Support NeoGAF

[Xando]

A review recently commissioned by the German Parliament has determined that the country could legally finance the British or French nuclear weapons programs in exchange for their protection. The European Union could do the same if it changed its budgeting rules, the study found.

The German assessment comes after months of discussion in Berlin over whether Europe can still rely on American security assurances, which President Trump has called into question. Some have called for considering, as a replacement, a pan-European nuclear umbrella of existing French and British warheads.

The assessment provides a legal framework for such a plan. Britain or France, it finds, could legally base nuclear warheads on German soil.

The document states that “President Trump and his contradictory statements on NATO” have led to fears “that the U.S. could reduce its nuclear commitment” to Europe.

While the review is only an endorsement of the plan’s legality — not a determination to take action — it is the first indication that such an idea has escalated from informal discussion to official policy-making channels.

Few analysts believe that Germany or the European Union is on the verge of pursuing a replacement nuclear umbrella. Most German officials still oppose such a plan, which would face steep public opposition and diplomatic hurdles. Even proponents consider it a last resort.

Nonetheless, analysts say, the review indicates the growing seriousness with which Germany is preparing for the possible loss of the American guarantees that have safeguarded and united European allies since World War II.

“Someone wanted to see whether this could work,” said Ulrich Kuhn, a German nuclear analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “It suggests people consider this a possibility.”

While few are convinced Germany could overcome its taboo against nuclear weapons anytime soon, the existence of the assessment suggests that under pressure from Mr. Trump and growing Russian aggression, the taboo has eroded to an extent.
“What’s the line? ‘Amateurs worry about strategy, professionals worry about logistics,’” Mr. Narang added, saying that the assessment, by evaluating fine-grain legal questions, “is getting into the logistics” of a European nuclear program.

Germany, the assessment finds, could be granted shared control over deploying those warheads under something called a “dual key” system, an arrangement that currently applies to American warheads based there. This would be intended to signal that the weapons would be used to protect all of Europe.

More here
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/world/europe/germany-nuclear-weapons.html

 

[Nivash]

Oh dear. If there ever was a sign that Germany has completely lost trust in the US, this would be it.

 

[jack_package_200]

Oh dear. If there ever was a sign that Germany has completely lost trust in the US, this would be it.

I mean...they are totally justified in that. Trump has totally undermined the US's standing in the world.

Thanks "real America"

 

[FullMetaltech]

Oh dear. If there ever was a sign that Germany has completely lost trust in the US, this would be it.

Pretty much. A lot of our allies feel like they have to fend for themselves somehow.

 

[Xando]

Oh dear. If there ever was a sign that Germany has completely lost trust in the US, this would be it.

Yup. Even mentioning nuclear weapons in parliament would have been a PR disaster two years ago

 

[ClosingADoor]

France and Germany having better ties is always good I think. If they want to share their nukes, fine by me.

Does show how much the US has fucked things up in just a few months that all these things are already looked at. Unbelievable that a 50+ year alliance is being undermined by the US government.

Germany pls, I'm actively engaged in wanting to aid the UK of disarming and stopping spending absolutely ridiculous amounts of money on nuclear weapons.

Even if you want to chip in for the £205b it is estimated Trident is costing I still personally decline. It's both a moral and financial belief.

Until the Russians give up theirs, no way France and the UK should remove their nukes.

 

[Audioboxer]

Germany pls, I'm actively engaged in wanting to aid the UK of disarming and stopping spending absolutely ridiculous amounts of money on nuclear weapons.

Even if you want to chip in for the £205b it is estimated Trident is costing I still personally decline. It's both a moral and financial belief.

 

[Gallbaro]

If I recall correctly the British Nukes are basically under American Control. The tridents definitely are.

 

[RetroDLC]

Imagine the mayhem if Brexit is cancelled because the EU wants to pay hard cash for UK nuclear protection under the ECJ.

 

[PantherLotus]

In another age we called this 'NATO'

 

[Koren]

Yup. Even mentioning nuclear weapons in parliament would have been a PR disaster two years ago

I'm under the feeling that opinions in Japan changed a lot, recently, too...


Though I wonder how it would be seen by France and UK...


France really wants to keep Nuclear weapons a national thing. That's one of the reasons France left NATO, and they only joined back recently with the condition that Nuclear strategy would be excluded.

Also, aren't most of the french Nuclear power on sea (mostly submarines) not in silos?

In another age we called this 'NATO'

Definitively not when we're talking France

 

[Linkstrikesback]

Though I wonder how it would be seen by France and UK...

In the UK this will be seen as "HOLY FUCK, WE ACTUALLY HAVE A BARGAINING CHIP?".

 

[Jezbollah]

If I recall correctly the British Nukes are basically under American Control. The tridents definitely are.

I read otherwise, that the British Trident solution is completely independent.

Edit: Here's the article: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-america-doesnt-control-britains-nuclear-weapons/

 

[Xando]

I'm under the feeling that opinions in Japan changed a lot, recently, too...


Though I wonder how it would be seen by France and UK...


France really wants to keep Nuclear weapons a national thing. That's one of the reasons France left NATO, and they only joined back recently with the condition that Nuclear strategy would be excluded.

Also, aren't most of the french Nuclear power on sea (mostly submarines) not in silos?

French presidents have offered nuclear weapon sharing to germany a few times during history. The last time was sarkozy IIRC and germans always declined due to US nuclear weapon sharing. Might change at some point during Trumps presidency.

Macron wants closer defense ties with germany and i don’t think he‘d decline

 

[Nivash]

If I recall correctly the British Nukes are basically under American Control. The tridents definitely are.

Not quite correct. The UK retains full, unrestricted operational command of its Trident arsenal.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-america-doesnt-control-britains-nuclear-weapons/

However, the arsenal is - as of currently - greatly dependent on US assistance in its maintenance. This should be possible to remedy, however, if at a cost.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blog/2014/jul/01/trident-nuclear-weapons-uk

 

[ClosingADoor]

Also, aren't most of the french Nuclear power on sea (mostly submarines) not in silos?

They always have a nuclear sub active. Others can be dropped by aircraft.

 

[Audioboxer]

France and Germany having better ties is always good I think. If they want to share their nukes, fine by me.

Does show how much the US has fucked things up in just a few months that all these things are already looked at. Unbelievable that a 50+ year alliance is being undermined by the US government.


Until the Russians give up theirs, no way France and the UK should remove their nukes.

There are a million ethical debates around nukes already, but most finish with something based around if we're all dying anyway, what's the point in sending off a nuke to obliterate millions of others to "get the last say"? Theresa May might come out and say you're damn fucking right I'd be bashing that motherfucking button. However, what does it achieve other than some history for the remaining humans now with multiple ears, eyes and feet to be going around saying "remember the UK managed to kill millions of Russians before the country sank underwater/ceased to exist? Based UK".

There's some crazy asshole leaders out there but said crazy asshole leaders tend to want to be alive and accruing power/wealth and playing mini-dictators. Not six feet under because they brought about the collapse of civilisation/end of the world. Many would suggest the Earth does not survive a nuclear war, end of. I'd be inclined to agree. Even countries with severe issues with others STILL do trade and what not. The world runs on power and money, and the illusion of fear and dick-waving. Land/air wars and invasions will continue to plague us as a response to escalated conflict, but nuclear war is a completely different scenario, one where the aggressors know they are going to get heavily wiped out too as the world at large would fall into all out war if nukes kicked off.

 

[Dictator93]

Pretty sure this would never happen due to public outcry in DE.

 

[Xando]

There are a million ethical debates around nukes already, but most finish with something based around if we're all dying anyway, what's the point in sending off a nuke to obliterate millions of others to "get the last say"? Theresa May might come out and say you're damn fucking right I'd be bashing that motherfucking button. However, what does it achieve other than some history for the remaining humans now with multiple ears to be going around saying "remember the UK managed to kill millions of Russians before the country sank underwater/ceased to exist? Based UK".

There's some crazy asshole leaders out there but said crazy asshole leaders tend to want to be alive and accruing power. Not six feet under because they brought about the collapse of civilisation/end of the world.

The point of nuclear weapons is deterrence.
If we have our own nuclear umbrella we could finally tell the americans to leave us alone until they kicked the GOP out. Currently we’re dependent on their nukes.

 

[Gallbaro]

I read otherwise, that the British Trident solution is completely independent.

Edit: Here's the article: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-america-doesnt-control-britains-nuclear-weapons/

Not quite correct. The UK retains full, unrestricted operational command of its Trident arsenal.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-america-doesnt-control-britains-nuclear-weapons/

However, the arsenal is - as of currently - greatly dependent on US assistance in its maintenance. This should be possible to remedy, however, if at a cost.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blog/2014/jul/01/trident-nuclear-weapons-uk

Corrected.

 

[ClosingADoor]

There are a million ethical debates around nukes already, but most finish with something based around if we're all dying anyway, what's the point in sending off a nuke to obliterate millions of others to "get the last say"? Theresa May might come out and say you're damn fucking right I'd be bashing that motherfucking button. However, what does it achieve other than some history for the remaining humans now with multiple ears, eyes and feet to be going around saying "remember the UK managed to kill millions of Russians before the country sank underwater/ceased to exist? Based UK".

There's some crazy asshole leaders out there but said crazy asshole leaders tend to want to be alive and accruing power/wealth and playing mini-dictators. Not six feet under because they brought about the collapse of civilisation/end of the world. Many would suggest the Earth does not survive a nuclear war, end of. I'd be inclined to agree. Even countries with severe issues with others STILL do trade and what not. The world runs on power and money, and the illusion of fear and dick-waving. Land/air wars and invasions will continue to plague us as a response to escalated conflict, but nuclear war is a completely different scenario, one where the aggressors know they are going to get heavily wiped out too as the world at large would fall into all out war if nukes kicked off.

There is no real point, true. Whatever you do, you die. The only use is deterrence. If the other knows they will not survive if they strike first, they will not do it. Of course this only works for rational actors, and you could argue that a rational actor would never use nukes anyway since there is little to be gained from it, but still.

But like you say, if the aggressor knows they will be wiped out, they won't start their aggression. So this means the other side (in this case the UK, France, US) would need them to ensure that. Otherwise you'd have states like Russia able to bully everyone in doing whatever they want, because they can level a city with a push of the button.

 

[lastplayed]

The new G-FUK alliance.

 

[Koren]

French presidents have offered nuclear weapon sharing to germany a few times during history. The last time was sarkozy IIRC and germans always declined due to US nuclear weapon sharing. Might change at some point during Trumps presidency.

Macron wants closer defense ties with germany and i don't think he‘d decline

The question would be how it would work. I have no doubt that there's goodwill on both sides, but when the stakes are that high, and a mater of president decision, it's difficult to have joint control, and I don't see how it would work.

They always have a nuclear sub active. Others can be dropped by aircraft.

Yes... The fact is, there's no more silos in french nuclear defense, as far as I know.

And TNA on aircraft is usually described as "warnings", a possibility being explosion at high altitude to product a large-scale EMP. Should (I sure hope not) an actual nuclear war happen, it would be a matter of M51 in submarines (and should the situation escalate, I would expect several of the 4 submarines going at see quickly).

 

[Audioboxer]

The point of nuclear weapons is deterrence.
If we have our own nuclear umbrella we could finally tell the americans to leave us alone until they kicked the GOP out. Currently we're dependent on their nukes.

I think Closing actually summed up my feelings on the deterrent argument

There is no real point, true. Whatever you do, you die. The only use is deterrence. If the other knows they will not survive if they strike first, they will not do it. Of course this only works for rational actors, and you could argue that a rational actor would never use nukes anyway since there is little to be gained from it, but still.

Ultimately, I'm not a citizen of Germany and this is an issue for the German government and population to debate. Even if Scotland left the UK which is how I would think it would have to go for us to get Trident off our shores and not be contributing to it financially, the rUK as it remains would still be renewing it.

Countries are much better protected with traditional defences and counter-intelligence/police.

 

[whyamihere]

This was inevitable.

 

[Carl2291]

We British are happy to protect you, Europe.

 

[Xando]

The question would be how it would work. I have no doubt that there's goodwill on both sides, but when the stakes are that high, and a mater of president decision, it's difficult to have joint control, and I don't see how it would work.


Yes... The fact is, there's no more silos in french nuclear defense, as far as I know.

And TNA on aircraft is usually described as "warnings", a possibility being explosion at high altitude to product a large-scale EMP. Should (I sure hope not) an actual nuclear war happen, it would be a matter of M51 in submarines.

What do you mean how it would work?
Pretty much the same as it has these past 40 years with the US.

And i‘m not sure why we would need silos.Park subs in the baltics and the Mediterranean and you’ll have enough coverage to hit moscow, st petersburg, kalinigrad etc.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

How much is the fish, though. (There's no such thing as free nuclear weapons)

 

[JonnyDBrit]

In the UK this will be seen as "HOLY FUCK, WE ACTUALLY HAVE A BARGAINING CHIP?".

It is still frustratingly hilarious that, for the sake of our strategic interests, we are having to better integrate and align with continental Europe even as we try to back out from political integration.

 

[Madness]

Oh dear. If there ever was a sign that Germany has completely lost trust in the US, this would be it.

When he can't even bring himself to shake Merkel's hand what will happen? This is good for Germany and even the France and the UK who could get additional funds and support to maintain their costly nuclear forces. Moreso France if Brexit is a thing as France will remain closer to Germany.

 

[pulsemyne]

The only part of Britain current nuclear system that depends on the americans is the trident missile itself. They manufacture them. The warheads we use are UK made and the ability to launch the missiles is under our full control. The bullshit about not having control came from people who didn't understand the system. They saw that america made the missiles and maintained them and thought "OMG they have our missiles. They can turn of the GPS they use." etc. Doesn't work like that. There is no GPS used and there also isn;t no link command system in place. The sub cammnader could launch them on their own if they wished.

 

[Orniletter]

Imagine the mayhem if Brexit is cancelled because the EU wants to pay hard cash for UK nuclear protection under the ECJ.

What the UK owns is leased from America (which Germany...apparently...doesn't want to rely on anymore), in contrast to France's own technology.

It's significantly, significantly more likely that Germany will pay or team up with France. Their relationship is much better and France is considered a more trustworthy partner.

Spoiler

And will be in the EU in 2019 and beyond

 

[Koren]

What do you mean how it would work?
Pretty much the same as it has these past 40 years with the US.

In this case, don't the United States decide which kind of response the do in case of an attack?

I feel it's protection, not cooperation. I would see a joint Germany-France nuclear defense differently. Not France agreeing to answer in case Germany is attacked.

Besides, I can't see anyone attacking Germany and not France, so the result would already be the same in all practical cases, no?

And i‘m not sure why we would need silos.

That's the article that talks about silos... I'm just saying that I don't see why silos could be useful...

Park subs in the baltics and the Mediterranean and you’ll have enough coverage to hit moscow, st petersburg, kalinigrad etc.

Not sure those place are efficient enough for stealth.

And currently, I don't doubt that french nuclear subs are already in position of targetting Moscow... The M51 have a range of 8-9000km. They're usually north of Norway, I think where they can target, unless I'm mistaken, most of Russia, China, India, Middle-east, North America and the like. I don't see why we would need to move them. Most probably, "possible threats" to France and Germany are basically the same, no?

 

[cptodin]

Fuck no, I don't want this