4 ms·

France and the UK are the obvious candidates, as both are nuclear powers. Ideally there would be some coordination at the EU level, but really hard to see that

France and the UK are the obvious candidates, as both are nuclear powers. Ideally there would be some coordination at the EU level, but really hard to see that short term.

lukan 2y ago
It is not a new idea, but France would love to have others pay for their nuclear weapons, without giving up control. So yes, it will be a while to sort this out, but the box is open now. It is clear that own nukes are the only thing, the big powers respect. So many countries will pursue them now. And building a simple nuke is not that complicated - when you have the nuclear material. Europe does.
- wood_spirit 2y ago
  Would Sweden want to pay for France’s nukes when the next president of France is very likely far right?
  - lukan 2y ago
    Since sweden (and germany) might become a far right government in some years as well, I would say, this is a seperate, but related issue. The last we want, are Nazis with nukes on top of it all.
    - binarno_sp 2y ago
      I'd argue that the Nazi with nukes may soon be the US.
      - skinkestek 2y ago
        Facists, not nazis. If they don't hate Jews it isn't nazism, just ordinary facism. Also russia already beat the us to becoming nuclear armed facists.
        wood_spirit 2y ago
        Who invaded Ukraine to denazify it and it’s Jewish president
        skinkestek 2y ago
        russian facists.
        aisenik 2y ago
        Evangelical American Zionism hates Jewish people with a thin facade of support. A disturbingly large amount of Americans believe that it's prophecy and God's will that the Middle East be "cleansed in fire" and that Israel's role as the Jewish state is an essential part of the plan. It is the same support a farmer offers to pigs when they fill their trough with slop. They want Israel so they can see its destruction through nuclear war. It is a disgusting viewpoint and essential to understanding American Zionist support of Israel. My (lifelong far-right conservative jack-Mormon) father shared this with me 25 years ago.
    - kavenkanum 2y ago
      The Nazis are in US now....
  - lm28469 2y ago
    It's far from "very likely", it's split in three groups of equal size and more people will lean left than far right, especially now
  - smcin 2y ago
    It's not all "very likely" the next president of France would be far right. The 2024 French legislative (not Presidential) snap election was Macron calling the electorate's bluff that even though they disliked low growth, carbon taxes, inflation, unemployment, immigration, they still wouldn't vote for a FN govt (in the second round; view the first round as a protest vote where some voters for FN are tactically expressing discontent with the govt). The 2027 French presidential election is a long way away yet and Polymarket doesn't even have a prediction market open for it yet, but Oddschecker puts Le Pen as frontrunner but not "very likely"; and that's before Bayrou emerges as Macron's successor [0]. Macron stands to gain a lot of influence in Europe if he can forge a good relationship with Germany's Merz. Anyway, obviously a European nuclear deterrent would have to firewall against any of the large member-states or their leaders going rogue. Rutte and NATO haven't commented publicly yet on Trump's recent stance. See what happens at the next G7 summit in Canada, 6/2025. And of course the Ukraine settlement and who provides security guarantees for it. [0]: https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/european-politics/french-politics/french-presidential-election-2027 https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/european-politics/frenc...
kragen 2y ago
If France can keep Sweden from resuming their own nuclear weapons program, they don't have to worry about getting into a nuclear war with Sweden 40 years from now. (Unthinkable? So was Sweden joining a mutual defense alliance like NATO.) Drones make nukes obsolete anyway. After you nuke a country its generals no longer have any incentive to surrender; they have nothing to go home to when they leave their bunkers.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- redeux 2y ago
  Nukes don't destroy countries and if the side that was attacked also has nukes ... I think there's been plenty said about that already.
  - kragen 2y ago
    What do you mean by "destroy countries"? Vaporize dirt? Generals in bunkers don't want to go back home to dirt, especially if it's radioactive.
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      Nukes have very little total effect. Consider the countries that have been nuked, by weapons or by meltdown.
      - goatlover 2y ago
        What? Nobody has been nuked since the first atomic bombs in Japan, and those were devastating, convincing them to fully surrender. A lot more powerful and effective ones have been developed during the cold war. A couple megatons dropped on a major city could cause a massive firestorm. EMPs could be generated high up in the atmosphere knocking out the grid and unshielded electronics.
      - kragen 2y ago
nprateem 2y ago
The UK depends on Trident. Apparently the terms are something like a lease agreement and Trump could ask for them back or disable them.
n1b0m 2y ago
Trident, the United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons program is dependent on Washington for the maintenance, design, and testing of UK submarines. The nuclear missiles aboard them are on lease from Uncle Sam.
- fennecbutt 2y ago
  Context: "The missiles are manufactured in the United States, while the warheads are British."

France and the UK are the obvious candidates, as both are nuclear powers. Ideally there would be some coordination at the EU level, but really hard to see that short term.

lukan 2y ago

It is not a new idea, but France would love to have others pay for their nuclear weapons, without giving up control. So yes, it will be a while to sort this out, but the box is open now. It is clear that own nukes are the only thing, the big powers respect. So many countries will pursue them now. And building a simple nuke is not that complicated - when you have the nuclear material. Europe does.

wood_spirit 2y ago
Would Sweden want to pay for France’s nukes when the next president of France is very likely far right?
- lukan 2y ago
  Since sweden (and germany) might become a far right government in some years as well, I would say, this is a seperate, but related issue. The last we want, are Nazis with nukes on top of it all.
  - binarno_sp 2y ago
    I'd argue that the Nazi with nukes may soon be the US.
    - skinkestek 2y ago
      Facists, not nazis. If they don't hate Jews it isn't nazism, just ordinary facism. Also russia already beat the us to becoming nuclear armed facists.
      - wood_spirit 2y ago
        Who invaded Ukraine to denazify it and it’s Jewish president
        skinkestek 2y ago
        russian facists.
      - aisenik 2y ago
        Evangelical American Zionism hates Jewish people with a thin facade of support. A disturbingly large amount of Americans believe that it's prophecy and God's will that the Middle East be "cleansed in fire" and that Israel's role as the Jewish state is an essential part of the plan. It is the same support a farmer offers to pigs when they fill their trough with slop. They want Israel so they can see its destruction through nuclear war. It is a disgusting viewpoint and essential to understanding American Zionist support of Israel. My (lifelong far-right conservative jack-Mormon) father shared this with me 25 years ago.
  - kavenkanum 2y ago
    The Nazis are in US now....
- lm28469 2y ago
  It's far from "very likely", it's split in three groups of equal size and more people will lean left than far right, especially now
- smcin 2y ago
  It's not all "very likely" the next president of France would be far right. The 2024 French legislative (not Presidential) snap election was Macron calling the electorate's bluff that even though they disliked low growth, carbon taxes, inflation, unemployment, immigration, they still wouldn't vote for a FN govt (in the second round; view the first round as a protest vote where some voters for FN are tactically expressing discontent with the govt). The 2027 French presidential election is a long way away yet and Polymarket doesn't even have a prediction market open for it yet, but Oddschecker puts Le Pen as frontrunner but not "very likely"; and that's before Bayrou emerges as Macron's successor [0]. Macron stands to gain a lot of influence in Europe if he can forge a good relationship with Germany's Merz. Anyway, obviously a European nuclear deterrent would have to firewall against any of the large member-states or their leaders going rogue. Rutte and NATO haven't commented publicly yet on Trump's recent stance. See what happens at the next G7 summit in Canada, 6/2025. And of course the Ukraine settlement and who provides security guarantees for it. [0]: https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/european-politics/french-politics/french-presidential-election-2027 https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/european-politics/frenc...

kragen 2y ago

If France can keep Sweden from resuming their own nuclear weapons program, they don't have to worry about getting into a nuclear war with Sweden 40 years from now. (Unthinkable? So was Sweden joining a mutual defense alliance like NATO.) Drones make nukes obsolete anyway. After you nuke a country its generals no longer have any incentive to surrender; they have nothing to go home to when they leave their bunkers.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
redeux 2y ago
Nukes don't destroy countries and if the side that was attacked also has nukes ... I think there's been plenty said about that already.
- kragen 2y ago
  What do you mean by "destroy countries"? Vaporize dirt? Generals in bunkers don't want to go back home to dirt, especially if it's radioactive.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    Nukes have very little total effect. Consider the countries that have been nuked, by weapons or by meltdown.
    - goatlover 2y ago
      What? Nobody has been nuked since the first atomic bombs in Japan, and those were devastating, convincing them to fully surrender. A lot more powerful and effective ones have been developed during the cold war. A couple megatons dropped on a major city could cause a massive firestorm. EMPs could be generated high up in the atmosphere knocking out the grid and unshielded electronics.
    - kragen 2y ago

nprateem 2y ago

The UK depends on Trident. Apparently the terms are something like a lease agreement and Trump could ask for them back or disable them.

n1b0m 2y ago

Trident, the United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons program is dependent on Washington for the maintenance, design, and testing of UK submarines. The nuclear missiles aboard them are on lease from Uncle Sam.

fennecbutt 2y ago
Context: "The missiles are manufactured in the United States, while the warheads are British."