A quick follow-up on The Suicide Of NATO and Post NATO posts. There are people asking who provides the nuclear tripwire and deterrent for a NATO without the U.S. or any new agreement we enter into.
Radical Idea: It should not be us. For a truly European NATO, I will simply note that both England and France are nuclear powers. Let them provide tripwire and deterrence. That does also work to keep things regional, including costs. As far as any new post-NATO grouping with the U.S., note that I specifically call for it to be economic based, not military based.
Now, if you really want to make heads explode, I would further invite you to consider that the nuclear club is expanding already, mostly along the axis of Evil. Maybe we should consider a controlled expansion on our side the line, and to that end I would nominate Poland.
They have the scientific talent, the military skill, and long memories. Memories that should make certain countries on both sides of them behave cautiously and carefully. The fact that it would cause great consternation both West and East just makes it all the better.
Also, Poland would be a good place to gather as many current European nukes when England, Germany, and other EU countries fall to the Caliphate. I would like to think that responsible parties in England, France, or anywhere else that has nuclear weapons or materials would try to keep them from falling to Islamic control when the fall comes. Then again, I look at the current crop of English politicians and know it’s not going to be them and the best we can hope for in that case is some professionalism being left in the military. Not much hope there either, but…
In case I wasn’t blunt enough the other day, I do think most of the EU has a good chance of falling to the Caliphate within a single generation, and I include the UK in that. The only real hope for England is an uprising, and I swear I think that’s been bred out of the English people. For France, it is again with the public, and I wish Tom Kratman was right on something he said a few years back about the population stepping up, getting very pragmatic, and dealing with things as the French Government is not going to do it. Especially with Macaroon tanking elections, closing down television networks, and other efforts to keep power.
The only real bright spot I see right now is Italy, and I hope the current parties in power can remain there and will also continue to be willing to buck the EU. Brexit was a warning to the EU, but with Starmer licking, er, boots and defacto rejoining the EU, don’t think the message stuck. Push comes to shove, I think Italy has a good shot at survival.
Eastern Europe has good reason to consider going off on it’s own as previously discussed. All the more reason for the U.S. to build a relationship with them on the lines I proposed. When the fall comes, they may well be what helps contain things, though it is more than ironic that they may become the first line of defense for Russia and others. It may also be key to saving Europe from the Caliphate, as the Winged Hussars may yet have to ride again.
Final thought on our nuclear deterrent capabilities: they suck. We need to do serious work on the triad, as our missiles needed replacing decades ago; the air and related component has not been really kept up all that well (not to mention that the BUFF is likely to still be flying in a hundred years, really would not be surprised to see one given space engines so it can fly with the USS Enterprise to defend the Federation); and, right now we have naval leadership that I don’t think can get a rowboat across the lake in Central Park. We need serious upgrades, and until we get them we have no business trying to be a tripwire or a deterrent.
Just some quick thoughts to share.
Getting hit by lightning is not fun! If you would like to help me in my recovery efforts, feel free to hit the fundraiser at A New Life on GiveSendGo, use the options in the Tip Jar in the upper right, or drop me a line to discuss other methods. There is also the Amazon Wish List in the Bard’s Jar. It is thanks to your gifts and prayers that I am still going. Thank you.
NATO has an existing deterrent force in the UK and France. Their SSBNs provide strategic deterrent, while their fighter-bombers provide tactical deterrent (with our bombs).
Poland has replaced Germany as NATO’s on-site conventional strength. Perhaps that will be sufficient while Germany rearms.
All three legs of the triad have replacement programs, although the B-21 Raider doesnt seem to provide the numbers needed for both nuclear and conventional strike capability.
Neither France nor Britain would invoke their nuclear deterrent for say Estonia. And I believe the Labor government in Britain will put their nuclear deterrent on the chopping block sooner rather than later (Labor has always had a loud ‘no nukes’ contingent). We are going to have to accept Poland as a member of the nuclear club at some point.
I don’t think Germany has the time or the will to rearm. Sad to say, they seem bent on cultural and national suicide. As for the replacement programs, I will believe it when I see it. I’ve seen good replacement programs almost make it (remember visiting Morton Thiokol back when they were making stages of the Peacekeeper, fascinating process) and get axed at the last second. We urgently need good replacements that actually get to replace what we have. Agree with you on the B-21 numbers.
It’s not “England” – it’s “Britain” or “the UK”. I don’t call the US “California”.
If you’re at that level of ignorance, I’m not sure you’re qualified to pontificate on geopolitics.
Do you mean Airstrip One?
Your reply could have been a lot more courteous. The Tripwire article was a lot more informative than what you had to say. By the way, when people say England, we know what they mean. I’ll bet you are the life of the party if anyone would invite you.
I could have been courteous, certainly; but then the author could have been a lot more clued-in.
“We need to do serious work on the triad”
Yes, and it’s happening. New bombs for the Air Force in production. New cruise missiles in development for production soon. We will have more B-21 bombers than the B-1 and B-2 bombers they will replace. New ICBM warheads further out, to go on a new ICBM. Navy systems are newer, and they are still getting a new submarine to launch an old but upgraded missile. A new warhead is coming to supplement the old and the new one.
See my response to Old Paratrooper. I hope this time these upgrades happen, but I’ve spent several decades watching politicians snatch defeat from the jaws of victory to believe in anything until it is on line. Afraid I am a bit of a cynic these days.
You people don’t know how to make peace, do you? It’s always war. Thank God I don’t have children and it will be yours and your grandchildren that will die in a war that you created. Awesome!
Huh? Do you mean war is not the way to peace?
(If that’s not what you meant, then fine. But that is what it looks like you’re saying.)
I’d agree if there were some disagreement that both sides could settle peacefully. But peace isn’t threatened by that, anyway. But the concept of a war deterrent is that you want to let your adversary know they don’t want to let it rise to the level of war. Defensive war is often exactly how you get peace.
The concept is so grounded in human nature and experience it has a Latin saying: Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Also, in the Strategic Air Command motto for all those years: Peace is our profession.
Also, war is a constant with mankind. People will be dying in wars up until the extinction of the human race. Because there will ALWAYS be some a**hole who wants to take your stuff, kill your people, or sell them off into slavery. ALWAYS.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Much as we may wish human nature would change, the evidence is scant that it has done so (we still see plenty of people sent to prison for violent crime, and the past 1400 years of experience with Dar al Islam are also instructive).
First, I am really wanting to see that B-52 with space engines on it. (I went through training at Castle AFB the same time as a young man who was the 3rd generation in his family to fly B-52s. And that was over 30 years ago.)
Second, yes, let Europe fend for itself, mostly. But have a plan for nabbing all the nukes when the
inevitablevery likely happens. We really should have a plan for that on the shelf, somewhere. And I do think we should be supporting a few eastern European countries over most of the west – just leave a corridor for the bad guys so we’re not just moving their defensive line and still covering for them.Some people have done artwork about it, it is hilarious! Instead of jets, small Star Trek warp engines. I’m half scared someone will actually try to do it. :).
Given all the war games and what ifs, we really should have a plan for getting the nukes at need. Hoping that amidst of all the other critical work being done to restore military capabilities that someone finds it and dusts it off…
I was going to read this and go on in my morning reading, but I decided I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to follow up on this a bit. There’s probably no negotiating with Putin himself, but Putin won’t be around forever, and I’m certain that we must have back channels to other potential leaders in Russia. One thing we should be doing now is socializing the idea inside Russia that a strong Eastern Europe would serve as a buffer between Russia and an Islamic Western Europe. Russia has had problems with Islamists before, so we could convince them that we have a common interest, and that if the would respect their western borders, we could provide them that defense and they wouldn’t have to spend a ruble on it.
Russia has a very unhappy history with strong states on its western borders, which makes your proposal a difficult sell. Russia does indeed have an ongoing problem with Islamists in its south (and, so some degree, in a few of the Central Asian states), but many of their leaders (not just Putin) consider a strong Eastern Europe a cure worse than the Islamist disease, at least for now.
And, one of the problems in the West dealing with Russia is that Progressives (pretty much ALL foreign policy folks for the last 70 years) don’t grasp people thinking their history is important. And the Russians are VERY attached to the history you mention (at least enough of them are).
It’s why Progressives are so often surprised by things like this. “What? That was like 100 years ago!” Or, even “What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?”
I hope that the US has contingency plans to take out the UK and French nukes rather than let them fall into the hands of the Caliphate. The precedent was set by the British when they took out the French fleet in 1940.