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

  • Skyrmir@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • nuko147@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Yeah USA, not France and UK. Why the need to share nuclear weapons with Germany? And until USA officially pulls out (that won’t happen, the cost is too big for them too), they all are obliged to engage if any NATO member is invaded.

      • Mossheart@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        21 hours ago

        You’re missing the point. They don’t have to commit to pulling out. The fact they can’t be trusted now is enough to shake faith that if Article 5 is invoked that they’ll live up their agreement.

        Honestly, them exiting would be best, at least everyone will know where they stand. If Russia took a poke at another NATO country and Trump decided to do nothing, what is the rest of NATO gonna do? Send stern letters?

        Collective defense only works if you trust your ally with your life. Do you trust the USA right now?

        • nuko147@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Russia knows that invasion of a NATO country is the start of WW3. That´s why they attacked Ukraine before they entered NATO.

          I don’t believe they will exit. I believe that is their move to stop their front with Russia, concentrating to China (sacrificing Ukraine with the worst way possible, i mean Brutus is looking as an innocent guy in front of USA), and EU will increase dramatically their Army budget, something USA was begging for decades. And after the Trump era they will go back normal and act like nothing ever happened.

          Europe is panicking (both people and politicians) and acting without a plan right now.

      • Skyrmir@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        21 hours ago

        The idea of sharing nukes is really just a logistics solution. It’s the same reasoning that led Ukraine to get rid of their nukes. Upkeep is expensive. Sharing with France and UK splits that cost, without having to create duplicate infrastructures. It’s affordable nukes for all to balance the dual problem of, you have to have this thing you never want to use, and that thing you have to have is stupidly expensive.

        • nuko147@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Yeah never thought of that. Although i believe there are treaties prohibiting Germany to posses nuclear weapons. So i guess the only option for the nukes would be something with EU leadership in play.

          • Skyrmir@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            13 hours ago

            Maybe, I’d have to wonder how many of those treaties are still validly in effect. Especially since they were probably set up at the same time Germany was partitioned after the war, and now it’s not. So the entities in agreement might not exist. I’m pretty sure a treaty with East Germany is only worth it’s value as a historical document these days.