• COASTER1921@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      7 days ago

      Yep, and thankfully the EU has seen the way the US is going and started to react appropriately.

      • Hackworth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        But are we bringing nukes to a biological warfare… umm… party? Or hell, AI drones/nanobots?

      • Resand@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 days ago

        A lot of that is because rest of NATO is under US umbrella. Not like nukes are high tech at this point. Most of Europe could get nukes real fast if they wanted, but everyone has been better served by it being to many Nuclear Powers up to this point

      • Chaos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        It took two nukes for Japan to wave the white flag. Do we really need 5,000+ nukes for anything? France has 290 and UK has 225. Thats enough to wipe one or multiple countries clean off of the map without any form of surrender.

        • scoobford@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          7 days ago

          Yes, antimissile systems will shoot down most of your missile volley, so you need to launch enough that they become overwhelmed and the few that make it through accomplish your goal.

          We don’t know exactly how much “most” is, but its enough that the powers that be consider our current level of armament to be necessary.

            • Madison@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              7 days ago

              Yes, but to a way lesser degree.

              The bombs become really nasty by creating a big chain reaction (boom) and then radiating the dust the explosion creates (aftermath) which then spreads everywhere.

              Without a controlled explosion there will be significantly less radiating reactions and radioactive dust.

              It’s like deep inhaling the smoke of a package of burning fire starters VS throwing said burning fire starter into a warehouse full of fireworks (and for the sake of this argument you cant leave the warehouse and have no equipment whatsoever)

              Both will probably fuck you up a bit if you’re to close, but one is comparably insignificant.

          • Chaos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            7 days ago

            This is where I think there is a misunderstanding. You don’t just fire only nukes at a country. You fire a multi pronged attack with regular bombardment aswell.

          • Lumisal@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            7 days ago

            Shooting down a nuclear icbm doesn’t really help as much as you think, if it catches it.

            Not to mention the atmosphere lighting up wouldn’t be much better

              • Lumisal@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                7 days ago

                Doesn’t that depend on how they’re set up? I’d imagine in the 50+ years since they’ve been invented they would have designed it so it could, specifically because modern anti missile defenses exist.

                I mean, I know world governments can be dumb, but I would imagine they’re not that dumb as to bother maintaining a key super weapon just to not upgrade it / design it so that it won’t work if used.

                • Madison420@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 days ago

                  Maybe but no not really the triggering process is extremely fast but kinda fragile because everything needs to be compressed just so.

                  They upgrade them, it’s public knowledge for the budget. Usually it’s faster smaller or different form factor plus renewal programs.

      • diffusive@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        In the game of nukes you don’t really need many.

        You can destroy the world just so many times.

        The rest is just for showing who has it bigger (the arsenal)

    • vga@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      We would eventually crush Russia in a real war, the problem is that without going to actual war, we get to use only a small part of that.

  • MehBlah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    7 days ago

    NATO will kick us to the curb and rise to the challenge. We will need them one day and they will say no.

  • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    6 days ago

    I don’t think NATO is in any danger. Trump has a very aggressive and bombastic style of negotiation. You saw this with NAFTA. Trump called it the worst agreement in the history of the world. But the USMCA is just NAFTA with a new acronym and now it’s apparently the BEST trade agreement in the history if the world. Its the same with Trump and NATO. The Europeans are the worst freeloaders in the history of the universe…until they up their defense spending by half a percentage point to appease the Donald, and then NATO will be the best alliance ever. Typical bombastic bullshit.

  • masquenox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    7 days ago

    NATO hasn’t been credible since they helped the US perpetrate a brutally violent colonialist pity party in Afghanistan.

  • RubicTopaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    7 days ago

    Love the implication that the shitty imperialist anglo organization was ever credible.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          By the time Russia is knocking at the door of the UK, its already game over.

          That said, I would not want to be Polish right now.

          • seeyouatthepartyrichter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            Russia can barely project power across its own border, what chance has it got of projecting all the way to the British isles? We have more aircraft carriers than they do and ours actually work.

            Russia is a spent force. All they have is their rusty old nukes as a threat and I highly doubt they’ll ever actually use them.

      • tormeh@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        Not a lot. The British weapons are reliant on US maintenance. Won’t be credible for long if the US doesn’t support them.

        • EnderMB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          Isn’t this a bit like saying that because I drive a German car that’s maintained by the dealership, it’s not my car?

          I’m sure it wouldn’t be tricky for the UK to move the Trident weapons program closer to home, or to align with allies in Europe (lol).

  • bouh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    8 days ago

    The biggest thing will be all those nato countries who can’t do anything with their US weapons if the US says so.

    • ziggurat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 days ago

      That is only if they want to continue to buy new weapons, not if they intend to male weapons in Europe

      • bouh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        8 days ago

        No. I mean the weapons they have now. F35 for example. If a war happens in Europe, will those planes be useful without US support and authorizations? US can do a lot of harm to Europe with that.

        • ziggurat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 days ago

          Yes let me explain my answer I didn’t elaborate properly.

          I think the only recourse the US has if European countries use these weapons without authorization is that the US will not sell more weapons.

          And if Europe continues to intreases it’s weapon and ammunition production like they have the last two years that might not be a deal breaker for Europe

          • bouh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 days ago

            I’m not sure Europe can make F35 parts for example, which will not fly for long without it, or ammunitions for various US weapons. I hope it’ll be a wake up call to make and use EU instead.

            • TacticsConsort@yiffit.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 days ago

              Just my two cents as an assembly line guy: Parts on aircraft fall into three categories

              -Big custom fuckoff parts. They’re not high tech but they’re huge and they’re a specific shape so you need a huge, precise and very expensive mould/die/whatever to make them. Anyone with the aircraft and a decent engineer could design a machine to make these parts but they would be left with a smoking crater where their wallet was after getting the mould made.

              -Easy parts. Sure, an aircraft fuel pipe is worth 20k, but the civilian parts are made to higher standards anyways, we can find one no problem.

              -Secret technical complex parts. Proprietary cutting edge stuff, which is frankly just bolted onto already complete aircraft. Obviously you can’t replace it if you don’t even know how it works, but the US doesn’t let that stuff out of their direct control very often anyways.

              Don’t fucking talk to me about engines though, those are a whole different beast

              TLDR: We can totally keep our F35s in the air as long as the parts we’re replacing aren’t the skin panels, the engines, or the Secret Third Thing. And as long as we have the money.

        • Estiar@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          That sword cuts both ways. The F-35 has parts from all over the US and EU. This doesn’t extend to every weapon system, but if the US refuses to support F-35s, their own F-35s would lose support too.

    • Miaou@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 days ago

      If only there was a country in europe that had voiced this concern in the 50s, all of that could have been avoided… Oh wait.

  • RangerJosie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 days ago

    It isn’t credible now. It likely won’t exist at all in 4 years. Unless it cedes even more decision making authority to the US and becomes even more of a puppet.

  • umbrella@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 days ago

    calling the shots in europe is part of the us strategy to perpetuate imperialism. nato wont go anywhere.

  • Chee_Koala@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    It seems like a very real possibility. A new, EU followup seems like a natural next step to protect the borders and peace.

  • Adderbox76@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    7 days ago

    NATO will be fine. They’ll just have to up their game a bit militarily. If America wants to be insular and wrap a flag of isolationism around them, it’ll hurt in the short term, but after four years of being more independent of Americas tit, its more than likely the US that will find itself less relevant globally.

    Even before this, there was already rumblings, not just in China, but elsewhere, about ditching the american dollar standard and returning to the gold standard. That’s just going to gain momentum as soon as Trump starts trying to wave his mushroom around.

    • Juice@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 days ago

      For people inside NATO its surprising how much credibility they have considering how much just straight terrorism they’ve carried out over the years. Defensive alliance my arse