4 ms·

It's about the nukes. Europe doesn't want a world where a lot of countries have nukes so the role of the US in Nato was to provide Europe with a nuclear umbrell

It's about the nukes. Europe doesn't want a world where a lot of countries have nukes so the role of the US in Nato was to provide Europe with a nuclear umbrella. I'm a Swede and something is going on between France and Sweden related to nuclear weapons. Not sure if it's about placing French Rafael fighter jets with French nukes or some type of collaboration about Gripen fighter jets with Swedish nukes.

GJim 8d ago
> It's about the nukes Is the right answer. For all the jingoism being spouted, it would be nice if somebody had a whisper in Mango Mussolinis ear as to why NATO and the post 1945 order was formed, and who benefits from it (hint: all our democracies).
- graemep 8d ago
  NATO was formed to counter the threat of the Soviet Union which no longer exists. Russia is nothing like the same threat to the US that the Soviet Union was. The US is now more concerned about China. Europe was economically and militarily important globally than it now is. Therefore defending it is less important to the US than it used to be, while Asia has become more important to the US. Russia is not even anything like the same threat to Europe that the Soviet Union was. It has been further weakened by the Ukraine war and it will take many years to recover. As for nukes, there are two acknowledged nuclear powers in western Europe.
  - verzali 8d ago
    Does the US really want to be facing a Europe with multiple nuclear powers and thousands of warheads? Europe is a sleeping giant. America has long seen it advantageous to keep the giant sleeping. Now it is dancing around shouting "nee-naw" while the giant slowly opens its eyes.
    - graemep 8d ago
      > Does the US really want to be facing a Europe with multiple nuclear powers and thousands of warheads? Why not? There is no causus belli to fear, and Russia and China already have lots of weapons. Europe is not really a sleeping giant. People here are in denial about the decline of the west (as shown by downvotes) but Europe is simply not the power it used to be. Just look at the GDP of Europe as a a proportion of global GDP. It has been the slowest growing region for decades.
      - nremty 8d ago
        Hence "sleeping".
        kelipso 8d ago
        It’s going to be very sleepy even after it wakes up.
        graemep 8d ago
        and no giant.
        rayiner 8d ago
        A young man and an old man taking a nap are both "sleeping," but one has his life ahead of him and the other is in his twilight. Europe is the latter.
  - r721 8d ago
    >The US is now more concerned about China. Ah, that's why "U.S. pulls last aircraft carrier in Asia" :) https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/u-s-pulls-last-aircraft-carrier-in-asia-as-trump-focuses-on-iran-and-the-western-hemisphere https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/u-s-pulls-last-aircraft-c...
    - pjc50 8d ago
      Yeah, recent events have clarified how much Israel and Saudi (and Bahrain, Jordan etc) are real defense priorities for the US. Expended a lot of Patriot interceptors and lost several aircraft on the ground including an incredibly expensive E-3 Sentry.
      - GJim 8d ago
        > recent events have clarified how much Israel and Saudi (and Bahrain, Jordan etc) are real defense priorities for the US. And why might that be? Presumably because the USA decided to start a pointless war in the middle east?
        pjc50 8d ago
        Yes. The real priorities are not the stated priorities because the administration is lying and/or making extremely poor decisions.
    - graemep 8d ago
      Its not the last aircraft carrier in Asia, as there are three in the Indian Ocean. It is also a failure, not a policy, and if the US is struggling in more important regions its all the more reason to pull back from Europe.
    - laughing_man 6d ago
      There's no active war in the Far East, at least for the US. Of course you bring mobile assets to where the fighting is right now.
swat535 8d ago
> It's about the nukes. Europe doesn't want a world where a lot of countries have nukes so the role of the US in Nato was to provide Europe with a nuclear umbrella. If anything, it has been proven that unless you have nuclear weapons, your country is at risk of being attacked by nations that have them. Ukraine learned this the hard way, so did many other countries in the Middle East and elsewhere.
- pseudohadamard 7d ago
  In its defence, Sweden does have lutfisk, that's a pretty potent deterrent. Not quite as nasty as Norway's strategic surstromming stockpile, but still enough to deter invaders.

GJim 8d ago

> It's about the nukes Is the right answer. For all the jingoism being spouted, it would be nice if somebody had a whisper in Mango Mussolinis ear as to why NATO and the post 1945 order was formed, and who benefits from it (hint: all our democracies).

graemep 8d ago
NATO was formed to counter the threat of the Soviet Union which no longer exists. Russia is nothing like the same threat to the US that the Soviet Union was. The US is now more concerned about China. Europe was economically and militarily important globally than it now is. Therefore defending it is less important to the US than it used to be, while Asia has become more important to the US. Russia is not even anything like the same threat to Europe that the Soviet Union was. It has been further weakened by the Ukraine war and it will take many years to recover. As for nukes, there are two acknowledged nuclear powers in western Europe.
- verzali 8d ago
  Does the US really want to be facing a Europe with multiple nuclear powers and thousands of warheads? Europe is a sleeping giant. America has long seen it advantageous to keep the giant sleeping. Now it is dancing around shouting "nee-naw" while the giant slowly opens its eyes.
  - graemep 8d ago
    > Does the US really want to be facing a Europe with multiple nuclear powers and thousands of warheads? Why not? There is no causus belli to fear, and Russia and China already have lots of weapons. Europe is not really a sleeping giant. People here are in denial about the decline of the west (as shown by downvotes) but Europe is simply not the power it used to be. Just look at the GDP of Europe as a a proportion of global GDP. It has been the slowest growing region for decades.
    - nremty 8d ago
      Hence "sleeping".
      - kelipso 8d ago
        It’s going to be very sleepy even after it wakes up.
        graemep 8d ago
        and no giant.
      - rayiner 8d ago
        A young man and an old man taking a nap are both "sleeping," but one has his life ahead of him and the other is in his twilight. Europe is the latter.
- r721 8d ago
  >The US is now more concerned about China. Ah, that's why "U.S. pulls last aircraft carrier in Asia" :) https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/u-s-pulls-last-aircraft-carrier-in-asia-as-trump-focuses-on-iran-and-the-western-hemisphere https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/u-s-pulls-last-aircraft-c...
  - pjc50 8d ago
    Yeah, recent events have clarified how much Israel and Saudi (and Bahrain, Jordan etc) are real defense priorities for the US. Expended a lot of Patriot interceptors and lost several aircraft on the ground including an incredibly expensive E-3 Sentry.
    - GJim 8d ago
      > recent events have clarified how much Israel and Saudi (and Bahrain, Jordan etc) are real defense priorities for the US. And why might that be? Presumably because the USA decided to start a pointless war in the middle east?
      - pjc50 8d ago
        Yes. The real priorities are not the stated priorities because the administration is lying and/or making extremely poor decisions.
  - graemep 8d ago
    Its not the last aircraft carrier in Asia, as there are three in the Indian Ocean. It is also a failure, not a policy, and if the US is struggling in more important regions its all the more reason to pull back from Europe.
  - laughing_man 6d ago
    There's no active war in the Far East, at least for the US. Of course you bring mobile assets to where the fighting is right now.

swat535 8d ago

> It's about the nukes. Europe doesn't want a world where a lot of countries have nukes so the role of the US in Nato was to provide Europe with a nuclear umbrella. If anything, it has been proven that unless you have nuclear weapons, your country is at risk of being attacked by nations that have them. Ukraine learned this the hard way, so did many other countries in the Middle East and elsewhere.

pseudohadamard 7d ago
In its defence, Sweden does have lutfisk, that's a pretty potent deterrent. Not quite as nasty as Norway's strategic surstromming stockpile, but still enough to deter invaders.