NATO without the US

[Officer of Engineers]

I wished this is imaginary but the crisis has forced us to think this through.

1) We need to replace the US nuclear deterrence that has covered all of NATO. While the UK and France have nuclear deterrence of their own, it is insufficient to cover the rest of NATO. Would France or the UK trade Paris or London for any city in the Baltic states? Would Moscow believe it? The only answer is to station nukes in the Baltic states.

1a) Would Australia, Japan, or South Korea seek nuclear deterrence of their own?

2) Canada, Italy, and Germany would leave the NPT for no other reason than these 3 countries have the most fissile materials needed to produce 1000s of nukes.

3) The Baltic states would be abandoned. Even with the US, they were never defensible. Their only defence was to station 15 bdes in these states. The Russians would still win over these 15 bdes but in doing so would wreck any future adventures against other NATO members.

4) Poland would become the defacto barrier against Russia. Russia would be stopped at the Polish border or she would die trying to overcome Poland - that is before any nuclear exchange.

 

[Double Edge]

Greetings OOE

2) Canada, Italy, and Germany would leave the NPT for no other reason than these 3 countries have the most fissile materials needed to produce 1000s of nukes.

After successfully reaffirming the NPT by striking Iran, nuclear sites 6 months ago?

No, this is not an option. Terrible.

I have two arguments

1)Trump's posturing has been to get European powers to increase defense spending. This he has achieved by getting them to agree to 5% of GDP

How committed they remain over time to that target is an open question.

2) Pulling out of NATO means loss of US influence in Europe. It also means Euros aren't obligated to purchase arms from the US. That's a major loss to the US arms lobby. Who along with the oil lobby are Trump's two main supporters.

Guess the key question is how captive are the Euros to US arms?

They will be tied for a couple of decades anyway but going forward?

I'd also mention Trump's speech from his first term given in Warsaw around Jun 2017. In support of NATO.

Despite the isolationist talk the one thing I can't see the US give up is influence around the world. If anything the US would like to maintain it.

US influence in Europe went up after Ukraine.
Is going up in the ME with Iran
Is holding in the far east with Trump's targeting of China

The US isn't going anywhere. The US is not in decline. On the contrary. Ready and roaring to go.

Open for business.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Welcome back DE

My thoughts were your position was just posturing until Trump's tariffs on 8 European country for no other reason than these Europeans voice their displeasure. No concrete European opposition other than voicing their opposition. Trump struck the first and sucker punch. Opposition was to be expected but to punish major European powers for simply voicing their displeasure?

And the Europeans are now preparing to push back. The ultimate outcome of this is both Europe and the US go their separate ways, if not to outright war. I don't think Denmark would give up Greenland without a fight, even a military one and we know where European NATO stands.

 

[Double Edge]

After successfully reaffirming the NPT by striking Iran, nuclear sites 6 months ago?

Yes, Iran was in violation of the NPT. Negotiations got no where. In the end the NPT was enforced by the US. As it was previously enforced by Israel on Iraq & Syria.

My only explanation for how the attack on those three countries can be justified is upholding the NPT.

Cheaters never prosper, etc

Extended deterrence holds worldwide.

Life is good

 

[Officer of Engineers]

You have a point.

However, this would not be a violation of the NPT. It would be a legal withdrawl from the NPT as North Korea has done. Iran was trying to cheat under the NPT and Israel was never a member of the NPT.

 

[Double Edge]

My thoughts were your position was just posturing until Trump's tariffs on 8 European country for no other reason than these Europeans voice their displeasure. No concrete European opposition other than voicing their opposition. Trump struck the first and sucker punch. Opposition was to be expected but to punish major European powers for simply voicing their displeasure?

This is about Greenland. Quickly become an opposition rallying point hasn't it. Give it time. With Trump you have to see how things plays out.

And the Europeans are now preparing to push back. The ultimate outcome of this is both Europe and the US go their separate ways, if not to outright war.

Negotiating tactics. He's squeezing everyone. The Euros have nowhere to go. Circa 2019 Macron & Merkel start talking about a euro defence force. That must have set alarm bells going in DC.

Few years later Ukraine begins. NATO gets a new lease of life with the US in pole position.

What happened to that EDF talk. Evaporated.

This is why I find the notion of the US leaving NATO as sounding off key. After Ukraine.

I'm in the weaker position of proving a negative so all I've got is rhetoric.

I don't think Denmark would give up Greenland without a fight, even a military one and we know where European NATO stands.

Can't speak about Greenland. It's a hot potato. Needs time and cooler heads.

I doubt there will be a fight. Just lots of huffing & puffing.

Everything you said about Europe's relations with the US has a bearing on India US relations. It's all come as a rude shock to put it lightly.

We'll deal with it

 

[Officer of Engineers]

That maybe Trump's negotiating stance but without an immediate push back, you let Trump dictate the terms and that, not even India, cannot be allowed.

 

[Double Edge]

However, this would not be a violation of the NPT. It would be a legal withdrawl from the NPT as North Korea has done.

You really believe that?

NPT goes for a toss if Canada, Germany and Italy leave. We are in deep trouble if this happens. Others will join.

Iran was trying to cheat under the NPT and Israel was never a member of the NPT.

If it was as you said why didn't the Islamic Republic withdraw from the NPT?

No doubt their intent was to have a deterrent. Why all the to and fro and subterfuge. Isn't this empirical evidence that you cannot just walk out of the NPT.

Israel is not a member but acting in self interest that is also in the wider interest. Later interventions in both Iraq and Syria were greatly helped by prior Israeli action

 

[Double Edge]

That maybe Trump's negotiating stance but without an immediate push back, you let Trump dictate the terms and that, not even India, cannot be allowed.

Go ahead

As far as India goes, there is no substitute to US market, US investment & US tech.

I'm glad the Indian government hasn't got into some shouting match because that would be counter productive.

I'm sure there are equally compelling arguments for Europe to stay on side.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

You really believe that?

NPT goes for a toss if Canada, Germany and Italy leave. We are in deep trouble if this happens. Others will join.

I think I'm not following you. It's spelled out in the treaty itself that any signatory has the right to withdraw from the NPT. If you're asking whether the NPT would collapse if Canada, Germany, and Italy leaves, I'm not at that point in thinking just yet. Just that in this scenario, NATO without the US, the NATO country has to replace the American nuclear deterrent Alliance wide. While the British 100 nukes and the French 200 nukes maybe enough to deter Moscow from attacking the UK or France, it is not enough to deter the Russians from nuking Latvia. You need to put some nukes in Latvia to deter the Russians. And where are you going to get the nukes from? From the three countries with the most fissile materials: Canada, Germany, and Italy.

If it was as you said why didn't the Islamic Republic withdraw from the NPT?

They need nuclear materials from Russia and China.

No doubt their intent was to have a deterrent. Why all the to and fro and subterfuge. Isn't this empirical evidence that you cannot just walk out of the NPT.

Historically, it's a mess. The former USSR planned to attack Maoist China precisely to enforce the NPT. American Nixon quash that deal. North Korea left the NPT precisely get the nuke but they were deemed decades from it. Of course, decades later, they got it. Israel, South Africa, India, and Pakistan all got the nuke without signing the NPT. Iran is the only one who wants to use the NPT's technology and material access to get the nuke. Canada, German, and Italy, of course, already have the knowhow and the materials

Israel is not a member but acting in self interest that is also in the wider interest. Later interventions in both Iraq and Syria were greatly helped by prior Israeli action

What about South Africa, the UKR, India, and Pakistan?

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Go ahead

As far as India goes, there is no substitute to US market, US investment & US tech.

I'm glad the Indian government hasn't got into some shouting match because that would be counter productive.

I'm sure there are equally compelling arguments for Europe to stay on side.

That's because Trump has not pissed you off yet. He pissed off NATO and China already. You're just not high enough on his radar yet.

 

[Double Edge]

That's because Trump has not pissed you off yet. He pissed off NATO and China already. You're just not high enough on his radar yet.

He has jettisoned two decades of bipartisan hard work building confidence by both sides in matter of weeks.

There is no more strategic trust from India with the US anymore. Same as Europe.

What makes me optimistic is geopolitical imperatives remain unchanged.

US doesn't want dominating powers on either end of the Eurasian landmass

Neither does Europe in its region or India in it's region.

So all three are in agreement

 

[Double Edge]

I think I'm not following you. It's spelled out in the treaty itself that any signatory has the right to withdraw from the NPT.

Sure but not being a lawyer, I suspect the intent of that clause was just to get people to sign up with the disingenuous promise you can leave whenever. And why would you leave. Precisely to build a deterrent.

How well did things go for North Korea after they legally left the NPT.

Sanctioned into the last century. Made an example of. This has the positive side effect of discouraging others from quitting without lengthy deliberation. Preserving the present balance of power equations globally.

As an aside I read somewhere (can't remember where) that to get Sweden to sign on the condition was US nuke umbrella. Which is interesting as this was worked out in the 60s. Decades before Sweden joined NATO.

If you're asking whether the NPT would collapse if Canada, Germany, and Italy leaves, I'm not at that point in thinking just yet.

Well, it's inevitable and then we enter never never land. Precisely what the NPT was designed to prevent.

Just that in this scenario, NATO without the US, the NATO country has to replace the American nuclear deterrent Alliance wide. While the British 100 nukes and the French 200 nukes maybe enough to deter Moscow from attacking the UK or France, it is not enough to deter the Russians from nuking Latvia. You need to put some nukes in Latvia to deter the Russians. And where are you going to get the nukes from? From the three countries with the most fissile materials: Canada, Germany, and Italy.

All correct. But you will open a can of worms in the process

They need nuclear materials from Russia and China.

What nuclear materials in particular.

The Islamic Republic has enough uranium they can mine. If they would have stuck to low enrichment levels for power generation things would have been fine. No?

Historically, it's a mess. The former USSR planned to attack Maoist China precisely to enforce the NPT. American Nixon quash that deal. North Korea left the NPT precisely get the nuke but they were deemed decades from it. Of course, decades later, they got it. Israel, South Africa, India, and Pakistan all got the nuke without signing the NPT. Iran is the only one who wants to use the NPT's technology and material access to get the nuke. Canada, German, and Italy, of course, already have the knowhow and the materials

For a mess it's held remarkably well.

What about South Africa, the UKR, India, and Pakistan?

A good question

I've often wondered why Israel and India never got together to take out Pakistan nuke capacity. Never could find any good reasons. The answer became self evident with some thought.

For India or Israel to say another non NPT signatory cannot possess nuclear weapons is to make the case that neither can India nor Israel possess nuclear weapons.

I really believe it's that simple. If India & Israel want to be nuclear then Pakistan gets a pass.

An attack by Israel /India on Pakistani nuke capacity in turn justifies an attack by any other NPT member on India or Israel. In effect negating the notion there can ever be such a thing as a non NPT member. Pointless. Self defeating.

The US already works out an exception to the NPT for India which also applies to the other two as none will become a foe. So no further action required by the US. Sanctions incoming though. No entry into any tech sharing of significance until the 123 agreement in 2008.

As the 70s wear on Israel avoids NPT sanctions as it becomes and remains a valuable US strategic asset. Further reinforcing it's ambiguous posture. Look, no sanctions hence no nukes.

Ukraine, Kazakhstan & one other SSR surrendered its weapons on the proviso that no P5 member would attack except in self defence. Which is the loophole Russia is using.

South Africa turned out to be a self-resolving problem. Far enough away to not be an immediate threat to anyone significant and then discontinued its covert program.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Sure but not being a lawyer, I suspect the intent of that clause was just to get people to sign up with the disingenuous promise you can leave whenever. And why would you leave. Precisely to build a deterrent.

How well did things go for North Korea after they legally left the NPT.

Sanctioned into the last century. Made an example of. This has the positive side effect of discouraging others from quitting without lengthy deliberation. Preserving the present balance of power equations globally.

As an aside I read somewhere (can't remember where) that to get Sweden to sign on the condition was US nuke umbrella. Which is interesting as this was worked out in the 60s. Decades before Sweden joined NATO.

Well, it's inevitable and then we enter never never land. Precisely what the NPT was designed to prevent.

All correct. But you will open a can of worms in the process

The can of worms is the US leaving NATO.

What nuclear materials in particular.

The Islamic Republic has enough uranium they can mine. If they would have stuck to low enrichment levels for power generation things would have been fine. No?

Computing power and metallurgy: items to miniaturize a uranium bomb into a warhead that would fit onto a missile.

 

[Double Edge]

The can of worms is the US leaving NATO.

Can you make the case how the US benefits from leaving NATO? I'm not that convinced as yet.

Especially after Ukraine. Where we saw how helpless the Euros were without US assistance.

Euros live in la la land. Its quite evident how much their relative power has weakened vis a vis the US. I don't recognise them anymore from what I knew of them back in the 90s. Sad.

Don't rule out a 180 should administration change. So whatever happens if it does is temporary.

Should it remain as is with another Republican then we're in a new world

Computing power and metallurgy: items to miniaturize a uranium bomb into a warhead that would fit onto a missile.

Dual use so it can bypass NPT obligations of Russia & China?

Well it's good US & Israel acted six months back and will in the future if necessary.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Can you make the case how the US benefits from leaving NATO? I'm not that convinced as yet

I cannot make a case why Trump wants Canada and Greenland and yet, here we are. Any action to acquire either would at the very least collapse NATO if not leading to all out war.

Dual use so it can bypass NPT obligations of Russia & China?

Again, Iran is trying to get the tech under the NPT instead of waiting for decades of R&D like the N5, Israel, and India.

 

[Double Edge]

I cannot make a case why Trump wants Canada and Greenland and yet, here we are. Any action to acquire either would at the very least collapse NATO if not leading to all out war.

Ok, what do you make of Friedman's arguments from here



There is always a hidden message in Trump's actions isn't there. Never as literal as it seems

Again, Iran is trying to get the tech under the NPT instead of waiting for decades of R&D like the N5, Israel, and India.

If the regime falls as appears likely then this too will become a self resolving problem

 

[Officer of Engineers]

I'll counter Friedman with Maya Angelou:

"When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time"

 

[rj1]

The can of worms is the US leaving NATO.

My thought is that becomes probable inside 10 years. If it's not Trump it's going to be the politicians after him (that sea shift is tailor-made for Vance). Even for Democrats, it's not like they were comfortable with the U.S. being on the hook for defense everywhere as any student of the younger Bush's and Obama's presidencies can tell you.

I wished this is imaginary but the crisis has forced us to think this through.

1) We need to replace the US nuclear deterrence that has covered all of NATO. While the UK and France have nuclear deterrence of their own, it is insufficient to cover the rest of NATO. Would France or the UK trade Paris or London for any city in the Baltic states? Would Moscow believe it? The only answer is to station nukes in the Baltic states.

1a) Would Australia, Japan, or South Korea seek nuclear deterrence of their own?

2) Canada, Italy, and Germany would leave the NPT for no other reason than these 3 countries have the most fissile materials needed to produce 1000s of nukes.

3) The Baltic states would be abandoned. Even with the US, they were never defensible. Their only defence was to station 15 bdes in these states. The Russians would still win over these 15 bdes but in doing so would wreck any future adventures against other NATO members.

4) Poland would become the defacto barrier against Russia. Russia would be stopped at the Polish border or she would die trying to overcome Poland - that is before any nuclear exchange.

To the bolded in 1: why put them in so fragile a location. Why not stick them other side of the Baltic Sea in Sweden, or significantly more plausibly, western Poland?

To 1a, I can see the U.S. even under a Trumpian world order wanting to have closer relations to Australia, Japan, and South Korea, than to Western and Central Europeans.

3. Probably.

4. Again, probably. Thus why station the nukes in Western Poland. But I don't think the Russians would focus on Poland if the Baltic states were up on offer. Taking Baltic Sea coastline and solidifying your hold on Kaliningrad surely would be the fight you'd pick. Such a conflict similar to Ukraine would be a generational conflict, i.e. they're not doing it over a long weekend in March. Unlike Ukraine I don't think the aid will be close to what it was for Ukraine, especially with no unifying NATO concept.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

My thought is that becomes probable inside 10 years. If it's not Trump it's going to be the next political generation. Even for Democrats, it's not like they were comfortable with the U.S. being on the hook for defense everywhere.

To the bolded in 1: why put them in so fragile a location. Why not stick them other side of the Baltic Sea in Sweden, or significantly more plausibly, western Poland?

...

4. Again, probably. Thus why station the nukes in Western Poland. But I don't think the Russians would focus on Poland if the Baltic states were up on offer. Taking Baltic Sea coastline and solidifying your hold on Kaliningrad surely would be the fight you'd pick.

An obvious nuclear tripwire. Places doubt in the Russian mindset whether we would use them or lose them.