Mastodon: @73ms@infosec.exchange
This is the latest German declaration to the IAEA: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/infcircs/1998/infcirc549a2-26.pdf
The former could be used for breakthrough in just a few months. The latter would take maybe 1-2 years to process first.
In addition to the credible deterrence France has, Germany actually already stockpiles highly enriched uranium that would be enough for hundreds of advanced warheads. Sweden is also well positioned to get to nuclear missiles in just a few years with a concentrated effort.
The Trump administration’s policies are Trump’s policies. There is no US separate from that. I think that should be very clear to anyone who has watched how much he has reshaped the federal government in a year.
Look, you’re welcome to think Trump is a very stable genius that is actually playing 4D chess with all this. I don’t think I’m interested in continuing the discussion in that case though.
Again, such a space shield capable of stopping a nuclear response to any meaningful degree from a major western power does not and isn’t going to exist anytime soon with the level of technology currently available. It’s just as much BS now as it was when Reagan announced his SDI. Only thing that does is a limited and somewhat unreliable system that can protect against very limited strikes as might happen if a terrorist actor managed get control of a few nuclear ICBMs.
yes they considered it early on and deemed it impossible. Bethe commented later on the anecdote: “There was never any possibility of causing a thermonuclear chain reaction in the atmosphere… Ignition is not a matter of probabilities; it is simply impossible.”
https://www.inverse.com/science/did-oppenheimer-really-worry-about-setting-the-atmosphere-on-fire
Or they could just be incompetent when it comes to geopolitics just like they are on so many other issues. There’s a lot that they’re doing that just isn’t defensible rationally. Tariffs, vaccination and medical research, driving away the educated immigrants, energy independence…
I’ve seen nothing that suggests USA plans to withstand a nuclear attack from China. I wouldn’t expect them be either because they can’t.
How exactly the capability can be developed when adversaries don’t want you to is certainly something that needs to be thought about. One part of the puzzle is France that has been signaling they are willing to provide a nuclear umbrella for Europe and just announced some partner countries as well as the expansion of their stockpiles.
I of course don’t disagree that conflicts need to be resolved with reason if possible but developing a nuclear deterrence doesn’t exclude doing that.
Yeah sorry I don’t think any of these are comparable to knowing that as a direct consequence within hours of your decision it is likely that a major city will get hit and that will kill millions instantly. The first one is also false in all but the weakest possible sense of it never being possible to really know whether anything at all including pink elephants bursting out won’t happen before you’ve done something new.
I believe the actual picture also is a lot more bleak when it comes to successful defense. Interceptor success rate is fairly low, time is limited and no major breakthroughs are predicted for future versions. They’re not presented as ever being useful for defending against a near-peer adversary launching a full scale attack.
I don’t know that people have ever risked millions of lives like that as would be the case here.
It does, but much less if the US or China can take down ICBMs. The hard part is not the bomb but the delivery.
there’s no reason to think the extremely difficult problem of intercepting nuclear ICBMs with the kind of reliability required has or will be solved anytime soon. The thing about nukes it that you don’t really want to let even one through because of the devastating results and you can look at the current events in the middle east to see that while there are interceptors they don’t have anything close to 100% reliability.
India and Pakistan only proves that nuclear states can still end up in conflict between each other. Nukes being in the calculation is very likely to still incentivize de-escalation between the two of them just like your example of India and China.
Both Russia and (still to lesser extent for now) USA are now adversaries of Europe and we can’t afford to have adequate deterrence for both. Having to engage in wars against one of those would set Europe back far more than developing a nuclear capability at home.
You’ll find no agreement with me about Americans controlling European politicians beyond what is caused by precisely the fact that we’re dependent on them for our defense and in no insignificant part because of the US nuclear umbrella. When it comes to things like social networks I’m definitely all for moving away from that to European digital sovereignty.
Having a credible nuclear deterrent is existential. We’ve seen attack after attack from countries armed with nuclear weapons only against ones that don’t.
not to mention constantly undermines the UN and ends all treaties (if you can even trust any treaties Trump signs, probably not) that aim at reducing nuclear stockpiles. As well as starts illegal wars with countries that don’t have nuclear weapons following Putin’s example. It’s just idiotic.
Yep, the NPT was never about all other countries just ceding the power that is afforded by nuclear weapons to the countries that currently had them. And NATO’s nuclear umbrella indeed played a major part in making that acceptable too. It was supposed to be a two way deal. But it seems nowadays people with nukes have conveniently forgotten that. Trump probably doesn’t even understand the first thing about it ofc…
In the case I’m thinking of probably just correcting the record and not looking like a bitch that lets the idiot lie while standing idly by.
My understanding is that Sweden is one of the worst when it comes to businesses no longer even accepting cash. Would probably need to do something about that for this advice to make any difference.
Applies to most other countries as well of course, you see cash being phased out more and more. Sweden just happens to be further along that path.
Just as I thought Europeans had started to have an understanding that just appeasing Trump may not be the thing that will keep working. I guess the Greenland question has been pushed to the side in a way that has made them return to that strategy… but I think issues with Greenland have a pretty good chance of returning unless Trump becomes preoccupied with something else.
Well, some leaders have successfully pushed back against him. I think Macron corrected him back when he visited shortly after inauguration.
I thought he had already won and didn’t need the UK’s aircraft carriers.