It’ll take the European nations finding the money to pay 5% + GDP ongoing (at least), accepting the cuts that will demand elsewhere in national budgets, *and* a total attitude change on the part of the German people to defence. Tbh, as things stand, what could be currently cobbled together would rely on Britain, France and Poland primarily, with (valuable) smaller contributions from Denmark, Holland, Italy and the Baltics/Scandinavia. Everyone else might as well stay at home.
Our Constitution specifically says a president can only serve two terms or ten years (assuming the person took the office at the sudden death of the previous president). The only way to get around that would be to pass a new constitutional amendment changing the term limits, but that sure as h3ll ain't going to happen.
That is what @Eirenist said has been proposed—a constitutional amendment.
It's amazing what timeframes might start to seem credible if Trump withdrew US troops and Ukraine were thrown under the bus.
Yes, what worries me though is my 20-30 years assumes we make it the main priority now. Ie, that is the unrealistically quick scenario. Absent total Transition To War Economy (which will have millions of people rightly or wrongly kicking and screaming about it), I’m not sure I see a great deal of margin to accelerate that.
We’re talking mindset changes at national level, never mind governmental, that puts defence as the number one recipient of cash in virtually every Western European country (I say western advisedly because a lot of the east have ramped up already so it would be less of leap for them).
It might (or might not) be the right thing to do, but I can’t see it being ‘uncontroversial’
It's a weird irony in the US, that I know some military types who have basically said "Look, we're sick and tired of subsidizing Europe's national security for no return on investment. Let them defend themselves for a change."
And I know a lot of peaceniks, the types who'd usually complain about how much we spend on "national security" who are worried sick that if we start treating Europe like a protection racket, it'll just feed the totalitarians in Europe and everywhere else.
I feel like the Iraq War threw a big wrench into the way Americans think about foreign involvement, perhaps echoing Vietnam by creating a whole generation of people who are exhausted by a war and profoundly resentful by the lack of gratitude from people who knew from the beginning that particular war was a bad idea.
And now we have real external threats instead of made-up ones, and the people who were supposed to be all gung-ho for patriotic wars find themselves burned out, and it's falling on the folks who objectively hate war to fight it.
Dubya may have an awful lot to pay for, and folks who supported him. I think I knew it was going to be bad, but I don't think I realized exactly how bad it could get.
It's a weird irony in the US, that I know some military types who have basically said "Look, we're sick and tired of subsidizing Europe's national security for no return on investment. Let them defend themselves for a change."
And I know a lot of peaceniks, the types who'd usually complain about how much we spend on "national security" who are worried sick that if we start treating Europe like a protection racket, it'll just feed the totalitarians in Europe and everywhere else.
I feel like the Iraq War threw a big wrench into the way Americans think about foreign involvement, perhaps echoing Vietnam by creating a whole generation of people who are exhausted by a war and profoundly resentful by the lack of gratitude from people who knew from the beginning that particular war was a bad idea.
And now we have real external threats instead of made-up ones, and the people who were supposed to be all gung-ho for patriotic wars find themselves burned out, and it's falling on the folks who objectively hate war to fight it.
Dubya may have an awful lot to pay for, and folks who supported him. I think I knew it was going to be bad, but I don't think I realized exactly how bad it could get.
Our Constitution specifically says a president can only serve two terms or ten years (assuming the person took the office at the sudden death of the previous president). The only way to get around that would be to pass a new constitutional amendment changing the term limits, but that sure as h3ll ain't going to happen.
That is what @Eirenist said has been proposed—a constitutional amendment.
Again, not going to pass. Can't get two thirds of the House or the Senate to agree. Sure as hell not going to get three fourths of the states to fall in.
Yes, I said that in the post immediately after Eirenist’s. Though as you and @Arethosemyfeet have reminded me, my brain went on hiatus and I mistyped. I should have said 3/4 of states would have to ratify, not 2/3 as with the Senate and House.
It's a weird irony in the US, that I know some military types who have basically said "Look, we're sick and tired of subsidizing Europe's national security for no return on investment. Let them defend themselves for a change."
And I know a lot of peaceniks, the types who'd usually complain about how much we spend on "national security" who are worried sick that if we start treating Europe like a protection racket, it'll just feed the totalitarians in Europe and everywhere else.
I feel like the Iraq War threw a big wrench into the way Americans think about foreign involvement, perhaps echoing Vietnam by creating a whole generation of people who are exhausted by a war and profoundly resentful by the lack of gratitude from people who knew from the beginning that particular war was a bad idea.
And now we have real external threats instead of made-up ones, and the people who were supposed to be all gung-ho for patriotic wars find themselves burned out, and it's falling on the folks who objectively hate war to fight it.
Dubya may have an awful lot to pay for, and folks who supported him. I think I knew it was going to be bad, but I don't think I realized exactly how bad it could get.
Along these lines, my worry is that if the UK in particular cranks up military spending TPTB will see a tool they can use to go on foreign adventures protecting "British interests". Expect to see Suez Crisis II: This Time Even More Vainglorious within a decade. I'm also not overly keen on seeing what happens when a German population impoverished by rearmament votes AfD and puts a newly expanded and updates military in the hands of actual Nazis.
I wonder if there are ways of spending money on defence that are particularly hard to use for offensive and projection of power? Maybe Iron Dome type stuff?
If, as mentioned in the article, the Panama Canal is seeing less traffic, because of drought, Greater Trumplandia may not need to annex that country.
The thought that somehow Canada would be better off as a US state is just bizarre - I'm sure most Canadians would agree, whatever social, political, or economic, problems of their own that they may have.
Greenland OTOH is another matter, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Trump making a first strike to grab it, Denmark, the EU, NATO, and the rest notwithstanding.
I wonder if there are ways of spending money on defence that are particularly hard to use for offensive and projection of power? Maybe Iron Dome type stuff?
Always proves a false friend. Every time. Bottom line is if you’re going to beat an aggressor you need to be offensive and you need to be able to take the fight to them. Purely defensive doesn’t work. Iron Dome is a fine club to have in the golf bag for swatting incoming missiles. So an enemy that means business and has other clubs in *their* golf bag will just send tanks and men, against which iron dome is useless. See also the Maginot Line (soak up loads of the French defence budget before World War Two: German solution, ‘don’t attack that then, go round the side’)
Big wars (and a war with Russia would be one of those), where they don’t end up with everyone dead, end up with the troops of one side or the other in the opponents capital. You can see the issue with Ukraine at the moment - ok no one sane thinks they should be trying to occupy Moscow - but they can just about hold the line, they can’t push it back. And sooner or later defence = pushing back. Pushing riiiiight back.
I’m not cheerleading for this at all, but I am one of the few on here who have done it for a living. ‘Let’s spend it all on defensive stuff’ is a recipe for wasting a lot of money then losing. Defeating an aggressor tends to equal offence and power projection. It just does.
It's a weird irony in the US, that I know some military types who have basically said "Look, we're sick and tired of subsidizing Europe's national security for no return on investment. Let them defend themselves for a change."
And I know a lot of peaceniks, the types who'd usually complain about how much we spend on "national security" who are worried sick that if we start treating Europe like a protection racket, it'll just feed the totalitarians in Europe and everywhere else.
I feel like the Iraq War threw a big wrench into the way Americans think about foreign involvement, perhaps echoing Vietnam by creating a whole generation of people who are exhausted by a war and profoundly resentful by the lack of gratitude from people who knew from the beginning that particular war was a bad idea.
And now we have real external threats instead of made-up ones, and the people who were supposed to be all gung-ho for patriotic wars find themselves burned out, and it's falling on the folks who objectively hate war to fight it.
Dubya may have an awful lot to pay for, and folks who supported him. I think I knew it was going to be bad, but I don't think I realized exactly how bad it could get.
Along these lines, my worry is that if the UK in particular cranks up military spending TPTB will see a tool they can use to go on foreign adventures protecting "British interests". Expect to see Suez Crisis II: This Time Even More Vainglorious within a decade. I'm also not overly keen on seeing what happens when a German population impoverished by rearmament votes AfD and puts a newly expanded and updates military in the hands of actual Nazis.
I wonder if there are ways of spending money on defence that are particularly hard to use for offensive and projection of power? Maybe Iron Dome type stuff?
People keep talking about the Roman Empire like it was some kind of model for emulation, for some reason. I don't get it anymore. But one thing I learned about the Roman Empire was that - granting that its continued survival was nothing short of miraculous - what finally did it in was that it ran on a "conquest economy." They needed to pay for their military using conquest. They'd give conquered lands to their veterans as a way of paying them off.
After every war, there's a big problem of a whole lot of deeply disgruntled men with guns saying "Hey, y'all said we'd get paid!" Because no government ever pays its troops what they're worth. Sloppily, World War II sort of pulled it off in the USA by segregating out the black soldiers. Like ya do. And I that was about as fortunate as a war gets. Every war has a big mess afterward of destitution. Even now people keep saying we don't have enough resources and people say things like "why are you supporting those immigrants when The Veterans don't get enough!" I'd be more sympathetic, except no social need in America gets enough.
All of that billion dollar heavy machinery has to be paid for, somehow, and with something more than "our continued survival." Grift aside, I wonder if that's where some of these wars go. It's just an economic calculation.
I'm no expert, but that's a hypothesis I'm spinning. I don't like it. It quickly turns into a feedback loop.
I wonder if there are ways of spending money on defence that are particularly hard to use for offensive and projection of power? Maybe Iron Dome type stuff?
Always proves a false friend. Every time. Bottom line is if you’re going to beat an aggressor you need to be offensive and you need to be able to take the fight to them. Purely defensive doesn’t work. Iron Dome is a fine club to have in the golf bag for swatting incoming missiles. So an enemy that means business and has other clubs in *their* golf bag will just send tanks and men, against which iron dome is useless. See also the Maginot Line (soak up loads of the French defence budget before World War Two: German solution, ‘don’t attack that then, go round the side’)
Big wars (and a war with Russia would be one of those), where they don’t end up with everyone dead, end up with the troops of one side or the other in the opponents capital. You can see the issue with Ukraine at the moment - ok no one sane thinks they should be trying to occupy Moscow - but they can just about hold the line, they can’t push it back. And sooner or later defence = pushing back. Pushing riiiiight back.
I’m not cheerleading for this at all, but I am one of the few on here who have done it for a living. ‘Let’s spend it all on defensive stuff’ is a recipe for wasting a lot of money then losing. Defeating an aggressor tends to equal offence and power projection. It just does.
Fair enough. There's a reason I asked rather than assuming I knew!
I suppose the only truly pure defensive capabilities are those that rely on geography or circumstance as force multipliers. What I've read of Switzerland's Cold War defence plans was that they relied not on beating a soviet invasion but making it too much trouble to take and hold the Alpine areas. But we can't all be Switzerland (invading and holding Argyll and the Highlands has historically been a bugger but nothing compared with the Alps).
Well quite - and you’ll note implicit in Switzerland’s posture is that they sort of assume wars will rage round them, they just want to sit them out by being too much trouble to attack. Which is fine as far as it goes, but doesn’t contribute to the maintenance of continental peace (notwithstanding mediation, Geneva Conventions, the Red Cross and all the other things that amount to tinkering a bit round the edges).
Another hazard is infiltration from the inside. I see a lot of Russian media manipulation all over Europe and the US, and a distressing number of people who seem eager to lap it up.
It's funny, we used to joke about this stuff as kids, but it's another thing watching people in real time. I hate the word "brainwashed," but it's getting pretty close sometimes in terms of the degree of straight-up-delusion in global politics.
Who needs to invade when you can just convince people to turn against each other?
Another hazard is infiltration from the inside. I see a lot of Russian media manipulation all over Europe and the US, and a distressing number of people who seem eager to lap it up.
I feel a great deal of the susceptibility of this is a lack of consequences, hark back to your post about the Iraq War; fundamentally no one who made those decisions suffered any political consequences. See also the financial crisis.
This level of insouciance is terrible for trust in society and is a good breeding ground for all kinds of conspiracy theories.
I wonder if there are ways of spending money on defence that are particularly hard to use for offensive and projection of power? Maybe Iron Dome type stuff?
Fundamentally, as I understand it, defense in war consists either in getting the attacker to believe that the cost of invading you is greater than the benefit they'll gain or else stopping them from attacking you by destroying their military capability.
Defence amounts to taking advantage of the fact that the attacker's plans fall apart faster than the defender's plans and then counterattacking before the attacker gets their act back together.
Iron dome type stuff increases the cost of invading you and gets their plans to fall apart faster but doesn't stop them from trying again until they succeed.
Another hazard is infiltration from the inside. I see a lot of Russian media manipulation all over Europe and the US, and a distressing number of people who seem eager to lap it up.
I feel a great deal of the susceptibility of this is a lack of consequences, hark back to your post about the Iraq War; fundamentally no one who made those decisions suffered any political consequences. See also the financial crisis.
This level of insouciance is terrible for trust in society and is a good breeding ground for all kinds of conspiracy theories.
I think there are a lot of people who made some kind of profit on that war, so they get in a weird space where it was bad for the country, but it was good for them. And what is the country?
Meanwhile, trust is kind of laughable because I think a lot of Americans don't have the cognitive ability to understand the complexity of the systems that they take for granted, and don't bother to learn or care until the problem becomes theirs, personally.
LA is a good example, I think. A bunch of the city is burned to the ground, but what's that to me in Chicago? America is just too big for everyone to care about everywhere at once, and for a lot of us, we just want a lower tax bill and not to be so bothered about everything. I'm not speaking for myself, of course, because I am educated enough to have a general sense that a lot of these things are bad for all of us, but I am aware of my ignorance and looking at people I know who are on "the other side," as it were, that's my impression. People just don't care until it's in their yard. And for a lot of large scale problems, they just don't understand how it affects them. And I'm scared that they won't until it's too late.
Trump is not going to get in to any war he can't win. And if he can win economically, without a shot being fired, he will. He's just won with Colombia. They are now accepting US military aircraft with deportees. He can take Greenland in the blink of an eye. Panama before breakfast. Like Putin, he cannot lose, but he has access to Cicero's sinews of war - Nervi belli - infinite money - pecunia infinita. Putin doesn't. Although he'll still win. He'll impoverish Europe, bring it down to his level. And Putin has seriously miscalculated. He has handed power to a more powerful Machiavel by adding to mob rule through Western social media. He should have backed Biden. Trump is riding the Beast. As Yamamoto knew after the failure of Pearl Harbour, at least in the movies. 'I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve'. Trump's grievance.
Germany on 5% military spending with another elected fascist government. The horror of it all! But no nukes. Fascists do not need to seize power in established democracies. It guarantees their ascendancy. And progressives have to follow suit. Look at Starmer and friend Meloni. Singing from the anti-immigration hymn sheet. Reeves is deregulating like there's no tomorrow. Which there won't be if she doesn't. Trump approves. He and Starmer understand one another cordially.
It's all coming together. For Trump. And JD his heir apparent. 12 years at least. For Babylon. Starship Troopers here we come.
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
NATO Nuclear Weapon Sharing Arrangments.
Essentially there are two categories of nuclear weapon on German soil - the US ones kept at US bases for US forces to deploy; and the US nuclear weapons kindly donated to the Luftwaffe for them to carry and deploy.
See also Belgium, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey - who all have the same deal and also borrow nuclear weapons to play with.
Oddly enough, none of them really shout about it, but it is A Thing. IIRC they’ve got around 20 warheads each that they train with and would use in anger if NATO ordered.
In a brilliant bit of British cakeism, until the end of the Cold War we uniquely had a foot in both camps running both British nuclear weapons and borrowed ones (primarily land based missiles) from the US on the same terms as above.
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
They are part of the NATO nuclear sharing agreement, under which the US deploys nuclear weapons in Germany that could in certain circumstances be turned over to the German military for use. As part of this Germany maintains a nuclear delivery system (Tornado being gradually replaced by the F35)
[Although the latter is the one piece of kit that Europe would have to replace as a priority should they want to have a defence arrangement that isn't US centric]
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
They are part of the NATO nuclear sharing agreement, under which the US deploys nuclear weapons in Germany that could in certain circumstances be turned over to the German military for use. As part of this Germany maintains a nuclear delivery system (Tornado being gradually replaced by the F35)
[Although the latter is the one piece of kit that Europe would have to replace as a priority should they want to have a defence arrangement that isn't US centric]
Which is where Tempest probably comes in (Anglo-Japanese-Italian F35 successor) but comes back to the point that not being US centric is not going to be quick.
More to the point, the fact that Germany is still ‘operating’ Tornados (or more accurately struggling to keep them airborne) is one of the reasons I didn’t include Germany in the list of European nations you’d currently want along for the ride in a European multinational coalition.
At present that would have to be Britain, France, Poland, the Dutch and Danish navies, the Italian air force (they also use Tornados but theirs are still airworthy and are magic at anti-shipping missions) and Alpine troops, and the Scandis and Balts to hold the line in their own back yards.
Everyone else might as well watch and contribute to the bill.
And, as I said, from my own past experiences I’d want the Turks along with me too, because they’re bloody good, but international geopolitics being what it is…
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
They are part of the NATO nuclear sharing agreement, under which the US deploys nuclear weapons in Germany that could in certain circumstances be turned over to the German military for use. As part of this Germany maintains a nuclear delivery system (Tornado being gradually replaced by the F35)
[Although the latter is the one piece of kit that Europe would have to replace as a priority should they want to have a defence arrangement that isn't US centric]
Which is where Tempest probably comes in (Anglo-Japanese-Italian F35 successor) but comes back to the point that not being US centric is not going to be quick.
Well, good luck peeling the Germans away from the French and Spanish (or persuading the French they won't be screwed by UK and German procurement practises again).
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
They are part of the NATO nuclear sharing agreement, under which the US deploys nuclear weapons in Germany that could in certain circumstances be turned over to the German military for use. As part of this Germany maintains a nuclear delivery system (Tornado being gradually replaced by the F35)
[Although the latter is the one piece of kit that Europe would have to replace as a priority should they want to have a defence arrangement that isn't US centric]
Which is where Tempest probably comes in (Anglo-Japanese-Italian F35 successor) but comes back to the point that not being US centric is not going to be quick.
Well, good luck peeling the Germans away from the French and Spanish (or persuading the French they won't be screwed by UK and German procurement practises again).
What was it the German defence ministry source said when the French went screaming to Brussels about the naughty British collapsing their submarine deal with Australia?
Something like ‘we’re enjoying the French outrage that Britain has done a France to France’…
That was after the French nearly collapsed Eurofighter by taking their ball home (along with tech that mysteriously appeared in the French competitor to Eurofighter…)
If it was that zero sum ‘persuading the French’ they won’t get shafted by Britain and Germany why on earth would Britain and Germany ever partner with France, given France is very much in the driving seat when it comes to chief ‘messer’ about/gameplayer in European defence procurement?
Anyway, as usual the French are indulging in Gallic cakeism, what with at a national level being part of the FCAS programme with Germany and Spain, then at the manufacturing level MBDA’s part of Tempest. So I don’t suppose they can lose!
It's all coming together. For Trump. And JD his heir apparent. 12 years at least. For Babylon. Starship Troopers here we come
.
Until it unravels, and it will unravel. Trump failed in his first term, he will fail again. I just hope it will not be a pandemic that does him in. might be a stock market crash.
If it was that zero sum ‘persuading the French’ they won’t get shafted by Britain and Germany why on earth would Britain and Germany ever partner with France
Because they have some very good engineering capabilities which aren't replicated in the other two countries. From the French point of view the UK always revises the number it initially commits downwards, and the Germans will commit up front but then omit to allocate budget.
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
NATO Nuclear Weapon Sharing Arrangments.
Essentially there are two categories of nuclear weapon on German soil - the US ones kept at US bases for US forces to deploy; and the US nuclear weapons kindly donated to the Luftwaffe for them to carry and deploy.
See also Belgium, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey - who all have the same deal and also borrow nuclear weapons to play with.
Oddly enough, none of them really shout about it, but it is A Thing. IIRC they’ve got around 20 warheads each that they train with and would use in anger if NATO ordered.
Are they donated, or on loan? Borrowed, above, means on loan. Whose are they now?
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
NATO Nuclear Weapon Sharing Arrangments.
Essentially there are two categories of nuclear weapon on German soil - the US ones kept at US bases for US forces to deploy; and the US nuclear weapons kindly donated to the Luftwaffe for them to carry and deploy.
See also Belgium, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey - who all have the same deal and also borrow nuclear weapons to play with.
Oddly enough, none of them really shout about it, but it is A Thing. IIRC they’ve got around 20 warheads each that they train with and would use in anger if NATO ordered.
That is very interesting and something I never knew before.
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
NATO Nuclear Weapon Sharing Arrangments.
Essentially there are two categories of nuclear weapon on German soil - the US ones kept at US bases for US forces to deploy; and the US nuclear weapons kindly donated to the Luftwaffe for them to carry and deploy.
See also Belgium, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey - who all have the same deal and also borrow nuclear weapons to play with.
Oddly enough, none of them really shout about it, but it is A Thing. IIRC they’ve got around 20 warheads each that they train with and would use in anger if NATO ordered.
Are they donated, or on loan? Borrowed, above, means on loan. Whose are they now?
Having read a little more, it sounds like they belong to the US right up until the outbreak of war at which point they are donated to Germany et al then subsequently and with a degree of finality donated to Russia.
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
NATO Nuclear Weapon Sharing Arrangments.
Essentially there are two categories of nuclear weapon on German soil - the US ones kept at US bases for US forces to deploy; and the US nuclear weapons kindly donated to the Luftwaffe for them to carry and deploy.
See also Belgium, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey - who all have the same deal and also borrow nuclear weapons to play with.
Oddly enough, none of them really shout about it, but it is A Thing. IIRC they’ve got around 20 warheads each that they train with and would use in anger if NATO ordered.
Are they donated, or on loan? Borrowed, above, means on loan. Whose are they now?
Having read a little more, it sounds like they belong to the US right up until the outbreak of war at which point they are donated to Germany et al then subsequently and with a degree of finality donated to Russia.
If it was that zero sum ‘persuading the French’ they won’t get shafted by Britain and Germany why on earth would Britain and Germany ever partner with France
Because they have some very good engineering capabilities which aren't replicated in the other two countries. From the French point of view the UK always revises the number it initially commits downwards, and the Germans will commit up front but then omit to allocate budget.
Indeed there’s truth in both those French points of view, and for completeness as said from the pov of Britain and Germany a French fault is to leave the project halfway through with as much IP as they can fit in rucksacks, then unilaterally build a competitor to their erstwhile partners.
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
NATO Nuclear Weapon Sharing Arrangments.
Essentially there are two categories of nuclear weapon on German soil - the US ones kept at US bases for US forces to deploy; and the US nuclear weapons kindly donated to the Luftwaffe for them to carry and deploy.
See also Belgium, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey - who all have the same deal and also borrow nuclear weapons to play with.
Oddly enough, none of them really shout about it, but it is A Thing. IIRC they’ve got around 20 warheads each that they train with and would use in anger if NATO ordered.
Are they donated, or on loan? Borrowed, above, means on loan. Whose are they now?
Having read a little more, it sounds like they belong to the US right up until the outbreak of war at which point they are donated to Germany et al then subsequently and with a degree of finality donated to Russia.
It’s an interesting by-way that governments (especially Germany) don’t really want to talk about and consequently many people don’t know about.
If it was that zero sum ‘persuading the French’ they won’t get shafted by Britain and Germany why on earth would Britain and Germany ever partner with France
Because they have some very good engineering capabilities which aren't replicated in the other two countries. From the French point of view the UK always revises the number it initially commits downwards, and the Germans will commit up front but then omit to allocate budget.
Indeed there’s truth in both those French points of view, and for completeness as said from the pov of Britain and Germany a French fault is to leave the project halfway through with as much IP as they can fit in rucksacks, then unilaterally build a competitor to their erstwhile partners.
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
NATO Nuclear Weapon Sharing Arrangments.
Essentially there are two categories of nuclear weapon on German soil - the US ones kept at US bases for US forces to deploy; and the US nuclear weapons kindly donated to the Luftwaffe for them to carry and deploy.
See also Belgium, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey - who all have the same deal and also borrow nuclear weapons to play with.
Oddly enough, none of them really shout about it, but it is A Thing. IIRC they’ve got around 20 warheads each that they train with and would use in anger if NATO ordered.
Are they donated, or on loan? Borrowed, above, means on loan. Whose are they now?
Having read a little more, it sounds like they belong to the US right up until the outbreak of war at which point they are donated to Germany et al then subsequently and with a degree of finality donated to Russia.
It’s an interesting by-way that governments (especially Germany) don’t really want to talk about and consequently many people don’t know about.
I'm astounded. How long has this been the case? I know... always. And when was the last time the BBC mentioned it?!
If it was that zero sum ‘persuading the French’ they won’t get shafted by Britain and Germany why on earth would Britain and Germany ever partner with France
Because they have some very good engineering capabilities which aren't replicated in the other two countries. From the French point of view the UK always revises the number it initially commits downwards, and the Germans will commit up front but then omit to allocate budget.
Indeed there’s truth in both those French points of view, and for completeness as said from the pov of Britain and Germany a French fault is to leave the project halfway through with as much IP as they can fit in rucksacks, then unilaterally build a competitor to their erstwhile partners.
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
NATO Nuclear Weapon Sharing Arrangments.
Essentially there are two categories of nuclear weapon on German soil - the US ones kept at US bases for US forces to deploy; and the US nuclear weapons kindly donated to the Luftwaffe for them to carry and deploy.
See also Belgium, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey - who all have the same deal and also borrow nuclear weapons to play with.
Oddly enough, none of them really shout about it, but it is A Thing. IIRC they’ve got around 20 warheads each that they train with and would use in anger if NATO ordered.
Are they donated, or on loan? Borrowed, above, means on loan. Whose are they now?
Having read a little more, it sounds like they belong to the US right up until the outbreak of war at which point they are donated to Germany et al then subsequently and with a degree of finality donated to Russia.
It’s an interesting by-way that governments (especially Germany) don’t really want to talk about and consequently many people don’t know about.
I'm astounded. How long has this been the case? I know... always. And when was the last time the BBC mentioned it?!
If it was that zero sum ‘persuading the French’ they won’t get shafted by Britain and Germany why on earth would Britain and Germany ever partner with France
Because they have some very good engineering capabilities which aren't replicated in the other two countries. From the French point of view the UK always revises the number it initially commits downwards, and the Germans will commit up front but then omit to allocate budget.
Indeed there’s truth in both those French points of view, and for completeness as said from the pov of Britain and Germany a French fault is to leave the project halfway through with as much IP as they can fit in rucksacks, then unilaterally build a competitor to their erstwhile partners.
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
NATO Nuclear Weapon Sharing Arrangments.
Essentially there are two categories of nuclear weapon on German soil - the US ones kept at US bases for US forces to deploy; and the US nuclear weapons kindly donated to the Luftwaffe for them to carry and deploy.
See also Belgium, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey - who all have the same deal and also borrow nuclear weapons to play with.
Oddly enough, none of them really shout about it, but it is A Thing. IIRC they’ve got around 20 warheads each that they train with and would use in anger if NATO ordered.
Are they donated, or on loan? Borrowed, above, means on loan. Whose are they now?
Having read a little more, it sounds like they belong to the US right up until the outbreak of war at which point they are donated to Germany et al then subsequently and with a degree of finality donated to Russia.
It’s an interesting by-way that governments (especially Germany) don’t really want to talk about and consequently many people don’t know about.
I'm astounded. How long has this been the case? I know... always. And when was the last time the BBC mentioned it?!
If it was that zero sum ‘persuading the French’ they won’t get shafted by Britain and Germany why on earth would Britain and Germany ever partner with France
Because they have some very good engineering capabilities which aren't replicated in the other two countries. From the French point of view the UK always revises the number it initially commits downwards, and the Germans will commit up front but then omit to allocate budget.
Indeed there’s truth in both those French points of view, and for completeness as said from the pov of Britain and Germany a French fault is to leave the project halfway through with as much IP as they can fit in rucksacks, then unilaterally build a competitor to their erstwhile partners.
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
NATO Nuclear Weapon Sharing Arrangments.
Essentially there are two categories of nuclear weapon on German soil - the US ones kept at US bases for US forces to deploy; and the US nuclear weapons kindly donated to the Luftwaffe for them to carry and deploy.
See also Belgium, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey - who all have the same deal and also borrow nuclear weapons to play with.
Oddly enough, none of them really shout about it, but it is A Thing. IIRC they’ve got around 20 warheads each that they train with and would use in anger if NATO ordered.
Are they donated, or on loan? Borrowed, above, means on loan. Whose are they now?
Having read a little more, it sounds like they belong to the US right up until the outbreak of war at which point they are donated to Germany et al then subsequently and with a degree of finality donated to Russia.
It’s an interesting by-way that governments (especially Germany) don’t really want to talk about and consequently many people don’t know about.
I'm astounded. How long has this been the case? I know... always. And when was the last time the BBC mentioned it?!
It's literally in Wikipedia.
I'm sure it is. I'll have to ask ChatGPT.
And how will you know it's giving you correct information?
If it was that zero sum ‘persuading the French’ they won’t get shafted by Britain and Germany why on earth would Britain and Germany ever partner with France
Because they have some very good engineering capabilities which aren't replicated in the other two countries. From the French point of view the UK always revises the number it initially commits downwards, and the Germans will commit up front but then omit to allocate budget.
Indeed there’s truth in both those French points of view, and for completeness as said from the pov of Britain and Germany a French fault is to leave the project halfway through with as much IP as they can fit in rucksacks, then unilaterally build a competitor to their erstwhile partners.
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
NATO Nuclear Weapon Sharing Arrangments.
Essentially there are two categories of nuclear weapon on German soil - the US ones kept at US bases for US forces to deploy; and the US nuclear weapons kindly donated to the Luftwaffe for them to carry and deploy.
See also Belgium, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey - who all have the same deal and also borrow nuclear weapons to play with.
Oddly enough, none of them really shout about it, but it is A Thing. IIRC they’ve got around 20 warheads each that they train with and would use in anger if NATO ordered.
Are they donated, or on loan? Borrowed, above, means on loan. Whose are they now?
Having read a little more, it sounds like they belong to the US right up until the outbreak of war at which point they are donated to Germany et al then subsequently and with a degree of finality donated to Russia.
It’s an interesting by-way that governments (especially Germany) don’t really want to talk about and consequently many people don’t know about.
I'm astounded. How long has this been the case? I know... always. And when was the last time the BBC mentioned it?!
It's literally in Wikipedia.
I'm sure it is. I'll have to ask ChatGPT.
And how will you know it's giving you correct information?
If it was that zero sum ‘persuading the French’ they won’t get shafted by Britain and Germany why on earth would Britain and Germany ever partner with France
Because they have some very good engineering capabilities which aren't replicated in the other two countries. From the French point of view the UK always revises the number it initially commits downwards, and the Germans will commit up front but then omit to allocate budget.
Indeed there’s truth in both those French points of view, and for completeness as said from the pov of Britain and Germany a French fault is to leave the project halfway through with as much IP as they can fit in rucksacks, then unilaterally build a competitor to their erstwhile partners.
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
NATO Nuclear Weapon Sharing Arrangments.
Essentially there are two categories of nuclear weapon on German soil - the US ones kept at US bases for US forces to deploy; and the US nuclear weapons kindly donated to the Luftwaffe for them to carry and deploy.
See also Belgium, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey - who all have the same deal and also borrow nuclear weapons to play with.
Oddly enough, none of them really shout about it, but it is A Thing. IIRC they’ve got around 20 warheads each that they train with and would use in anger if NATO ordered.
Are they donated, or on loan? Borrowed, above, means on loan. Whose are they now?
Having read a little more, it sounds like they belong to the US right up until the outbreak of war at which point they are donated to Germany et al then subsequently and with a degree of finality donated to Russia.
It’s an interesting by-way that governments (especially Germany) don’t really want to talk about and consequently many people don’t know about.
I'm astounded. How long has this been the case? I know... always. And when was the last time the BBC mentioned it?!
It's literally in Wikipedia.
I'm sure it is. I'll have to ask ChatGPT.
And how will you know it's giving you correct information?
By fact checking?
Then why not just look up the facts in the first place rather than consulting an overly-verbose magic 8 ball?
If it was that zero sum ‘persuading the French’ they won’t get shafted by Britain and Germany why on earth would Britain and Germany ever partner with France
Because they have some very good engineering capabilities which aren't replicated in the other two countries. From the French point of view the UK always revises the number it initially commits downwards, and the Germans will commit up front but then omit to allocate budget.
Indeed there’s truth in both those French points of view, and for completeness as said from the pov of Britain and Germany a French fault is to leave the project halfway through with as much IP as they can fit in rucksacks, then unilaterally build a competitor to their erstwhile partners.
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
Germany does have nuclear weapons, they just don’t like to talk about it and are completely dependent on the US for supply and NATO for authorisation to use them.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
NATO Nuclear Weapon Sharing Arrangments.
Essentially there are two categories of nuclear weapon on German soil - the US ones kept at US bases for US forces to deploy; and the US nuclear weapons kindly donated to the Luftwaffe for them to carry and deploy.
See also Belgium, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey - who all have the same deal and also borrow nuclear weapons to play with.
Oddly enough, none of them really shout about it, but it is A Thing. IIRC they’ve got around 20 warheads each that they train with and would use in anger if NATO ordered.
Are they donated, or on loan? Borrowed, above, means on loan. Whose are they now?
Having read a little more, it sounds like they belong to the US right up until the outbreak of war at which point they are donated to Germany et al then subsequently and with a degree of finality donated to Russia.
It’s an interesting by-way that governments (especially Germany) don’t really want to talk about and consequently many people don’t know about.
I'm astounded. How long has this been the case? I know... always. And when was the last time the BBC mentioned it?!
It's literally in Wikipedia.
I'm sure it is. I'll have to ask ChatGPT.
And how will you know it's giving you correct information?
By fact checking?
Then why not just look up the facts in the first place rather than consulting an overly-verbose magic 8 ball?
It's a starting place when one doesn't want to read through screeds.
Here we go:
You
What nuclear weapons are under German control?
Copilot
Germany does not have its own nuclear weapons. However, it participates in NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangements. This means that Germany hosts U.S. nuclear weapons and trains to deliver them using its own aircraft. Specifically, around 20 U.S. nuclear weapons are believed to be stationed at Büchel Air Base in Germany.
Same source.
Air bases with US nuclear weapon vaults in Europe per nuclear sharing:
Aviano Air Base, Italy
Ghedi Air Base, Italy
Kleine Brogel Air Base, Belgium
Volkel Air Base, Netherlands
Ramstein Air Base, Germany
RAF Lakenheath, United Kingdom
Araxos Air Base, Greece
Air bases with US nuclear weapon vaults in Turkey per nuclear sharing:
Balikesir Air Base, Turkey
Incirlik Air Base, Turkey
Akıncı Air Base, Turkey
So one can easily check when one is vaguely told it's in Wikipedia.
It's all coming together. For Trump. And JD his heir apparent. 12 years at least. For Babylon. Starship Troopers here we come
.
Until it unravels, and it will unravel. Trump failed in his first term, he will fail again. I just hope it will not be a pandemic that does him in. might be a stock market crash.
@Martin54: please do not post one-liners the meaning of which is not immediately apparent. We also frown on links to other sites that don't state what site they're linked to.
Consider this a friendly reminder.
@Martin54: please do not post one-liners the meaning of which is not immediately apparent. We also frown on links to other sites that don't state what site they're linked to.
Consider this a friendly reminder.
A fall in the stock value of a single company (admittedly a substantial fall) does not constitute a stock market crash.
Indeed not. The biggest single drop for a company in history. Six hundred BILLION dollars. Nearly four NHSs. One can but hope, although one should not actually wish for the non-rich to get pneumonia so the rich catch a cold. The knock on effects of just this must go in to the trillions. Which will make Trump all the meaner.
So one can easily check when one is vaguely told it's in Wikipedia.
Alternatively it's easy enough to search for 'NATO nuclear sharing' and come up with a number of different sources including Wikipedia, as well as various German news publications commentary on the topic.
Comments
You're right. My apologies @Eirenist , I misread.
Of course even if it passed House and Senate it has zero chance of getting 3/4 of states to approve.
We’re talking mindset changes at national level, never mind governmental, that puts defence as the number one recipient of cash in virtually every Western European country (I say western advisedly because a lot of the east have ramped up already so it would be less of leap for them).
It might (or might not) be the right thing to do, but I can’t see it being ‘uncontroversial’
It's a weird irony in the US, that I know some military types who have basically said "Look, we're sick and tired of subsidizing Europe's national security for no return on investment. Let them defend themselves for a change."
And I know a lot of peaceniks, the types who'd usually complain about how much we spend on "national security" who are worried sick that if we start treating Europe like a protection racket, it'll just feed the totalitarians in Europe and everywhere else.
I feel like the Iraq War threw a big wrench into the way Americans think about foreign involvement, perhaps echoing Vietnam by creating a whole generation of people who are exhausted by a war and profoundly resentful by the lack of gratitude from people who knew from the beginning that particular war was a bad idea.
And now we have real external threats instead of made-up ones, and the people who were supposed to be all gung-ho for patriotic wars find themselves burned out, and it's falling on the folks who objectively hate war to fight it.
Dubya may have an awful lot to pay for, and folks who supported him. I think I knew it was going to be bad, but I don't think I realized exactly how bad it could get.
Agree. That’s where we are.
First sign of you know what?
My brain keeps doing that more and more.
Along these lines, my worry is that if the UK in particular cranks up military spending TPTB will see a tool they can use to go on foreign adventures protecting "British interests". Expect to see Suez Crisis II: This Time Even More Vainglorious within a decade. I'm also not overly keen on seeing what happens when a German population impoverished by rearmament votes AfD and puts a newly expanded and updates military in the hands of actual Nazis.
I wonder if there are ways of spending money on defence that are particularly hard to use for offensive and projection of power? Maybe Iron Dome type stuff?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/26/donald-trump-residents-greenland-us
If, as mentioned in the article, the Panama Canal is seeing less traffic, because of drought, Greater Trumplandia may not need to annex that country.
The thought that somehow Canada would be better off as a US state is just bizarre - I'm sure most Canadians would agree, whatever social, political, or economic, problems of their own that they may have.
Greenland OTOH is another matter, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Trump making a first strike to grab it, Denmark, the EU, NATO, and the rest notwithstanding.
Always proves a false friend. Every time. Bottom line is if you’re going to beat an aggressor you need to be offensive and you need to be able to take the fight to them. Purely defensive doesn’t work. Iron Dome is a fine club to have in the golf bag for swatting incoming missiles. So an enemy that means business and has other clubs in *their* golf bag will just send tanks and men, against which iron dome is useless. See also the Maginot Line (soak up loads of the French defence budget before World War Two: German solution, ‘don’t attack that then, go round the side’)
Big wars (and a war with Russia would be one of those), where they don’t end up with everyone dead, end up with the troops of one side or the other in the opponents capital. You can see the issue with Ukraine at the moment - ok no one sane thinks they should be trying to occupy Moscow - but they can just about hold the line, they can’t push it back. And sooner or later defence = pushing back. Pushing riiiiight back.
I’m not cheerleading for this at all, but I am one of the few on here who have done it for a living. ‘Let’s spend it all on defensive stuff’ is a recipe for wasting a lot of money then losing. Defeating an aggressor tends to equal offence and power projection. It just does.
1) if you seek peace, prepare for war
2) speak softly and carry a big stick
People keep talking about the Roman Empire like it was some kind of model for emulation, for some reason. I don't get it anymore. But one thing I learned about the Roman Empire was that - granting that its continued survival was nothing short of miraculous - what finally did it in was that it ran on a "conquest economy." They needed to pay for their military using conquest. They'd give conquered lands to their veterans as a way of paying them off.
After every war, there's a big problem of a whole lot of deeply disgruntled men with guns saying "Hey, y'all said we'd get paid!" Because no government ever pays its troops what they're worth. Sloppily, World War II sort of pulled it off in the USA by segregating out the black soldiers. Like ya do. And I that was about as fortunate as a war gets. Every war has a big mess afterward of destitution. Even now people keep saying we don't have enough resources and people say things like "why are you supporting those immigrants when The Veterans don't get enough!" I'd be more sympathetic, except no social need in America gets enough.
All of that billion dollar heavy machinery has to be paid for, somehow, and with something more than "our continued survival." Grift aside, I wonder if that's where some of these wars go. It's just an economic calculation.
I'm no expert, but that's a hypothesis I'm spinning. I don't like it. It quickly turns into a feedback loop.
Fair enough. There's a reason I asked rather than assuming I knew!
I suppose the only truly pure defensive capabilities are those that rely on geography or circumstance as force multipliers. What I've read of Switzerland's Cold War defence plans was that they relied not on beating a soviet invasion but making it too much trouble to take and hold the Alpine areas. But we can't all be Switzerland (invading and holding Argyll and the Highlands has historically been a bugger but nothing compared with the Alps).
It's funny, we used to joke about this stuff as kids, but it's another thing watching people in real time. I hate the word "brainwashed," but it's getting pretty close sometimes in terms of the degree of straight-up-delusion in global politics.
Who needs to invade when you can just convince people to turn against each other?
I feel a great deal of the susceptibility of this is a lack of consequences, hark back to your post about the Iraq War; fundamentally no one who made those decisions suffered any political consequences. See also the financial crisis.
This level of insouciance is terrible for trust in society and is a good breeding ground for all kinds of conspiracy theories.
Defence amounts to taking advantage of the fact that the attacker's plans fall apart faster than the defender's plans and then counterattacking before the attacker gets their act back together.
Iron dome type stuff increases the cost of invading you and gets their plans to fall apart faster but doesn't stop them from trying again until they succeed.
I think there are a lot of people who made some kind of profit on that war, so they get in a weird space where it was bad for the country, but it was good for them. And what is the country?
Meanwhile, trust is kind of laughable because I think a lot of Americans don't have the cognitive ability to understand the complexity of the systems that they take for granted, and don't bother to learn or care until the problem becomes theirs, personally.
LA is a good example, I think. A bunch of the city is burned to the ground, but what's that to me in Chicago? America is just too big for everyone to care about everywhere at once, and for a lot of us, we just want a lower tax bill and not to be so bothered about everything. I'm not speaking for myself, of course, because I am educated enough to have a general sense that a lot of these things are bad for all of us, but I am aware of my ignorance and looking at people I know who are on "the other side," as it were, that's my impression. People just don't care until it's in their yard. And for a lot of large scale problems, they just don't understand how it affects them. And I'm scared that they won't until it's too late.
Trump is not going to get in to any war he can't win. And if he can win economically, without a shot being fired, he will. He's just won with Colombia. They are now accepting US military aircraft with deportees. He can take Greenland in the blink of an eye. Panama before breakfast. Like Putin, he cannot lose, but he has access to Cicero's sinews of war - Nervi belli - infinite money - pecunia infinita. Putin doesn't. Although he'll still win. He'll impoverish Europe, bring it down to his level. And Putin has seriously miscalculated. He has handed power to a more powerful Machiavel by adding to mob rule through Western social media. He should have backed Biden. Trump is riding the Beast. As Yamamoto knew after the failure of Pearl Harbour, at least in the movies. 'I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve'. Trump's grievance.
Germany on 5% military spending with another elected fascist government. The horror of it all! But no nukes. Fascists do not need to seize power in established democracies. It guarantees their ascendancy. And progressives have to follow suit. Look at Starmer and friend Meloni. Singing from the anti-immigration hymn sheet. Reeves is deregulating like there's no tomorrow. Which there won't be if she doesn't. Trump approves. He and Starmer understand one another cordially.
It's all coming together. For Trump. And JD his heir apparent. 12 years at least. For Babylon. Starship Troopers here we come.
In what sense does Germany have them, rather than them being US weapons deployed in Germany?
NATO Nuclear Weapon Sharing Arrangments.
Essentially there are two categories of nuclear weapon on German soil - the US ones kept at US bases for US forces to deploy; and the US nuclear weapons kindly donated to the Luftwaffe for them to carry and deploy.
See also Belgium, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey - who all have the same deal and also borrow nuclear weapons to play with.
Oddly enough, none of them really shout about it, but it is A Thing. IIRC they’ve got around 20 warheads each that they train with and would use in anger if NATO ordered.
They are part of the NATO nuclear sharing agreement, under which the US deploys nuclear weapons in Germany that could in certain circumstances be turned over to the German military for use. As part of this Germany maintains a nuclear delivery system (Tornado being gradually replaced by the F35)
[Although the latter is the one piece of kit that Europe would have to replace as a priority should they want to have a defence arrangement that isn't US centric]
Which is where Tempest probably comes in (Anglo-Japanese-Italian F35 successor) but comes back to the point that not being US centric is not going to be quick.
More to the point, the fact that Germany is still ‘operating’ Tornados (or more accurately struggling to keep them airborne) is one of the reasons I didn’t include Germany in the list of European nations you’d currently want along for the ride in a European multinational coalition.
At present that would have to be Britain, France, Poland, the Dutch and Danish navies, the Italian air force (they also use Tornados but theirs are still airworthy and are magic at anti-shipping missions) and Alpine troops, and the Scandis and Balts to hold the line in their own back yards.
Everyone else might as well watch and contribute to the bill.
And, as I said, from my own past experiences I’d want the Turks along with me too, because they’re bloody good, but international geopolitics being what it is…
Well, good luck peeling the Germans away from the French and Spanish (or persuading the French they won't be screwed by UK and German procurement practises again).
What was it the German defence ministry source said when the French went screaming to Brussels about the naughty British collapsing their submarine deal with Australia?
Something like ‘we’re enjoying the French outrage that Britain has done a France to France’…
That was after the French nearly collapsed Eurofighter by taking their ball home (along with tech that mysteriously appeared in the French competitor to Eurofighter…)
If it was that zero sum ‘persuading the French’ they won’t get shafted by Britain and Germany why on earth would Britain and Germany ever partner with France, given France is very much in the driving seat when it comes to chief ‘messer’ about/gameplayer in European defence procurement?
Anyway, as usual the French are indulging in Gallic cakeism, what with at a national level being part of the FCAS programme with Germany and Spain, then at the manufacturing level MBDA’s part of Tempest. So I don’t suppose they can lose!
.
Until it unravels, and it will unravel. Trump failed in his first term, he will fail again. I just hope it will not be a pandemic that does him in. might be a stock market crash.
Because they have some very good engineering capabilities which aren't replicated in the other two countries. From the French point of view the UK always revises the number it initially commits downwards, and the Germans will commit up front but then omit to allocate budget.
Are they donated, or on loan? Borrowed, above, means on loan. Whose are they now?
That is very interesting and something I never knew before.
Having read a little more, it sounds like they belong to the US right up until the outbreak of war at which point they are donated to Germany et al then subsequently and with a degree of finality donated to Russia.
LOL!!!
Indeed there’s truth in both those French points of view, and for completeness as said from the pov of Britain and Germany a French fault is to leave the project halfway through with as much IP as they can fit in rucksacks, then unilaterally build a competitor to their erstwhile partners.
It’s an interesting by-way that governments (especially Germany) don’t really want to talk about and consequently many people don’t know about.
I'm astounded. How long has this been the case? I know... always. And when was the last time the BBC mentioned it?!
It's literally in Wikipedia.
I'm sure it is. I'll have to ask ChatGPT.
And how will you know it's giving you correct information?
By fact checking?
Then why not just look up the facts in the first place rather than consulting an overly-verbose magic 8 ball?
Here we go:
Same source.
Air bases with US nuclear weapon vaults in Europe per nuclear sharing:
Aviano Air Base, Italy
Ghedi Air Base, Italy
Kleine Brogel Air Base, Belgium
Volkel Air Base, Netherlands
Ramstein Air Base, Germany
RAF Lakenheath, United Kingdom
Araxos Air Base, Greece
Air bases with US nuclear weapon vaults in Turkey per nuclear sharing:
Balikesir Air Base, Turkey
Incirlik Air Base, Turkey
Akıncı Air Base, Turkey
So one can easily check when one is vaguely told it's in Wikipedia.
Emphasis mine. Are you prescient or what?!
Consider this a friendly reminder.
Indeed not. The biggest single drop for a company in history. Six hundred BILLION dollars. Nearly four NHSs. One can but hope, although one should not actually wish for the non-rich to get pneumonia so the rich catch a cold. The knock on effects of just this must go in to the trillions. Which will make Trump all the meaner.
Alternatively it's easy enough to search for 'NATO nuclear sharing' and come up with a number of different sources including Wikipedia, as well as various German news publications commentary on the topic.