2 ms·

UK and France(along with the US) have nukes, so it's a much different scenario than WW2.

tmnvdb 2y ago
France and the UK have nukes precisely because they did not believe that a country would be willing to risk total destruction to protect another country.
- sgt101 2y ago
  in every contingency - this is correct I think. It's been very important to the Nato stance to have multiple nuclear armed states, it made Soviet calculations extremely difficult. With the USA leaving the alliance I think that either a joint Euro bomb needs to be developed or Germany needs to acquire one. Perhaps a polite fiction (continuing the current one by the USA) of France providing nukes for German, Dutch, Danish and Polish war planes could be used.
sgt101 2y ago
But will the UK and France bail out Germany? Yes: if Germany acts as a serious and honest partner in defence. No: if Germany refuses to be a responsible security player and swings back to Russia as soon as it can. If Germany reopens the gas pipelines and throws the balts to the wolves I think that they may find that when they need help, there will be no help. Also the UK and France have very limited nuclear capability. Yes, it's really helpful in the context of the Nato alliance. The uncertainty that the european weapons adds into any calculus of escalation really enhances the overall deterrent. Once the USA is out of the picture there is no escalation ladder, it's national extinction (and)or bust. Very unstable, untenable. I see no evidence at all of this position being altered or updated. If Germany could depend on France or the UK in a nuclear blackmail scenario then I would expect (at the least) a crash tactical nuclear weapon program to be up and running in either one or both. I also think that a four vessel continuous deterrence capability is inadequate, so I would expect much more co-ordination between France and the UK on the at sea element and/or a shift to five+ vessels. I see none of this - the opposite in fact.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

France and the UK have nukes precisely because they did not believe that a country would be willing to risk total destruction to protect another country.

sgt101 2y ago
in every contingency - this is correct I think. It's been very important to the Nato stance to have multiple nuclear armed states, it made Soviet calculations extremely difficult. With the USA leaving the alliance I think that either a joint Euro bomb needs to be developed or Germany needs to acquire one. Perhaps a polite fiction (continuing the current one by the USA) of France providing nukes for German, Dutch, Danish and Polish war planes could be used.

sgt101 2y ago

But will the UK and France bail out Germany? Yes: if Germany acts as a serious and honest partner in defence. No: if Germany refuses to be a responsible security player and swings back to Russia as soon as it can. If Germany reopens the gas pipelines and throws the balts to the wolves I think that they may find that when they need help, there will be no help. Also the UK and France have very limited nuclear capability. Yes, it's really helpful in the context of the Nato alliance. The uncertainty that the european weapons adds into any calculus of escalation really enhances the overall deterrent. Once the USA is out of the picture there is no escalation ladder, it's national extinction (and)or bust. Very unstable, untenable. I see no evidence at all of this position being altered or updated. If Germany could depend on France or the UK in a nuclear blackmail scenario then I would expect (at the least) a crash tactical nuclear weapon program to be up and running in either one or both. I also think that a four vessel continuous deterrence capability is inadequate, so I would expect much more co-ordination between France and the UK on the at sea element and/or a shift to five+ vessels. I see none of this - the opposite in fact.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]