Dear Americans, fuck off from our nukes.
I still think we all benefit greatly from the non-proliferation treaty, and it would be foolish to risk it just because transatlantic relations are bad right now.
But they have to realize demanding this from Europe right now is just fuel to the fire.
If they doesn’t want Poland to have its own nuclear weapons, Russian and the USA should put more effort into progressive nuclear disarmement as agreed by treaty:
the NPT non-nuclear-weapon states agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear-weapon states in exchange agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals.
Russia stopped participating in START, that agreement officially expired last month, and there has been no new agreement between Russia and the USA tio reduce stockpiles. Trump is chaotic, threatens to invade allies, so there’s reason to doubt it would defend NATO allies.
So it’d be logical for Poland to look into building its own nuclear deterrence. The solution is to better enforce the NTP, decrease everyone’s stockpile, including Russian and USA’s.
Yep, the NPT was never about all other countries just ceding the power that is afforded by nuclear weapons to the countries that currently had them. And NATO’s nuclear umbrella indeed played a major part in making that acceptable too. It was supposed to be a two way deal. But it seems nowadays people with nukes have conveniently forgotten that. Trump probably doesn’t even understand the first thing about it ofc…
THAT’S YOUR WARNING-SIGN:
EUROPE NEEDS TO BE CAPABLE OF FIGHTING TRUMP’S US, EVEN AT NUCLEAR SCALE.
TRUMP OPPOSES ANY THREAT TO HIS FUTURE-AGGRESSIONS.
HEED HIS TELEGRAPHING, PLEASE.
_ /\ _
It’s like the US only realized the cost of trump’s bullshit after the fact.
NATO made European nuclear ambitions less essential and thus helped reduce nuclear proliferation. When the US threatens that alliance and shows itself to be completely unreliable (does anyone expect donald to launch nukes in defence of Europe?) Then Europe is almost forced to get a European nuclear deterrent.
In the meantime, thank fuck for Charles deGaulle.
We all need to appreciate just how sick a world has to be for “Thank fuck for Charles deGaulle’s insistence on nuclear proliferation and testing” to be a sentence literally any decent person would entertain.
not to mention constantly undermines the UN and ends all treaties (if you can even trust any treaties Trump signs, probably not) that aim at reducing nuclear stockpiles. As well as starts illegal wars with countries that don’t have nuclear weapons following Putin’s example. It’s just idiotic.
Of course, because with European countries having their own nuclear deterrence, neither the USA nor the current US government’s handlers in the Kremlin can’t blackmail them into submission anymore.
Only upvotes, no questions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starshield
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
The USSR collapsed because they invested in weapons and not civilian infrastructure. This is another space race, another SDI.
Putin doesn’t control Trump but the US controls EU politicians. The US don’t need nukes to influence Europe. Wasting engineers on those nukes prevents them from developing better batteries and other critical infrastructure and prevents the population from demanding an end to the more direct influence.
The EU doesn’t produce CPUs or memory. That’s a much bigger threat.
Having a credible nuclear deterrent is existential. We’ve seen attack after attack from countries armed with nuclear weapons only against ones that don’t.
only against ones that don’t.
For now.
And if you look at India and Pakistan, it’s not true anymore.
India and China had also battled, but with fists, to avoid escalation.
In any case it is a catch 22. Developing a star shield will hold the EU back in robotics, AI and microelectronics to a point that nothing will be left to defend.
But the US are contemplating to use tactical nukes against China, with the idea that China wouldn’t escalate to strategic nukes to avoid their complete destruction. So nukes alone won’t deter, at least not the US.
Don’t forget that the US already control the politicians and, with their social networks, also the votes. There won’t be war between the US and the EU because the US will get what they want. But the EU will fight when the US asks for support. No nuke can prevent that participation.
India and Pakistan only proves that nuclear states can still end up in conflict between each other. Nukes being in the calculation is very likely to still incentivize de-escalation between the two of them just like your example of India and China.
Both Russia and (still to lesser extent for now) USA are now adversaries of Europe and we can’t afford to have adequate deterrence for both. Having to engage in wars against one of those would set Europe back far more than developing a nuclear capability at home.
You’ll find no agreement with me about Americans controlling European politicians beyond what is caused by precisely the fact that we’re dependent on them for our defense and in no insignificant part because of the US nuclear umbrella. When it comes to things like social networks I’m definitely all for moving away from that to European digital sovereignty.
Ok, let’s just buy them from France then
The moment the US used the NATO deterrent as trade leverage, that ship sailed.
That’s an strong argument to pursue this strategy.
This is a terrible predicament to be in for the north east and center of Europe. All future options are worse than the pre-Trump option. Which one is the least bad, also in terms of other countries’ responses? 1 France’s umbrella 2 US umbrella 3 Russian umbrella 4 north-east-central europe umbrella?
Why not for the south?
Because the south does not have a dangerous, expansionist neighbor such as Russia.
Without the rest of the EU, the south is nothing. The EU is in this problem together and when it comes to threats, it is not only Russia. The EU has to defend its supply chains and markets globally.
But there is a big chance that expansive Russia is for the most part western propaganda to split the EU from Russia. If Russia’s urge for expansion turns out to be exagerated then priorities could be put on other dependencies, like not having own CPU and memory production capabilities.
The second paragraph of your response… You think that Russia is not expansionist? What about all the countries it has invaded in its periphery?
The Russia of today is not imperialistic Russia and not the USSR. The countries were invaded in the past. We don’t treat France like that despite them bombing Libya recently.
Framing the Ukraine war as an imperialistic war is western propaganda. Russia wanted to cooperate more but the west blocked it, among them chancellor Kohl.
The world would be different if the EU and the Russian Federation were on a way towards peaceful unification. Using that as point of reference pales any gains that could come from imperial motives.
Framing the Ukraine was as an imperialistic war is western propaganda
What? Russia is free to end this war any time they choose. Doesn’t seem like there can be any peace with Russia as long as Putin stays in power, same as we can’t rely on the US as long as Trump is its head.
There is no need for relying if it is forced. That’s the new US mode of operation. In times of the internet it’s difficult to uphold an image so the US relies on raw influence.
We have to buy US gas now. Of course, that’s because we don’t want to buy from Russia and we can’t buy from Iran because it is sanctioned and we can’t buy from Qatar because the infrastructure is bombed.
Even with Russia, Uktaine and the billions for NGOs, at the origin there is US influence. For the sanctions on Iran and the current war, that’s more obvious.
There can be peace with Russia if we don’t treat the war as imperialistic.
The most bold solution would be to unite the EU and the Russian Federation and make Ukraine the center.
The difficulty lies in making the US an offer for their lost sales and influence. How could we give the US their share of influence if the EU and Russia become the most powerful organisation on earth?
More countries with nukes is not good, imagine Orban with nukes. But EU owned and managed nukes? Sounds great to me.
