• German review believes EU nuclear weapons program would be legal
    9 replies, posted
[quote]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.[/quote] [url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/world/europe/germany-nuclear-weapons.html[/url] I've known that behind the scenes the Germans have supported the Nato nuclear sharing program despite publicly not supporting it so I'm surprised to see them break their silence and support a similar concept.
they're still going to end up relying on US nukes though, britain and france do not have the nuclear infastructure to develop and maintain their weapons like we do and in the time it would take to develop the industrial capacity that we have, Trump would already be term limited out of office (assuming he even survives that long). France has a lot of the technology already though, but they lack the design expertise on nuclear weaponry, doubly so with britain since they never even developed an indigenous nuclear program, instead opting to coerce the US into giving them bombs.
[QUOTE=Sableye;52442689]they're still going to end up relying on US nukes though, britain and france do not have the nuclear infastructure to develop and maintain their weapons like we do and in the time it would take to develop the industrial capacity that we have, Trump would already be term limited out of office (assuming he even survives that long). France has a lot of the technology already though, but they lack the design expertise on nuclear weaponry, doubly so with britain since they never even developed an indigenous nuclear program, instead opting to coerce the US into giving them bombs.[/QUOTE] The weapons the US supplies to Nato are B61 gravity bombs. They're not super advanced being 1960s technology. I'm not sure where you got the idea that the UK or France aren't fully fledged nuclear powers. In the case of the UK they have complete access to US weapon design data and make nearly every component of their own weapons. They have a long history of producing miniaturised thermonuclear weapons (i.e. the WE.177B and WE.177C which were American W28 clones, and their "Trident Warhead" which is a W76 clone). The claim the UK never had an indigenous nuclear weapons claim is ridiculous. It's a well know fact the US refused to share any design information with the UK (an issue that was a major diplomatic sticking point in the 1940s and 50s given they contributed to Manhattan) until the UK indigenously developed thermonuclear weapons. Unlike the UK, France's nuclear weapons capability is completely indigenous. That's not to say they lack information however; France performed nearly 200 nuclear tests to refine their designs and now have a miniaturised thermonuclear capability on par with the US and UK. France's ASMP standoff missile is a good example of their nuclear capability; a warhead only ~350mm wide, mass of 200kg and a yield of 300 kt. France currently has ~290 warheads down from a peak of ~600 during the Cold War. They still have the material from those retired weapons and could easily build more weapons to supplement the US' contribution to Nato.
I don't see how this setup would work, would they just be paying inordinate sums of money for a pinkie swear from either France or the UK to use their nuclear weapons to deter attacks on Germany and hope they keep their word? I don't see how that's a credible deterrent or politically acceptable to Germany. I'm sure they would want to co-own the warheads, delivery vehicles and the means of deploying them. That pretty much rules UK out, with only submarine-launched weapons it would require the UK to pool their Vanguards and successors with Germany or for Germany to build their own class of Trident-capable submarines. That would be more trouble than it's worth, would also require the UK to pool their Trident missiles with Germany, when the UK are already pooling [i]their[/i] Tridents with the US. Which, in a hypothetical situation where the US is rolling back its nuclear umbrella over Europe, is hard to see happening. France is much more likely, but the same problems apply for their submarine-launched weapons minus the need to pool with the US. That leaves air-launched warheads as the only real option. Not sure how easy that would be to integrate onto the Typhoon, but shouldn't be impossible. Hardly a deterrent though... it would only realistically be able to deter Russia and in the numbers Germany would be deploying it would be hard to see Russia pausing for thought.
If they want nukes from the UK then I can't see Germany wanting to give a bad deal.
[QUOTE=RVFHarrier;52443130] France is much more likely, but the same problems apply for their submarine-launched weapons minus the need to pool with the US. That leaves air-launched warheads as the only real option. Not sure how easy that would be to integrate onto the Typhoon, but shouldn't be impossible. Hardly a deterrent though... it would only realistically be able to deter Russia and in the numbers Germany would be deploying it would be hard to see Russia pausing for thought.[/QUOTE] The existing deterrent [I]is[/I] air dropped weapons.
Why do we need to pretend that the US-EU relations will be in the gutter forever? We just kind of have to wait it out until they elect a democrat.
[QUOTE=Black Pete;52446009]Why do we need to pretend that the US-EU relations will be in the gutter forever? We just kind of have to wait it out until they elect a democrat.[/QUOTE] Because this election has shown Europe that they cannot rely on the United States if we can't even keep our own shit together.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52446018]Because this election has shown Europe that they cannot rely on the United States if we can't even keep our own shit together.[/QUOTE] You guys just need to get rid of money in politics, the electoral college, and the two-party system.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.