Should France and the UK share their nuclear weapons with the rest of Europe?

24 points
*

Far right is neck in neck with liberals for couple of months now in UK and France according to polls. Both have single mandate voting districts so it’s a tossup if they won’t have their own Trumps few years down the line unless they cancel elections like in Romania. Not a great outlook, not that great of a plan to rely on wishful thinking. Culturally close countries (Nordics, Baltics states, Eastern Europe) should be working on their nuclear programs ASAP.

permalink
report
reply
21 points

Le Pen has already said, that she does not support French nuclear sharing with Germany. So really the only real option for Germany to get relibale nukes is to not share them, but own them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Doubt that’s gonna happen, there would be huge public opposition in Germany

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Considering WW2 and nazis getting 20% in the last election, we Germans shouldn’t get our own nukes. It’s fine if we get shared ones from our defense partners, but the moment the nazis take over again, the nukes should be gone or deactivated.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

EVERYBODY GETS A NUKE! \(゚∀゚)/

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yaaay!

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Which UK party are you referring to when you say “liberals”?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

Labour, Tories. Both keen on free market economics and austerity. If speaking broadly about EU politics then S&D, EPP and RE are just different faces of neoliberalism. All of them aspire to be perceived as centrist just so that their inhumane economic policies are seen as balanced.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

And I assume that “far right” is UKIP? So you’re saying that UKIP is neck-and-neck with Labour and Conservatives combined?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

UK has American-supplied and maintained nukes so maybe not a great long-term prospect?

permalink
report
reply
13 points

No it doesn’t, only the rockets are from a shared pool the war heads are entirely British.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

That’s still a problem at least in the medium term, because the US control the supply of spare parts for the missiles.

(I won’t mention the possibility of a remote kill switch, because having that on an SLBM would render it useless by design, I hope the UK ruled that out when buying Trident)

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Would a remote killswitch for something aboard a submarine even be technically feasible? Radio waves don’t travel through water very well

permalink
report
parent
reply
49 points
*

Yes, they should. Nuclear deterrence has worked very well so far and the US’s nuclear shield played a very important role in keeping the European NATO countries safe from Russia. France and the UK can’t afford to leave their allies vulnerable like that.

permalink
report
reply
-25 points

Having Nuclear weapons is making your country (and it’s cities) a target in case of a nuclear war. It can act as a deterrence yes, but it is an all in move.

Oh and better not to give Germany nuclear weapons, you guys learned what they did in the past when they had a little more power than normal.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

Looking at the US and Israel I feel like this is a general issue with power tripping people. But looking at our current political climate… I have to agree with you: better keep them away from us :D

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

Not having nuclear weapons makes your country a target before the nuclear war. Also even the Afd would be unlikely to launch nukes for the same reason Putin hasn’t, it’s a suicide pact.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points
*

Isn’t that the reason Nato exists? In case of an invasion from Russia, countries with nuclear weapons will involved… So what the need of nukes exactly? Don’t fuel WW3 guys. Relax with the fucking arms race again.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

In case you missed it, the US just effectively abandoned NATO. What security you think it has, it doesn’t. Which also means you can’t depend on any ally that depends on the US, which is all of them.

No one is calling for an arms race, no one needs a thousand nukes. But the ability to erase the dozen biggest cities of an invader is the only effective deterrent these days.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

In case of a nuclear war everyone is a target.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

This is not how it works. For example as it is, German cities in a case of war with Russia are not targets, because Germany has not nuclear weapons (like Ukraine, but Ukraine is not a Nato member, so no protection with nuclear weapons from Artikel 5).

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

I don’t think that’s necessarily true. And surely the Ukraine war shows that nukes are useful for deterrence. Biden was reluctant to give things to Ukraine (tanks and planes) because he feared escalation from Russia - i.e. the use of tactical nukes.

If Ukraine had nukes, maybe they wouldn’t have been invaded.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points
*

How does this pen out? If those weapons are meant to be used defencively, they have to be second-strike weapons.

This means that Germany needs nuclear submarines because everything else could be hit by Russian nuclear bombs in the assumed Russian attack.

Preparing nuclear weapons on fighter jets only helps to make Germany a target.

France and UK rightfully ask for support for their nuclear weapons program but there is no need to be further involved than financing it.

permalink
report
reply
12 points

Germany has nuclear-capable subs. There was a whole thing about exporting subs to Israel because they might put nukes on them.

Nuclear-powered is a whole other thing. Type 212s can’t dive as long as nuclear subs but it’s definitely sufficient (18 days is publicly known, they probably can do way more), and on the upside they’re way less detectable than nuclear subs which are loud AF due to being powered by steam engines on angry steroids.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The Dolphin submarines for Israel are built bz Germany, but they are different because they’re are to launch nukes. German submarines aren’t equipped with the same size launch tubes. Germany could build such subs though.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points
*

This means that Germany needs nuclear submarines because everything else could be hit by Russian nuclear bombs in the assumed Russian attack.

If Russia were to nuke Germany at the scale necessary to prevent a retaliatory strike, the entire planet would be fucked indefinitely.

France and UK rightfully ask for support for their nuclear weapons program but there is no need to be further involved than financing it.

There is a (not unreasonable) fear that the same brainworms infecting American politicians would take hold under a Nigel Farrage or Marine Le Pen government. In the same vein, an AfD takeover of the German government could mean Germany becomes a rogue state if it controls a nuclear stockpile. But again, in these kinds of scenarios, nuclear weapons don’t benefit anyone.

Even beyond that, what we’re talking about is still ICBMs, which functionally amount to a Space Program. And the EU has been fumbling the bag on advanced aeronautics practically since its inception. They’re trying to guard against the possibility that Russia throws another 400k of its conscripted civilians into a land war along the Carpathian Mountains to what possible end?

And all the while, you’ve got guys like Peter Thiel and Bernard Arnault reigniting a transcontinental strain of white supremacy not seen since Henry Ford whipped the first edition of “Protocols of the Elders Of Zion” off the press. While Europeans scramble to bar the gates against Trumpism/Putinism, the evil shit is leeching straight into their well water.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Even beyond that, what we’re talking about is still ICBMs, which functionally amount to a Space Program. And the EU has been fumbling the bag on advanced aeronautics practically since its inception.

They already have a space program, so it’s more like a new rocket, really.

They’re trying to guard against the possibility that Russia throws another 400k of its conscripted civilians into a land war along the Carpathian Mountains to what possible end?

Is it really only Russia that you folks worry about? Trump wants Greenland. China will eventually want something.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

If European states rebuild a serious modern army, in another twenty years they’ll be bombing one another.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

And the EU has been fumbling the bag on advanced aeronautics practically since its inception.

This is disinformation.

Arianespace pioneered commercial satellite launches and in the 90s peaked at 60% of the market through domestic technology, with the French having developed ICBMs and SLBMs for national security. Meanwhile Airbus drove Northrop and McDonnell-Douglas out of the airliner market and is now out-competing Boeing. And regarding missiles MBDA is competitive as well, with some products like the Meteor leading the way in implementing ramjets.

Jet engines are dominated by the UK and US true, but Safran is still competitive enough to matter (through CFM for commercial or by themselves for military purposes), and although not in the EU Rolls-Royce is much friendlier to cooperation with the EU than American firms.

The EU is currently behind on drones, stealth, and reusable rockets. But that is not indicative of decades-long inability.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Bernard Arnault reigniting a transcontinental strain of white supremacy

Is there anything that links Arnauld to white supremacy? Or do you mean that he indirectly helps white supremacist viewpoints take hold?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Is there anything that links Arnauld to white supremacy?

Other than his constellation of right-wing news journals, including Le Parisien, and Les Echos newspapers, Radio Classique and magazines Challenges and Sciences et Avenir? The guy was literally sharing a table with the Silicon Valley goons at the Trump inauguration.

Or do you mean that he indirectly helps white supremacist viewpoints take hold?

He’s about as indirect as the Adelsons, the Mercers, the Murdochs, or the Cheneys in the US. Dude dumps tons of money into right wing political organizations, media, and activist groups across Europe, particularly with regards to anti-union efforts in and around the fashion industry.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Europe

!europe@feddit.org

Create post

News and information from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don’t overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don’t post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don’t troll nor incite hatred. Don’t look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia’s List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don’t question the statehood of Israel.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add “/s” when you’re being sarcastic (and don’t use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in !yurop@lemm.ee. (They’re cool, you should subscribe there too!)
  8. Don’t evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
  10. Always provide context with posts: Don’t post uncontextualized images or videos, and don’t start discussions without giving some context first.

(This list may get expanded as necessary.)

Posts that link to the following sources will be removed

  • on any topic: RT, news-pravda:com, GB News, Fox, Breitbart, Daily Caller, OAN, sociable:co, citjourno:com, brusselssignal:eu, europesays:com, geo-trends:eu, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons)
  • on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
  • on Hungary: Euronews

Unless they’re the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any “thinktank” type organization, and non-Lemmy social media. Don’t link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com

(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)

Ban lengths, etc.

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don’t show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to any of the mods: @federalreverse@feddit.org, @poVoq@slrpnk.net, or @anzo@programming.dev.

Community stats

  • 8.2K

    Monthly active users

  • 3.4K

    Posts

  • 29K

    Comments