How many European countries will have nuclear weapons in four years?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from anderspuck@krigskunst.social
@anderspuck I made a ‘funny' poll today about Dr. Strangelove.
It's even less funny than it was 6 hours ago….
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from chris@mstdn.chrisalemany.ca
@anderspuck Czechia needs nukes!
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from xbezdick@masto.ai
@anderspuck Germany will have nukes, but their nuclear doctrine will allow them to use it only in their own country.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from lostgen@det.social
@anderspuck does Belarus count?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from mbpaz@mas.to
@mbpaz Only if they build their own.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from anderspuck@krigskunst.social
@anderspuck fine, but one could argue Brit nukes are not that much british either
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from mbpaz@mas.to
@mbpaz They are controlled by the British government. I see the weapons in Belarus as akin to NATO's nuclear sharing program, which doesn't mean that e.g. Belgium and Germany have nukes today.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from anderspuck@krigskunst.social
@anderspuck
Under those rules, my (worthless) prediction is: no new nuclear countries in Europe in the next 4 years, we're too slow to get there. Probably some discussion on the subject.
Poland might defeat me, though, but I doubt it.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from mbpaz@mas.to
@mbpaz Ukraine is a European country too…
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from anderspuck@krigskunst.social
@anderspuck Ukraine does have the knowledge, materials and technology. Probably not the money and the safe environment required for the development. Definitely not the position for any sane nuclear doctrine.
If they had nukes they would have every reason to use them immediately. No country in control of nuclear weapons has been in that position for the past 80 years.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from mbpaz@mas.to
@mbpaz Yes, it would be much better for NATO to provide those security guarantees. But that probably won't happen now.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from anderspuck@krigskunst.social
They have all the motivation in the world though. Without a NATO security guarantee, what are they going to do? Try and rebuild for the next attach from Russia in 5-10 years?
They have a lot of reason for not using them now: whoever throws the first nuke is going to be a persona-non-grata on the international scene for many years. They'd rather have NATO protection.
Depending on what Trump told Zelensky a few weeks back, I'd bet they are rushing to make nukes ready for January 20th.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from michael@westergaard.social
@anderspuck https://kyivindependent.com/with-trump-back-in-white-house-can-ukraine-opt-for-nuclear-deterrence/
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from mbpaz@mas.to
@mbpaz I can’t read the article, unfortunately.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from anderspuck@krigskunst.social
@anderspuck Ukraine is a probable, Poland a potential candidate.
Germany might also be a candidate in view of discussions in conservative and "liberal" circles after the full invasion of Ukraine (I expect Merz to be the next chancellor).
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from t_mkdf@ruhr.social
@t_mkdf @anderspuck would not be surprised in the slightest, especially since we do have the tech and partial infrastructure (and technically even the Uranium)
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from JmbFountain@mastodon.social
@JmbFountain @anderspuck I know that until the early 2000s Germany was seen as a country that could build an atomic bomb in a years notice in view of technological capability and availability of fissionable materials (especially weapons grade plutonium).
I am not sure whether this is still the case 25 years later.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from t_mkdf@ruhr.social
@t_mkdf
Wikipedia also mentions the Netherlands as a possibility. That surprises me.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency
@JmbFountain @anderspuck
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from notsoloud@expressional.social
@notsoloud @JmbFountain @anderspuck Japan is also a candidate.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from t_mkdf@ruhr.social
@t_mkdf @notsoloud @JmbFountain Japan and South Korea are definitely also two countries that might acquire nuclear weapons. They are not European, though.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from anderspuck@krigskunst.social
@anderspuck @notsoloud @JmbFountain no, but they are both dependent on the US for their security.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from t_mkdf@ruhr.social
@t_mkdf I am surprised no one has mentioned Finland yet.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from anderspuck@krigskunst.social
@anderspuck @t_mkdf Yup, I’d put Ukraine and Poland in the “almost certain” bucket, Finland and Germany in the 50% probability camp.
I wonder whether the future long range strike capability will allow for nuclear warheads.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from richrants@toot.community
@t_mkdf @anderspuck Ukraine is only probable as a territory of Russia
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from anubis2814@friendica.myportal.social
@t_mkdf
I fully expect Merz to happily surrender to Trump AND Putin AND Xi.
Hence no need for nuclear weapons.
@anderspuck
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from proscience@toot.community
@anderspuck I don't see how Ukraine can avoid getting them now, unless we all step up and guarantee it NATO membership.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from markstoneman@zirk.us
@anderspuck Do we still consider Russia a European country? That seems off to me.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from tanyakaroli@expressional.social
@tanyakaroli I am pretty sure Europe extends to the Ural Mountains. 😊
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from anderspuck@krigskunst.social
@anderspuck @tanyakaroli Huh, then Turkey!
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from aurochs@todon.eu
@anderspuck Hasn't the Ukraine war sort of showed us that nukes don't really matter?
What would Ukraine or some other power having nukes change?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from simongray@indieweb.social
@simongray On the contrary. The Ukraine war has shown us that nuclear weapons are game changers. If Russia had not been a nuclear power, NATO would have stopped the war a long time ago.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from anderspuck@krigskunst.social
@anderspuck True, but I also find this somewhat paradoxical.
What would it change for Ukraine? I don't see a situation where they would use them, just like Russia isn't using nukes now.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from simongray@indieweb.social
@anderspuck I'm probably desensitised from the constant nuclear threats we've been hearing on Russian TV.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from simongray@indieweb.social
@simongray There is an asymmetry in the perception of escalation risks right now, which has led to reduced help for Ukraine. The U.S. and Germany are just much more concerned about what Putin might do than about Ukraine. If Ukraine had nuclear weapons there would paradoxically be a stronger incentive to help them.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from anderspuck@krigskunst.social
@anderspuck @simongray This is a very interesting point, thanks!
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from chris@strafpla.net
@anderspuck
Germany cannot even commit to decent spending on conventional forces.
I strongly doubt DE would join the club; would rather put my money on Poland.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Gahmiaf@mastodon.social
@anderspuck @simongray Now it's time for Ukraine to acquire their own nuclear weapons to deter Russia from further escalation. We can't count on the US anymore!
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from sarahbeck@expressional.social
@anderspuck
I voted 3, but if we talk about 10 years, things might be different.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from notsoloud@expressional.social
@anderspuck next comes "which nuclear latent countries which can no longer rely on US support will perform a weapon test first?"
I'd guess Taiwan or Japan, which would motivate S Korea to join in. Maybe they'll collaborate
In Europe: Poland would have the best immediate motivation, but Germany would start discussions.
And they and more would start looking at missile systems with no reliance on US technology. Copernicus for navigation, etc.
A post-US NATO
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from stevel@hachyderm.io
@anderspuck
I voted 3, because the time frame is too short. In a longer perspective it might change. After reading the replies, I think Poland and Finnland might be the best candidates for the Nuclear club.
But I am surprised you guys mention Germany and Ukraine.
As to Ukraine: I don't see how Ukraine is expected to survive without US material support. And this is the first thing Trump will cut. So we can consider Ukraine destroyed for the coming years and not having any agency of their own. They are not going to build their own nukes.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from ditol@freiburg.social
@ditol I don't think we should be so deterministic about Ukraine’s chances of survival. Things are not looking great in Russia either, so it's not like the war will suddenly be easy for them.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from anderspuck@krigskunst.social
@anderspuck
I agree. But their tactic of slow and costly grinding advances will be much more effective now that the Ukraine will lack the material means and technological supremacy to counter them. Now that Russian tactics might actually lead to victory, a bloody and self-destrucfive one, but still a victory.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from ditol@freiburg.social
@ditol It's possible. But the Russian war economy is a bubble, and it can collapse sooner than we know it. Unless Trump plans on removing the sanctions and starts exporting technology to Russia, they don't have a lot of time left to secure the victory.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from anderspuck@krigskunst.social
@ditol @anderspuck This sounds like overestimating russia to me.
Now, if China steps in to (really) help them …
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from amayer@rheinneckar.social
@amayer
Why overestimating? Ukraine isn't exactly the most advanced military power in the world and still, Russia needs to throw in all its material reserves and bring their economy on the brink of a collapse in order to achieve a military victory. How is this overestimating Russia?
Russiamilitary is obviously very inefficient, which means that in order to achieve the desired effect (i.e. to be effective) they have to mobilize incredible amounts of resources. Unfortunately, as compared to Ukraine, they have those resources. It is only possible to counter them with better capabilities in sufficient numbers. Ukraine receives those capabilities, albeit in insufficient numbers, but under Trump it probably won't.
(I am not touching on the internal problems of the Ukrainian military, state, society and economy, this would exceed the scope of the conversation here.)
@anderspuck
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from ditol@freiburg.social
@ditol @anderspuck I don’t know what you have been watching. From my standpoint it looks like russia is starting to run out of pretty much everything. It’s not a coincidence they now even employ soldiers from North Korea.
I’m convinced we can get Ukraine enough material, even without the US. If we actually try.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from amayer@rheinneckar.social
@anderspuck I consider four years to be too short for any country to develop (the infrastructure for) any modern nuclear weapon system and I don’t expect the UK or France to sell their systems to individual EU members for various reasons. Plus I’m not sure what treaties these countries are bound to.
So only individual countries who don’t give a sh*t but who have a way to source complete nuclear weapons “elsewhere” will have them.
These will not be any of the EU member states.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from chris@strafpla.net
@anderspuck out of interest, what was your vote on the poll?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from picard@mas.to
@picard I would probably vote for three as the most likely, but I do think it is going to be a discussion topic and I would not be surprised to see movement.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from anderspuck@krigskunst.social
@anderspuck thanks! i suppose for any country, it would be a massive step to take.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from picard@mas.to
@anderspuck Turkey and Polen are the most obvious imo
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from HenrikBruunDK@toot.community This content has been proxied by September (3851b).Proxy Information
text/gemini