Alternatives to NATO

uk 75

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
27 September 2006
Messages
6,102
Reaction score
6,222
The time has come for Europeans to look into the abyss. (US Friends forgive this, but we in Europe have to plan for whatever you decide. We know its your call not ours)
In the next year or so the US may decide to withdraw from NATO.
Since only France has nuclear weapons which do not depend on US infrastructure for support, a lot will depend on how Macron comes out of next month's elections.
Sweden and Poland have the economic muscle and enough space in their countries to build and deploy a Pershing/Iskander type nuclear force for a Baltic Alliance.
Germany remains irrelevant militarily as East Germans support Moscow and West Germans remain traumatised by history.
The UK could cobble together ways of keeping Trident operational without US support for the missiles and other aspects. Starmer seems reliable on the deterrent like the 70s Labour Government which modernised Polaris and agreed in principle in 1979 to buy Trident.
Storm Shadow shows the UK has the basis for longer term nuclear options in Europe.
 
In the next year or so the US may decide to withdraw from NATO.

Extremely unlikely. It would require a 2/3 supermajority of the Senate.

There's no good reason why European military forces should look substantially weaker than the US, as your population and economy are on par with those of the US. Where are your supercarriers, for instance?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why would they even need supercarriers?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Extremely unlikely. It would require a 2/3 supermajority of the Senate.

There's no good reason why European military forces should look substantially weaker than the US, as your population and economy are on par with those of the US. Where are your supercarriers, for instance?
Yes, Europe is on a par with the US population and economy-wise, but there's no equivalent of the Federal Government. It's more like if each state of the US had its own military. The only real way to get military parity would be central control of common defence, a European Army.
 
I'll leave the political aside for the moment.

France and the UK currently can manufacture nuclear weapons. But many more could achieve this amongst the other European states.
We know from past examples, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands and the now split up Yugoslavia all examined this in depth.
To which we can add the almost certain recent examinations by Poland and Romania and the Czechs. Probably Bulgaria as well.

If the US withdraws from NATO and ceases the provide nuclear guarantees of security. It is well within the ability of these European states to expand the number of nuclear armed states amongst them.
The idea France and the UK would not share knowledge and access to others is based on those US guarantees.

Behind the scenes the UK-France relationship over nuclear weapons testing technologies is growing.
 
Read. The. Forum. Rules.
There are plenty of other places to discuss politics. In a few places, the discussions make sense, but technology/history of technology gets snowed under - at best.
<edit> For clarity's sake: this was in reply to a message that has since been deleted.
 
Last edited:
Ummm ... how is Stars and Stripes' take on Ex Avenger Triad 24 relevant to the OP's Alternatives to NATO query?

Addressing the original question, it is probably fair to say that Europeans have already begun addressing the issue ... at least at the smaller scale. I'm thinking of regional partnerships like JEF. To maintain a sense of focus, no attempt was made to get NATO-wide involvement. This approach is kind of the opposite of US large-area clumpings (eg: the 2020 consolidation of USAREUR-AF).
 
Yes, Europe is on a par with the US population and economy-wise, but there's no equivalent of the Federal Government. It's more like if each state of the US had its own military. The only real way to get military parity would be central control of common defence, a European Army.
That's honestly my screaming rant about the EU.

The EU is basically operating under the equivalent of the 1700s US Articles of Confederation, which were rejected after less than a decade for the current US Constitution because the state governments had too much power and the federal government did not have enough.

Example: the 2011 financial crisis, exacerbated by poor Euro conversion rates back in the day. The individual national governments in Europe each issue their own batch of currency, but it's all "Euros". So Germany is trying to prevent inflation and is issuing fewer and fewer Euros, but Greece is issuing all the Euros it can print. If you have a common currency, you MUST have a common fiscal policy behind it.
 
That's honestly my screaming rant about the EU.

The EU is basically operating under the equivalent of the 1700s US Articles of Confederation, which were rejected after less than a decade for the current US Constitution because the state governments had too much power and the federal government did not have enough.

Example: the 2011 financial crisis, exacerbated by poor Euro conversion rates back in the day. The individual national governments in Europe each issue their own batch of currency, but it's all "Euros". So Germany is trying to prevent inflation and is issuing fewer and fewer Euros, but Greece is issuing all the Euros it can print. If you have a common currency, you MUST have a common fiscal policy behind it.
I’m fairly certain that the ECB doesn’t allow any unauthorized printing of Euros in Greece. So there is centralized control of the money supply. Currency stability has worked well for consumers and savers in countries that were formally prone to high inflation, like Italy.

As far as centralizing fiscal policy in the EU, I can only imagine the chaos that would ensue if the EU parliament became the equivalent of the US Congress.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom