Yes, they should. Nuclear deterrence has worked very well so far and the US's nuclear shield played a very important role in keeping the European NATO countries safe from Russia. France and the UK can't afford to leave their allies vulnerable like that.
this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2025
281 points (99.3% liked)
Europe
3856 readers
2845 users here now
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in !yurop@lemm.ee. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
(This list may get expanded when necessary.)
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the mods: @federalreverse@feddit.org, @poVoq@slrpnk.net, or @anzo@programming.dev.
founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
How does this pen out? If those weapons are meant to be used defencively, they have to be second-strike weapons.
This means that Germany needs nuclear submarines because everything else could be hit by Russian nuclear bombs in the assumed Russian attack.
Preparing nuclear weapons on fighter jets only helps to make Germany a target.
France and UK rightfully ask for support for their nuclear weapons program but there is no need to be further involved than financing it.
This means that Germany needs nuclear submarines because everything else could be hit by Russian nuclear bombs in the assumed Russian attack.
If Russia were to nuke Germany at the scale necessary to prevent a retaliatory strike, the entire planet would be fucked indefinitely.
France and UK rightfully ask for support for their nuclear weapons program but there is no need to be further involved than financing it.
There is a (not unreasonable) fear that the same brainworms infecting American politicians would take hold under a Nigel Farrage or Marine Le Pen government. In the same vein, an AfD takeover of the German government could mean Germany becomes a rogue state if it controls a nuclear stockpile. But again, in these kinds of scenarios, nuclear weapons don't benefit anyone.
Even beyond that, what we're talking about is still ICBMs, which functionally amount to a Space Program. And the EU has been fumbling the bag on advanced aeronautics practically since its inception. They're trying to guard against the possibility that Russia throws another 400k of its conscripted civilians into a land war along the Carpathian Mountains to what possible end?
And all the while, you've got guys like Peter Thiel and Bernard Arnault reigniting a transcontinental strain of white supremacy not seen since Henry Ford whipped the first edition of "Protocols of the Elders Of Zion" off the press. While Europeans scramble to bar the gates against Trumpism/Putinism, the evil shit is leeching straight into their well water.
And the EU has been fumbling the bag on advanced aeronautics practically since its inception.
This is disinformation.
Arianespace pioneered commercial satellite launches and in the 90s peaked at 60% of the market through domestic technology, with the French having developed ICBMs and SLBMs for national security. Meanwhile Airbus drove Northrop and McDonnell-Douglas out of the airliner market and is now out-competing Boeing. And regarding missiles MBDA is competitive as well, with some products like the Meteor leading the way in implementing ramjets.
Jet engines are dominated by the UK and US true, but Safran is still competitive enough to matter (through CFM for commercial or by themselves for military purposes), and although not in the EU Rolls-Royce is much friendlier to cooperation with the EU than American firms.
The EU is currently behind on drones, stealth, and reusable rockets. But that is not indicative of decades-long inability.
Even beyond that, what we’re talking about is still ICBMs, which functionally amount to a Space Program. And the EU has been fumbling the bag on advanced aeronautics practically since its inception.
They already have a space program, so it's more like a new rocket, really.
They’re trying to guard against the possibility that Russia throws another 400k of its conscripted civilians into a land war along the Carpathian Mountains to what possible end?
Is it really only Russia that you folks worry about? Trump wants Greenland. China will eventually want something.
If European states rebuild a serious modern army, in another twenty years they'll be bombing one another.
I mean, it's not like they don't have armies to start with. So I guess that happens either way?
This period of Pax Europa has been an anomaly, to be sure. But Balkanization appears to be coming for them all.
Germany has nuclear-capable subs. There was a whole thing about exporting subs to Israel because they might put nukes on them.
Nuclear-powered is a whole other thing. Type 212s can't dive as long as nuclear subs but it's definitely sufficient (18 days is publicly known, they probably can do way more), and on the upside they're way less detectable than nuclear subs which are loud AF due to being powered by steam engines on angry steroids.
The Dolphin submarines for Israel are built bz Germany, but they are different because they’re are to launch nukes. German submarines aren’t equipped with the same size launch tubes. Germany could build such subs though.
Far right is neck in neck with liberals for couple of months now in UK and France according to polls. Both have single mandate voting districts so it’s a tossup if they won’t have their own Trumps few years down the line unless they cancel elections like in Romania. Not a great outlook, not that great of a plan to rely on wishful thinking. Culturally close countries (Nordics, Baltics states, Eastern Europe) should be working on their nuclear programs ASAP.
Le Pen has already said, that she does not support French nuclear sharing with Germany. So really the only real option for Germany to get relibale nukes is to not share them, but own them.
Doubt that's gonna happen, there would be huge public opposition in Germany
Considering WW2 and nazis getting 20% in the last election, we Germans shouldn't get our own nukes. It's fine if we get shared ones from our defense partners, but the moment the nazis take over again, the nukes should be gone or deactivated.
As if it had anything to do with nationality per se. The truth is that people in general just suck, and those who see themselves as exceptional and who seek power at any cost tend to suck the most.
The nazis would not have 20% if we have nuclear weapons. Putin uses cyber war to threatening and scaring the German population. The Germans are scared of being one of Putins target. This anxiety would not be there if we had these weapons. Putin knows he cannot use his nuclear weapons against countries which also own nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, the German population is not really the brightest on earth, because they fell into Putins narrative.
Putin's internet-based propaganda runs in most Western countries, no matter whether they have a nuclear arsenal or not. They were/are very successful in the US, the country with the largest nuclear arsenal of them all. Fear of Russian nuclear attacks is only a small part of it.
Besides, Germany does have US nuclear weapons stationed within its borders, and until November last year, they would have been at the ready. Yet, Putinophilia was trending nonetheless.
It's a hot take the nazis are so successful again out of fear of putin. Living in Germany, I don't get the impression Putin scares anyone here at all. We're worried about our nation friends who share a border with russia and belarus and that's the full extend of Putins influence on our emotions.
I think the nazis reached 20% because they are actually nazis. They offer stupid poppulist impossible solutions for common or often entirely perceived as common problems. They managed to unite a big base using social media, making it okay to come out as a nazi again, which before would have got you shunned or even beaten up. Now, all that happens is a few left protesters, who will get beaten by the police, confirming it's now better to be a nazi.
Living in Germany, I don't get the impression Putin scares anyone here at all.
That is clearly wrong to be honest.
"Ich habe große Angst vor einem Krieg!" Das antworten 39 Prozent der Befragten des ZDF-Politbarometers im November 2023 auf die Frage, ob sie in Sorge sind vor einem militärischen Konflikt in Europa mit Beteiligung der Bundeswehr. Jeder zwölfte Befragte empfindet sogar "sehr große Sorge".
Russlands Angriffskrieg in der Ukraine macht vielen Millionen Menschen in Deutschland Angst vor einem Dritten Weltkrieg. Wie eine Forsa-Umfrage vom Montag im Auftrag von RTL und ntv ergab, befürchten 69 Prozent sogar, dass die Nato in den Konflikt hineingezogen wird, weil der russische Präsident Wladimir Putin ein Mitglied des westlichen Verteidigungsbündnisses angreifen könnte
In einer Umfrage des Markt- und Sozialforschungsinstitut INSA im Auftrag der Bild, gaben 46 Prozent der Befragten an, dass ihnen ein möglicher Russland-Angriff auf Deutschland Sorgen mache. Dabei schätzten Linken-Wähler und CDU-Wähler die Kriegsgefahr höher ein als Sympathisanten der neu gegründeten Wagenknecht-Partei und der AfD.
Being worried about war is a different thing than worrying about losing.
I did not say that the German population is scared to lose the war.
EVERYBODY GETS A NUKE! ＼(ﾟ∀ﾟ)／
Which UK party are you referring to when you say "liberals"?
Labour, Tories. Both keen on free market economics and austerity. If speaking broadly about EU politics then S&D, EPP and RE are just different faces of neoliberalism. All of them aspire to be perceived as centrist just so that their inhumane economic policies are seen as balanced.
And I assume that "far right" is UKIP? So you're saying that UKIP is neck-and-neck with Labour and Conservatives combined?
Farrage won nearly half of the tory vote. He’s only growing in polling.
Single mandate voting districts produce very unpredictable results when there’s a tie this close. Add few more percent to anyone and things can flip immediately. You might not even need to because polling has become increasingly unreliable when it comes to far right. Some say this is Russian influence but I’m worried that we are simply out of touch with reality.
Right, but I'm just trying to get a feel for how big UKIP support is at the moment - but this sounds like it's at the level of either Labour or the Conservatives (and presumably Labour, which I think is still far larger than the Convervatives?), right?
Correct. It’s pretty alarming (Reform is mostly ex-UKIP people):
https://bsky.app/profile/europeelects.bsky.social/post/3ljvdnhsfnk2d
https://bsky.app/profile/europeelects.bsky.social/post/3ljnuuefi2y2k
https://bsky.app/profile/europeelects.bsky.social/post/3ljlmhqdjnh2y
And brought the receipts :) Thanks! And ah yes, Reform is the current name, thanks.
UK has American-supplied and maintained nukes so maybe not a great long-term prospect?
No it doesn't, only the rockets are from a shared pool the war heads are entirely British.
That's still a problem at least in the medium term, because the US control the supply of spare parts for the missiles.
(I won't mention the possibility of a remote kill switch, because having that on an SLBM would render it useless by design, I hope the UK ruled that out when buying Trident)
Would a remote killswitch for something aboard a submarine even be technically feasible? Radio waves don't travel through water very well
The missiles have to travel through the air and even space eventually, after launch.