I fully agree. We need a discussion about European nuclear weapons. And yes, sadly that will likely mean the end of the nonproliferation regime, but that is the consequence of American withdrawal.
Reposted from
Corporal Frisk
And finally, there's no getting around nukes. Europe need nukes. Again, the positive thing is that while nukes are difficult, they aren't impossible (it is after all a 1940's invention, with many of the features we now associate with nukes having come in the 1950's).
Comments
Arguably, the failure to defend Ukraine in 2014 ended the non-proliferation regime.
As certain Ukrainian oligarch famously said, "you have to make quick sound decisions".
We have been under nuclear threat in Europe since the Cold War has begun; why should we continue to abide if our ally is turning us its back?
It does in my book.
It will get more with nukes and qualified majority voting on FP & defence.
Dette kan ikke vente.
Udvind uran i Grønland til atomubåde, atomvåben, strøm og fjernvarme.
Voila!
Forsvar og grøn omstilling på ét budget.
Grønland kan ikke både føle sig snydt for kryolit (det blev de ikke) og samtidig blokere for uranudvinding og samtidig få forsvar.
Nu er der milliarder til Grønland hvis de vil.
Omvendt, så er det meget svært at sige nej, og samtidigt bede om bloktilskud.
Og hvis det er bloktilskuddet, der er pressionsmidlet fra Danmarks side, er der andre der vil overbyde os massivt på dét punkt for at komme ind i Grønland, tror jeg.
Ingen steder.
Grønland har været SINDSYGT heldige med, at have været en dansk koloni.
I absolut INGEN andre scenarier havde de ikke været så selvstændige som de er nu.
Man kan dog også udvinde uran af havvand.
Så er der da én grund til at bygge en atomenergiø i Nordsøen…
Og jeg tror ikke, at de nødvendigvis ser sig som "heldige". Måske har de bare fået en af de mindre slemme kolonimagter.
Even if Ukraine had nukes, it would not have stopped Russia from invading. Having nukes is one thing. Actually using them and surviving is a completely different matter.
"The only winning move is not to play".
The war was supposed to take 3 days, remember. Dictators judgements are not the best.
Explain how his makes sense in defence economics terms ? (One nuke is a *lot* of drones, and more credible drones would be deployed against salami attacks)
Delivery is another matter, of course, but airplanes worked 80 years ago.
The world is not safer today.
Multiply the risk of failed c&c * the number of nuclear armed states.
Multiply the risk of an irrational head of state * the number of nuclear armed states.
The world is not safer post Pax Americana.
One little nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day.
Average kamikaze drone is, all in all, more efficient and long-ranged than a tank or a howitzer.
As for the F-35, it's too expensive to be over-produced. And the main change there is the new guided aerial weapons that require much less fighter jets than in the 1970s.
Missiles didn't make tanks or fighters obsolete and neither has drones.
They have only made the battlefield even more complex and deadly.
France... Will Macron risk Paris for Talinn or Helsinki? Also, Bardella could become president.
We need a Nordic-Baltic solution.
This is also an argument Ukraine should use for NATO membership. We need a permanent security architecture, not temporal agreements