3 ms·

That's probably one of very few options available quickly. UK could launch it's nuclear program, it has the scientific background and infrastructure, but surel

That's probably one of very few options available quickly. UK could launch it's nuclear program, it has the scientific background and infrastructure, but surely they wouldn't have a certified, tested weapon within 5 years. Maybe UK could buy them from France - but I don't think France ever exported their nukes, and if they would even consider it. How would it be launched? They have air-launched missiles, presumably only working with French jets, and cruise missiles, which IIRC are not very long range. Who else is there? India? Pakistan? Israel? North Korea? Hard to imagine a sale from either of these countries.

mytailorisrich 1y ago
Why does the UK need an option available quickly? I think it does not and this is just pandering to the US.
- rich_sasha 1y ago
  The narrative is of a looming war with Russia, necessitating rapid rearmament. My armchair strategist view doesn't extend as far as knowing if haste is advised or not. I'm curious why you think specifically there is no rush.
  - mytailorisrich 1y ago
    It's hard to take this "looming war" with Russia seriously when WWIII didn't happen during the USSR times when Russia was much stronger. It's hard to believe that Russia would want to start WWIII now when they didn't then and when they have shown that they were highly struggling in Ukraine (and they struggled in Chechnya, too). Along the same line, during the Cold War Sweden was literally facing the Warsaw Pact and yet stayed out of NATO. Now it is surrounded with friends and needs to join NATO. I am just old enough to remember the end of the Cold War and the fall of it all. To me it is very difficult to consider that the situation now is riskier than then. A reasonable conclusion is that we are being led up the garden path... Russia has a stockpile of nukes for defense because they are worried of invasion (history has shown this is warranted). But they know that the military might of the US and NATO would obliterate their conventional forces. My theory is that there has always been push-back against an EU power-grab to full "statehood" and involvement in military matters, and that this is a pretext to "manufacture consent" in European public opinion. Now, specifically for the UK, again I think this is largely pandering to the US to attract favours (tariffs, etc)
    - jfengel 1y ago
      I don't think Finland and Sweden would have joined NATO if this were just a pan-European power grab. They want to be separate countries. They joined because they genuinely believe that Putin has his eye on them. That would be insane, but Putin is taking his playbook from the Cold War "madman" theory. He wants you to be guessing, which scatters your attention and misdirects your forces. The Soviet Union engaged in plenty of proxy wars with the West, but they always avoided engaging directly with Western Europe. Putin has upped the ante by attacking Ukraine, which the West considers an ally and was moving towards a formal alliance. That puts the madman theory in play. He makes rhetorical feints at Scandinavia. He knows the West won't ignore them, because they don't know if he's kidding. I concur that the UK is just sucking up to the US here. The US has become a very unreliable partner and Europe needs to find a way to mollify it while they figure out how they can deal with Putin's continuous needling by themselves.
      - mytailorisrich 1y ago
        "Putin has an eye on Sweden" does not pass the most basic smell test, now even less than during the Cold War... My take is that Sweden wanted to abandon its historical neutrality formally to fully join the rest of the "group" but needed something to make the public agree. > which the West considers an ally and was moving towards a formal alliance. No, Ukraine was not an ally and was not going to join NATO. No-one even wanted Ukraine in the EU because it is so sht (dubbed the most corrupt country in Europe) before the Russian (re-)invasion and now, somehow, it should be fastracked... This is all the usual murky, dodgy dealings in geopolitics but Europeans have lost their "nose" for propaganda in the media, especially in the West where there is no such thing, right? > because they don't know if he's kidding* We know exactly what their strengths and our strengths are, and they know them, too. Russia is not going to invade the EU/NATO anymore than during the USSR times. Basic common sense, again.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        mopsi 1y ago
Nursie 1y ago
> UK could launch it's nuclear program, it has the scientific background and infrastructure, but surely they wouldn't have a certified, tested weapon within 5 years. As in the other thread (that I see you've now seen) the UK does have an active nuclear weapons program, with an in-progress updated design. It's true that it would need a smaller 'tactical' warhead design for the use-case we're talking about so it would take some time. > How would it be launched? I have no idea, we have certainly reached beyond my competence to hold an opinion here :) It just feels like an odd choice at the current time, to crow about a new capability, but reveal another country is going to hold the keys. especially when the UK does have an active nuclear program. :shrug:

mytailorisrich 1y ago

Why does the UK need an option available quickly? I think it does not and this is just pandering to the US.

rich_sasha 1y ago
The narrative is of a looming war with Russia, necessitating rapid rearmament. My armchair strategist view doesn't extend as far as knowing if haste is advised or not. I'm curious why you think specifically there is no rush.
- mytailorisrich 1y ago
  It's hard to take this "looming war" with Russia seriously when WWIII didn't happen during the USSR times when Russia was much stronger. It's hard to believe that Russia would want to start WWIII now when they didn't then and when they have shown that they were highly struggling in Ukraine (and they struggled in Chechnya, too). Along the same line, during the Cold War Sweden was literally facing the Warsaw Pact and yet stayed out of NATO. Now it is surrounded with friends and needs to join NATO. I am just old enough to remember the end of the Cold War and the fall of it all. To me it is very difficult to consider that the situation now is riskier than then. A reasonable conclusion is that we are being led up the garden path... Russia has a stockpile of nukes for defense because they are worried of invasion (history has shown this is warranted). But they know that the military might of the US and NATO would obliterate their conventional forces. My theory is that there has always been push-back against an EU power-grab to full "statehood" and involvement in military matters, and that this is a pretext to "manufacture consent" in European public opinion. Now, specifically for the UK, again I think this is largely pandering to the US to attract favours (tariffs, etc)
  - jfengel 1y ago
    I don't think Finland and Sweden would have joined NATO if this were just a pan-European power grab. They want to be separate countries. They joined because they genuinely believe that Putin has his eye on them. That would be insane, but Putin is taking his playbook from the Cold War "madman" theory. He wants you to be guessing, which scatters your attention and misdirects your forces. The Soviet Union engaged in plenty of proxy wars with the West, but they always avoided engaging directly with Western Europe. Putin has upped the ante by attacking Ukraine, which the West considers an ally and was moving towards a formal alliance. That puts the madman theory in play. He makes rhetorical feints at Scandinavia. He knows the West won't ignore them, because they don't know if he's kidding. I concur that the UK is just sucking up to the US here. The US has become a very unreliable partner and Europe needs to find a way to mollify it while they figure out how they can deal with Putin's continuous needling by themselves.
    - mytailorisrich 1y ago
      "Putin has an eye on Sweden" does not pass the most basic smell test, now even less than during the Cold War... My take is that Sweden wanted to abandon its historical neutrality formally to fully join the rest of the "group" but needed something to make the public agree. > which the West considers an ally and was moving towards a formal alliance. No, Ukraine was not an ally and was not going to join NATO. No-one even wanted Ukraine in the EU because it is so sht (dubbed the most corrupt country in Europe) before the Russian (re-)invasion and now, somehow, it should be fastracked... This is all the usual murky, dodgy dealings in geopolitics but Europeans have lost their "nose" for propaganda in the media, especially in the West where there is no such thing, right? > because they don't know if he's kidding* We know exactly what their strengths and our strengths are, and they know them, too. Russia is not going to invade the EU/NATO anymore than during the USSR times. Basic common sense, again.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - mopsi 1y ago

Nursie 1y ago

> UK could launch it's nuclear program, it has the scientific background and infrastructure, but surely they wouldn't have a certified, tested weapon within 5 years. As in the other thread (that I see you've now seen) the UK does have an active nuclear weapons program, with an in-progress updated design. It's true that it would need a smaller 'tactical' warhead design for the use-case we're talking about so it would take some time. > How would it be launched? I have no idea, we have certainly reached beyond my competence to hold an opinion here :) It just feels like an odd choice at the current time, to crow about a new capability, but reveal another country is going to hold the keys. especially when the UK does have an active nuclear program. :shrug: