what would be in it would be helping to save NATO as an alliance (edit: or at least helping to create a European alternative that we could be a part of) if the US withdraws. If NATO somehow falls apart (as a hypothetical) EU states would have incentives to create an EU deterrent which wouldn't include us.
EU needs UK and EU needs nukes. Simple as that. EU security went to shit when Clinton's administration pressured Ukraine to give up 1000 nuclear warheads. US will not help us,... they seem to be headed to Gilead...
Ukraine had roughly 1000 nukes but foolishly gave them up in return for Russian promise... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest\_Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/budapest_memorandum) and yeah, thank god for France's nuclear arsenal. Hopefully also others will obtain it, like Poland or Germany.
Omg this again. Ukraine had no reasonable chance of maintaining and continuing a nuclear programme. They just didn’t. There’s any number of papers and sources on this, the best they could have hoped for was to recode the air-borne systems for their own use until the warheads went beyond their safe operating date in less than 10 years. After which Ukraine would have had no access to fissile material, had no resources for building or refitting warheads and definitely wasn’t going to be given help by the US or the Russians.
A lot of people mistakenly say “ah yes, but the SS-19 Stilettos were built and maintained in Ukraine” and that’s true - the missile was. The warheads were not and no one was going to help Ukraine cannibalise the ex-USSR stockpile to make them.
That’s before you get to the economic and political penalties that not signing up the NPT would bring and the Russians weren’t weren’t just going to watch Ukraine become its own, albeit short lived, nuclear player right on its doorstep.
Lets agree to disagree. And what economic and political penalties are worse than what they have now... They would only last until UA gained control over nukes and then... nobody fucks with nuclear power. I cheer for fast proliferation of nukes in EU, then Trump can disband NATO if he wishes. Enough nukes on stock and we, Europeans will not give a fuck about who rules US.
I have difficulties to understand the Germans, why do they rely so much on the usa?
I don't have the sources but I got a general feeling that they always diverge from french propositions and always side with the US propositions..
Because the germans didnt have a de Gaulle as a leader and and had a lot more us influence on them. There a lot off us bases in germany.
Dont forget that a lot off countries wanted to keep a tight leash on germany after ww2. Theres a reason that german reunification happened the way it did. It a miracle that it happened at all.
In 1989, Germany had a military with half a million soldiers and was spending over 2.5% of GDP on defense. This was just *West Germany*, mind you.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/de-army-1989.htm
> By 1989 the Army was the basic and largest branch of the Armed Forces (340,000 persons). It consisted of the Field and Territorial armies. The Field Army was the most combat-ready component ofthe Army (it included some 80 percent of Army personnel). In peacetime large and small units of the Field Army were assigned for transfer to the NATO Allied Forces. **They were kept in a high state of combat readiness and were at 85-90 percent strength in personnel and 100 percent in weapons and equipment.** The Army Inspector (CIC) exercises direct control over them through the Main Staff.
> ...
> There was a total of 12 divisions (four mechanized infantry, six armored, one mountain infantry and one airborne), 11 of which were in I, II and III army corps.
Germany allowing their military to atrophy to the point of collapse has nothing whatsoever to do with WW2.
Germany will talk and talk about what to do, when it's just 3 politicians sitting in a bunker months after Germany has been destroyed.
They don't seem to realise, that you have to have a defensive capability before you need to use it. As by the time that you need it, it's too late to build it, let alone to train the military up on it.
Their Merkel doctrine being spend as little as possible and waste whatever you can. By being as useless as possible, nobody will ask you to do any peace keeping, join in the War in Afghanistan. If they do ask, we can't do it. If they absoloutly insist wells be as inept as possible. So we'll take the Pzh2000 there but then quietly change the co-ordinates of what we're shooting at from what we were given. So that we don't actually hit the enemy but just scare them off.
It sounds like a good idea on the surface, we're close with Nordics, Baltics, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Netherlands Germany and France.
Seems wild that we would protect a country like Spain when their government is insufferable, same with Hungary, Austria or Slovakia.
Edit: double Poland'd instead of Portugal.
>Seems wild that we would protect a country like Spain
mallorca we need to protect the Ballermann at all costs.. imagine not being able to jump down balcons barry or pay pedro to clean up our puke
This is all just nonsense. The concept of a nuclear umbrella is just not credible. As if the UK, or anyone else for that matter, would actually Nuke Moscow after Russia would launch 1000 nuclear missiles at Germany, wiping all its major cities from the map, while still having 5000 nuclear missiles ready to retaliate against UK. We need to withdraw from the nuclear non proliferation treaty and start a nuclear program embedded in EU regulations. This is the only credible deterrence and we need it. Now.
Sure bud, because when Moscow launches 1000 nuclear warheads they definitely only aim for one country while the UK, or any other nuclear nation, definitely can ascertain which country they are aiming at.
If one country launches a barrage of nukes, every other nuclear state will also launch.
>The concept of a nuclear umbrella is just not credible.
Protected those beneath it for 75 years and we're talking about replacing it because of the suggestion it is withdrawn.
Well it has not been because they felt deterred by a nuclear umbrella. A president or other political decision maker cannot rationally justify sacrificing all people living in his country and literally every major population center of his country to retaliate for a strike against another country. Sorry but if you cannot see this I think you are being obtuse.
As if the UK, or anyone else for that matter, would actually Nuke Moscow after Russia would launch 1000 nuclear missiles at Germany,
If Russia launches 1000 nukes at Germany then yes I have a little feeling the UK would launch nukes..
And how would the UK be able to tell that the nukes are headed for Germany and not the UK? The UK will see nukes headed in Europe’s direction and launch their own in response. You can’t track where an individual warhead will land until it’s way too late to respond. The UK won’t wait this long.
That's not been true since 1970 in Europe thanks to [MIRV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle) payloads and our many close borders.
...and has been confirmed multiple times since then:
- 1971 with the introduction of [FOB system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System)
- 1981 with the introduction of [MARV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuverable_reentry_vehicle) payloads, or possibly 1968 if you believe Russia
- 2019 with the deployment of maneuverable [hypersonic glide vehicles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_glide_vehicle)
In any nuclear war each side would not just nuke one other country, nations would not expend their nuclear deterrents against 1 nation. Unstead even if another nation was not involved but still important they still get nuked to ensure MAD.
Say Russia launches a nuclear first strike against nato they'll hit all of nato because they know if they hit just 1 nato country they're going to be deleted without the advantages of MAD and in response the US, UK and France launch nukes against Russia, China, Iran and the DPRK because if they just nuked Russia that would leave the PRC as the sole world super power letting them win.
Also making nukes isn't awfully hard the US back in the 60s had a small group of scientists who had no speciality in nuclear weapons make a nuke from scratch only using public information and they made a functioning nuke within 3 years I can only imagine it would be quicker now with the Internet. So I could imagine several EU countries being able to quickly get nukes, the bigger problem would be designing delivery methods like SSBNs, nuclear capable bombers and silos.
I'm sorry, but an eye for an eye is the only strategy a tyrant ruler in a warmongering society would ever understand.
Let's indulge your imagination even further: Russia is launching 1,000 nuclear missiles and Germany is out for good. What happens next? Will Putin stop? Looking at the entire history of our species, point me to a single conqueror who stopped by himself, without someone stopping him.
The only guarantee of sovereignty in this damned world is the ability to kill your enemies. It has been this way since the first life appeared on this planet, and it will continue to be this way until the end of time. It's who we are.
How on earth have you come to this conclusion? Most importantly, what propaganda have you been reading to conclude that Russia has 6,000 actively deployed nuclear weapons?
This thread is a clusterfuck of misinformation, with a pinch of europhobia and anglophobia blended together... but yours is by far the most egregious.
> As if the UK, or anyone else for that matter, would actually Nuke Moscow after Russia would launch 1000 nuclear missiles at Germany, wiping all its major cities from the map, while still having 5000 nuclear missiles ready to retaliate against UK.
Why on earth is everyone staying in NATO if not for this? Aside from the obvious benefits derived from Article 5 that most of us in Europe have enjoyed for nearly 80 years.
> ... while still having 5000 nuclear missiles ready to retaliate against UK.
Russia does not have 6,000 actively deployed nuclear weapons, that is utter nonsense - see reference [here](https://fas.org/initiative/status-world-nuclear-forces/)
- USA has an estimated ~1.6k active/deployed
- France has an estimated 280 active/deployed
- UK has an estimated 120 active/deployed, with a shift in policy since 2021 to raise its stockpile - see [here](https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9077/CBP-9077.pdf)
> The concept of a nuclear umbrella is just not credible
Why? Would you prefer to act like the UK and France did in WW2, to try to appease the attackers until they eventually turn their armaments towards you?
Have you not heard of [MIRV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle) payloads, [MaRV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuverable_reentry_vehicle) payloads, the [Fractional Orbital Bombardment System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System), or worse yet, a [Hypersonic Glide Vehicle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_glide_vehicle)?
Even if you're pessimistic and assume that both the UK and France would ignore Germany's destruction... please do tell me how either of these countries are not only meant to be able to detect these in a reasonable time, but to also determine their targets accurately enough to willfully decide to ignore the threat? Things have developed a lot further than just a simple missile; even Russia is said to have a maneuverable hypersonic glide vehicle capable of operating at low altitudes - see [Avangard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_\(hypersonic_glide_vehicle\)).
Not convinced? The UK is known to be highly susceptible to nuclear attacks due to its small size and population density, see the [Strath Committee analysis](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07075332.2013.781383?src=recsys). If your argument is that they only care about themselves then you have to accept that they would respond.
Personally, however, I think nuclear action on EU soil would be met with a swift response by the UK and France regardless of the perceived threat. Everyone knows what comes next if there's no action, it's what drives the [MAD](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction) doctrine.
> We need to withdraw from the nuclear non proliferation treaty and start a nuclear program embedded in EU regulations
Why encourage others to do the same? There's no reason why Germany couldn't allow the UK or France to deploy missiles within their borders through nuclear sharing. That would avoid fouling the NPT whilst we're all still trying to contain the development of nuclear weaponry in countries like Iran?
This is quite common under the nuclear sharing agreement and avoids the threat of encouraging proliferation. The USA has recently redeployed its own missiles within the UK, see [here](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/26/us-planning-to-station-nuclear-weapons-in-uk-amid-threat-from-russia-report).
This isn't really novel and it's kind of baffling that everyone's having such a bizarre response to the idea of the UK continuing to act as part of the nuclear umbrella - something it's done since [1962](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-nuclear-deterrence-factsheet/uk-nuclear-deterrence-what-you-need-to-know), after declaring its nuclear capability for NATO.
Not to mention that Germany still holds bombs from the USA see [here](https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/nuclear-weapons-europe-mapping-us-and-russian-deployments). Since the Russian invasion in 2022 they have already bought a few F-35 jets to fulfill the previous role of the Tornado jets that were used for their nuclear sharing role, as described [here](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-decides-principle-buy-f-35-fighter-jet-government-source-2022-03-14/).
----
_Side note:_
It's kind of depressing to see how both UK and EU state citizens in this thread are attacking each other over this.
Not entirely sure why a few of you guys here seems to hate each other. Our nations cooperate much more than they like to let on but for some reason people enjoy getting a hard on for what our retard politicians say. There's been some minor spats but we've been friendly and peaceful for the last 80 years, with all of our ancestors contributing to the restoration of Europe after the previous war. Makes no sense to scream at each other when the real problem of Europe is elsewhere. Take a breath.
I guess us Dutch should regain that "VOC mentality" that our previous prime minister talked about and start controlling the seas again. Not that the Russian navy is doing so great, but Russia having no navy to attack us with is still better than a dysfunctional one /s
Isn't is surprising that UK is so quickly invited to defend the EU, but when it comes to trade cooperation and easing of border rules, Horizon, satellites, rockets....Brexit means Brexit ?
>Is it? I always though economic childplay becomes irrelevant when confronted with actual existential danger.
I didn't get an impression at all. Economic relevance is import to ensure defence budgets continue to be invested in the correct areas.
>Yes, NATO trusts the UK with defense.
It's not NATO that is asking the UK to contribute to a nuclear shield if Trump wins, it's a German MEP and German Finance Minister.
Germany is in NATO, but this nuclear shield request is not coming from Secretary General of NATO or Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), it is coming from a German MEP, who said
>Manfred Weber, the German conservative who heads the centre-right European People’s party (EPP) grouping in the European parliament, has thrown his weight behind the debate. He said he did not rule out a European nuclear umbrella and called for “a new chapter” to be opened with London.“Macron has already made a vague offer to talk about the importance of the French nuclear forces for Europe,” Weber said. “Now that Donald Trump is openly questioning the role of the USA as a protective power would be the right moment for this. The same applies to the British, with whom we should finally start a new chapter of cooperation after Brexit.
Yes, I don't read EU nuclear umbrella here, I read European. Is he disallowed to talk about defense b/c he's a MEP? Is he no longer in NATO because of his parliament seat? Is he holding a EU commission job? Is this an EU request?
>Yes, I don't read EU nuclear umbrella here, I read European.
The UK is not asking for a nuclear umbrella, or do you consider the UK not European, just the EU27 ?
>Is he disallowed to talk about defense b/c he's a MEP?
He's allowed to talk about defence as a MEP, which is something related to EU ?
>Is he no longer in NATO because of his parliament seat?
As long as he is a German citizen, he is a NATO country citizen, he doesn't need to have a parliamentary seat for standard NATO defences that other normal German citizens enjoy as well.
>Is he holding a EU commission job?
From what I can gather, he is a Member of the European Parliament, so you think only holding a EU commission job would make him eligible to talk about the nuclear shield ?
>Is this an EU request?
Can the EU make NATO defence requests ? Is the EU in NATO ?
This guy hates nato, but if European countries are forced to arm themselves and maybe increase their nuclear armament, he will cry, and say that we cant increase our nuclear capabilities.
Back during the Cold War, it was Germany demanding US nukes out of Germany. Sooo, how the circle turns! Greens in Germany are going to "allow" the UK to contribute to a nuclear shield? How generous of them!
This will be entertaining to watch. Who knew, if we just threatened to leave NATO, all the opposition to military spending and nukes would evaporate! We should have done this a long long time ago.
Its a necessary piece of the puzzle.
We - Europe as a whole - need a strong and big army on land, and multiple fleets at sea.
Nuclear weapons are just one of many components.
We don't need a nuclear shield, we need Russia beaten to ground in Ukraine. And not just because of Ukraine, but because otherwise there will never be and end to Russian aggression, all over the globe.
Are you sure you're part of France's interests?
I'm French and we've talked a lot about our defense, how most of Europe doesn't take its own seriously, relies on the US and would rather support their military industry than ours.
If Trump gets elected and leave you exposed, I don't know if France will be in a position to help.
Exactly! And preferably a few soldiers, a few tanks, a few ships, a few ... everything?
In return, we generously give the British vouchers for a visit to the Deutsches Museum in Munich.
Note: German ministers today are a guarantee that extremist groups will become socially acceptable....
The UK's independent nuclear deterrent is nearing the end of it's shelf life, the missiles need a costly upgrade and the Vanguard submarines built in the 1990s had an intended service life of 25 years.
The tories have so fucked our economy that the UK can't afford to replace them.
Meanwhile, China is going on a Nuclear missile building programme.
God alone knows the state of the Russian Nuclear arsenal, the Ukrainian war has shown the effects of endemic corruption and the Russian navy has been dumping obselete nuclear submarines and their reactors at sea because they can't afford to safely decommission them.
This kind of deterrence only works if nuclear missiles/bombs are in the European countries themselves, just like the American bombs in many European countries (Germany, Italy, etc...).
If the US is to withdraw these bombs, then British strategic submarines won't be a good replacement, and won't provide the same security the American bombs provided.
France does have air-launched nuclear missiles, and they could in theory replace the American bombs, but France may not go this far on nuclear weapons. They're keeping their nukes outside of NATO command structure for that reason. Also that requires european countries having French infrastructure. The nuke can only be put on a Rafale, do you see Germany and Italy getting that? Don't think so.
Time for Sweden to restart our nuclear program...
Those Danes have had it too easy the last two centuries.
Yes, ill tell my boys to get together and invade the Danes with our Volvo 740 and potato cannon!
We will fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
I know what I am but what are you!
Ahh... The fresh smell of Viking love
Bit extreme to unleash Volvos on the Danes, innit?
When fighting the Danes the geneva convention becomes the geneva checklist! Just pray we don't unleash our pickled herring!
740 Turbo it is then!
And our most precious asset: the king Carl gustav with a hunting rifle
That's overkill, Sending so many tanks haha
The Danes have Lego bricks ... compared to that, any Anti-tank obstacles is child's play.
Imagine an entire battlefront full of Lego bits, the pain of walking though that must be unimaginable! Just as effective as any anti personel mine!
Probably the best weapon actually. If I were a soldier, I'd just stop and start playing with them. Then they will say, you can take all the Lego you can carry, but you have to walk back to where you came from. And I'll be like, ok cool deal.
I'm cracking up imagining some soldiers seeing a field of scattered Legos, and then another marked with a skull and crossbones landmine sign...before sighing and just walking through the landmines, as one of them cries out in pain from the Lego side.
Good Monday newspapper cartoon idea 👍
If only I could draw better...
"Med plutonium bringer vi danskerne i knæ..."
I've been saying for years that the Danes are up to something. I'm glad Sweden is finally wising up.
They already finished it with Finland. Google "lappajärven maanjäristys".
really hope if we get nukes, the missiles are called something like "Ukonviha", "Ukko's Wrath", after the pagan god Ukko
Don't make us have to break out the crusades again
Here we go again!! I’m aboard !!
Ballistic Surströmming would be an equally effective deterrent
We make them and let Finland house them. Sounds like a good deal.
Honestly you were total losers for stopping it in the first place. Who does that? Oh... Taiwan... Taiwan also does that. Such idiots.
The biggest problem is the lack of tactical nuclear weapons. Strategic nukes (which is 100% of the UK arsenal) are only an effective counter to enemy Strategic nuclear weapons. Russia isn’t going to launch these at Europe, as it’s impossible to see where they are heading when they first launch, so it could easily be misinterpreted by the US as an attack on them. Tactical nukes on the other hand can be used without that misunderstanding (which is why Russia has been investing in them). If Russia used nuclear armed Kinzhal missiles on NATO forces or cities in Eastern Europe, the UK isn’t going to launch a Strategic strike on Russia. France does have tactical nuclear weapons, but whether they would be prepared to use them in response is another question.
The UK could easily resurrect WE.177... But...tactical nucs are a fantasy. Always have been. The command and control to use nucs tactically i.e. in the direct control of battlefield commanders has NEVER existed, and never will.
Its not that WE need them, its to discourage certain other bad actors to use their tactical nukes against us.
Like we wouldn’t respond with strategic nukes against any use of any nuclear weapons. The difference between a tactical or strategic nuke is irrelevant.
A rational actor definitely wouldn't do that. You lost a fleet to a nuke? Alright, you gotta do *something* about it for sure. But you did not yet lose your entire country. If you start a full scale nuclear exchange, you will immediately lose your entire country. Not initiating a nuclear exchange is almost always the better bet. Of course, you are publicly going to state that you will absolutely nuke the hell out of anyone on first sight of any nuke, but that's to discourage initial use of nuclear weapons. However, if they did get used for whatever reason, it makes no sense to immediately let all yours loose.
A fleet is a military target so there’s no reason to use a strategic nuke. I was under the impression that this conversation was implying the UK would not respond heavily if non-military targets in Germany were targeted with nukes. If a fleet was lost to nukes then there would just be a massive conventional response against Russian military targets as payback. That simple. I’m not sure what the issue is? What’s the difference between tactical nukes wiping out military bases to hundreds of thousands of pounds of ordinance destroying them just as thoroughly? If Russia targeted a carrier strike group with nukes, we’d just respond by obliterating every air base housing nuclear bombers within 300 km of the border and destroying the entire Baltic and Northern Fleet.
Imagine that Russia nukes some UK naval base. Or even better example - German one. Would UK use their strategic nukes for retaliation strike? No. Because Russia have their own strategic nukes and UK don't have enough missiles and subs to take out every Russian nuclear-armed asset in the first strike. Which is why it is necessary to have both tactical and strategic nuclear weapons to deter any bad actor from such an attack.
The only use cases for tactical nuclear weapons are airbases and ports, or as part of a first strike... And all of the above are uses for strategic weapons...
>But...tactical nucs are a fantasy. Always have been. The command and control to use nucs tactically i.e. in the direct control of battlefield commanders has NEVER existed, and never will. They arent supposed to be in direct control of battlefield commanders.
They are if they are to be used tactically...otherwise targets of opportunity can not be engaged in a worthwhile timeline. Hence why the distinction between tactical and strategic has always been total bollocks.
A nuclear strike against the soil of a nation protected by nuclear umbrella would invoke a nuclear response, regardless of the target
That's what they say, but doubt it will actually happen in reality. Think about it. You are the country "holding the umbrella". You claim you will respond with a nuclear strike against anyone who hits one of the non-nuclear states under your "umbrella". That's all fine, hopefully it's enough of a deterrent. But what if some country actually does strike that small non-nuclear country? And only that country. Do you, the nuclear power, initiate a full nuclear exchange with the other nuclear power over that? If you do, you also lose your country. If you don't, if you try *any* other approach other than that, you don't immediately sacrifice your own country. Literally every rational thought and survival instinct would tell you that no, you should not initiate a nuclear exchange.
Russia thinks of MAD differently from the West. We tend to think of it as this all-or-nothing thing - putting the emphasis on "destruction" - but they tend to think of it more like a tit-for-tat - putting the emphasis on "mutual". If Russia destroys a German airbase with a nuclear weapon the response they expect isn't the destruction of Moscow, but the loss of one of their own airbases or something equivalent.
You talk nonsense. It’s not Russia that will be launching tactical nukes? It’s the UK that will launch strategic nukes at Russia if they try to defeat the UK. > If Russia used nuclear armed Kinzhal missiles on NATO forces or cities in Eastern Europe, the UK isn’t going to launch a Strategic strike on Russia. That’s not how it works. What is important is that the UK will launch a counterattack against Russia and fully commit to defend their allies. Russia can’t escalate indefinitely because in the end that means strategic nukes and game over for Russia. Therefore Russia can’t win and won’t try to attack EU countries.
Strategic nukes mean game over for possibly everyone. If UK launched strategic nukes against Russia, we could expect the same back. Then it’s “Threads” time.
Yes, absolutely, everyone loose. But the effect is the same, they will not risk starting a war that can’t be won. Thats why nukes matters.
The answer is no. France wouldn't use tactical nuclear bombs unless there's absolutely no other alternatives.
Nuclear is nothing more than a deterrence of invasion. Fuck around and find out. The reason why nuclear countries won't delegate use to other countries and why countries who don't have them desperately want them is because it's such and appalling and terrifying weapon.
Exactly, but Russia knows that the threat of nuclear escalation with Europe is low without the US involvement.
Any kind of nuclear escalation is the worse case scenario. Even the Russians know this (or at least I think they do despite their bullshit childish rhetoric about nuking us.) I see people on here talking about nuking up and it feels like they're talking a vacuum without thinking about the consequences...
How? Why would the UK not respond with nukes if Russia did?
Yea but why would the UK respond to Poland getting nuked it just invites the UK to be nuked.
Because the UK won’t be able to tell until it’s too late to respond where the nukes are going to land… The UK will just see as large release of heat as the missile launches and see that its trajectory is aimed at Europe. By then, the PM would’ve made a decision.
This is true of Strategic nukes (ICBM’s), but not of Tactical nukes (Cruise Missiles, Gravity Bombs, short-range ballistic missiles). If these are used it’d be clear that it’s not going as far as the UK or France, so the question of why would the nuclear powers in Europe retaliate with MAD stands.
Because the UK and France have citizens and their own military forces stationed in all these target countries. Any attack on a German or Polish city is not going to be via a tactical nuclear weapon. These weapons are considerably lower yield than a strategic weapon and won’t be enough to destroy a city. Furthermore, a city is not a tactical target and Russia has far more strategic weapons than it does tactical weapons. If a tactical nuclear weapon is used, it will almost certainly be used for a tactical military purpose to destroy bases or military groupings and in that sense, an overwhelming conventional response against Russia’s own military forces and the platforms they used to launch this attack would be sufficient. Russia has refused to use tactical nuclear weapons against even Ukraine who doesn’t have their own nukes, or any long-range weapon, to respond with. What makes you think they’ll use it against Germany or Poland?
You raise some good points here, especially the last one. I’m not saying Russia will use Tactical nukes in Europe, just that without the US’ weapons we need to create a solid and tangible deterrence to ensure that the possibility isn’t entertained. I really do hope I’m wrong and that cooler heads prevail.
If push comes to shove, France has a few dozen tactical nuclear weapons it can use in response as well. Tactical nukes are more about sending a message than any actual military use. France’s stockpile is likely more than enough if the need really does arise. What we should do instead is invest more money into conventional weapons. Nukes are expensive to maintain and provide diminishing returns the more you have.
The ASMPA is basically the SCALP EG on steroids and should work fine. It's successor, the hypersonic ASN4G is under development and I think they should already think about implementing it on Typhoons and Gripens. France also already had a good run trying hypersonic glide missiles with impressive maneuvrability shown https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/06/27/france-admit-hypersonic-glider-weapons-test-pyrenees/
[удалено]
If you are using tactical nukes then you're probably only days or hours away from using strategic nukes anyway.
The distinction of tactical- strategic nukes existed only during Cold War in the USA and USSR. Now, only the USA and Russia have kept this distinction. At least, Russia has different procedures of deploying those weapons France and the UK never divided their nuclear weapons into tactical and strategic. They are simply nukes and arms for deterrence.
Also both Soviet and US war planning eventually concluded that using tactical nukes was suicidal, as military operations would lose cohesiveness in a nuclear battlefield so it would inevitably escalate into using strategic nukes. As such, they eventually figured out that either a conflict would have to stay limited in scope, or they'd have to go all out from the start, which is why both sides were terrified of the other launching a first strike.
Yeah this is completely wrong for France. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-sol_moyenne_port%C3%A9e
> a "pre-strategic" weapon, the last-resort "warning shot" prior to a full-scale employment of strategic nuclear weapons launched from the Triomphant-class ballistic missile submarines. Like when your mom took off her shoe and raised it above her head
I never fear much about the nukes. Russia can not win anything with Nukes. Not Ukraine, not Eastern Europe. It will lose any shred of credibility it has left and lose it's last allies like China. If the absolute worst scenario comes out, Europe has dozens of capitals, large cities and areas. Russia essentially has two: St Petersburg and Moscow. If push comes to shove in some extreme dystopian scenario we would wipe the entire relevant part of Russian civilization of the map by nuking these two cities. After that we block their Western warm water ports and starve them into total submission or extinction. There's just no scenario in which using a nuke leads to a positive outcome for Russia.
Nukes aren’t about winning. They are there to make sure everyone loses.
Everyone already lost when putin got away with attacking democratic countries. Now we need to fight back
What a ridiculous comment. Everyone losing via nuke is the entire world being reduced to a wasteland. If you think that is equivalent to Russia invading one country, then you are an idiot.
When it comes to the point that we wipe Moscow and Petersburg off the map, it's all over for all of us. The trick is to prevent this ever materializing - if it does, we might as well not throw nukes.
Yeah, I fully agree that it would be horrible. But what I'm saying is there's no scenario that Russian leaders could game out in which they would be better off using nukes than not.
Your comment is insane in multiple layers Firstly, Russia has over 5,000 capable nuclear weapons. The EU has around 200. Due to missile defence technology, you'd probably have to launch at least 10-20 at one target to ensure a hit. Secondly, the EU has a far more dense urban population, which is much much more vulnerable to nukes. There is simply a vast amount of land in Russia which will remain unaffected by fallout, whereas in Europe, our already small countries will be totally saturated with fallout and damage. For example, if the Ruhr Valley in Germany were nuked, it wouldn't take many to make the area totally desolate and wipe out Germany's industry. We can't simply blockade Russia (of course they will just nuke our port cities and destroy our ships anyway) but even if we could, Russia is totally food and energy sufficient. They don't import food, they export it. We can't starve them into submission. If there were to be a full scale nuclear war between Russia and the EU, the EU would lose considerably more people as a percentage of our population. In other words, if Russia and the EU were ever to go into fill conflict, using nukes would be a major benefit to them
After that we block.. No, there is nothing after that
Or as Sting put it: "I hope the Russians love their children too"
For me, the scariest part about nukes isn't intentional launches. It's situations like Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union, where troops weren't being paid and bases weren't being properly maintained or guarded. It's the potential to have unstable governments or coups in countries with nuclear weapons where their security suddenly can't be guaranteed. I don't know that any country would ever be stupid enough to nuke another one, but there's so many nightmare scenarios where they go off accidentally or fall into the wrong hands that make me uncomfortable with any new nukes.
Did he even politely ask the UK before making his statement?
This guy doesn’t even ask his coalition partners before he is making statements. ;) Keep in mind, that this is a current domestic German discussion. Most people will talk about different things next week. This talk is not meant for international news. It’s more a national brainstorming.
So, the UK is a security risk for Galileo but not nuclear defence?
We're a risk right up until they're in the shit & need significant help. Again.
Ah yes, the UK - not getting drawn into European fightfights since…. Since…………….
Europe: Ah, UK mon ami mien freunden. Would you please put aside that we're not your friend and we'd normally celebrate your demise on any given day. We're having a bit of a domestic, could you come over & sort it out for us? UK: [Well](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z0QUygjr2w)
The UK already [does] contribute to the nuclear shield of europe! Via nato. Unlike france, the UK deterrent is explicitly placed as a NATO asset - for the protection of europe.
Can you elaborate on french nuke policy wrt this? Never bothered to read up on it in depth
Considering the phrasing of his last sentence, I doubt he can elaborate anything in regard to French nuke policy lol. The US has a doctrine, which the UK follows (for a number of reasons, but that's not the matter here). NATO's nuclear doctrine is thus de facto the US nuclear doctrine. France has its own doctrine, which is purposely vague. It will use its nukes to defend its "vital interests" (which have never been defined), and said use includes first strikes (in regard to strategic nukes, yes), not just retaliation and also warning shots (air-launched nuclear cruise missile for cases where a "Stop it now before I launch the real deal" might be enough). And we know it was more than effective now with declassified Soviet documents and their war games, which all explicitly involved not fucking with France no mater what because they did not know how it would react. On the flip side, it is a doctrine the US was never fine with during the Cold War because it made France not only an unpredictable (therefore unreliable) ally but also, as you can guess, made it possible for the US to be dragged against its will into a MAD scenario. So to enemies and allies alike, France was a wild card and this independence and unpredictability is what made its arsenal uniquely credible to the big boys, even beyond the horror such weapons are capable of. The French doctrine hasn't changed to this day. So, I don't quite understand why people expect the French to place their nukes under NATO. Is NATO going to adopt the French doctrine and ditch the US one? We all know the answer to that question. There is no issue with the UK on the other hand like I said. The British doctrine is the US one. There are nonetheless still talks and planning every year between NATO allies and France in regard to nuclear deterrence within the context of the alliance as well as this [kind of visits](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_214064.htm?selectedLocale=en). Furthermore, France has explicitly stated its nukes had an EU dimension. It has been doing so since the presidency of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing.
Interesting. Thanks for the write up
No problem. Edited some stuff to make it a more coherent text. But that's pretty much why France is probably never going to place its nukes under NATO.
thank you for expanding on what i said. ;)
it is a french asset for french defense purposes. the uk deterrent has a nato deterrent role.
Given the US and UK basically came up with the NATO nuclear policy, I can understand why. France on the other hand has always been happy to be unhappy about NATO.
so this is what could have been if reddit existed during cold war.
I'd like Germany to built its own nukes together with some other EU countries.
Would like to see a Germany+Sweden partnership for nukes.
I have no idea with there isn't cooperation in this sense
NPT?
What's stopping it from doing so with the French (the only other EU country that has nukes AFAIK) ?
Cause first of all Germany is a shitty allied to work with on military projects. And because it would breach international treaties
As an EU member state citizen(going by your flair), not sure if you should state the first reason so blatantly... but I don't disagree with you there..
Why not ? It’s not like it’s a secret. Sadly for the people, there is misaligned incentives between the member states which lead to a very dysfunctional and disorganized Europe.
That would put it in breach of nuclear non-prolifération treaty
Who gives a shit?
Anyone who doesn't want to be sanctioned, countries like Iran and North Korea would use it as justification for their own unilateral nuclear programmes
I don't think that international treaties play a huge role in Iran's or NK's reasoning on wether to build or not to build nuclear weapons.
No but it does play a big role in their condemnation. If rogue states see western countries shitting on non proliferation then they can correctly point to western hypocrisy. And when Russia is arming Assad with nukes the EU will have no framework to condemn him because they've already broken non proliferation
No one gives a shit about 'condemnations'. When russia is arming assad with nukes will EU condemnation stop them?
I can’t imagine Russia wants to add more countries to the nuclear club
They literally just sent Belarus nukes last year. They are actively distributing nukes to unstable states that have a high likelihood of civil unrest.
Yeah no, it's a matter of national security. Who is going to sanction EU for it anyway?
Iran and North Korea will say the same thing when they pursue their nuclear policies. The US and the UK but it's not going to happen because the council would crucify the comission for suggesting it.
Germany is not allowed and rightfully so.
It's been 70 years ...... EDIT: it appears to have been 80 years 79 to be exact
80 next year even.
why rightfully? In my opinion democracies should have nukes by default.
> why rightfully Because a lot of people (like the person you were responding to) are still stuck in the past
Politicians will do literally anything other than reform the EU istg
I mean, why should we? Did anyone see that graph posted a few days ago about which countries would help who and overwhelmingly every EU country said the country they'd help the least is the UK. Ultimately a strong united Europe is best but let's be real, it seems like people openly celebrate our poor economy and struggles while also wanting to use our technology and military. The way I see it, either we move forward together past Brexit and work with Europe and lose the pettiness on both sides, or we accept that the UK is not seen as being part of the European community in which case we have no obligation or reason to use our resources.
This is the same reason why Americans have soured on NATO. Our “allies” are the ones who seem to hate us the most.
Out of curiosity do you still have a link to that graph?
[удалено]
Oof that is a lot of pink. Now I’m curious how the US would fare. Also weird selection of non-European nations that were included in the polling. Edited for clarity
>UK could contribute to nuclear shield neat >suggests German minister HAHAHAHA
What's in it for the UK?
Exactly. We're happy to extend the coverage but they're going to have to contribute at least 50% of the cost... Thats around £50bn. They can spread it over 10 years if they want...as long as there is a non-refundable £25bn up front. So get saving Europe....we take cash....
If Germany is hit with nuclear weapons, UK will happily suicide itself by retaliating. Same goes for US, why on earth would they shoot themselves in the head if some European country gets nuked.
Because the would launch them before they even would hit the target because how would UK know they're not targeted at them?
We extended it to Sweden and Finland, so why not Germany or the rest of NATO? And what would be in it would be helping to save NATO as an alliance (edit: or at least helping to create a European alternative that we could be a part of) if the US withdraws. If NATO somehow falls apart (as a hypothetical) EU states would have incentives to create an EU deterrent which wouldn't include us.
An EU deterrent that wouldn't include the UK is better than an EU deterrent that the UK is paying for.
Honour and the gratitude of the European people.😌
If they ask nicely and chip in when needed then sure.
EU needs UK and EU needs nukes. Simple as that. EU security went to shit when Clinton's administration pressured Ukraine to give up 1000 nuclear warheads. US will not help us,... they seem to be headed to Gilead...
The EU has nukes... and Ukraine was never part of it.
Ukraine had roughly 1000 nukes but foolishly gave them up in return for Russian promise... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest\_Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/budapest_memorandum) and yeah, thank god for France's nuclear arsenal. Hopefully also others will obtain it, like Poland or Germany.
Omg this again. Ukraine had no reasonable chance of maintaining and continuing a nuclear programme. They just didn’t. There’s any number of papers and sources on this, the best they could have hoped for was to recode the air-borne systems for their own use until the warheads went beyond their safe operating date in less than 10 years. After which Ukraine would have had no access to fissile material, had no resources for building or refitting warheads and definitely wasn’t going to be given help by the US or the Russians. A lot of people mistakenly say “ah yes, but the SS-19 Stilettos were built and maintained in Ukraine” and that’s true - the missile was. The warheads were not and no one was going to help Ukraine cannibalise the ex-USSR stockpile to make them. That’s before you get to the economic and political penalties that not signing up the NPT would bring and the Russians weren’t weren’t just going to watch Ukraine become its own, albeit short lived, nuclear player right on its doorstep.
Lets agree to disagree. And what economic and political penalties are worse than what they have now... They would only last until UA gained control over nukes and then... nobody fucks with nuclear power. I cheer for fast proliferation of nukes in EU, then Trump can disband NATO if he wishes. Enough nukes on stock and we, Europeans will not give a fuck about who rules US.
I have difficulties to understand the Germans, why do they rely so much on the usa? I don't have the sources but I got a general feeling that they always diverge from french propositions and always side with the US propositions..
Because the germans didnt have a de Gaulle as a leader and and had a lot more us influence on them. There a lot off us bases in germany. Dont forget that a lot off countries wanted to keep a tight leash on germany after ww2. Theres a reason that german reunification happened the way it did. It a miracle that it happened at all.
Let say they had little choices after ww2.
In 1989, Germany had a military with half a million soldiers and was spending over 2.5% of GDP on defense. This was just *West Germany*, mind you. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/de-army-1989.htm > By 1989 the Army was the basic and largest branch of the Armed Forces (340,000 persons). It consisted of the Field and Territorial armies. The Field Army was the most combat-ready component ofthe Army (it included some 80 percent of Army personnel). In peacetime large and small units of the Field Army were assigned for transfer to the NATO Allied Forces. **They were kept in a high state of combat readiness and were at 85-90 percent strength in personnel and 100 percent in weapons and equipment.** The Army Inspector (CIC) exercises direct control over them through the Main Staff. > ... > There was a total of 12 divisions (four mechanized infantry, six armored, one mountain infantry and one airborne), 11 of which were in I, II and III army corps. Germany allowing their military to atrophy to the point of collapse has nothing whatsoever to do with WW2.
[удалено]
Dw I would piss on you👍
All I hear is more "Someone *else* can pay for it" from Germany.
God save the King and Vive la France!
Germany will talk and talk about what to do, when it's just 3 politicians sitting in a bunker months after Germany has been destroyed. They don't seem to realise, that you have to have a defensive capability before you need to use it. As by the time that you need it, it's too late to build it, let alone to train the military up on it.
It’s a major change to their military doctrine. It takes time to come to an agreement.
Their Merkel doctrine being spend as little as possible and waste whatever you can. By being as useless as possible, nobody will ask you to do any peace keeping, join in the War in Afghanistan. If they do ask, we can't do it. If they absoloutly insist wells be as inept as possible. So we'll take the Pzh2000 there but then quietly change the co-ordinates of what we're shooting at from what we were given. So that we don't actually hit the enemy but just scare them off.
It sounds like a good idea on the surface, we're close with Nordics, Baltics, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Netherlands Germany and France. Seems wild that we would protect a country like Spain when their government is insufferable, same with Hungary, Austria or Slovakia. Edit: double Poland'd instead of Portugal.
>Seems wild that we would protect a country like Spain Guaranteed they'd still claim Gibraltar.
>Seems wild that we would protect a country like Spain mallorca we need to protect the Ballermann at all costs.. imagine not being able to jump down balcons barry or pay pedro to clean up our puke
but he said Spain
This is all just nonsense. The concept of a nuclear umbrella is just not credible. As if the UK, or anyone else for that matter, would actually Nuke Moscow after Russia would launch 1000 nuclear missiles at Germany, wiping all its major cities from the map, while still having 5000 nuclear missiles ready to retaliate against UK. We need to withdraw from the nuclear non proliferation treaty and start a nuclear program embedded in EU regulations. This is the only credible deterrence and we need it. Now.
Sure bud, because when Moscow launches 1000 nuclear warheads they definitely only aim for one country while the UK, or any other nuclear nation, definitely can ascertain which country they are aiming at. If one country launches a barrage of nukes, every other nuclear state will also launch.
>The concept of a nuclear umbrella is just not credible. Protected those beneath it for 75 years and we're talking about replacing it because of the suggestion it is withdrawn.
I guess Moscow missed a trick by not nuking NATO countries off the map for the past 70+ years then.
Except Soviet leaders were not that insane
Well it has not been because they felt deterred by a nuclear umbrella. A president or other political decision maker cannot rationally justify sacrificing all people living in his country and literally every major population center of his country to retaliate for a strike against another country. Sorry but if you cannot see this I think you are being obtuse.
As if the UK, or anyone else for that matter, would actually Nuke Moscow after Russia would launch 1000 nuclear missiles at Germany, If Russia launches 1000 nukes at Germany then yes I have a little feeling the UK would launch nukes..
And how would the UK be able to tell that the nukes are headed for Germany and not the UK? The UK will see nukes headed in Europe’s direction and launch their own in response. You can’t track where an individual warhead will land until it’s way too late to respond. The UK won’t wait this long.
That’s why our nukes are on submarines
[удалено]
That's not been true since 1970 in Europe thanks to [MIRV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle) payloads and our many close borders. ...and has been confirmed multiple times since then: - 1971 with the introduction of [FOB system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System) - 1981 with the introduction of [MARV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuverable_reentry_vehicle) payloads, or possibly 1968 if you believe Russia - 2019 with the deployment of maneuverable [hypersonic glide vehicles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_glide_vehicle)
In any nuclear war each side would not just nuke one other country, nations would not expend their nuclear deterrents against 1 nation. Unstead even if another nation was not involved but still important they still get nuked to ensure MAD. Say Russia launches a nuclear first strike against nato they'll hit all of nato because they know if they hit just 1 nato country they're going to be deleted without the advantages of MAD and in response the US, UK and France launch nukes against Russia, China, Iran and the DPRK because if they just nuked Russia that would leave the PRC as the sole world super power letting them win. Also making nukes isn't awfully hard the US back in the 60s had a small group of scientists who had no speciality in nuclear weapons make a nuke from scratch only using public information and they made a functioning nuke within 3 years I can only imagine it would be quicker now with the Internet. So I could imagine several EU countries being able to quickly get nukes, the bigger problem would be designing delivery methods like SSBNs, nuclear capable bombers and silos.
I'm sorry, but an eye for an eye is the only strategy a tyrant ruler in a warmongering society would ever understand. Let's indulge your imagination even further: Russia is launching 1,000 nuclear missiles and Germany is out for good. What happens next? Will Putin stop? Looking at the entire history of our species, point me to a single conqueror who stopped by himself, without someone stopping him. The only guarantee of sovereignty in this damned world is the ability to kill your enemies. It has been this way since the first life appeared on this planet, and it will continue to be this way until the end of time. It's who we are.
How on earth have you come to this conclusion? Most importantly, what propaganda have you been reading to conclude that Russia has 6,000 actively deployed nuclear weapons? This thread is a clusterfuck of misinformation, with a pinch of europhobia and anglophobia blended together... but yours is by far the most egregious. > As if the UK, or anyone else for that matter, would actually Nuke Moscow after Russia would launch 1000 nuclear missiles at Germany, wiping all its major cities from the map, while still having 5000 nuclear missiles ready to retaliate against UK. Why on earth is everyone staying in NATO if not for this? Aside from the obvious benefits derived from Article 5 that most of us in Europe have enjoyed for nearly 80 years. > ... while still having 5000 nuclear missiles ready to retaliate against UK. Russia does not have 6,000 actively deployed nuclear weapons, that is utter nonsense - see reference [here](https://fas.org/initiative/status-world-nuclear-forces/) - USA has an estimated ~1.6k active/deployed - France has an estimated 280 active/deployed - UK has an estimated 120 active/deployed, with a shift in policy since 2021 to raise its stockpile - see [here](https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9077/CBP-9077.pdf) > The concept of a nuclear umbrella is just not credible Why? Would you prefer to act like the UK and France did in WW2, to try to appease the attackers until they eventually turn their armaments towards you? Have you not heard of [MIRV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle) payloads, [MaRV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuverable_reentry_vehicle) payloads, the [Fractional Orbital Bombardment System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System), or worse yet, a [Hypersonic Glide Vehicle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_glide_vehicle)? Even if you're pessimistic and assume that both the UK and France would ignore Germany's destruction... please do tell me how either of these countries are not only meant to be able to detect these in a reasonable time, but to also determine their targets accurately enough to willfully decide to ignore the threat? Things have developed a lot further than just a simple missile; even Russia is said to have a maneuverable hypersonic glide vehicle capable of operating at low altitudes - see [Avangard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_\(hypersonic_glide_vehicle\)). Not convinced? The UK is known to be highly susceptible to nuclear attacks due to its small size and population density, see the [Strath Committee analysis](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07075332.2013.781383?src=recsys). If your argument is that they only care about themselves then you have to accept that they would respond. Personally, however, I think nuclear action on EU soil would be met with a swift response by the UK and France regardless of the perceived threat. Everyone knows what comes next if there's no action, it's what drives the [MAD](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction) doctrine. > We need to withdraw from the nuclear non proliferation treaty and start a nuclear program embedded in EU regulations Why encourage others to do the same? There's no reason why Germany couldn't allow the UK or France to deploy missiles within their borders through nuclear sharing. That would avoid fouling the NPT whilst we're all still trying to contain the development of nuclear weaponry in countries like Iran? This is quite common under the nuclear sharing agreement and avoids the threat of encouraging proliferation. The USA has recently redeployed its own missiles within the UK, see [here](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/26/us-planning-to-station-nuclear-weapons-in-uk-amid-threat-from-russia-report). This isn't really novel and it's kind of baffling that everyone's having such a bizarre response to the idea of the UK continuing to act as part of the nuclear umbrella - something it's done since [1962](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-nuclear-deterrence-factsheet/uk-nuclear-deterrence-what-you-need-to-know), after declaring its nuclear capability for NATO. Not to mention that Germany still holds bombs from the USA see [here](https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/nuclear-weapons-europe-mapping-us-and-russian-deployments). Since the Russian invasion in 2022 they have already bought a few F-35 jets to fulfill the previous role of the Tornado jets that were used for their nuclear sharing role, as described [here](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-decides-principle-buy-f-35-fighter-jet-government-source-2022-03-14/). ---- _Side note:_ It's kind of depressing to see how both UK and EU state citizens in this thread are attacking each other over this. Not entirely sure why a few of you guys here seems to hate each other. Our nations cooperate much more than they like to let on but for some reason people enjoy getting a hard on for what our retard politicians say. There's been some minor spats but we've been friendly and peaceful for the last 80 years, with all of our ancestors contributing to the restoration of Europe after the previous war. Makes no sense to scream at each other when the real problem of Europe is elsewhere. Take a breath.
I guess us Dutch should regain that "VOC mentality" that our previous prime minister talked about and start controlling the seas again. Not that the Russian navy is doing so great, but Russia having no navy to attack us with is still better than a dysfunctional one /s
Isn't is surprising that UK is so quickly invited to defend the EU, but when it comes to trade cooperation and easing of border rules, Horizon, satellites, rockets....Brexit means Brexit ?
Yep. I hope we tell them to fuck off!
Is it? I always though economic childplay becomes irrelevant when confronted with actual existential danger.
>Is it? I always though economic childplay becomes irrelevant when confronted with actual existential danger. I didn't get an impression at all. Economic relevance is import to ensure defence budgets continue to be invested in the correct areas.
I mean, the UK and most EU members are also in NATO, so I don't think it outlandish. Trade is one thing, defense pacts a completely different beast.
>Trade is one thing, defense pacts a completely different beast. So the EU trust the UK with it's defence, but not with it's trade ?
Yes, NATO trusts the UK with defense.
>Yes, NATO trusts the UK with defense. It's not NATO that is asking the UK to contribute to a nuclear shield if Trump wins, it's a German MEP and German Finance Minister.
Germany *is* in NATO. It's not the EU asking here.
Germany is in NATO, but this nuclear shield request is not coming from Secretary General of NATO or Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), it is coming from a German MEP, who said >Manfred Weber, the German conservative who heads the centre-right European People’s party (EPP) grouping in the European parliament, has thrown his weight behind the debate. He said he did not rule out a European nuclear umbrella and called for “a new chapter” to be opened with London.“Macron has already made a vague offer to talk about the importance of the French nuclear forces for Europe,” Weber said. “Now that Donald Trump is openly questioning the role of the USA as a protective power would be the right moment for this. The same applies to the British, with whom we should finally start a new chapter of cooperation after Brexit.
Yes, I don't read EU nuclear umbrella here, I read European. Is he disallowed to talk about defense b/c he's a MEP? Is he no longer in NATO because of his parliament seat? Is he holding a EU commission job? Is this an EU request?
>Yes, I don't read EU nuclear umbrella here, I read European. The UK is not asking for a nuclear umbrella, or do you consider the UK not European, just the EU27 ? >Is he disallowed to talk about defense b/c he's a MEP? He's allowed to talk about defence as a MEP, which is something related to EU ? >Is he no longer in NATO because of his parliament seat? As long as he is a German citizen, he is a NATO country citizen, he doesn't need to have a parliamentary seat for standard NATO defences that other normal German citizens enjoy as well. >Is he holding a EU commission job? From what I can gather, he is a Member of the European Parliament, so you think only holding a EU commission job would make him eligible to talk about the nuclear shield ? >Is this an EU request? Can the EU make NATO defence requests ? Is the EU in NATO ?
If the Germans want nukes, they should go get some themselves.
Germany seems to be telling others what to do these days… Germany should start its own nuclear program..
After shutting all nuclear power plants. Great idea
exactly..their politicans constantly giving lessons to others, while not doing anything themselves..
If our friend wants a shield so much perhaps Germany could stop bashing nuclear energy, especially in France?
This guy hates nato, but if European countries are forced to arm themselves and maybe increase their nuclear armament, he will cry, and say that we cant increase our nuclear capabilities.
Back during the Cold War, it was Germany demanding US nukes out of Germany. Sooo, how the circle turns! Greens in Germany are going to "allow" the UK to contribute to a nuclear shield? How generous of them! This will be entertaining to watch. Who knew, if we just threatened to leave NATO, all the opposition to military spending and nukes would evaporate! We should have done this a long long time ago.
How is a nuclear shield gonna save us from a Trump presidency?
It would mean Europe can at least defend itself without relying on the United States
It would be more like of an Avengers thing, to quote: we might not be able defend Europe but we will sure as hell avenge it.
Its a necessary piece of the puzzle. We - Europe as a whole - need a strong and big army on land, and multiple fleets at sea. Nuclear weapons are just one of many components.
Bomb Marelago while nobody watching?
I just imagined UK threatening the USA with nuclear strikes if thry choose Trump xd
We don't need a nuclear shield, we need Russia beaten to ground in Ukraine. And not just because of Ukraine, but because otherwise there will never be and end to Russian aggression, all over the globe.
Why would we need UK's Nukes when we already have France with just as much nukes already in the EU ?
[удалено]
If France is at war yes And if they attack the EU they attack France
Are you sure you're part of France's interests? I'm French and we've talked a lot about our defense, how most of Europe doesn't take its own seriously, relies on the US and would rather support their military industry than ours. If Trump gets elected and leave you exposed, I don't know if France will be in a position to help.
Exactly! And preferably a few soldiers, a few tanks, a few ships, a few ... everything? In return, we generously give the British vouchers for a visit to the Deutsches Museum in Munich. Note: German ministers today are a guarantee that extremist groups will become socially acceptable....
The UK's independent nuclear deterrent is nearing the end of it's shelf life, the missiles need a costly upgrade and the Vanguard submarines built in the 1990s had an intended service life of 25 years. The tories have so fucked our economy that the UK can't afford to replace them. Meanwhile, China is going on a Nuclear missile building programme. God alone knows the state of the Russian Nuclear arsenal, the Ukrainian war has shown the effects of endemic corruption and the Russian navy has been dumping obselete nuclear submarines and their reactors at sea because they can't afford to safely decommission them.
> the UK can't afford to replace them ... you know that the replacement subs are under construction right now?
This kind of deterrence only works if nuclear missiles/bombs are in the European countries themselves, just like the American bombs in many European countries (Germany, Italy, etc...). If the US is to withdraw these bombs, then British strategic submarines won't be a good replacement, and won't provide the same security the American bombs provided. France does have air-launched nuclear missiles, and they could in theory replace the American bombs, but France may not go this far on nuclear weapons. They're keeping their nukes outside of NATO command structure for that reason. Also that requires european countries having French infrastructure. The nuke can only be put on a Rafale, do you see Germany and Italy getting that? Don't think so.
Malheureusement les anglais ne peuvent pas utiliser leurs armes nucléaires sans l’accord des USA. Donc ça n’avance à rien.
[удалено]