NATO without the US

[Monash]

The problem for Europe is metal including everything from vehicles to aircraft to satellites and of course magazine depth. About the only areas where the Europeans have a distinct advantage over Russia is surface naval warfare and maybe to a lesser degree air power. They have the capacity to become independent of the US for military support but it will be a generational process (well a decade long one if your just talking about getting the basics right). Russia on the other hand isn't it a position to threaten anyone with invasion for the foreseeable future so it's all going to come down to a) How serious and committed all the main European players in NATO are to upping their game and how quickly they can come to a consensus as to how much or what is needed where and even more importantly who pays for and operates it.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Moldova is under threat

NATO's ability to deter Russia has taken a hit with trans-Atlantic infighting

NATO's ability to deter Russia has taken a huge hit as trust within the alliance erodes

abcnews.go.com

 

[rj1]

Been a while. Keep getting sidetracked. Here is the Gunny's thoughts.

The thread is NATO without the US. Flip it around and tell me "What is the US without NATO?" . Specifically all the bases we use in Europe and throw Diego Garcia in for good measure

We are presently seeing the US having a bit of a problem with Iran. And one of the reasons we haven't struck yet is because the Saudis and the UAE have ruled out the use of their bases and airspace by US forces against Iran.

So imagine the US trying to project force in the Med without Rota, Naples, Sigonella, Souda Bay, Gaeta.

Imagine trying to move troops and equipment to the Middle East or the Far East without our air bases in Europe. The air refuelers will need to have air refuelers to make the trip

When it comes to nukes, its not a big deal. Tactical Nukes pretty much went out in the late 80s. We have Thermobaric and ICM rounds that can do
the same damage without releasing the nuclear genie.

You use FAE when you have a tactical problem on the battlefield. You use Nukes when you are in a F U nobody gets to use it anymore

There's nothing stopping the U.S. from picking and choosing countries in Europe in such a scenario to enjoy a status similar to the current "major non-NATO ally" status. I'd expect it actually. The UK almost certainly would be one because look at UK defense and finances currently, which gets us access to Diego Garcia and also the British sovereign bases in Cyprus from which we could reach the Middle East. Italy would make sense strategically for its spot on the Mediterranean and if based there you could reach North Africa. If we wanted to retain force structure in Europe, I'm sure Poland would welcome us with open arms because Eastern Europe are in NATO for the U.S., not for the other members.

 

[rj1]

Moldova is under threat

NATO's ability to deter Russia has taken a hit with trans-Atlantic infighting

NATO's ability to deter Russia has taken a huge hit as trust within the alliance erodes

abcnews.go.com

Kind of amazes me throughout this war that Transnistria, this thin strip of land between de facto Moldova and Ukraine, has just been sitting there. They've done nothing, and the Moldovans and Ukrainians have done nothing.

 

[Gun Grape]

There's nothing stopping the U.S. from picking and choosing countries in Europe in such a scenario to enjoy a status similar to the current "major non-NATO ally" status. I'd expect it actually. The UK almost certainly would be one because look at UK defense and finances currently, which gets us access to Diego Garcia and also the British sovereign bases in Cyprus from which we could reach the Middle East. Italy would make sense strategically for its spot on the Mediterranean and if based there you could reach North Africa. If we wanted to retain force structure in Europe, I'm sure Poland would welcome us with open arms because Eastern Europe are in NATO for the U.S., not for the other members.

Then you have to negotiate overflight rights for the rest of Europe. Or every mission from England becomes a Operation El Dorado Canyon to avoid NATO /EU airspace.

Why would any NATO country agree to have us operate bases in their country after we say we will not come to their defense and leave NATO?

 

[Monash]

Then you have to negotiate overflight rights for the rest of Europe. Or every mission from England becomes a Operation El Dorado Canyon to avoid NATO /EU airspace.

Why would any NATO country agree to have us operate bases in their country after we say we will not come to their defense and leave NATO?

GG I'm sure the Trump Administration will have no problem replacing NATO's European members with loyal, reliable and stable partnerships in places like Morocco, Algeria, Chad, Egypt or Sudan etc. She'll be right!

 

[kato]

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.

There is some discussion recently within both current government parties about nuclear weapons in case the US leaves. Although mostly by the usual rightwingers, like CDU defense specialist Roderich Kiesewetter. There's also some Bundeswehr generals in favour of it btw. The argument these people bring forward against nuclear sharing of French nukes is (long-term) a possible future election win in France by Marine Le Pen.

From the German perspective the problem isn't leaving NPT itself, but as a consequence also withdrawing from the 2+4 Treaty, i.e. the "settlement in place of" a peace treaty for WW2. People lobbying in favour of nuclear armament therefore tend to propose an alliance-owned nuclear arsenal instead.

Regarding anti-nuclear opinion, there were surveys run in recent times - in particular in mid-2025 in light of the Iran-Israel War. While overall 72% of Germans oppose Germany owning nuclear weapons, among young people (age group 18-24) it's rather the opposite, with 54% in favour. There may be some movement in overall opinion in one or two decades therefore.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-france-europe-nuclear-weapons-9.7089805

The problem again is numbers. 500 nukes simply cannot cover all of European NATO (let alone including Canada) against the Russian 4200+. Again, the question is, would Moscow believe the French would trade Ottawa for Marseilles?

And the entire problem now is that there is doubt Trump would trade New York for Berlin.

 

[Monash]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-france-europe-nuclear-weapons-9.7089805

The problem again is numbers. 500 nukes simply cannot cover all of European NATO (let alone including Canada) against the Russian 4200+. Again, the question is, would Moscow believe the French would trade Ottawa for Marseilles?

And the entire problem now is that there is doubt Trump would trade New York for Berlin.

You don't need to match Russia's nuclear weapon stockpile or even get anywhere near close to it. You just need enough nuclear weapons to deter it from attacking because what you do have is enough to cause unacceptable losses for Russia. 500 nuclear weapons would be enough to kill everyone in the 20 largest cities in Russia and decapitate critical infrastructure across the country plunging the entire country back to early 20th century living standards. The fact Russia could glass Europe in return won't bring bring it's own people, cities or its infrastructure back to life.

For that matter 4500 nuclear weapons is way more than Russia needs to defend itself from attack and represents a significant over investment in that arm of it's military and hence wasted money. (Unless of course its nukes or the missiles they're sitting on have such low readiness & reliability levels that they have to have 3 missiles on hand just to make sure one will actually launch successfully, reach it's target and detonate!)

 

[Officer of Engineers]

You don't need to match Russia's nuclear weapon stockpile or even get anywhere near close to it.

You're not going to get 500 warheads in response. Not after a Russian first strike. In fact, the Russians can commit 4000 warheads just to take out British and French nukes and still have 200+ left for city busting.

But again, that's not the issue. The issue is would France trade Marseilles for Ottawa? The current answer is no.

 

[Monash]

You're not going to get 500 warheads in response. Not after a Russian first strike. In fact, the Russians can commit 4000 warheads just to take out British and French nukes and still have 200+ left for city busting.

But again, that's not the issue. The issue is would France trade Marseilles for Ottawa? The current answer is no.

Russia Still loses Moscow, St Petersburg and a couple of others on its 'Top 10 Largest Cities List". But yes nuclear command and control is a problem NATO isn't set up to handle absent the US so the best option is probably with missiles distributed amongst and owned by the say top 4 or 5 major members. Say Germany, France, the UK, & Poland each with it's own separate Nuclear Command structure a round table of of launch commanders. To say this arrangement would not be 'ideal' would be putting it mildly but nuking other non-nuclear members becomes problematic given their geographical closeness to nuclear weapon wielding members

No one is going to Nuke Ottawa BTW it would be a waste of a bomb.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Russia Still loses Moscow, St Petersburg and a couple of others on its 'Top 10 Largest Cities List". But yes nuclear command and control is a problem NATO isn't set up to handle absent the US so the best option is probably with missiles distributed amongst and owned by the say top 4 or 5 major members. Say Germany, France, the UK, & Poland each with it's own separate Nuclear Command structure a round table of of launch commanders. To say this arrangement would not be 'ideal' would be putting it mildly but nuking other non-nuclear members becomes problematic given their geographical closeness to nuclear weapon wielding members

That's the point. There isn't enough nukes to go around and even then, would the non-nuclear carrying states be protected? Would the Russians believe it? Cold War Days, the largest users of American nukes were the Germans and the Canadians. For good reason. The Americans were thoroughly invested in their defence by releasing nukes to allied commands.

But again, France is only in the starting stages to talk to Poland and Germany. No other country is invited to talk about French nuke coverage. As of now, even Berlin is not under French coverage.

No one is going to Nuke Ottawa BTW it would be a waste of a bomb.

Ottawa is a major NORAD and NATO communications hub. If nukes are going to fly, you'd be stupid to leave Ottawa (any NATO capital for that matter) off the target list.

 

[Gun Grape]

If its true, Trump is finding out just what leaving NATO actually means

Pentagon blocked from using UK bases in potential Iran strike​

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5748731-starmer-refuses-trump-iran/

The United Kingdom has blocked a request by the U.S. to use the country’s bases for a potential strike on Iran, according to multiple British media reports.

The decision by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, first reported by The Times, was reportedly made due to concerns that such action could violate international law.


President Trump had requested that the U.S. be allowed to use the facilities at Diego Garcia and Royal Air Force Base Fairford in Gloucestershire, the European hub for America’s fleet of heavy bombers, the outlet reported.

It comes as Trump has escalated pressure on Iran over its nuclear program, warning of “unfortunate” consequences for Tehran if ongoing diplomatic talks are not successful.

The world’s largest aircraft carrier, the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford, and its escort ships were sent to the Middle East last week to join additional warships already positioned off the Iranian coast, boosting Trump’s military options in the region.


Trump told reporters on Friday morning that he was considering a limited strike on Iran, according to a White House pool report. A day earlier, he floated “10 to 15 days” as the potential deadline for reaching a deal.

The Times reported that the Trump administration was drawing up plans to a strike that could include the use of both U.K. bases, a detail Trump seemingly affirmed in a Wednesday post on Truth Social.

“Should Iran decide not to make a Deal, it may be necessary for the United States to use Diego Garcia, and the Airfield located in Fairford, in order to eradicate a potential attack by a highly unstable and dangerous Regime — An attack that would potentially be made on the United Kingdom, as well as other friendly Countries,” he wrote.


Starmer’s refusal to let Trump use the bases for a preemptive strike also served as the basis for Trump’s renewed criticism of a deal between the U.K. and Mauritius on the Chagos Islands, according to The Times.

The U.K. has agreed to give Mauritius sovereignty over the archipelago in the central Indian Ocean and pay roughly 101 million pounds ($136 million) to retain a 99-year lease on Diego Garcia.

The State Department affirmed its support for the deal in a Tuesday press release ahead of next week’s bilateral security talks with Mauritius in the country’s capital city, Port Louis.

 

[Monash]

Diego Garcia could be problematic for Trump to since as I understand it the UK which now has a 99 year lease of the base from Mauritius then has what amounts to what could be called (I guess) a subleasing agreement with the US. What happens if the the Brits start getting testy about the US presence there?

 

[zraver]

Russia Still loses Moscow, St Petersburg and a couple of others on its 'Top 10 Largest Cities List". But yes nuclear command and control is a problem NATO isn't set up to handle absent the US so the best option is probably with missiles distributed amongst and owned by the say top 4 or 5 major members. Say Germany, France, the UK, & Poland each with it's own separate Nuclear Command structure a round table of of launch commanders. To say this arrangement would not be 'ideal' would be putting it mildly but nuking other non-nuclear members becomes problematic given their geographical closeness to nuclear weapon wielding members

No one is going to Nuke Ottawa BTW it would be a waste of a bomb.

and

You don't need to match Russia's nuclear weapon stockpile or even get anywhere near close to it. You just need enough nuclear weapons to deter it from attacking because what you do have is enough to cause unacceptable losses for Russia. 500 nuclear weapons would be enough to kill everyone in the 20 largest cities in Russia and decapitate critical infrastructure across the country plunging the entire country back to early 20th century living standards. The fact Russia could glass Europe in return won't bring bring it's own people, cities or its infrastructure back to life.

For that matter 4500 nuclear weapons is way more than Russia needs to defend itself from attack and represents a significant over investment in that arm of it's military and hence wasted money. (Unless of course its nukes or the missiles they're sitting on have such low readiness & reliability levels that they have to have 3 missiles on hand just to make sure one will actually launch successfully, reach it's target and detonate!)

NATO without the US is relying on 8 SSBN's with only 2 on station at any one time and maybe 3-4 at sea total in non-crisis situations. There is no diversification: no manned bombers, no ICBM fields etc. The best NATO has are some French ALCM's that cannot reach Moscow of St Petersburg without massive SEAD and tanker support which won't exist if there was a Russian first strike. The US SSBN force isn't much larger than the combined British and French fleets. We have 14 to Europe's 8 but where we shine is the triad. 400 ICBM's and a manned bomber fleet creating a diversified end of the world portfolio. Even if Russia could find and take out the SSBN's the rest of the triad is there. Not so for NATO a single technological sea change risks the continents' ability to resist Russian imperial domination. We also menace Russia from four oceans. Its unlikely that France is sending boomers to the Indian or Pacific so Russia's defensive posture is stronger if she only has to protect European Russia from European waters.

Nor will things get better. The Euro-Left will block any moves to divert money into nukes and the Moscow funded anti-nuclear Greenpeace types will pull boxes out of attics and drape grandkids in flags and slogans and start up the protest machine again. The EU has no nukes and lands the federal power to create any. Europe doesn't need the US for tactical power she doesn't even really need us for munitions as much but we are still Europe's nuclear shield.

 

[Monash]

and



NATO without the US is relying on 8 SSBN's with only 2 on station at any one time and maybe 3-4 at sea total in non-crisis situations. There is no diversification: no manned bombers, no ICBM fields etc. The best NATO has are some French ALCM's that cannot reach Moscow of St Petersburg without massive SEAD and tanker support which won't exist if there was a Russian first strike. The US SSBN force isn't much larger than the combined British and French fleets. We have 14 to Europe's 8 but where we shine is the triad. 400 ICBM's and a manned bomber fleet creating a diversified end of the world portfolio. Even if Russia could find and take out the SSBN's the rest of the triad is there. Not so for NATO a single technological sea change risks the continents' ability to resist Russian imperial domination. We also menace Russia from four oceans. Its unlikely that France is sending boomers to the Indian or Pacific so Russia's defensive posture is stronger if she only has to protect European Russia from European waters.

Nor will things get better. The Euro-Left will block any moves to divert money into nukes and the Moscow funded anti-nuclear Greenpeace types will pull boxes out of attics and drape grandkids in flags and slogans and start up the protest machine again. The EU has no nukes and lands the federal power to create any. Europe doesn't need the US for tactical power she doesn't even really need us for munitions as much but we are still Europe's nuclear shield.

Hi Z, my point was not that Europe's (NATO minus the US) nuclear determinant capability nor was it that absent the US it' wouldn't need to be expanded (it almost certainly would). It was that unless Russia or for that matter China was absolutely determined to launch a nuclear attack on Europe both powers would still have to weight up the potential damage and casualties caused by a retaliatory strike by even the admittedly limited nuclear forces available to what amounts to 'NATO lite'.

Using Russia as an example? Putin could absolutely glass every major city on the continent and have bombs left to spare, The question is would he be ready to lose Moscow, St Petersburg and half a dozen other major cities west of the Urals where the majority of the countries ethic Russian's live as the price paid for doing that. Would China want to lose Beijing and Shanghai. For that matter if it was a fight between the US and Europe would the President be willing to lose New York, Washington and say Houston? Basically? Is the 'prize' worth the cost - to anyone!

I also agree Europe would face enormous problems reaching a consensus on building more nukes and delivery systems let alone deciding who coordinates and controls them assuming they even are built. Thanks to Putin? The German position on nukes is showing some signs of changing. The answer could be as simple as a couple of the big players like Germany and Poland deciding to join the 'club' regardless of objections form other members and in doing so form a 'quad' with France and Germany. Then you only need 4 countries in the alliance instead of 31 to agree on on their deterrent policy. If the other members don't like it too bad. They can leave the European NATO and try to go it alone or stay & continue to enjoy the benefits of being networked with everyone else's conventional forces. But however it might be achieved? Europe doesn't need thousands of nukes at it's disposal to provide deterrence. Hell even Russia doesn't need as many nukes as it has. it's wasted billions of rubles on it's nuclear capable forces that are desperately needed by it's conventional forces. Especially since Ukraine.

 

[zraver]

My point is CASD alone is really only 1 technological advance away from being effectively no deterrent capability. US boomers have all the world's oceans to play with and in. The Russian's have a bastion in the White Sea that can reach everyone they need to reach and have a triad to boot. Europe is confined to a single ocean plus a sea and doesn't have any backup plan if some new technology renders SSBN's obsolete. NATO without the US means Russia only needs the technology and capability to find and destroy 4 submarines the 2 on station and up to 2 more that might be able to respond. 4 boats 1 ocean is an infinitely smaller problem than 10 boats in all oceans.

With the US in NATO, NATO enjoys a nuclear advantage... A big one in fact. Not just the diversified nuclear options from asset types to asset locations but the treaty limits. At least for now the treaty system inherited by Russia but signed by the USSR was designed to give each side parity. Russia is big but she is not USSR big (minus 5 million Km2 and 140 million souls) so the weapons concentration favors NATO. On top of that most Russians live in a highly urbanized setting along just a few highways like the Moscow to Rostov On Don route (M4) or in St Petersburg and Moscow.

The war in Ukraine has only made Russia weaker. The absolute failure of her SAM and radar net to keep drones out means Russian early warning and her radar curtain still suck. I am sure the USAF already knew this but now it is on public display. Ingress/Egress into Russia by manned bombers of ALCM's appears to be in the easy column.

I think Putin has known this the whole time. I never really pay attention to his nuclear threats, but I do watch his nuclear spending. The Poseidon nuclear torpedo isn't a first- or second-strike weapons. It's loud, slow and can't reach inland and in a nuclear war it shows up hours to days after the party ended... It's only purpose is revenge. It is an admission that Russian Early Warning and radar technology cannot reliably detect launches or aircraft, that her navy cannot protect her boomers and that her entire nuclear force is at risk. Its the dead skunk in the road.... dead and covered in flies but can still ruin everything around it.

As an insurance policy a nuclear-powered tens of megatons super-torpedo makes sense. It's a ration answer to a complex problem. With borders to big and complex, a budget too small and technology too far behind the conventional process followed by the USSR isn't a real option. And despite his bluster, Putin has proved to be rational when it comes to nukes. Kyiv isn't glowing and Xi is still sending him stuff. But if the US left NATO his calculations might change.

 

[Monash]

My point is CASD alone is really only 1 technological advance away from being effectively no deterrent capability. US boomers have all the world's oceans to play with and in. The Russian's have a bastion in the White Sea that can reach everyone they need to reach and have a triad to boot. Europe is confined to a single ocean plus a sea and doesn't have any backup plan if some new technology renders SSBN's obsolete. NATO without the US means Russia only needs the technology and capability to find and destroy 4 submarines the 2 on station and up to 2 more that might be able to respond. 4 boats 1 ocean is an infinitely smaller problem than 10 boats in all oceans.

With the US in NATO, NATO enjoys a nuclear advantage... A big one in fact. Not just the diversified nuclear options from asset types to asset locations but the treaty limits. At least for now the treaty system inherited by Russia but signed by the USSR was designed to give each side parity. Russia is big but she is not USSR big (minus 5 million Km2 and 140 million souls) so the weapons concentration favors NATO. On top of that most Russians live in a highly urbanized setting along just a few highways like the Moscow to Rostov On Don route (M4) or in St Petersburg and Moscow.

The war in Ukraine has only made Russia weaker. The absolute failure of her SAM and radar net to keep drones out means Russian early warning and her radar curtain still suck. I am sure the USAF already knew this but now it is on public display. Ingress/Egress into Russia by manned bombers of ALCM's appears to be in the easy column.

I think Putin has known this the whole time. I never really pay attention to his nuclear threats, but I do watch his nuclear spending. The Poseidon nuclear torpedo isn't a first- or second-strike weapons. It's loud, slow and can't reach inland and in a nuclear war it shows up hours to days after the party ended... It's only purpose is revenge. It is an admission that Russian Early Warning and radar technology cannot reliably detect launches or aircraft, that her navy cannot protect her boomers and that her entire nuclear force is at risk. Its the dead skunk in the road.... dead and covered in flies but can still ruin everything around it.

As an insurance policy a nuclear-powered tens of megatons super-torpedo makes sense. It's a ration answer to a complex problem. With borders to big and complex, a budget too small and technology too far behind the conventional process followed by the USSR isn't a real option. And despite his bluster, Putin has proved to be rational when it comes to nukes. Kyiv isn't glowing and Xi is still sending him stuff. But if the US left NATO his calculations might change.

Not sure I see your point. You say Russia has the 'bastion' of the White Sea' but that ignores the fact they have also access to the Pacific (and the Atlantic) if they are prepared to take the risk. I also fail to see why a 'European' NATO, given the limited number of SSBNs they currently have (and this applies even if that number doubles or even triples BTW) are somehow at 'risk' by merely only having access to the North Atlantic and Mediterranean! Lets be clear Russia no longer is what it was, It simply doesn't have the sheer number of SSNs and anti submarine surface/air forces needed to patrol the literally millions of square kilometers of ocean we're talking about here. Especially as they still have to worry about tracking US submarine deployments at the same time!

I also don't see SSBNs becoming obsolete any time soon ? there's no hint as yest that this is likely and even if it does happen it won't be overnight. The most likely technology that could do that? Are swarms of long range submarine drones working in separate or combined detection and attack modes. The thing is? Multiple countries are researching that type of technology including China and the US. As far as we can be aware? No-one has any particularity clear lead, everyone is competing and we're in still trapped in the 'better armor vs better crossbow' cycle that has been the curse of military technology since Adam.

I also doubt bombers would feature dramatically in any war between the US and Russia. Partly because Russia doesn't have enough bombers to make any real difference and partly because the US wouldn't need them to deliver a death blow. Yes stealth bombers could breach Russian air defenses (and possibly Chinese) but at least in Russia's case? These days just about everyone seems to be able to do that! There might be scenarios where a stealthy strike against Russian CCC or whatever is desirable but based on the evidence to date? America's stealth bombers excel far more at striking non-nuclear armed enemies like Iran and are therefore far more useful in that kind of role. Yes, they can slip in and slip out without being detected and while they can deliver nuclear payloads the amount they can deliver (given their numbers) is significantly less that what the US can deliver via sub launched and ground launched ICBMs!

 

[zraver]

1. Yes Russia has access to the other oceans, but she doesn't need them. She can hit all her targets from the White Sea. Sitting above everyone is an advantage.

2. Its a function of size. Without the US, European nuclear security depends on Russia being unable to find 2-4 boats in a big but ultimately constrained search area. The technology may not be here yet, but its only 1 technology away from creating a crisis. As difficult as that problem is, when you add back in the US triad it becomes impossible and no amount of new technologies can resolve all the problems fast enough to impose a crisis.

3. Turbines doomed the pre-dreadnoughts. A single technology could make serious waves. No I don't have an idea of what that might be, but with all Europe's eggs in one basket it is a risk.

4. Our bombers can go downtown and impose the loss of initiative on our enemies. Afterall Khamenei is dead along with 40+ of his principals. Broad daylight, no warning... The weapons were conventional but we just watched a decapitating first strike operate inside of a Russian supplied ADA network in real time. That is what bombers with stealth and a fully mapped out enemy emissions map can do. Change the weapon from a Mk to a W and change the city from Tehran to Moscow... That is how Russia is looking at it.

 

[Monash]

1. Yes Russia has access to the other oceans, but she doesn't need them. She can hit all her targets from the White Sea. Sitting above everyone is an advantage.

2. Its a function of size. Without the US, European nuclear security depends on Russia being unable to find 2-4 boats in a big but ultimately constrained search area. The technology may not be here yet, but its only 1 technology away from creating a crisis. As difficult as that problem is, when you add back in the US triad it becomes impossible and no amount of new technologies can resolve all the problems fast enough to impose a crisis.

3. Turbines doomed the pre-dreadnoughts. A single technology could make serious waves. No I don't have an idea of what that might be, but with all Europe's eggs in one basket it is a risk.

4. Our bombers can go downtown and impose the loss of initiative on our enemies. Afterall Khamenei is dead along with 40+ of his principals. Broad daylight, no warning... The weapons were conventional but we just watched a decapitating first strike operate inside of a Russian supplied ADA network in real time. That is what bombers with stealth and a fully mapped out enemy emissions map can do. Change the weapon from a Mk to a W and change the city from Tehran to Moscow... That is how Russia is looking at it.

Point 2: Two to four boats now. As I noted Germany, and Poland could double that number easily if they committed the resources because they believed they could no longer rely on the US nuclear deterrent. Apart from that? A European deterrent would be a triad anyway. All the big Eruopean players are working on new intermediate range attack missiles and hyper-sonic cruise missiles. It would be relatively easy to put nuclear warheads on a limited number of either and NATO pilots already train for nuclear strikes using US made gravity bomb nukes which would be even simpler to manufacture themselves.

Again I would suggest they wouldn't need many and it would be fairly easy to have a small ready reserve of nuclear equipped aircraft shuttling around from NATO base to NATO base 24/7. Same thing for land based launchers. It would be hard for Russia to identify small numbers of intermediate land based missiles hiding amongst a large pool of conventionally armed ground based launchers. And I do mean small numbers. As I noted before Russia only has two targets that matter to most ethnic Russians Moscow and St Petersburg.

 

[zraver]

Germany can't even run a civilian nuclear reactor program and you think the watermelons will let them have a mobile reactor and warheads? Poland is tapped out financially trying to be Europe's shield arm. The Polish navy has 1 sub and its a museum age 1st gen kilo.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Point 2: Two to four boats now. As I noted Germany, and Poland could double that number easily if they committed the resources because they believed they could no longer rely on the US nuclear deterrent. Apart from that? A European deterrent would be a triad anyway. All the big Eruopean players are working on new intermediate range attack missiles and hyper-sonic cruise missiles. It would be relatively easy to put nuclear warheads on a limited number of either and NATO pilots already train for nuclear strikes using US made gravity bomb nukes which would be even simpler to manufacture themselves.

Forget it. France is not looking for dual release (allied country owns the delivery vehicle, France owns the nuke). France is ONLY looking to deployed its own delivery vehicles and its own nukes to allied countries.

Macron says France will allow temporary deployment of nuclear-armed jets to allied nations

French President Emmanuel Macron announced Monday that France would allow the temporary deployment of its nuclear-armed aircraft to allied countries as part of its new nuclear strategy.

www.ctvnews.ca

Macron said the new posture would “provide for the temporary deployment of elements of our strategic air forces to allied countries,” but said there would be no sharing of decision-making with any other nation regarding the use of the nuclear weapons.

Yeah, every country feels real safe under French nuclear umbrella

 

[Monash]

Germany can't even run a civilian nuclear reactor program and you think the watermelons will let them have a mobile reactor and warheads? Poland is tapped out financially trying to be Europe's shield arm. The Polish navy has 1 sub and its a museum age 1st gen kilo.

I don't 'think' it will be done. I just know that there has been talk about the potential need for nuclear weapons at senior levels of government and the defense forces. The point is not that Germany or Poland for example will actually do this in the near future. It's that they have the financial and technical capacity to do so if the decision to go ahead is made. Also if that were to happen? Then it could be done fairly quickly given Europe's, scientific, industrial and financial resources.

Beyond that? Poland has for obvious reason concentrated on building up it's air and ground forces and is well on the way to completing that goal. A small submarine force would just be an extension of that military build to sea. Germany? The issue is policy and politics, there are real no physical or financial constraints in play. If and I do mean if they decided to a small nuclear arsenal was essential for national defense? Then the decision to go a head and build it is only thing standing in their way.

And to note; Germany and Poland were only examples. European integration means any of the larger economies could co-operate or at least assist each other with such a project.

 

[Monash]

Forget it. France is not looking for dual release (allied country owns the delivery vehicle, France owns the nuke). France is ONLY looking to deployed its own delivery vehicles and its own nukes to allied countries.

Macron says France will allow temporary deployment of nuclear-armed jets to allied nations

French President Emmanuel Macron announced Monday that France would allow the temporary deployment of its nuclear-armed aircraft to allied countries as part of its new nuclear strategy.

www.ctvnews.ca

Yeah, every country feels real safe under French nuclear umbrella

I wasn't suggesting there had to be dual release mechanisms. That may be the preferred option. But to the extent British and French Nuclear forces operate independently of each other and still act as a deterrent to Russia? There's no reason a third or even fourth nuclear force, be it German, Polish, Spanish or whoever wouldn't be able to do the same without muddying the waters that much. And no I never envisaged every man and his dog in NATO having their own independent nuclear deterrent. Smaller nations provide and receive more utility from co-operating on conventional force expansion than they do from nuclear forces given how much of their annual defense budgets would instantly disappear down the nuclear weapon development money hole if any of them were silly enough to try and go down that pathway.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

British nukes are assigned to NATO (read American) taskings. French are standalone, meaning there's a risk of multiple targetting of the same targets.

However, you are into my argument that Germany, Italy, and Canada must leave the NPT if the US leaves NATO.

 

[Monash]

British nukes are assigned to NATO (read American) tastings. French are standalone, meaning there's a risk of multiple targetting of the same targets.

However, you are into my argument that Germany, Italy, and Canada must leave the NPT if the US leaves NATO.

Yep, it' s messy but as long as it's a small number of nations like the 'quad' I talked about before or something similar? It shouldn't be too hard to work out a broad operational plan for joint action. God' knows they'd have been gaming various 'Russian' scenarios with each other almost from the moment the other two nations (whoever they were) decided to join 'the club'. In light of that it would surprise me if the didn't come up with a series of targeting plans between them based likely scenarios. All they do then is practice those scenarios for years until everyone is confident they're more or less on the same page. If one country goes off plan? They can adjust. But honestly? Even if all 4 fired a missile at Moscow? Who really cares? The day that happens Europe is toast anyway. And in the end? NATO without the US doesn't have to be the nuclear threat to Russia that the US is . They just have to be a credible enough of a threat to deter a Russian launch on Europe.

 

[Monash]

And in news just in (with ironically perfect timing).

BBC News Article reporting on Plans by France to Extend it's nuclear umbrella to it's European Allies

If this arrangement lasts and takes root in the EU political architecture? It could be the start of something much bigger.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

What arrangement?

There will be no explicit "guarantee" given to partner countries, and it is the president of France who will retain sole decision-making power over when to fire a nuclear missile.

This is as useless as used toilet paper.

 

[Monash]

What arrangement?



This is as useless as used toilet paper.

I did say 'if it lasts'. I was just pointing out that France's announcement could be the start of the kind of process I was referring to. I mean it's all hypothetical at this point anyway. Europe only has the current two nuclear powers and until or unless another one of it's larger economies actually takes concrete steps towards developing nukes (which none have or seem likely to do anytime soon) it's all just speculation

 

[zraver]

I don't 'think' it will be done. I just know that there has been talk about the potential need for nuclear weapons at senior levels of government and the defense forces. The point is not that Germany or Poland for example will actually do this in the near future. It's that they have the financial and technical capacity to do so if the decision to go ahead is made. Also if that were to happen? Then it could be done fairly quickly given Europe's, scientific, industrial and financial resources.

Beyond that? Poland has for obvious reason concentrated on building up it's air and ground forces and is well on the way to completing that goal. A small submarine force would just be an extension of that military build to sea. Germany? The issue is policy and politics, there are real no physical or financial constraints in play. If and I do mean if they decided to a small nuclear arsenal was essential for national defense? Then the decision to go a head and build it is only thing standing in their way.

And to note; Germany and Poland were only examples. European integration means any of the larger economies could co-operate or at least assist each other with such a project.

Poland does not have the economy to run a big army, airforce and submarine force. Subs are expensive and for Poland of very limited utility.

Germany won't go nuclear for political and demographic reasons. Her watermelons hold too much political power and long term she doesn't have the money to support a nuclear arms program even if the greens stepped aside. Germany is in her last decade as a major player. By 2035 1 in 4 Germans will be a retiree and unlike Japan she hasn't prepared for this. AI and automation might keep her economy going but her discussions are going to be about geriatric concerns not geopolitics.