Nukes in Europe

[West Coast]

https://warontherocks.com/2020/12/the-softening-rhetoric-by-nuclear-armed-states-and-nato-allies-on-the-treaty-on-the-prohibition-of-nuclear-weapons/?fbclid=IwAR3vJQxMlgwRtJwZ4Sobt3TeJglhhWN31FuVqrZwUt-F7oUpMTLTZj7t7Wc

Should make an interesting debate in certain capitals.

[sandiego89]

Indeed. I'm sure Putin would be happy to have certain countries step down their deterrence....

[Less Hair]

It does make a lot of sense to keep them. The F-35 got just cleared for supersonic drops.

[Case One]

It’s not just about Europe. The nuclear armed states as NPT signatories have been taking the piss for decades. The rest of the world is quite rightly sick of us. However, we’d be foolish to disarm unilaterally. It’s well past overdue that we got serious about verifiable multilateral arms reduction to very low levels. At least a couple of countries will prevent complete disarmament. North Korea is one. I suspect Israel is another. That’s without getting into whether Russia and the US have honest intentions or not.

[Less Hair]

There might come a point where the -until now- reluctant, clean, rich, NPT-compliant countries don't accept to see the rogue guys arming up around them anymore. One day the Japans, Swedens, (S) Koreas, Brazils, Australias and Germanys might rethink staying sober. Every idiot terrorist will be nuked up sooner or later. Nothing is prevented by NPT just slightly delayed if ever. Just one terrorist dirty bomb attack or similar and their public opinion and mindset might change forever.

[etudiant]

After the Libya experience, no authoritarian state leader will ever surrender their nuclear franchise. It is cheap enough that even North Korea can afford it, while it ensures that your country will not become a 'regime change' project.
So logically the prospect is for a Turkish bomb, a Saudi bomb, perhaps an Egyptian bomb, along with Indonesian, Vietnamese and South Korean, perhaps even Venezuelan and Cuban ones.

Optimistically, this should reduce the absurd interventions in the name of 'nation building' or 'anti terrorism' that are discrediting the entire leadership of the Western world.
However, one has to be queasy at best at the prospect of these things routinely available to leaders of questionable stability.... Certainly there is no obvious improvement if Norway, Sweden and Luxembourg get bombs as well.

[Less Hair]

As soon as they get threatened by any of those new players, and then we might have rebel groups, terrorists or criminal mafia/drug groups as well, these countries might want to arm themselves? Many developed western countries have most of the infrastructure and knowledge in place already. How can mid sized Asian nations credibly defend themselves against some certain assertive superpower?
This is why I predict "more interest" in nuclear arms in the future including in Europe.

[Herod]

"On the Beach" Nevil Shute. Published 1957, but the scenario of how it (nuclear destruction) came about is relevant today. According to Shute, it was the Albanians. (pick today's rogue state)

[Case One]

Well what’s a rogue country? The largest ones are NPT signatories who totally fail in their obligations. The worst offenders are Russia and the USA who still maintain massive stockpiles. Terrorists and criminals are not an argument for retaining nuclear weapons, they are an argument for getting rid of the things. Terrorists and criminals have to obtain the weapons from nuclear weapons states. Terrorists and criminals cannot be deterred by nuclear weapons. The NPT can’t stop everyone, but it’s rigoursous application is the best mechanism we have. If a nation has the natural resources and technical expertise, it can do it on it’s own. Isn’t that how India did it? Or it can get legal help on the way like the UK gave Pakistan (for the life of me I don’t see how that made the world a better place Britain). And of course there’s the illegal option like North Korea, courtesy of Pakistan. Well a so-called rogue scientist, same thing. So that’s thanks to a lack of British foresight really.

Save some of the bashing over the head of Britain for the USA though.

They let the genie out of the the bottle with a spectacularly arrogant lack of thought about the long term implications. The USA always thinks it’s above consequences, despite many demonstrations of the contrary. If you wish you can trace the thread a bit further back just for fun. The USA unwisely threatened China during the Korean War. So of course China felt it had to have them. Then India lost a border conflict to China, so India had to have them. Then Pakistan lost several wars to India, so they had to have them too as a matter of “national survival”. Root of the chain, irresponsible behaviour by the world’s original nuclear power.

Meanwhile modern Western foreign policy has provided states that we don’t like with the best possible motivations to acquire such weapons. Again, one nation in particular’s spectacular lack of foresight stands out. Regime change and execution by drone. Always acting as if actions have no blow-back. After all these are small, powerless, unimportant countries. Haven’t they learnt yet? No-one’s unimportant. And no-one’s powerless.

So what to do? Isn’t it obvious? You can’t use them, you can’t threaten to use them. And once you become a nuclear power, your business as usual behaviour always carries an implied nuclear threat. They cause your cause an incredible amount of harm. However, no-one who’s got them is going to unilaterally get rid of them whilst other guys still have them. Look how that worked out for the Ukraine. Guaranteed by the USA, UK and, cough, Russia. But there’s no excuse for not reducing stockpiles to very low levels and concentrating on their security. Quite simply the more of these there are, in the larger number of hands, for the longer amount of time; the greater the chance that something very bad will inevitably happen. And we have absolutely no control over where that historic event will occur.

As for good old Cold War style deterrence that so many of us subscribed to. I have now renounced it. Two nations bickering over political differences threatening to murder everyone in the house are criminally insane.

[beardy]

Or it can get legal help on the way like the UK gave Pakistan (for the life of me I don’t see how that made the world a better place Britain). And of course there’s the illegal option like North Korea, courtesy of Pakistan. Well a so-called rogue scientist, same thing. So that’s thanks to a lack of British foresight really.


That's an interesting take on it.

[Less Hair]

The superpowers USA and Russia are no big problem concerning nukes. They have established procedures. However those midsized and small new idiot players are what is dangerous. Especially if they openly threaten somebody else and spill or even sell the nuke knowledge and technology.

[jmmoric]

The superpowers USA and Russia are no big problem concerning nukes. They have established procedures. However those midsized and small new idiot players are what is dangerous. Especially if they openly threaten somebody else and spill or even sell the nuke knowledge and technology.

My though is that countries around the world, that either has or are attempting to aquire nuclear weapons, are mostly doing so to get others off their back.

North Korea for instance, their military spending has been through the roof for decades, to an extend where they spend every dime on it. By having cuclear weapons they'll be able to cut down their military spendings and hopefully divert finances to things that actually make peoples lives better. We could hope they'll get things like education and information into the country from abroad as wealth increases, and eventually change things themselves. This may be a long shot, but still.

Same goes for Iran. A country that's been on the bad list in the US for decades, eventhough there was a reason the poeple threw the previous regime out. They have a huge population, the middle class is well educated, and they have the access to information from abroad, hence the people can make a change..... if the US would just get off their back. Their reason for nuclear weapons is just that, they want to be able to raise living standards through trade etc. and they're relatively tired of having the US always pointing at them as bad people.

then there is a state like Israel.... I don't really know if they have them... they at least won't admit to it. But still the notion that they could have them, is also keeping their neighbours off their back.

Then there is ofcourse Pakistan and India... they're kind of locked into the same situation as the rest of the world was during the Cold War". Eventhough sounding stupid to the core, it assures the other party does nothing stupid.

[etudiant]

The established players want nukes to prevent getting kicked out by the others.
The problem arises once the non established players get nukes too, by theft or other means.
The Kurds could be one example, the Taliban another, perhaps the Eritreans or even some other suppressed entity, such as the Muslim diaspora.
Then what is the response by the establishment?

[Less Hair]

To build very precise small nukes. We can see where technology is moving. To smart, guided nukes, To "credible" usable ones. Not nice but no surprise.

[etudiant]

To build very precise small nukes. We can see where technology is moving. To smart, guided nukes, To "credible" usable ones. Not nice but no surprise.

That seems a plausible path forward, nukes that offer fractions of a kiloton yield, blow up a city block rather than a whole city. Afaik, the US Army had the early versions, the Davy Crockett and the ADMs, in the 1960s.
Nice idea, but the smaller the device, the easier to steal/get lost. It may be just what the non players are looking for today.

[Not Long Here]

"On the Beach" Nevil Shute. Published 1957, but the scenario of how it (nuclear destruction) came about is relevant today. According to Shute, it was the Albanians. (pick today's rogue state)
The movie was great too.

[John Marsh]

My though is that countries around the world, that either has or are attempting to aquire nuclear weapons, are mostly doing so to get others off their back.

North Korea for instance, their military spending has been through the roof for decades, to an extend where they spend every dime on it. By having cuclear weapons they'll be able to cut down their military spendings and hopefully divert finances to things that actually make peoples lives better. We could hope they'll get things like education and information into the country from abroad as wealth increases, and eventually change things themselves. This may be a long shot, but still.

Same goes for Iran. A country that's been on the bad list in the US for decades, eventhough there was a reason the poeple threw the previous regime out. They have a huge population, the middle class is well educated, and they have the access to information from abroad, hence the people can make a change..... if the US would just get off their back. Their reason for nuclear weapons is just that, they want to be able to raise living standards through trade etc. and they're relatively tired of having the US always pointing at them as bad people.

then there is a state like Israel.... I don't really know if they have them... they at least won't admit to it. But still the notion that they could have them, is also keeping their neighbours off their back.

Then there is ofcourse Pakistan and India... they're kind of locked into the same situation as the rest of the world was during the Cold War". Eventhough sounding stupid to the core, it assures the other party does nothing stupid.
Interesting that this is still the perception. I spent some time there 30+ years ago; it was an open secret domestically - "Everybody knows we have them". Of course, fostering such a belief within Israel would undoubtedly aid a propaganda campaign aimed at the wider world.

[Asturias56]

There's a load of information out there and everyone, including the US Govt, knows that Israel has nukes and has had them for a considerable period.

TBH I don't blame them, nor do I blame the Iranians for building one - they look around and see that , when push comes to shove, you can be left very much on your own in this tough world. Compare N Korea & Libya.............

And Pakistan wouldn't last long if India decided to get tough -so they built a bomb

[Less Hair]

Israel belongs to the "classic" owners group that use it for deterrence. Like the US and Russia. Quite different from Iran rhetoric.

[Case One]

That's an interesting take on it.

Britain’s 1969 agreement to supply them with a plant capable of producing weapons grade Pu is what let them get their foot in the door. In the end they didn’t buy the plant, just critical components and training - and went a different route, but it’s where the crack began. Right from the start with the Manhattan project, politicians have shown a complete inability to think this very dangerous game out more than one move ahead. And that lack of intellectual ability and integrity is a very serious problem when you are dealing with city and world destroying technology. So as for the superpowers being no big problem, they very much are. They are the root cause.

Take another example mentioned here, Iran. That problem was caused by the UK and USA with Operation AJAX. We had no business doing what we did, and frankly Iran cannot be blamed for it’s nuclear ambitions given the USA’s continued attitude. The USA caused the problem and flatly refuses to accept responsibility or fix it. They just continue to attack Iran. Yes attack, because Iranians are dying. They have two choices, roll over at their mercy - I don’t think that’s likely to work well for them. Or defend themselves. Which would you choose? Again remember what the USA refuses to, they caused this. Sorry, it was a long time ago and they’re another small, unimportant country we’re all meant to forget about.

Why bring it up? Well now the USA tell us that China is the greatest threat to democracy since WWII. I nearly spat my coffee out laughing. And Biden tells us that there are rules and China must play by them. Well just imagine for the moment that China, the world’s oldest civilisation (4000+ years), and the USA (just over 200 years), the self-proclaimed “world’s greatest democracy” are two people having a conversation, it might go something like this:

China: “Hello child, what are these rules that you’ve written down, and please show some respect to your elders, I’ve just got out of hospital”
USA: “Shut up old man, sign here and do what you’re told.”
China: “Oh, I see you’ve brought your nasty uncle Britain with you. He’s one of the reasons that I was in hospital for so long. I think I”ll be having something to say to him later”

Seriously. Times are changing. Stop whining about China steeling jobs, we gave them to China because we were greedy as usual. Stop whining about China not following rules we drew up without them. Stop painting China as this huge villain when it’s very much the UK and USA that have been very, very naughty boys around the world for a very long time. Start trying to do the right thing. One of them is reducing nuclear risk by massive nuclear arms reduction.

[Less Hair]

Strange anti US-attitude. Pathologic blame the US game?

[Case One]

Excessive blame? We’re meant to be the good guys. I’m none too impressed by some of the “good” that ourselves and our major ally have done. In fact, we’ve actuallly caused much of the trouble.

And it looks like the USA is attempting to start it all again with a new Cold War against China. Darned right I’m against being drawn into that BS on completely false pretences. “China is the greatest threat to democracy since WWII”. Honestly, do you think that doing the entire nuclear stand-off thing again at the behest of the US is a good idea? If being opposed to that is pathological = excessive/ diseased, well call me pathological.

[Asturias56]

Israel belongs to the "classic" owners group that use it for deterrence. Like the US and Russia. Quite different from Iran rhetoric.

Iran doesn't have the bomb and so talks big - once you've got it you're more careful

[West Coast]

Iran doesn't have the bomb and so talks big - once you've got it you're more careful

The Fat Wun didn’t get that memo.

[Asturias56]

he was just encouraged by his friend in DC.............. who also spouted off about throwing weapons around IIRC