5 ms·

Russia's nuclear capacity? How is that relevant? The UK alone has 215 nukes (just checked wiki), so yeah maybe Russia could kill all of us and we'd only kill 90

Russia's nuclear capacity? How is that relevant? The UK alone has 215 nukes (just checked wiki), so yeah maybe Russia could kill all of us and we'd only kill 90% of them but past a certain threshold additional nuclear weapons are irrelevant. My last post as HN is supposed to be better than this kind of nationalistic -swinging but I think the idea that Europe is reliant on US for protection is pretty absurd. Multiple nuclear states, you can't just assume that all of our nukes are faulty (and nor would anyone else). Nor would they be unable to maintain them without the US if relationships soured so far. We lease them from US companies because we are (historically!) allies! Similar level of standing military as the US, which could be ramped up above given larger population and GDP. There's a fair statement: "US contributes unfairly much to NATO" And a completely mental statement: "Europe is dependent upon the US for protection"

foldr 8y ago
That's supposing that the weapons work as advertised. The UK is entirely reliant on Trident for its nuclear deterrent, and it is reliant on support from the USA to maintain Trident. If Trident turns out not to work very well (which is entirely possible), or if relations with the USA sour, or if ballistic missile submarines turn out to be easier to detect and/or more vulnerable than expected, then the UK could very well not have an effective nuclear deterrent. >you can't just assume that all of our nukes are faulty (and nor would anyone else) No, but you also can't assume that we have enough nuclear capability to successfully respond to Russian first strike. No-one really knows how well the relevant systems will work. France is the only other EU country with any significant nuclear capability.
- zimablue 8y ago
  There are also Germany, Italy, other states which have nukes through NATO. If the US is serious about withdrawing from NATO then the nuclear capability of these states would end up being completely independent from the US, and EU has the tech and money to scale their nuclear capacity up to any necessary level. You're right they're not Germany's, my bad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing They're the US' nukes but this is all predicated on NATO which was previously assumed. If US withdraws from NATO then they won't get to keep nukes in Germany, so they either lease them or withdraw them. I think the two important points are that 1. Europe has the capacity to build and sustain a massive nuclear arsenal 2. They already have enough to usher in the apocalypse for anyone who invaded them including Russia. 500 vs 3000 is kind of irrelevant when you could already kill millions upon millions. 3. Some of the seeming reliance of Europe on America for nukes is by choice and a consequence of the previously rock-solid alliance. In the event of the breakup of that alliance the independent capacity of Europe to summon the apocalypse would be a lot more obvious
  - foldr 8y ago
    You're misinformed. Neither Germany nor Italy has nuclear weapons.
  - aphextron 8y ago
    >500 vs 3000 is kind of irrelevant when you could already kill millions upon millions. No, it's not. The reason for having thousands of warheads is not to blanket the earth in a nuclear apocalypse. It's to have enough failsafe and fallbacks that you are guaranteed to destroy the opposing force's arsenal before they can hit you. 5 missiles at once can be trivially intercepted. 500 missiles at once is unstoppable. The first exchanges in a nuclear salvo would be aimed directly at each other's silos. The vast majority of research in nuclear weapons today is in penetration capability of hardened targets (which systems like the UK's Trident do not possess) not widespread killing of civilians, and whoever maintains a superior capability in this respect will have the upper hand in any negotiation.
- notahacker 8y ago
  The whole point behind building nuclear defence systems was to render the risk of consequences from a first strike too grave to attempt it, not to achieve perfect balance between the city-eradication potential of the respective nuclear powers. Nobody is about to evaluate how well Trident works in practice by launching a first strike on London. For all of Trident's limitations, it is impossible to argue with a straight face that the current US executive's desire to maintain the liberal world order and free trade (hahahaha) offers the UK a more reliable defence from threats against UK interests.
  - foldr 8y ago
    >Nobody is about to evaluate how well Trident works in practice by launching a first strike on London. Let's hope not. >not to achieve perfect balance between the city-eradication potential of the respective nuclear powers. The UK's nuclear deterrent consists of one or two Trident submarines active at any given time which carry 8 Trident missiles each. (They can carry up to 16, but don't at the moment.) Don't be under the impression that the UK can deploy anything like its full stockpile of warheads in the event of a nuclear conflict. >it is impossible to argue with a straight face that [...] You're reading some kind of political slant into my comment that just isn't there. I'm not a fan of the current US administration.
    - notahacker 8y ago
      I'm reading the political slant into the comment upthread I quoted from; not really sure why we're engaged in the tangent of questioning the adequacy of Trident if you acknowledge it's a better deterrent than the present "Special Relationship" (and an expensive one paid from our taxes). The UK's non-operational stockpile means ample capacity to expand upon the currently operational missile stock in the event of a ratcheting up of tensions, and frankly if there's a hostile leader who considers even 8 nuclear missiles to be insufficient deterrent, the UK faces bigger problems than lack of retaliatory capacity.
      - foldr 8y ago
        Trident is (and is widely acknowledged to be) about the bare minimum required for a semi-credible nuclear deterrent. It's just about enough to make a country like Russia think twice. Probably. The deterrent provided by the US is not the special relationship, but the US's enormous nuclear arsenal, which it probably would deploy against Russia if Russia launched a nuclear attack against the UK. They would do the same if Russia launched a nuclear attack against any NATO power, so the special relationship doesn't really come into it.
- Lio 8y ago
  The UK's Trident missile system is not dependant on the US for launch control[0]. All the other what ifs you've mentioned are the same for both sides. The thing about nuclear war is that you can't attach the UK without attacking France. What's more, you can't attack Russia without attacking the UK and France. In a nuclear winter we all die. Everywhere. It's like letting of a hand grenade in an elevator. You can throw it at the guy in the corner if you like, you're still going down too. [0] https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-america-doesnt-control-britains-nuclear-weapons/ https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-america-doesnt-control-br...
  - foldr 8y ago
    >The UK's Trident missile system is not dependant on the US for launch control[0] I didn't say that it was. But we do depend on the USA for maintenance and support. The independent all-party Trident commission concluded that the deterrent could not be maintained for more than a few months if the US were to withdraw cooperation: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blog/2014/jul/01/trident-nuclear-weapons-uk https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blo... >All the other what ifs you've mentioned are the same for both sides. No, because Russia and USA have the nuclear triad. The UK only has one method of delivery. France has two.

foldr 8y ago

That's supposing that the weapons work as advertised. The UK is entirely reliant on Trident for its nuclear deterrent, and it is reliant on support from the USA to maintain Trident. If Trident turns out not to work very well (which is entirely possible), or if relations with the USA sour, or if ballistic missile submarines turn out to be easier to detect and/or more vulnerable than expected, then the UK could very well not have an effective nuclear deterrent. >you can't just assume that all of our nukes are faulty (and nor would anyone else) No, but you also can't assume that we have enough nuclear capability to successfully respond to Russian first strike. No-one really knows how well the relevant systems will work. France is the only other EU country with any significant nuclear capability.

zimablue 8y ago
There are also Germany, Italy, other states which have nukes through NATO. If the US is serious about withdrawing from NATO then the nuclear capability of these states would end up being completely independent from the US, and EU has the tech and money to scale their nuclear capacity up to any necessary level. You're right they're not Germany's, my bad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing They're the US' nukes but this is all predicated on NATO which was previously assumed. If US withdraws from NATO then they won't get to keep nukes in Germany, so they either lease them or withdraw them. I think the two important points are that 1. Europe has the capacity to build and sustain a massive nuclear arsenal 2. They already have enough to usher in the apocalypse for anyone who invaded them including Russia. 500 vs 3000 is kind of irrelevant when you could already kill millions upon millions. 3. Some of the seeming reliance of Europe on America for nukes is by choice and a consequence of the previously rock-solid alliance. In the event of the breakup of that alliance the independent capacity of Europe to summon the apocalypse would be a lot more obvious
- foldr 8y ago
  You're misinformed. Neither Germany nor Italy has nuclear weapons.
- aphextron 8y ago
  >500 vs 3000 is kind of irrelevant when you could already kill millions upon millions. No, it's not. The reason for having thousands of warheads is not to blanket the earth in a nuclear apocalypse. It's to have enough failsafe and fallbacks that you are guaranteed to destroy the opposing force's arsenal before they can hit you. 5 missiles at once can be trivially intercepted. 500 missiles at once is unstoppable. The first exchanges in a nuclear salvo would be aimed directly at each other's silos. The vast majority of research in nuclear weapons today is in penetration capability of hardened targets (which systems like the UK's Trident do not possess) not widespread killing of civilians, and whoever maintains a superior capability in this respect will have the upper hand in any negotiation.
notahacker 8y ago
The whole point behind building nuclear defence systems was to render the risk of consequences from a first strike too grave to attempt it, not to achieve perfect balance between the city-eradication potential of the respective nuclear powers. Nobody is about to evaluate how well Trident works in practice by launching a first strike on London. For all of Trident's limitations, it is impossible to argue with a straight face that the current US executive's desire to maintain the liberal world order and free trade (hahahaha) offers the UK a more reliable defence from threats against UK interests.
- foldr 8y ago
  >Nobody is about to evaluate how well Trident works in practice by launching a first strike on London. Let's hope not. >not to achieve perfect balance between the city-eradication potential of the respective nuclear powers. The UK's nuclear deterrent consists of one or two Trident submarines active at any given time which carry 8 Trident missiles each. (They can carry up to 16, but don't at the moment.) Don't be under the impression that the UK can deploy anything like its full stockpile of warheads in the event of a nuclear conflict. >it is impossible to argue with a straight face that [...] You're reading some kind of political slant into my comment that just isn't there. I'm not a fan of the current US administration.
  - notahacker 8y ago
    I'm reading the political slant into the comment upthread I quoted from; not really sure why we're engaged in the tangent of questioning the adequacy of Trident if you acknowledge it's a better deterrent than the present "Special Relationship" (and an expensive one paid from our taxes). The UK's non-operational stockpile means ample capacity to expand upon the currently operational missile stock in the event of a ratcheting up of tensions, and frankly if there's a hostile leader who considers even 8 nuclear missiles to be insufficient deterrent, the UK faces bigger problems than lack of retaliatory capacity.
    - foldr 8y ago
      Trident is (and is widely acknowledged to be) about the bare minimum required for a semi-credible nuclear deterrent. It's just about enough to make a country like Russia think twice. Probably. The deterrent provided by the US is not the special relationship, but the US's enormous nuclear arsenal, which it probably would deploy against Russia if Russia launched a nuclear attack against the UK. They would do the same if Russia launched a nuclear attack against any NATO power, so the special relationship doesn't really come into it.
Lio 8y ago
The UK's Trident missile system is not dependant on the US for launch control[0]. All the other what ifs you've mentioned are the same for both sides. The thing about nuclear war is that you can't attach the UK without attacking France. What's more, you can't attack Russia without attacking the UK and France. In a nuclear winter we all die. Everywhere. It's like letting of a hand grenade in an elevator. You can throw it at the guy in the corner if you like, you're still going down too. [0] https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-america-doesnt-control-britains-nuclear-weapons/ https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-america-doesnt-control-br...
- foldr 8y ago
  >The UK's Trident missile system is not dependant on the US for launch control[0] I didn't say that it was. But we do depend on the USA for maintenance and support. The independent all-party Trident commission concluded that the deterrent could not be maintained for more than a few months if the US were to withdraw cooperation: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blog/2014/jul/01/trident-nuclear-weapons-uk https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blo... >All the other what ifs you've mentioned are the same for both sides. No, because Russia and USA have the nuclear triad. The UK only has one method of delivery. France has two.