• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

The end of NATO?

Hotdogs

Hotdogs

I don’t care if I hurt your feelings
pilot
Griz882 said:
I used to think of Canada as a noble ally of WWI and WWII but now I’m wondering if one more crack at Quebec might be a better move than Operation Greenland!
Click to expand...

Please tell me you're saying this with sarcasm. The whole Canada, Greenland, and Panama narrative is wildly out of touch. Even as a joke - They are quite possibly the dumbest comments I've ever heard coming from that office - and we all lived through the Bush and Trump 45 years. So that's saying something.
 
Griz882

Griz882

Frightening children with the Griz-O-Copter!
pilot
Contributor
Hotdogs said:
Please tell me you're saying this with sarcasm. The whole Canada, Greenland, and Panama narrative is wildly out of touch. Even as a joke - They are quite possibly the dumbest comments I've ever heard coming from that office - and we all lived through the Bush and Trump 45 years. So that's saying something.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is sarcasm. You needed to read the entire post - it was more about badly behaved tourists than anything else.
 
taxi1

taxi1

Well-Known Member
pilot
Germany’s chancellor-to-be, Friedrich Merz, has said he will reach out to France and Britain to discuss the sharing of nuclear weapons, but cautioned that such a move could not be a replacement for the US’s existing protective shield over Europe.

“The sharing of nuclear weapons is an issue we need to talk about,” Merz said in a wide-ranging interview on Sunday with the broadcaster Deutschlandfunk (DLF). “We have to be stronger together in nuclear deterrence.”

www.theguardian.com

Germany to reach out to France and UK over sharing of nuclear weapons

But Friedrich Merz cautions such a move could not replace the US’s existing protective shield over Europe
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
SynixMan

SynixMan

Mobilizer Extraordinaire
pilot
Contributor
I said it before, but zero doubt in my mind Germany has an unofficial deterrent before the end of 2028. If Ukraine survives in a recognizable fashion, same for them.
 
BigRed389

BigRed389

Registered User
None
Sonog said:
Do most country have access to Uranium ore? It’s pretty damn plentiful right? Industrial capacity is usually the limiting factor beyond treaties, correct?
Click to expand...
It’s pretty plentiful and most modern nations have access through their nuclear power programs. More about how good they are at nuclear technology in general, as in any case you either have to process either raw stuff or make weapons grade plutonium, and that tends to go side by side with how mature your nuke power industry is.

The NPT theoretically binds everybody who plays in nuke power to be inspected to not do nuke weapon stuff, but if freaking N Korea, India and Pakistan in the 90’s could do it, and possibly Israel covertly…

Canada actually has native uranium reserves AND a lot of nuke reactors for their population size.

SynixMan said:
I said it before, but zero doubt in my mind Germany has an unofficial deterrent before the end of 2028. If Ukraine survives in a recognizable fashion, same for them.
Click to expand...

So the thing with the Euros is I think they’d probably more likely go for a pan-European shield. Thinking something more like the Cold War. We still maintain tac nuke deterrence in NATO…that’s a key piece to deterring Russia on the Continent from doing their own nuke escalation. It’s not a big leap for them to do their own cooperative nuke sharing program, leveraging the French program to help them get started, to replace US B61s.
Turkey is a wild card…the EU may be less comfortable with bringing them in (or..Hungary), but have little doubt Erodgan’s had them taking their own steps based on what they’ve been doing with defense and nuclear industrial investment in general.

The Pacific is a bit more of a free for all.
I think Japan will take more unease building about US relations to let go of their cultural hang up about it, even though they could do it.
S Korea, I think is 50/50 of already being at near threshold capability. Due to having a crazy neighbor, they tend to prioritize counter offense. Independent capability has been popular since Trump 45 started to be friendlier with the NorKs. Hell, they already have a submarine with a SLBM.
Taiwan’s got killed in the crib in ‘88 and they are probably like Ukraine - too little too late.
Australia is unlikely. They’ve also historically been very opposed to nukes, and have leaned on having an alliance with us very strongly.
 
taxi1

taxi1

Well-Known Member
pilot
Axios

The flipside: Trump's withdrawal of U.S. support for Kyiv has U.S. allies debating whether to develop their own nukes, rather than depend on Washington.
  • Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Friday that his country would have to explore "opportunities related to nuclear weapons" due to the "profound change of American geopolitics."
  • French President Emmanuel Macron also said last week that he would consult with European allies like Germany about including them under the French nuclear umbrella.
  • Trump's ally-bashing has also turbocharged the debate in South Korea over whether a domestic nuclear program is needed to counter nuclear-armed North Korea.
Some experts fear a new era of nuclearization.
  • "The belief that the United States has no interest in defending allies, which is the conclusion that allies are rapidly and rightly drawing, is very likely to cause proliferation," says James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
  • "I think it's virtually inevitable they will explore their options, and there is a realistic prospect that some of those explorations turn into weapons programs," Acton says, emphasizing that likelihood for South Korea in particular.
 
SynixMan

SynixMan

Mobilizer Extraordinaire
pilot
Contributor
BigRed389 said:
So the thing with the Euros is I think they’d probably more likely go for a pan-European shield. Thinking something more like the Cold War. We still maintain tac nuke deterrence in NATO…that’s a key piece to deterring Russia on the Continent from doing their own nuke escalation. It’s not a big leap for them to do their own cooperative nuke sharing program, leveraging the French program to help them get started, to replace US B61s.
Turkey is a wild card…the EU may be less comfortable with bringing them in (or..Hungary), but have little doubt Erodgan’s had them taking their own steps based on what they’ve been doing with defense and nuclear industrial investment in general.

The Pacific is a bit more of a free for all.
I think Japan will take more unease building about US relations to let go of their cultural hang up about it, even though they could do it.
S Korea, I think is 50/50 of already being at near threshold capability. Due to having a crazy neighbor, they tend to prioritize counter offense. Independent capability has been popular since Trump 45 started to be friendlier with the NorKs. Hell, they already have a submarine with a SLBM.
Taiwan’s got killed in the crib in ‘88 and they are probably like Ukraine - too little too late.
Australia is unlikely. They’ve also historically been very opposed to nukes, and have leaned on having an alliance with us very strongly.
Click to expand...
Very thoughtful response. I’d argue the problem with a European deterrent is command and control. If France controls the codes for weapons in Germany, you are betting your states existence on aid from another state. Will they come to your aid when the chips are down? Are they willing to relinquish control to hosting country who feels an existential threat? Doubtful. So then there would be a SACEUR equivalent with launch authority? Again doubtful.

My chips are on state level deterrent with a loose commitment on usage. France will cover in the short term while Europe arms up.

Keeping a lid on nuclear escalation was a key to the last 80 years of relative peace. We are giving it up for phyrric victories in the culture war.

I’ll agree that having them invites Russia coming in to “de-nuclearize” you. Yet another trap. The better bet for many non NATO countries is to keep it plausible but never admit. Israel has done this. Others will follow.

The Pacific will be another race. Cultural norms be damned, we turned Canada from friend to frenemy in a few weeks.

People forget this is 80 year old technology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top