this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2026
45 points (94.1% liked)
Europe
10884 readers
537 users here now
News and information from Europe ๐ช๐บ
(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 When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title.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, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- 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 other communities.
- 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.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 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 admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
With the urgency of the problem, I think we should take as much advantage as possible from any already existing structures, and use them as a starting point for something new and hopefully better
Something like NATO minus USA makes sense. Maybe the demented orange shit stain does us the favour of leaving NATO, which saves the effort of giving the thing a new name and legal framework.
But a purely military alliance based on geostrategic interests alone, like NATO, doesn't cut it. The EU needs a serious own capability of defending itself, as well, as there is strong political, economical and ideological alignment and co-dependence within the EU. I'd strongly argue for it being a separate arrangement from whatever needs to replace NATO, because geostrategic interests can shift easily. (see USA)
Therefore, the EU as a whole needs to step up its defence cooperation and capabilities, both to deter any land grabs by any megalomaniac imperialist dictator, East or West, and to benefit from the economy of scale. As long as every European country is cooking its own soup defence wise, equipment will be (and stay) outrageously expensive, as it is only produced in limited numbers. This will require a unified EU defence policy, and ultimately should lead to a common military. I wouldn't centralise it too much, though, as this adds a single point of failure. Maybe transitioning via turning the existing national militaries into the EU military's regional commands could work. Likewise, even equipment produced under unified standards shouldn't be made all in one place, but needs to be spread out somewhat across the EU, as a single factory is way too easy to put out of production. Also, this way, it's possible that every member state gets to benefit economically from the defence industry.
For nuclear doctrine, firstly, there needs to be sufficient capability. Unfortunately that means enlarging the nuclear arsenal. Currently, the EU's only nuclear deterrent is the French nuclear arsenal, which was designed to have the ability to deliver a retaliatory strike powerful enough to make a single nuclear superpower think twice before attacking France itself, because they risk losing all their major cities over it. Now there unfortunately are three nuclear superpowers with potentially hostile intents towards the EU. In the remainder of NATO, there is another nuclear arsenal, that of the UK, which was designed around the same idea as the French one, and is sized similarly, but unfortunately, relies on US made delivery systems with shared maintenance arrangements, (Trident rather than domestically produced SLBMs) so it useless in the long term as a deterrent against an increasingly hostile USA, because they can render the missiles inoperable by ceasing delivery of spare parts. The British warheads also were developed in close cooperation with the US, so there might be a possibility of some spare parts also relying on US supply chains.
As a deterrent, why would it make a difference if there is one or three nations that need to be deterred? The entire idea is that if you have to use it you lost already.
Because the only place you can strike all three countries from with the current French missiles is the Artic Ocean. That means it is easier to find them and you also know the general direction of a French strike. That matters, because each submarine only carries 16 missiles and all three countries have at least some systems, which can intercept them. Namely Thaad for the US, HQ-19 for China and S-300VM for Russia.
Mostly irrelevant as submarines are mobile and not all three potential enemies pose the same threat at the same time.
That still means that the two submarines will launch at different times, making interception easier and if the submarine has to be moved, it can be found and destroyed.
The problem is the size, and the resulting vulnerability of the deterrent.
Both the French and the British strategic retaliatory capability consist of a fleet of 4 missile carrying submarines each. Because that's how things work, of those fleets, at best two submarines can be out at sea at once, with the others undergoing scheduled maintenance and/or training. That might be reliable against an adversary with limited naval capabilities that is located sufficiently far away. But with an adversary that has the largest navy of the world, that deterrent, whose survivability depends solely on staying undetected, suddenly becomes very vulnerable. (Apart from having a large navy, the US operate a global hydrophone network for submarine detection) Additionally, the range of submarine launched missiles is somewhat limited due to size constraints, so they cannot be easily aimed at every possible adversary at once, leaving the submarine vulnerable to detection and destruction when transiting to a suitable launch area.
Also a purely (or largely) strategic deterrent lacks a credible escalation path from conventional war to one all-out strategic nuclear countervalue strike. Especially a submarine based deterrent, because if a missile submarine fires only a single missile, it risks detection, and therefore potential destruction, before it will be able to launch again, so it's more an all or nothing approach. Which nuclear superpower is going to believe you that you'll risk your entire anihilation as a response to a small scale conventional attack on a minor ally?
The first point is a general issue unrelated to the number of adversiaries, and would also be the case if there was only one with similar capabilities.
The second part is the entire point of a nuclear deterrent. Strategic uncertainty with possible MAD is what you want. If the enemy falsely believes that they can have a limited nuclear exchange with tactical nuclear weapons only, they are much more likely to use their tactical nuclear weapons. And a nuclear deterrent is never going to deterr a conventional attack, that isn't the point of it.