5 ms·

> What did they threaten the Netherlands with, I wonder? Explicitly? Probably nothing. Implicitly? Nukes. That's where the buck stops in geopolitics. Ultima

> What did they threaten the Netherlands with, I wonder? Explicitly? Probably nothing. Implicitly? Nukes. That's where the buck stops in geopolitics. Ultimately, all international interaction is backed by implicit threat of war - and, for past couple decades, nukes are the trump card. The world is divided between the "haves", and the "have nots", and the "have nots" can't do anything if the "haves" put the nuclear option onto the table. Of course, in polite company, nothing ever gets to that stage; the jobs of the leaders, diplomats, advisers, etc. is to keep everything low-key enough to not escalate beyond horse trading and strongly-worded letters. But everyone is acutely aware that the threat of violence is implicitly always there, and who can credibly threaten whom.

Qiu_Zhanxuan 2y ago
the Netherlands (and most of the European countries) has the skills to build nukes and ICBM in 6 months if it wanted to. The tech is 80 years old at this point.
- dcl 2y ago
  6 months?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > the Netherlands (and most of the European countries) has the skills to build nukes and ICBM in 6 months if it wanted to Eh, probably not. The Dutch have a serious nuclear power economy [1]. But procuring and refining the uranium would take at least a year. Their larger strategic deficit in long-range missile production (or a civil launch industry). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_Netherlands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_Netherlan...
  - philipkglass 2y ago
    The Netherlands already has a domestic uranium enrichment facility that can perform 5000 tons of separative work per year: https://www.urenco.com/global-operations/urenco-nederland https://www.urenco.com/global-operations/urenco-nederland Because of the counter-intuitive way uranium enrichment works, enrichment from natural uranium to commercial reactor fuel takes more separative work than going from commercial reactor fuel to bomb material: https://scipython.com/blog/uranium-enrichment-and-the-separative-work-unit-swu/ https://scipython.com/blog/uranium-enrichment-and-the-separa... Because commercial power reactors consume so much uranium per year, the on-site inventory needed just to produce a year's worth of commercial reactor fuel is enough to make many bomb cores. Nuclear breakout could be very fast if the Netherlands were willing to endure all the diplomatic consequences of withdrawing from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I agree about the longer timeline to develop a ballistic missile system that could deliver a warhead. EDIT: switched erroneous "less" to "more"
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > enrichment from natural uranium to commercial reactor fuel takes less separative work than going from commercial reactor fuel to bomb material More*. (Also, fascinating. Thank you.)
- saulpw 2y ago
  Let me draw your attention to "Tacit Knowledge, Weapons Design, and the Uninvention of Nuclear Weapons" (1995)[0]. Basically, it takes a nation state 4 years to develop its first nuclear weapon, and no amount of explicit knowledge-sharing speeds up the process. The only thing that speeds up the process is sharing tacit knowledge by embedding a nuclear scientist who has already been through the process. [0] https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1018881.pdf https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1018881.pdf
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  They'd more likely get sanctioned to death or invaded if they tried. Have you noticed what happens to "have nots" that try (or are accused of trying) to become the "haves" in the nuclear game? Also, like 'JumpCrisscross notices, weapons themselves are but half of the equation - the other one is delivery. A few nukes and a trigger-happy dictator can get everyone to back away and indulge you some (see: North Korea), but to play at the big table, you need to have the capacity to deal a serious blow to another country (see: lesser nuclear powers) - but no one will let you get to that point. Nuclear-capable countries are not particularly keen on there being more of them.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > They'd more likely get sanctioned to death or invaded if they tried Sanctions, maybe. Invaded, almost certainly not. If there is a consistent theme to American, Chinese and Russian foreign policy over the last 30 years, it's that there is a nuclear sovereignty respected above all.
    - TeMPOraL 2y ago
      If recent history proves anything, it's that nuclear sovereignty is the only form of actual sovereignty today. But what I'm saying is, the major players don't want anyone new to join the "nuclear club", so they'll stop those trying before they develop that capability. Despite what 'Qiu_Zhanxuan wrote, you can't actually go from 0 to nuclear sovereignty in 6 months, and you definitely can't hide that you're doing it for long.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > you can't actually go from 0 to nuclear sovereignty in 6 months, and you definitely can't hide that you're doing it for long No, but you can go from 0 to "possibly nuclear everyone yell about it," and stay there until you're actually nuclear. Nobody will do anything about possibly nuclear. And nobody will do anything once you're nuclear. This was the critical hole in non-proliferation, and for a while it worked, because everyone pretended nuclear sovereignty wasn't a thing, but now that it is there is--and should be--a race to who are the regional powers, and who are subsurvient to them. The Netherlands have a history of being conquered and being rich. It makes sense for them to be a nuclear sovereign.
gizajob 2y ago
Haha what a crackers comment. Threatening to nuke the Netherlands if ASML sells a lithography machine to China, what are you smoking. The Dutch would probably blow up the ASML factory and short the entire stock market the day before if that sabre was even rattled. Bye bye tech.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  Nothing in society operates in a vacuum. The ASML/China issue doesn't exist in isolation. Obviously, there are plenty of levers to pull elsewhere in trade and policy, and many things more important to either side than the ASML issue. As for the nukes, I invite you to imagine a hypothetical: what if Netherlands really, really wanted to sell a lithography machine to China, for whatever reason (say an ancient prophecy compelling them to), and the US really, really wanted for that not to happen (again, prophecy of something). Try to imagine how those negotiations would go - step through them, like you would a loop in the debugger, and tell me where you believe it stops.
  - gizajob 2y ago
    It stops at whatever trip you’re on invoking nukes and ancient Dutch-Sino prophecies.
  - rcxdude 2y ago
    It stops way, way before that bullshit. Everyone involved in that negotiation only cares about it because they have some reason to want an even vaguely functional society to still exist, and the minute nukes are involved that's no longer a concern, for anyone. The nuclear taboo exists for a very good reason, and basically everyone (nuclear power or not) has extremely strong incentives to maintain it. (to play one option forward, if the US actually is insane enough to threaten the netherlands with this, what do you think the dutch will play forward in their own game theory. One of the key aspects of nuke geopolitics is that nuclear powers cannot be allowed to get away with throwing that weight around, because there's no obvious termination point: the netherlands would instantly be very strongly incentivised to, if not develop their own nukes, align with China (or Russia, or probably more realistically, poke France) in return for a credible threat of retaliation. Congrats to the US, they've just scored an own goal)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Qiu_Zhanxuan 2y ago

the Netherlands (and most of the European countries) has the skills to build nukes and ICBM in 6 months if it wanted to. The tech is 80 years old at this point.

dcl 2y ago
6 months?
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> the Netherlands (and most of the European countries) has the skills to build nukes and ICBM in 6 months if it wanted to Eh, probably not. The Dutch have a serious nuclear power economy [1]. But procuring and refining the uranium would take at least a year. Their larger strategic deficit in long-range missile production (or a civil launch industry). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_Netherlands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_Netherlan...
- philipkglass 2y ago
  The Netherlands already has a domestic uranium enrichment facility that can perform 5000 tons of separative work per year: https://www.urenco.com/global-operations/urenco-nederland https://www.urenco.com/global-operations/urenco-nederland Because of the counter-intuitive way uranium enrichment works, enrichment from natural uranium to commercial reactor fuel takes more separative work than going from commercial reactor fuel to bomb material: https://scipython.com/blog/uranium-enrichment-and-the-separative-work-unit-swu/ https://scipython.com/blog/uranium-enrichment-and-the-separa... Because commercial power reactors consume so much uranium per year, the on-site inventory needed just to produce a year's worth of commercial reactor fuel is enough to make many bomb cores. Nuclear breakout could be very fast if the Netherlands were willing to endure all the diplomatic consequences of withdrawing from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I agree about the longer timeline to develop a ballistic missile system that could deliver a warhead. EDIT: switched erroneous "less" to "more"
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > enrichment from natural uranium to commercial reactor fuel takes less separative work than going from commercial reactor fuel to bomb material More*. (Also, fascinating. Thank you.)
saulpw 2y ago
Let me draw your attention to "Tacit Knowledge, Weapons Design, and the Uninvention of Nuclear Weapons" (1995)[0]. Basically, it takes a nation state 4 years to develop its first nuclear weapon, and no amount of explicit knowledge-sharing speeds up the process. The only thing that speeds up the process is sharing tacit knowledge by embedding a nuclear scientist who has already been through the process. [0] https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1018881.pdf https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1018881.pdf
TeMPOraL 2y ago
They'd more likely get sanctioned to death or invaded if they tried. Have you noticed what happens to "have nots" that try (or are accused of trying) to become the "haves" in the nuclear game? Also, like 'JumpCrisscross notices, weapons themselves are but half of the equation - the other one is delivery. A few nukes and a trigger-happy dictator can get everyone to back away and indulge you some (see: North Korea), but to play at the big table, you need to have the capacity to deal a serious blow to another country (see: lesser nuclear powers) - but no one will let you get to that point. Nuclear-capable countries are not particularly keen on there being more of them.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > They'd more likely get sanctioned to death or invaded if they tried Sanctions, maybe. Invaded, almost certainly not. If there is a consistent theme to American, Chinese and Russian foreign policy over the last 30 years, it's that there is a nuclear sovereignty respected above all.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    If recent history proves anything, it's that nuclear sovereignty is the only form of actual sovereignty today. But what I'm saying is, the major players don't want anyone new to join the "nuclear club", so they'll stop those trying before they develop that capability. Despite what 'Qiu_Zhanxuan wrote, you can't actually go from 0 to nuclear sovereignty in 6 months, and you definitely can't hide that you're doing it for long.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > you can't actually go from 0 to nuclear sovereignty in 6 months, and you definitely can't hide that you're doing it for long No, but you can go from 0 to "possibly nuclear everyone yell about it," and stay there until you're actually nuclear. Nobody will do anything about possibly nuclear. And nobody will do anything once you're nuclear. This was the critical hole in non-proliferation, and for a while it worked, because everyone pretended nuclear sovereignty wasn't a thing, but now that it is there is--and should be--a race to who are the regional powers, and who are subsurvient to them. The Netherlands have a history of being conquered and being rich. It makes sense for them to be a nuclear sovereign.

gizajob 2y ago

Haha what a crackers comment. Threatening to nuke the Netherlands if ASML sells a lithography machine to China, what are you smoking. The Dutch would probably blow up the ASML factory and short the entire stock market the day before if that sabre was even rattled. Bye bye tech.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
Nothing in society operates in a vacuum. The ASML/China issue doesn't exist in isolation. Obviously, there are plenty of levers to pull elsewhere in trade and policy, and many things more important to either side than the ASML issue. As for the nukes, I invite you to imagine a hypothetical: what if Netherlands really, really wanted to sell a lithography machine to China, for whatever reason (say an ancient prophecy compelling them to), and the US really, really wanted for that not to happen (again, prophecy of something). Try to imagine how those negotiations would go - step through them, like you would a loop in the debugger, and tell me where you believe it stops.
- gizajob 2y ago
  It stops at whatever trip you’re on invoking nukes and ancient Dutch-Sino prophecies.
- rcxdude 2y ago
  It stops way, way before that bullshit. Everyone involved in that negotiation only cares about it because they have some reason to want an even vaguely functional society to still exist, and the minute nukes are involved that's no longer a concern, for anyone. The nuclear taboo exists for a very good reason, and basically everyone (nuclear power or not) has extremely strong incentives to maintain it. (to play one option forward, if the US actually is insane enough to threaten the netherlands with this, what do you think the dutch will play forward in their own game theory. One of the key aspects of nuke geopolitics is that nuclear powers cannot be allowed to get away with throwing that weight around, because there's no obvious termination point: the netherlands would instantly be very strongly incentivised to, if not develop their own nukes, align with China (or Russia, or probably more realistically, poke France) in return for a credible threat of retaliation. Congrats to the US, they've just scored an own goal)

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]