4 ms·
Doubting U.S. resolve, Europe looks to bolster its own nuclear arsenal
- ThrowawayR2 9mo agoSome people wanted a multi-polar world, well, this is what a multi-polar world looks like: the poles start competing, including arms races. "History may not repeat itself but it often rhymes." as they say.
- krunck 9mo agoAny world configuration that consists of large groupings of fear driven people(nations, etc) will includes nukes. That is the world we live in. Unipolar, bipolar, multipolar, makes no difference. The only thing that matters is that all people rise up and demand an end to nuclear weapons.
- ThrowawayR2 9mo agoThe nuclear arms re-proliferation that comes along with a multi-polar world raises the risk of use of nuclear weapons considerably. Even in traditionally anti-nuclear Japan, some politicians are broaching the idea of acquiring nuclear arms. That very much makes a difference.
- epolanski 9mo agoTo be honest the world is likely safer because of the nuclear deterrent. If Pakistan and India both didn't have nuclear weapons you can rest assured they would've long fought an endless stream of wars with tens and tens of millions. They hate each other.
- weregiraffe 9mo ago>Some people wanted a multi-polar world Specifically, the people who are not part of the American mono-pole.
- cco 9mo agoOh? By and large the move to a multi-polar world so far and to be driven by the US.
- wvoch235 9mo agogoing to need to spend a lot more money than currently to support that...
- wnissen 9mo agoPerhaps we didn't realize how much stability the "two powers" model generated. It caused inevitable arms races as the two powers vied to stay competitive, but there were only two. And the USSR was able to de-escalate on its own. If you have three powers, each of them wants the ability to eliminate not one, but both of the others. Could lead to not just incremental, but polynomial expansion of forces. And de-escalation involves multiple parties coordinating, not just one great power.
- mc32 9mo agoThey have many questions to answer. How do they skirt the NPT? If they rely on the UK --which is not an EU country, or even if they rely on France, who makes the call, who has authority and what happens when some country tells France "launch" but France doesn't agree. Do those other countries have guys with the launch codes in assigned siloes?
- cinntaile 9mo ago"Withdrawal Clause: Countries may withdraw with three months' notice if "extraordinary events" jeopardize their supreme interests. " Doesn't seem that hard to leave it.
- fakedang 9mo agoYou just don't ratify it, simple. The US does not ratify treaties all the time, especially now. Coming under the French nuclear umbrella explicitly means that if a country is under extreme threat of nuclear attack, France will 100% retaliate. Unlike the current scenario where even if the country is an EU ally, France can still choose to refuse. Later down the line, France could even choose to delegate nuclear hosting to those countries, like the US does with Turkey and the like. Obviously those nations don't get access to the codes. At the end of the day, everything works on the basis of trust, and while the US has broken its covenant, the EU countries have not, especially not with each other.
- butterknife 9mo agoI would not be so sure with the 100%. France had a mutual defence treaty with Czechoslovakia in 1938. They not only chose not to honor it but U turned all the way and explicitly let Hitler occupy it. Would you trust them in crunch time mere 90 years later?
- browsingonly 9mo agoI think Estonia would be mad to think France will risk Paris to save Tallinn from being occupied.
- wolvoleo 9mo agoFinally. I view this as a much bigger deterrent against a Russian invasion than tanks and boots on the ground. Let's not forget that it was the US that didn't want much nuclear capability in Europe so they offered to protect us with their nuclear umbrella. They strongly objected to Italy's nuclear program for example. Now that the US umbrella can't be relied upon, we will need our own. I do think it's the main reason Europe has been safe since WWII.
- thomassmith65 9mo agoIt's noteworthy that President Macron is less of a suck-up than other world leaders when he discusses Trump. When your nation has nuclear warheads, there's a limit to how far another nation can bully you.
- sjducb 9mo agoThe UK has nukes and sucks up to trump. I think it’s the personality of the leader that matters.
- thomassmith65 9mo agoStarmer likely worries about endangering trade with the US, post-Brexit, and about giving political ammunition to the conservative press and to populists like Farage. I agree that having nukes isn't all that matters.
- epolanski 9mo agoI'm tired of this scaremongering of Russian invasion. Unless we live on another planet Russia can barely fight a war against Ukraine and their military capabilities have been further eroded for decades with insane losses to their personnel, economy and equipment. There is one, and only one country in the world in the position to threaten Europe in any way, and it's our most important ally.
- tester756 9mo ago
- decafninja 9mo agoBased on my rather limited knowledge of French politics, isn’t Macron and his coalition supremely unpopular and just one election away from losing the country to factions that have a distinctly different vision of Europe and France’s role within? Including distancing itself from any pan-European entities and presenting a friendlier face to Russia? Seems like the current French government and many decisions they make between now and then would be lame-ducky and be taken with a grain of salt.
- belval 9mo agoInternally maybe, but Trump has a way to trigger large political movements within countries. Canada was supposed to have a large (historically large) conservative government 3 months before the latest elections, but with Trump in the white house people suddenly want to move away from the right, it's a very interesting effect. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/04/world/canada/global-elections-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/04/world/canada/global-elect... It's not impossible that we will see something similar happen across Europe.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- scrubs 9mo agoAs recently reported on politico.eu, the absolute stupidity of Trump's desire for Canada, Greenland, Venezuela play, his foul ignorant mouth on NATO, and criticism of Euro countries has made him too risky to be associated with. He's becoming radioactive skank on parade bad. For those in the US like me: Trump will be the single largest reason for the rise of popularist left politics here, which we don't need either. Granted like the Marshal Tucker song "I heard it in a love song" ... "can't be wrong" Trump isn't actually popular right. Trump is about vanity and self enrichment.
- honzabe 9mo agoAs a European, I hope Trump 2.0 will do to European Trumpist movements what Brexit did to European anti-EU movements.
- expedition32 9mo agoThere has always been doubt about America's resolve. And not just from Europe also from the Pentagon. The solution was to stage US soldiers and tactical nukes in Western Europe as a living tripwire to force any US president to push the button.
- burnt-resistor 9mo agoUkraine needs nukes. It's the only way to hold the eastern flank of Europe against a madman who only understands 1 language, especially when the world is unable or unwilling to do enough to help them reach a favorable cessation of hostilities deal. In positive developments, Ukraine obliterated over $4.3 billion in air defense assets in the past two weeks and is producing more than 1:1 unjammable fiber optic drones faster for each Z contract-taker mobilized as meat assault fodder.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 9mo agoI'd give them to Taiwan as well.
- burnt-resistor 9mo agoYep. They really need them, delivery vehicles, and submarines.