NATO without the US

A more likely scenario (consistent with Trump's behavior so far) is that Trump will try to maintain NATO as a means of selling American weapons and putting pressure on members, while making it an empty shell (no guarantee of intervention). A rotten situation that could last for decades, as long as some of the NATO members still hope the US will protect them.
Trump leaving officially NATO sounds too straightforward to me, even if I suggested it some time ago (https://worldaffairsboard.com/index...hip-for-sweden-and-finland.47906/post-1610197), but it could happen after an open crisis about, say, Greenland.

so what can replace US nuclear deterrence for the whole of NATO ?

I think that French / British deterrence could extend to Germany and Italy, maybe Norway and Denmark. Beyond that, I'm not sure.
So there would be attempts from the eastern allies to get nuclear protection from UK/France. And attempts from Russia and the US to prevent that.
That would be a very sensitive matter in domestic policy for all the countries involved,depending on the affinities of the parties in power.

I can't imagine Germany leaving the NPT. The anti-nuclear opinion is too strong (even for civilian use) and Germany could count on the French / British deterrence.

I can't imagine either countries like Poland, the Czech Republic or Romania developping an independent deterrence force, that is why they will probably cling desperately to the US protection unless UK or France makes a bold move.
On the other hand, neither UK nor France would wish that any other European country leaves the NPT...

As for Canada, I'm afraid the only way would be to exit NPT and develop their own deterrence, which would obviously upset a trumpified US.
 
The problem is the number of bomb factories and the raw materials, NATO would need at least 600 nukes, preferably 1000. France and the UK currently have 300. That's enough for nuclear deterrence of the UK and France but nowhere near needed to defend the rest of NATO. France and the UK can produce 20-30 nukes each per year. That's not including the delivery vehicles. You will need the other countries to step up to make the delivery vehicles.

Canada will rely on the US because for no other reason, the US cannot allow another country to attack North America but if Canada wants NATO to survive, she has no choice but to commit to NATO's nuclear deterrence.
 
Officer of Engineers said:
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.
Click to expand...
To answer the highlighted section. In the short to medium term probably not since none of the countries named including Australia are signatories to NATO and to the extent they receive protection under the US's nuclear triad it's via a different set of treaties. So in the first instance a US withdrawal from NATO wouldn't necessarily have any immediate impact. All of this is of course conditional on the US 'pivot' towards Asia continuing and since it's not mentioned in the scenario being discussed my assumption would be that the pivot does continue if for no other reason other than the Trump Administration still supports it. That and the fact that despite all of Trump's diatribes to the contrary the US economy is deeply dependent on access to foreign markets for continued growth and prosperity so going completing isolationist from the rest of the world is a non starter.

The second point I would suggest has been ignored is the boost in European defense spending. Assuming it continues as planned and given the parlous nature of Russia's conventional armed forces forces and economy post Ukraine? Russia is simply not in a position to seriously threat Western Europe with invasion and won't be for perhaps up to a decade. And by the time it is? Current projections for European armed forces troop numbers and equipment levels mean any such invasion would likely stall and eventually be repulsed anyway.

I can however see the major European powers giving serious consideration to expanding their domestic nuclear options. Not enormously and the political objections would be loud and long but a limited number of ground & air launched intermediate range nuclear warheads (say three hundred or so) would provide extra deterrence against Russian threats of nuclear blackmail. The big problem wouldn't be building them it would be deciding who is in the command and control loop and who has the authority to launch.
 
Last edited:
Officer of Engineers said:
I'll counter Friedman with Maya Angelou:

"When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time"
Click to expand...
Ah, so that's who said it

I've heard that quote recently a number of times from Israeli commentators. Thing is they are referring to Hamas reps ie. adversaries.

It's a bit of a stretch to consider Trump as one. Don't you think. At the same time Trump is a man who says what he means and does what he says. Just that in this discussion I think there are limits even for him.

Trump has the madman act down to a fine art. Whatever trick to get leverage in a negotiation. Why waste effort going down unnecessary rabbit holes with his misdirects.

Friedman questions the basis of your two premises. That you then use to say what if NATO without US. I don't know if Friedman is right but it's food for thought. To be seen what other right wing American commentators have to say about Trump's posturing.

For what it's worth several years ago, well before Ukraine. I questioned the very rationale for the existence of NATO post cold war.

NATO sprung up to counter a then Soviet Union. Post SU what purpose does NATO serve?

You disagreed. Can't remember your answer but something to the effect GWOT was well served with nato and such an organisation was good to have around for collective defense in an increasingly unpredictable world.

These days Trump is the biggest cause for this future uncertainty. He seems determined to rewrite the present post WW2 Bretton Woods order. To what?

The preceeding era of great power competition. An NSS in his previous administration said we were entering such an era. Spheres of influence that become Spheres of responsibility (Donroe doctrine) which then lead to the establishment of protectorates (Greenland?). He's taking his cues out of the British 19th century playbook.

Era in question is 1815 to WW1. The US military alone in such an environment is good enough or will be to secure US interests globally. Similar to how the Royal Navy + Indian Army did back then in the Indian ocean. Venezuela is a recent example of gun boat diplomacy.

So does the US need NATO in the future ? You can see how he makes a credible case and then starts hardballing.

Trump's issue not unlike previous US presidents is NATO isn't capable per him with current spending. So he threatens to leave. German kids get to play video games but its upto American kids to go over and die to save them.

Think about it. Your neck of the woods. Artic ice clears up. What does he mean that Russia & China will come over and take Greenland. If the EU per you is ready to threaten war over similar American intentions then it follows the same applies to the other two as well.

So Trump's stated rationale why the US wants Greenland is completely bogus. So what is Trump really saying and why. Taking it at face value like you are doing here isn't enough.

What sort of test is this and is the present EU stance exactly what he is looking for. If the EU has enough balls to stands up to him then it's good enough to handle Russia and China?
 
Last edited:
Nice to see you back @Double Edge.

Just to clarify, are you still claiming that Russia is "liberating" Ukraine?
 
Monash said:
The big problem wouldn't be building them it would be deciding who is the command and control loop and who has the authority to launch.
Click to expand...
I fully agree. I ever fear that this problem is unsolvable and will encourage many eastern members to cling to American protection until the very end and beyond.

I'm no expert but I suppose that such a thing as nuclear deterrence can not be entrusted to a collective body. The threat has to remain credible with a very rapid response.
I don't think any NATO member will be able or willing to build a nuclear arsenal from scratch.
That leaves France and UK.
Both of them will refuse that any other nation takes place in the command / control / authority matter that you mention, regarding weapons that they alone can build and maintain. No country would accept that.

And that subject seems to be taboo in Poland, too. Polish Foreign Minister R Sikorski was interviewed in a French newspaper published today (L'Express)
Q. "Could French nuclear deterrence be an interesting option for Poland"
A. "We are not considering that possibility"
(OK, maybe there is a secret langage in nuclear deterrence matters, and this answer may not be what it seems)

So what can we imagine ?
France or UK sells nuclear weapons to Germany, Poland or Sweden ?
The European Union becaomes a real federation with a real army that in some way acquires nuclear weapons ?
 
The question has already been asked and answered. Legally and politically, dual release. The country that produced the nukes own the nukes. However, another country can own the delivery vehicles be it bombers, missiles, destroyers, etc. Both capitals MUST gives its ok before the nuke can be delivered onto target.

In practice, the release authority is given to the tactical commander, he has full authority to when and how to deploy the nuke. Using 4CMBG as the example. Ottawa owned the HONEST JOHN rockets. Washington DC owned the nukes, Once nuclear release authority was granted to CINCEUR, so was delivery authority. CINCEUR in turn granted 4Bde Colonel release authority of both nuke and delivery vehicles. 4Bde's Colonel decides when and how to use his nukes.

But the problem is time. Without additional bomb factories other than the UK and France, NATO cannot accomplish enough bombs to deter the Russians in time.
 
Double Edge said:
So Trump's stated rationale why the US wants Greenland is completely bogus. So what is Trump really saying and why. Taking it at face value like you are doing here isn't enough.
Click to expand...

And yet, we have reports that Trump is exactly what he says at face value and behind the scene. No talk of further goals but exactly what he says he wants

 
www.nbcnews.com

Doubting U.S. resolve, Europe looks to bolster its own nuclear arsenal

The discussions have taken on new urgency as President Trump escalates his criticism of Europe. Germany and Poland already have suggested France’s nuclear weapons could be expanded to defend their countries.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
Click to expand...

A former senior U.S. official said France and the U.K. lack the firepower to deter Russia on their own, dismissing the idea as “ridiculous.” Their nuclear stockpiles are “pitiful,” the official said, as they have not maintained it for several decades and relied on the U.S. nuclear umbrella.
Click to expand...
 
Officer of Engineers said:
And yet, we have reports that Trump is exactly what he says at face value and behind the scene. No talk of further goals but exactly what he says he wants

Click to expand...
Well, we were talking military options earlier. Now he has taken military off the table. Does your opener still apply?

Also, no bluff was called because there was no bluff to begin with. If you go with Friedman's phrasing.

Wish the article went into 'why'. The 'what' as explained does not take us very far

As a Danish territory, the island is already a member of NATO and the United States maintains a military base there.

A 1951 agreement between Denmark and the United States allows the U.S. military free access to the territory to defend Greenland or other NATO territories — something experts say already gives Washington the ability to send additional troops to Greenland.
Click to expand...
The US already has freedom of movement in Greenland. What more is lacking that acquisition wholesale of Greenland is needed.

And here's the thing. Russia & China don't have that access. It's debatable whether they even need it given Russia's long coastline. When has Russia ever said they wanted Greenland

I'm not believing his stated rationale.
 
"A former senior U.S. official said France and the U.K. lack the firepower to deter Russia on their own, dismissing the idea as “ridiculous.”

And he 'knows' this how? Does anyone really think that either France or Britain would be so negligent to let their limited but extremely expensive nuclear deterrent fall into disrepair after spending billions of USD each on the subs and other subsystems needed to create it in the first place?
 
Last edited:
Monash said:
"A former senior U.S. official said France and the U.K. lack the firepower to deter Russia on their own, dismissing the idea as “ridiculous.” Their nuclear s"

And he 'knows' this how? Does anyone really think that either France or Britain would be so negligent to let their limited but extremely expensive nuclear deterrent fall into disrepair after spending billions of USD each on the subs and other subsystems needed to create it in the first place?
Click to expand...
He's refering to numbers. Both France and the UK had 520-540 warheads at one time. Now, they're down to 290 and 240 respectively, compared to the Russian 4300+. In the case of the UK, she has forego aircraft and missile delivery systems and relied solely on SLBMs. With the stated 3 nukes per target, the Russians have more than enough to ensure a first strike, 2nd and 3rd strike.
 
Double Edge said:
Well, we were talking military options earlier. Now he has taken military off the table. Does your opener still apply?

Also, no bluff was called because there was no bluff to begin with. If you go with Friedman's phrasing.

Wish the article went into 'why'. The 'what' as explained does not take us very far


The US already has freedom of movement in Greenland. What more is lacking that acquisition wholesale of Greenland is needed.

And here's the thing. Russia & China don't have that access. It's debatable whether they even need it given Russia's long coastline. When has Russia ever said they wanted Greenland

I'm not believing his stated rationale.
Click to expand...
Hi DE, did you happen to notice my question above? Do you still think that Russia is "liberating" Ukraine?
 
Officer of Engineers said:
He's refering to numbers. Both France and the UK had 520-540 warheads at one time. Now, they're down to 290 and 240 respectively, compared to the Russian 4300+. In the case of the UK, she has forego aircraft and missile delivery systems and relied solely on SLBMs. With the stated 3 nukes per target, the Russians have more than enough to ensure a first strike, 2nd and 3rd strike.
Click to expand...

After the first salvo? Who cares? Between them France & England have a more than 500 warheads. That's Moscow, St Petersburg and the 20 next biggest cities in Russia all gone with plenty left over to destroy the country's electricity network and oil refineries etc. Russia knows this. Apparently the moron making the comment doesn't. The idea of deterrence is to make the cost of launching too high to be worth the price you pay and you reach that point long before you get to where you've killed every last citizen living inside your opponents border.
 
Last edited:
Again, at 3 nukes per target, at 500 warheads, the Russians simply can target 1500 warheads in a first strike scenario and you don't know what nukes would survive to make a retaliatory strike.
 
Officer of Engineers said:
Again, at 3 nukes per target, at 500 warheads, the Russians simply can target 1500 warheads in a first strike scenario and you don't know what nukes would survive to make a retaliatory strike.
Click to expand...

If Russia can find the exact locations of Britain and France's SBBNs while on patrol? The US should be very, very worried.
 
So, instead of attacking British and French targets, the Russians nuke the Baltic states? Would the French trade Latvia for Paris? Do note, not all of NATO is begging to be included in the French and British nuclear umbrellas. What about those targets? The ones who did not asked?

Bear in mind, the French have not extend their nuclear umbrella and British only extend theirs to Denmark.
 
Officer of Engineers said:
So, instead of attacking British and French targets, the Russians nuke the Baltic states? Would the French trade Latvia for Paris? Do note, not all of NATO is begging to be included in the French and British nuclear umbrellas. What about those targets? The ones who did not asked?

Bear in mind, the French have not extend their nuclear umbrella and British only extend theirs to Denmark.
Click to expand...
And what does nuking the Baltic States get Russia? Especially since apparently the idea in the first place is to occupy them? Drop atomic weapons on them? And your literally destroying everything that made them valuable in the first place while leaving the bulk of (new ) NATO's military power intact. Then of course you have to deal with the global non-military (political and economic) fallout your decision to use nuclear weapons would entail. At best you get the clean up bill for a 'conquest' that has cost you your access to international trade for a generation.
 
*** Looking at the UKR *** When has that stopped Russia? You're talking about a country that celebrates burning its own crops against Napoleon and Hitler.

Recalling the Cold War days when the Czechs planned to march on France with 60 nukes, 30 small yield nukes would render any defence mute while limiting each strike to a 2 km radius damage. We're not talking the 120 kt bombs but the 5 kt bombs.
 
Officer of Engineers said:
*** Looking at the UKR *** When has that stopped Russia? You're talking about a country that celebrates burning its own crops against Napoleon and Hitler.

Recalling the Cold War days when the Czechs planned to march on France with 60 nukes, 30 small yield nukes would render any defence mute while limiting each strike to a 2 km radius damage. We're not talking the 120 kt bombs but the 5 kt bombs.
Click to expand...
The basic problem with your argument is that the same problem applies even with the US as a member of NATO. If you question whether the UK or France would use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack by Russia on the Baltic States (your example) how certain can anyone be that (assuming it was still a member of NATO) the US would respond to a nuclear attack on say Berlin or perhaps even Toronto with nuclear weapons?

My argument is that beyond deterring an attack by the US/NATO proactive use of nuclear weapons doesn't gain a great deal for the user because even if you win? You have to bare the clean up cost. The advantage of having nukes is that they deter anyone from nuking you. Outside of that? They're terrible as a means of conquering territory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top