Jarlov [Chairman of the Defence Committee of the Danish Parliament] argues that the United States is no longer willing to risk its own security for the sake of Europe, which is a key point in the discussion on European defence autonomy. He warns that excessive reliance on the American nuclear umbrella could result in Europe becoming a passive observer of global crises rather than an active participant in its own defence. In his view, the only credible way to counter potential nuclear threats from Russia is for the European Union to establish its own nuclear umbrella, providing the continent with a genuine deterrence capability and strengthening strategic stability in the region.
The debate over independent nuclear deterrence is also emerging in the Nordic countries. In Sweden, a country that previously ran a secret nuclear program, voices have resurfaced suggesting that it may be worth reconsidering the possession of its own nuclear weapons or establishing a joint Nordic nuclear umbrella. [...]
Canada needs them more than any other nation in the discussion, right now. It'll be the only way to stop the U.S from goose-stepping over the border in a generation or two.
The ministry of defence is kind of also recommending a civilian gun program. Pretty sure nobody in the government aside from Conservatives have any delusions that things are ever going back.
A few million of us with basic field craft and weapons training (including FPV drone usage) will make this country effectively impossible to invade or hold. I'll be at the front of the queue for that shit.
The Canadian administration in power is charging ahead with a gun buyback program that everyone with any sense (including public safety minister in charge of the program via leaked audio) knows will be a massive failure just like New Zealand's program has been.
It will cost a fortune and piss off the Canadians most likely to take part in any "civilian gun program".
Generation or two? It's becoming increasingly likely that it will happen before 2028. If Trump is still alive and kicking by then I expect an invasion near the election to claim that he needs to stay in power due to a war "on US soil"
I have a feeling US will elect another token Democratic president for four years, who will make a few charm offensives and promises of investment and "re-approachment", and that will be enough to win Canada over. And most of Europe.
When you think about it, it's quite clever how America's political duopoly is one and the same and works in tandem to scam nations using an alternating cycle of charm and brawn.
I have a feeling US will elect another token Democratic president for four years, who will make a few charm offensives and promises of investment and "re-approachment", and that will be enough to win Canada over. And most of Europe.
German here … not a chance. If the trans-atlantic alliance being A Good Thing™ is not a bipartisan consensus anymore, then the USA are not a staunch ally of Europe. They can not be relied upon.
This, unfortunately, was the reason nonproliferation was essentially dead even as of the first Trump term. He's only cemented that since.
It was bad enough that we'd had the twin examples of North Korea getting the bomb and being left alone, and Libya abandoning its WMD plans only to get overthrown, but even then you could argue that it was still a viable option, because Iran was still willing to negotiate... right up until Trump tore that deal apart (and largely to spite Obama).
And then he got reelected, and fucking bombed them alongside Israel.
So yeah, essentially we're entering an era where every country needs nuclear weapons if they want to be able to backstop their sovereignty. Otherwise they're relying on someone who does have them, to do so.
I'm also strongly in support of that as well 👍 With us here in Denmark, Canada, the Baltics, and the other Nordics pitching in, I believe we can make this work.
Better do it now before someone more competent than Trump comes along.
Sadly, there's no guarantee that'll happen. And even if it did, there's no guarantee another Trump won't happen again sometimes in the future. Trust takes ages to rebuild, while a few declarations are enough to send countries in a state of fight-or-flight.
The Republican Party has an agenda set on removing the authority of the legislature, and focusing all power in the hands of the president according to project 2025. This means no way of checking the authority of the president, meaning any president can just completely change foreign policy goals like the fact that it’s in America’s best interest to keep Europe protected.
Trump is simply a useful puppet and a distraction from the long-term intentions of the oligarchs. They really do intend to remake the world in their image, and that should fucking terrify us all.
Yeah but under the spirit of European brotherhood, it’s very important to give the Baltics a genuine feel of belonging, and they’re probably too small to do it independently (and Russia might see it as a worthy gamble to interfere there physically, whereas with you involved they wouldn’t).
A sharing of french nuclear weapons is a dream at this stage.
We dont have enough of them to share, you don’t have the delivering systems to fire them (no nuclear subs).
Beyond that we would be in the same situation as with the usa, do you think Macron and his successors would authorise a finnish or estonian strike for a minor ground invasion?
Conventional military deterence is much better in view.
France also has the ASMP nuclear cruise missiles, which can be launched from a Rafale, no submarines needed. And I imagine they could be qualified for use from other aircraft, too.
In the process of finishing a Master's thesis where I noted a key debate about joining NATO for Sweden was the nuclesr weapons, as once they ended their program they became for a while arch disarmament advocates and it was a big debate again just before they chose to join NATO.
Meanwhile Finland actively notes in its public presentation of NATO that Finland is now protected by the NATO nuclear umbrella.
So the fact that the nordics are now talking about their own nuclear program is simulataniously huge but not **too* surprising given recent circumstances.
Boy am I glad my thesis period doesn't involve current times or god this news would provoke a few hours of research and maybe new paragraphs.
Edit: The fact Sweden had secret security agreements with the US and NATO for decades did not stop this debate. If I had a nickle for every peice of hypocracy I encountered I'd have. . .far too many nickles.
I said it was a debate not that it wasn't somewhat of a moot point.
There were a lot of people, particularly it seems some SAP people, who were keenly anti-Nuclear Weapon and were not comfortable joining a nuclear backed alliance.
The fact that the SAP had plenty of anti-NATO, pro-Non-alignment figures and held that close to their political identity when the SAP had been part of the process of seeking secret security agreements over the decades is a major theme of my paper.
The social democratic party had lots of influential people bought or infatuated with the DDR and/or the Soviet Union. That is something that still lingers in that party.
Which made their entire debate slightly hilarious. I have nearly an entire chapter dedicated to asking why was ending non-alignment such a big deal when it turned out Sweden had agreements with NATO since around the 50s.
Lot of Constructivist and Feminist theory about the official identity of Sweden. They felt if they were not officially part of a nuclear alliance they weren't taking part.
The academic for "bless them" is something I struggled to find.
They wherent super secret the american nuclear umbrella being extended to us was the official reason we ended our development of the bomb in the early seventies.
Hijacking this comment to share my one conspiracy theory I believe to be true: Norway and the Netherlands used to have a nuclear research programme.
There was a facility with an unclear goal at a Dutch steel plant. The claim is fertilizer, but 20 years later some builders at the plant likely got into contact with heavy water and explosive materials according to a doctor who looked into injuries (and why would the DoD be involved in fertilizer production?).
After demolition, concrete blocks were thrown into the sea (using protective suits), after a report some of those were brought back up and buried somewhere else (unclear where).
The ground was partially cleaned and there were still some explosive granules left twenty years later (in the seventies)
Documents were destroyed, virtually nothing of the companies activities regarding this facility still exists in the archives. They also can't find any employees. Even the environmental report taken in the nineties (four decades later) is missing "...which should be in the National Archives in The Hague. When we ask for the folder..., it turns out to be empty, and the archivists have no idea where it is."
A military man with no single identifying mark on his military uniform measured the radioactivity levels and just left
State employees were ordered not to talk about the investigations.
We also know a Norwegian heavy water producer was involved (the only one in Europe at the time), and that the Dutch government got some uranium from Congo before the war.
Norway and NL were the only two non-major countries to have a nuclear reactor before the US started atoms for peace
The Norwegian director of the Norwegian-Dutch nuclear reactor was also responsible for the "fertilizer factory"
The programme stopped right around when the US started Atoms for peace and nuclear sharing via NATO
Tangentially: We also know NL did research into chemical warfare during the same time
Tangentially: We also know Pakistans nuclear weapons are made with partial Dutch information, and the Netherlands is a nuclear capable state
As a dane, always skeptical about icy winters lest the swedes walk across the sound again to invade us, I welcome our nuclear-swedish bros to threaten more than copenhagen with the barsebäck nuclear plant! You build the bombs, we will build the lego rockets!
Petition for a joint Nordic nuclear umbrella to be pointed at Öresund during winters to assure complete annihilation of any smelly Danes who decide the Treaty of Roskilde wasn't totally fair and justified. Would also scare off any poor Scanians dumb enough to want to return to their unholy medieval tyrants. Mutually assured conservation, I say!
Bonus points if the thyroid cancer from the fallout could fix whatever the disgusting attempt at a language Danish is.
North Korea and Iran, after spending decades being sanctioned for that - "Huh, it's allowed now?"
NPT has an article within the treaty that allows for leaving it for the purposes of "supreme interests of its country" with 3 month notice. What other states do in terms of sanctions after you leave NPT is up to each state - US has automatic sanctions on the books while most other countries do not automatically sanction.
The Nordic Coucil should move to form a nuclear defence program. Seems to me like the perfect organization to do it quickly as it already contains all relevant members.
If Ukraine had been given what they needed and asked for earlier instead of the drip feeding of weapons and support, they would be in a much stronger position and europe would be in less of a terrible position currently having to even contemplate more nuclear armed member states..
To be honest, if you guys didn’t elect yanukovic after the orang erevolution threw him out, all of this might have been avoided. Ukraine in 2009 is not the same as in 2025
Both those countries and japan should be getting them asap.
The only thing that justifies the current situation was the us being a reliable partner. And that is broken now.
Arguably Japan has a historic reason to be very eager to develop nukes of their own. After all, there's still no defence against them other than MAD.
And China and Japan are going to clash sooner or later because China has expansionist ambitions and Japan is a regional rival, and China has nukes so Japan is going to need them too. Same goes for Taiwan, and likely any other country bordering China.
But what's really worrisome is Mexico. The country borders MAGAstan and is a target of much racist propaganda, so it could reasonably conclude it needs nukes, but that risks them falling into the hands of cartels.
Open floodgates? After Ukraine, a country that gave up nukes, was invaded by a country that took said nukes and another country that promised not to change US borders forces UA to give up territory? After, North Korea created nukes without repercussions?
I see no issue with wholesaling nukes to everyone. And by everyone I mean you get a nuke when you turn legal adult, alongside whatever ID your country issues you.
I see no issue with wholesaling nukes to everyone. And by everyone I mean you get a nuke when you turn legal adult, alongside whatever ID your country issues you.
“Strap me to a missile and fire me at Moscow. My body is ready.”
Iirc Pakistan got blasted by the US by cutting off a lot of our Cold War era aid: it wasn't resumed until 9-11 and us needing access to Afghanistan via Pakistani routes.
The US helped the Pakistani nuclear program because the guy trying to steal nuclear secrets in NL was caught, but the CIA told Den Haag to let him take stuff.
The USA did all it could to even prevent the UK, America's biggest ally in the late 1940's and early 50's, from gaining nuclear weapons. The Manhattan project was on paper an American led joint US/UK/Canadian project, with agreement that all research and knowledge gained at its completion would be shared, but the Americans refused to do so, causing the UK to have to create its own nuclear program. Only after we had succeeded in creating the warheads and began developing our own missiles did the USA agree to sell us theirs (to make money). So yeah, I guess they will not be at all happy about it.
Likely nothing beyond words and symbolic acts. The nordic countries are seen as non-agressive, it's easy to see why they have justifiable need for nuclear weapons, they are stable and unlikely to collapse or deliver the weapons to terrorists, and they are technologically capable to handle them responsibly. While in principle it's not great to see proliferation of nuclear weapons, these countries are of the least concern to have them, except possibly from Russias perspective.
Just gift trump a little gold statue and all of a sudden it will be fine. It's essential that Europe develops its own nuclear umbrella. The reason Europe and the US were not more aggressive with Russia after the invasion is that they had nuclear weapons. The message is clear. You have nuclear weapons? You can do whatever you want
Yeah responses like war death and destruction? That is allready on the meny. The key is to develope them in union with several nations. Enough to stay safe untill implementer in defence
Scandinavia should link up with Poland and start a project like that.
There is already a lot of military cooperation going on with Poland buying Swedish submarines and Carl Gustavs, Norway buying PPZR Piorun and Poland using Finnish licence for its KTO Rosomak. Also Poland is already working on missiles.
Poland + Baltics + Scandinavia is a natural alliance against Russia
Most realistic plan would be United nuclear program by Nordic Countries, Baltics and Poland, with some technical help from France.
Unfortunately we live in the world where security quarantees from US don't mean anything, and so the only way to make sure Russia doesn't invade is to get nuclear weapons.
But first we should offer Russia a deal, we won't get nuclear weapons if they get rid of theirs.
The fastest way to obtain nuclear weapons is to bribe a Russian commander in Murmansk, and get him to do a “Red October”, getting his SSN Thor a cruise ending at Oslo and deliver those nukes to all Nordic countries.
Realistically you don't need a working nuke. You need to show you might have a working one. If it might work and you might be able to hit your target that's enough.
If I point a gun at your head, are you going to take the risk it might not be loaded? Some big fucking balls to make that call. The threat is enough.
Currently we live in a world where three of the biggesr, most corrupt and authoritarian countries which have all committed war crimes and/or human rights violations have vast nuclear weapon arsenal.
But the least corrupt, most equalitarian countries with high social safety networks and among the happiest countries dont have a single nuclear weapon.
And there absolutely corrupt countries, with war criminals and human rights abuses, violent warmongering rethorric tell us if we want to aquire nuclear weapons, that brings the world closer to annihilation?
Im in favor of infrastructure and self reliance disbarring authoritarian corrupt nations from like russia, USA or China waving their influence over other countries which actually want to work towards making the world a better place.
The Americans you interact with on reddit are almost certainly not Trump supporters. They have their few forums, which, like a zoo, you can visit (until they ban you).
Welp most of the western aligned world only joined that thing in the comforting notion of being under the US nuclear umbrella. Hasn’t been working out great as of late.
I mean I still doubt the US will allow non Western European countries to get one. And the Israelis have been making sure the middle east stays nuke free (mostly)
So other than western Europe I'm not even sure who'd go for one these days anyway. Maybe Taiwan? If they can really sprint for one. I think it is mostly redundant anyway since the real enforcement mechanism is either the US or Israelis blowing something up
US is on its way out. Even if it survives it won't be able to keep a technological, economic or military edge with incompetents hostile to science and education in charge, and many people associated with the administration want to carve it up into their personal kingdoms anyway. And that means it won't be able to continue supporting Israel, who seems hellbent on alienating everyone else and who Europe frankly doesn't need.
So, I don't think what US allows or won't allow is going to be relevant much longer.
Well, if the orange king sides with Russia, considers rebuilding the russian sphere of influence in Eastern Europe for good deals with Kushners, canceled non proliferation treaties, canceled non proliferation research and support to domestic and international nuclear programs, then there is no surprise...
If Russians use tactical nukes, we must have capability for matching response. It's even better deterrent than strategic nukes: we sink half of the Baltic Fleet on one go vs going apocalypse on Moscow etc.
Might be a better deterrence against nuclear weapon use if the Russians know the only way we can and will respond to any nuclear weapon use is wiping out their main cities. The point of nuclear weapons is the deterrence, you should never aim for a situation where you need to use them.
If Russian use tactical nukes to destroy military defence line in a forest in Baltics, we can't nuke Moscow in retaliation. But we can nuke their force concentrations, naval bases and such.
Deterrence must be credible. Immediate 100% escalation is not credible. It‘s like saying „I will blow myself and everyone in this room to hell if you don‘t give me your lunch money.“
The 'tactical' part of tactical nukes is a complete misnomer. Many of the nuclear weapons that are considered 'tactical' are still perfectly capable of wiping out most cities. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagaski would be considered 'tactical' nukes today.
Any tactical nuke large enough wipe out a naval fleet is also going to be powerful enough to effectively wipe out a mayor urban center. And any strategic nuke is perfectly capable of wiping out both.
Using a tactical nuke is also just going to escalate things to a full-scale nuclear exchange very quickly anyway, which is why NATO has largely abandoned the idea of true battlefield nukes.
If Russia drops a fission bomb (tactical), we need to be able to answer that terror in kind, rather than increasing the stakes with a fusion bomb (strategic).
Dang, didn't think I'd see the time European non-nuclear-weapon nations would be considering getting their own nukes. The dangers of nuclear war tend to go up the more nukes there are overall.
Norway had a nuclear weapons program from 1947 to 1968.
Both for uranium-235 and plutonium weapons. We were running uranium centrifuges and reactors to supply plutonium (the reactors hardly had any civilian use). We had all parts of a nuclear weapon, but never assembled it.
How exactly are you going to get a "committment" that the nuclear weapons will be used to protect you, without the control being actually transferred to you? You don't make the call, the status quo remains exactly the same.
It's like Russia moving nukes to Belarus. It made civilian news, but changed absolutely nothing militarily and everyone still knows that Russia considers Belarus to be a lower value subordinate. It would be betrayed and sold out at first opportunity.
Whish Germany would follow up on nukes. We have every technology in the country for it. Even the uranium enrichment facilities of which Europe + Britain apparently only has 3 of.
Add Canada to this list. Canada should have a submarine port for British and French nuclear submarines, immediately, and it should acquire its own arsenal to ensure its neighbours remain neighbourly.
I for one welcome the idea of a nordic nuclear umbrella headed by Sweden.
Revoke the "Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction" and then make a 50 megaton Surströmming bomb. That would show people we mean business! We can name it after our beloved king and call it the Knug Bomb.
I’d just like to have some nuclear weapons for the European NATO countries. Not under the command of a specific NATO country, but with the simple agreement that a nuclear strike on NATO will lead to a nuclear strike on the attacking country.
I honestly believe Canada needs its own nuclear deterrence. As unbelievable as it sounds, it’s not Russia or China, that threatens Canada. We have the tech, we could do it quickly.
At the core NATO was, ultimately, about nuclear non-proliferation. As long as the US remained a solid guarantor for NATO, the rest of the NATO countries didn't need nuclear weapons.
That trust in the US's willingness to use nuclear weapons as the ultimate defense of a NATO member country was always under some level of doubt, but now, with the current US administration (and very likely, many future administrations), that trust has completely evaporated.
I predicted this would be the result back when JD Vance made his Valentine's Day speech in Munich.
The will is probably there now among most European publics, but the cost is likely to be prohibitive. People here have often pointed out that it's not the nukes that are particularly hard or expensive to build, but the delivery mechanisms. Those systems are what give substance to any architecture of deterrence but they are unbelievably expensive, have to be built in-depth, and have to be maintained regularly and eventually replaced, all at further enormous cost and requiring a whole panoply of logistical services.
All to have a capacity that will (hopefully, almost certainly) never be used. Online enthusiasm to stick it to Trump is one thing, but generating the serious sustained political and financial commitment in many countries simultaneously to go through with it is another.
An equal complication for any group of European nations doing this would be the lack of unified governance to create a coherent and credible use-policy and command-and-control structure. That can't really be solved absent federalization, which is an even larger and more complex challenge unlikely to be undertaken any time soon, or one nation being entrusted as the 'boss' with their finger on the trigger, which is theoretically possible but seems unlikely to able to be agreed to in practice.
Learning the lesson from Ukraine, any country at risk from Russia, North Korea and China should possess nuclear warheads. It isn’t because some countries got them 1st that others shouldn’t join the club. And all the bull about nuclear proliferation is just that - only bullies allowed?
In the past, then Sweden, South Korea etc was speaking building there own nuclear weapons, US came rushing with nuclear guarantees.
All involved parties believed that US would honor there promise, that included USSR/Russia and US itself. So there was no need for minor nations to get nuclear weapons.
But now the whole nuclear guarantees is hollow because nobody trust US to 100% honor the guarantees. Hence it lost its potency.
I'm pro-nukes (but anti-use-of-nukes) because there's no way for nuclear disarmament would work. Even if everybody agreed to get rid of nukes they would keep a few because that's the tactical thing to do. You'd either have a massive upper hand against the other countries or you'd have an equal hand against the other countries that also kept a few nukes. So it's better for everyone to have a few nukes as to not be left behind.
The Nordics and Poland want and need nukes now, and they've known this since Trump was reelected, but can't pursue it openly. That may change now that it is clear Trump was playing them on Putin's behalf - pretending to continue to support Ukraine so that Europe would delay rearming, and not escalate its involvement in Ukraine's defence. Putin also thinks he can destroy the EU (and what remains of NATO) by election subversion, and sadly on current evidence he may not be wrong about that.
There should be a European solution with a variety of weapons from small tactical to more massive rocket mountent. Europ needs to be seen independent and serious.
Hopefully Canada joins the boat too. China and Russia are already eyeing our Arctic region and with this new dictator just south of us you never know what can happen..
The Nordics/Baltics should have nukes, but please place them with someone rational like Finland so that my government doesn’t use them to push through more mass surveillance by nuking dissenting nations
Sweden had a finished nuclear program between 1945 to 1972 and produced their own prototypes. But then Daddy US said that we need to cancel it and let us protect us instead. But we have all learned that these kind of promises mean jackshit.
So should we have nukes in the most developed democracies in the world, why not.
This seems very reasonable - we know that we cant rely on the US anymore, and we know that Russia only respects power an they rely on their own nukes to project that power, we need our own to neutralize that power.
Fuck yeah, a joint nuckear program between Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland would be amazing, nukes are the only guarantee of peace, they're the great equaliser between a superpower and a tiny country. If we got nukes, we could finally stop sucking up to USA for protection.
Looking forward to that debate in Sweden, will be a shit show and all the newspapers will just put out propaganda how bad it is and that we should just hug.
If they want todo it, it should probably be hidden from the public like last time.
I agree with him. In my opinion the Nordic-Baltic Eight need to come together to get our own nuclear umbrella. France got anymore of them nukes?
Canada should join in on the program. Better do it now before someone more competent than Trump comes along.
Agreed, we need nuclear weapons in Canada, I’ve been saying since last November, for no reason in particular.
Canada needs them more than any other nation in the discussion, right now. It'll be the only way to stop the U.S from goose-stepping over the border in a generation or two.
The ministry of defence is kind of also recommending a civilian gun program. Pretty sure nobody in the government aside from Conservatives have any delusions that things are ever going back.
A few million of us with basic field craft and weapons training (including FPV drone usage) will make this country effectively impossible to invade or hold. I'll be at the front of the queue for that shit.
The fact that it's being hinted at publicly by the minister of defence means we are definitely headed that way.
This is why I'm buying a drone, and why I bought FPV simulators/gear.
The Canadian administration in power is charging ahead with a gun buyback program that everyone with any sense (including public safety minister in charge of the program via leaked audio) knows will be a massive failure just like New Zealand's program has been.
It will cost a fortune and piss off the Canadians most likely to take part in any "civilian gun program".
Generation or two? It's becoming increasingly likely that it will happen before 2028. If Trump is still alive and kicking by then I expect an invasion near the election to claim that he needs to stay in power due to a war "on US soil"
I have a feeling US will elect another token Democratic president for four years, who will make a few charm offensives and promises of investment and "re-approachment", and that will be enough to win Canada over. And most of Europe.
When you think about it, it's quite clever how America's political duopoly is one and the same and works in tandem to scam nations using an alternating cycle of charm and brawn.
German here … not a chance. If the trans-atlantic alliance being A Good Thing™ is not a bipartisan consensus anymore, then the USA are not a staunch ally of Europe. They can not be relied upon.
All countries will need nuclear weapons to avoid US invasions.
This, unfortunately, was the reason nonproliferation was essentially dead even as of the first Trump term. He's only cemented that since.
It was bad enough that we'd had the twin examples of North Korea getting the bomb and being left alone, and Libya abandoning its WMD plans only to get overthrown, but even then you could argue that it was still a viable option, because Iran was still willing to negotiate... right up until Trump tore that deal apart (and largely to spite Obama).
And then he got reelected, and fucking bombed them alongside Israel.
So yeah, essentially we're entering an era where every country needs nuclear weapons if they want to be able to backstop their sovereignty. Otherwise they're relying on someone who does have them, to do so.
I'm also strongly in support of that as well 👍 With us here in Denmark, Canada, the Baltics, and the other Nordics pitching in, I believe we can make this work.
As an American, yall definitely should.
Even before Trump, Ukraine war and others have shown that it is downright irresponsible to not have them.
Sadly, there's no guarantee that'll happen. And even if it did, there's no guarantee another Trump won't happen again sometimes in the future. Trust takes ages to rebuild, while a few declarations are enough to send countries in a state of fight-or-flight.
The Republican Party has an agenda set on removing the authority of the legislature, and focusing all power in the hands of the president according to project 2025. This means no way of checking the authority of the president, meaning any president can just completely change foreign policy goals like the fact that it’s in America’s best interest to keep Europe protected.
Trump is simply a useful puppet and a distraction from the long-term intentions of the oligarchs. They really do intend to remake the world in their image, and that should fucking terrify us all.
Given that India used Canadian CIRUS isotope/research reactor for producing plutonium for its first nuclear device, won't be the worst idea.
Surströmming tipped cruise missiles.
Chemical warfare is no laughing matter! /s
Depends which gas you're using!
He said. Surströmming.
I think we can start our own program with Norway,Sweden and Denmark.
Yeah but under the spirit of European brotherhood, it’s very important to give the Baltics a genuine feel of belonging, and they’re probably too small to do it independently (and Russia might see it as a worthy gamble to interfere there physically, whereas with you involved they wouldn’t).
Wait, who's bringing the blackjack and hookers?
Or restart the old one
A sharing of french nuclear weapons is a dream at this stage. We dont have enough of them to share, you don’t have the delivering systems to fire them (no nuclear subs). Beyond that we would be in the same situation as with the usa, do you think Macron and his successors would authorise a finnish or estonian strike for a minor ground invasion?
Conventional military deterence is much better in view.
You make valid points, but Ukraine relied on Conventional military deterrence and it didn't work to deter Russia.
France also has the ASMP nuclear cruise missiles, which can be launched from a Rafale, no submarines needed. And I imagine they could be qualified for use from other aircraft, too.
For only a few hundred billions we would give you the whole system, from the nuke to the plane, even the submarine and ICBM.
But if you could order by Christmas it would be good, we need a few billion for our buget
Us Lithuanians cant resist beautiful Polish eyes...we should invite them to join the party
Please get all the nukes you can, we need the whole world loaded up on nukes to achieve world peace
In the process of finishing a Master's thesis where I noted a key debate about joining NATO for Sweden was the nuclesr weapons, as once they ended their program they became for a while arch disarmament advocates and it was a big debate again just before they chose to join NATO.
Meanwhile Finland actively notes in its public presentation of NATO that Finland is now protected by the NATO nuclear umbrella.
So the fact that the nordics are now talking about their own nuclear program is simulataniously huge but not **too* surprising given recent circumstances.
Boy am I glad my thesis period doesn't involve current times or god this news would provoke a few hours of research and maybe new paragraphs.
Edit: The fact Sweden had secret security agreements with the US and NATO for decades did not stop this debate. If I had a nickle for every peice of hypocracy I encountered I'd have. . .far too many nickles.
But Sweden was covered by the umbrella for decades before nato.
Yeah vulcanhullo is not well read on the subject
I said it was a debate not that it wasn't somewhat of a moot point.
There were a lot of people, particularly it seems some SAP people, who were keenly anti-Nuclear Weapon and were not comfortable joining a nuclear backed alliance.
The fact that the SAP had plenty of anti-NATO, pro-Non-alignment figures and held that close to their political identity when the SAP had been part of the process of seeking secret security agreements over the decades is a major theme of my paper.
The social democratic party had lots of influential people bought or infatuated with the DDR and/or the Soviet Union. That is something that still lingers in that party.
well, rip his master thesis i guess, then again a master degree...
Which made their entire debate slightly hilarious. I have nearly an entire chapter dedicated to asking why was ending non-alignment such a big deal when it turned out Sweden had agreements with NATO since around the 50s.
Lot of Constructivist and Feminist theory about the official identity of Sweden. They felt if they were not officially part of a nuclear alliance they weren't taking part.
The academic for "bless them" is something I struggled to find.
No formal agreement, so no requriement for either party to do anything.
That was why it was such a big deal.
lol.
They wherent super secret the american nuclear umbrella being extended to us was the official reason we ended our development of the bomb in the early seventies.
Hijacking this comment to share my one conspiracy theory I believe to be true: Norway and the Netherlands used to have a nuclear research programme.
All of this is in here (in Dutch) https://www.noordhollandsdagblad.nl/extra/achtergrond/wat-deden-het-ministerie-van-defensie-en-een-noorse-zwaarwaterfabrikant-in-een-kunstmestfabriekje-aan-het-noordzeekanaal/11441951.html
Not a conspiracy theory but a fact: Sweden had a nuclear weapons program up until late 60's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_program
So a similar program in the Netherlands and Norway isn't that big of a leap.
Basically every country did
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_nuclear_weapons_program
Which is why NATO and nuclear sharing was a good deal to avoid proliferation …
Oh for sure, but it also definitely isn't proven for NL and Norway either. Hence conspiracy theory
As a dane, always skeptical about icy winters lest the swedes walk across the sound again to invade us, I welcome our nuclear-swedish bros to threaten more than copenhagen with the barsebäck nuclear plant! You build the bombs, we will build the lego rockets!
A friendly Dane? Now I've seen everything, the world really is changing.
PS. You know we always love you, even though we can't understand what you're saying
I'm a Dane. I don't even understand what I'm saying.
We should seriously consider restarting Barsebäck...
Med plutonium håller vi Dansken på knä!
We’ll totally protect you if/when we get nukes.
(We might still come over the ice though, you’re right to be wary.) 😎
Nuclear Lego missiles would be perfect for the Nordics!
It’s deterring in a very friendly and playful way.
Great idea there, dear neighbor!
Petition for a joint Nordic nuclear umbrella to be pointed at Öresund during winters to assure complete annihilation of any smelly Danes who decide the Treaty of Roskilde wasn't totally fair and justified. Would also scare off any poor Scanians dumb enough to want to return to their unholy medieval tyrants. Mutually assured conservation, I say!
Bonus points if the thyroid cancer from the fallout could fix whatever the disgusting attempt at a language Danish is.
Someone pissed on your surströmning, huh? Wait, would you even be able to taste the difference?
(And yes, it was me who done it!)
Team everyone gets a bomb
Iran: everyone?
Totally agree. Canada also need nukes to defend from USA and Russia.
France, can we have some widdle nukes, pwetty pweeese? 👉👈🥹☢️
Well, the potential delivery systems are being developed...
North Korea and Iran, after spending decades being sanctioned for that - "Huh, it's allowed now?"
NPT has an article within the treaty that allows for leaving it for the purposes of "supreme interests of its country" with 3 month notice. What other states do in terms of sanctions after you leave NPT is up to each state - US has automatic sanctions on the books while most other countries do not automatically sanction.
First mover disadvantage. On the other hand they would suddenly face huge export markets. Taiwan, Egypt, Turkey, Aserbaidschan, Venezuela...
The Nordic Coucil should move to form a nuclear defence program. Seems to me like the perfect organization to do it quickly as it already contains all relevant members.
That is what Ukraine was talking about since... 2014?
Whats the umbrella worth if Europe doesn’t have its independence satellite constellation to detect any ballistic missile launches.
Why the need of satellites when we can just see the launch live from the border?
If Russian aggression had been stopped in 2022 or better yet in 2014, the major driver of nuclear proliferation would be gone.
So true.
If Ukraine had been given what they needed and asked for earlier instead of the drip feeding of weapons and support, they would be in a much stronger position and europe would be in less of a terrible position currently having to even contemplate more nuclear armed member states..
If Ukraine had been given what they were promised back in 1994, this problem wouldn't have persisted this long.
If we were granted NATO membership in 2008, all this weren't the case.
To be honest, if you guys didn’t elect yanukovic after the orang erevolution threw him out, all of this might have been avoided. Ukraine in 2009 is not the same as in 2025
I wonder what the response will be from the nuclear countries if this becomes a real prospect.
I'm curious about a US response.
NPT requires pretty drastic economic sanctions on violating countries unless waivers are issued.
It would also open floodgates, in that Korea and Taiwan may rapidly develop their own weapons.
Both those countries and japan should be getting them asap. The only thing that justifies the current situation was the us being a reliable partner. And that is broken now.
It has long been suggested that Japan already has the components ready to assemble multiple nuclear weapons.
Japan is a nuclear-threshold state. There's a saying that Japan is one screwdriver turn away from having nuclear weapons.
Japan has a historic reason to be against developing a nuke.
And China would be a VERY unhappy camper with a nuclear ring on their SE border.
Arguably Japan has a historic reason to be very eager to develop nukes of their own. After all, there's still no defence against them other than MAD.
And China and Japan are going to clash sooner or later because China has expansionist ambitions and Japan is a regional rival, and China has nukes so Japan is going to need them too. Same goes for Taiwan, and likely any other country bordering China.
But what's really worrisome is Mexico. The country borders MAGAstan and is a target of much racist propaganda, so it could reasonably conclude it needs nukes, but that risks them falling into the hands of cartels.
China and North Korea. Don’t forget Japan is in ranges for both countries.
Lmao yes china would be unhappy. Thats the entire point of getting them. To be safe from china.
Open floodgates? After Ukraine, a country that gave up nukes, was invaded by a country that took said nukes and another country that promised not to change US borders forces UA to give up territory? After, North Korea created nukes without repercussions?
I see no issue with wholesaling nukes to everyone. And by everyone I mean you get a nuke when you turn legal adult, alongside whatever ID your country issues you.
“Strap me to a missile and fire me at Moscow. My body is ready.”
Explain how the only democracy in the middle east gets away it then?
They don't officially have nuclear weapons.
Even if they openly declared, would imagine they would receive a waiver, if not by the Executive branch, Congress would pass one
You mean just like India and Pakistan did? ;)
Iirc Pakistan got blasted by the US by cutting off a lot of our Cold War era aid: it wasn't resumed until 9-11 and us needing access to Afghanistan via Pakistani routes.
Dunno about India off the top of my head
I don't think either of them ever signed the NPT.
The US helped the Pakistani nuclear program because the guy trying to steal nuclear secrets in NL was caught, but the CIA told Den Haag to let him take stuff.
India and Pakistan say hi…..
USA is their vassal state, and calable of providing deterrence against the other nuclear powers.
And Japan.
The USA did all it could to even prevent the UK, America's biggest ally in the late 1940's and early 50's, from gaining nuclear weapons. The Manhattan project was on paper an American led joint US/UK/Canadian project, with agreement that all research and knowledge gained at its completion would be shared, but the Americans refused to do so, causing the UK to have to create its own nuclear program. Only after we had succeeded in creating the warheads and began developing our own missiles did the USA agree to sell us theirs (to make money). So yeah, I guess they will not be at all happy about it.
Likely nothing beyond words and symbolic acts. The nordic countries are seen as non-agressive, it's easy to see why they have justifiable need for nuclear weapons, they are stable and unlikely to collapse or deliver the weapons to terrorists, and they are technologically capable to handle them responsibly. While in principle it's not great to see proliferation of nuclear weapons, these countries are of the least concern to have them, except possibly from Russias perspective.
Just gift trump a little gold statue and all of a sudden it will be fine. It's essential that Europe develops its own nuclear umbrella. The reason Europe and the US were not more aggressive with Russia after the invasion is that they had nuclear weapons. The message is clear. You have nuclear weapons? You can do whatever you want
And name the first Nordic Nuke something like Big Trûmp and put his face on the side, and let them play golf for free at any Nordic golf course.
Yeah responses like war death and destruction? That is allready on the meny. The key is to develope them in union with several nations. Enough to stay safe untill implementer in defence
Scandinavia should link up with Poland and start a project like that.
There is already a lot of military cooperation going on with Poland buying Swedish submarines and Carl Gustavs, Norway buying PPZR Piorun and Poland using Finnish licence for its KTO Rosomak. Also Poland is already working on missiles.
Poland + Baltics + Scandinavia is a natural alliance against Russia
I really hope Poland + Baltics + Scandinavia are secretly working on it .
Most realistic plan would be United nuclear program by Nordic Countries, Baltics and Poland, with some technical help from France.
Unfortunately we live in the world where security quarantees from US don't mean anything, and so the only way to make sure Russia doesn't invade is to get nuclear weapons.
But first we should offer Russia a deal, we won't get nuclear weapons if they get rid of theirs.
The fastest way to obtain nuclear weapons is to bribe a Russian commander in Murmansk, and get him to do a “Red October”, getting his SSN Thor a cruise ending at Oslo and deliver those nukes to all Nordic countries.
Yes but we need nukes that actually work.
Realistically you don't need a working nuke. You need to show you might have a working one. If it might work and you might be able to hit your target that's enough.
If I point a gun at your head, are you going to take the risk it might not be loaded? Some big fucking balls to make that call. The threat is enough.
Just to troll them? For what end?
To offer them a chance to avoid more nuclear nations.
Yeah, im in favor of my country aquiring nukes.
Currently we live in a world where three of the biggesr, most corrupt and authoritarian countries which have all committed war crimes and/or human rights violations have vast nuclear weapon arsenal.
But the least corrupt, most equalitarian countries with high social safety networks and among the happiest countries dont have a single nuclear weapon.
And there absolutely corrupt countries, with war criminals and human rights abuses, violent warmongering rethorric tell us if we want to aquire nuclear weapons, that brings the world closer to annihilation?
Im in favor of infrastructure and self reliance disbarring authoritarian corrupt nations from like russia, USA or China waving their influence over other countries which actually want to work towards making the world a better place.
NPT is on it's deathbed it seems
Good job Trump / MAGA.
Administration of peace!
Still cant believe they voted for this.. twice..
After being on reddit for several years I can believe it
The Americans you interact with on reddit are almost certainly not Trump supporters. They have their few forums, which, like a zoo, you can visit (until they ban you).
I know that they aren't Trump supporters, but that's not the issue. The issue is the selfishness and ignorance which applies to both sides.
gotta get one in Canada too it seems. Unless France lends us one
Welp most of the western aligned world only joined that thing in the comforting notion of being under the US nuclear umbrella. Hasn’t been working out great as of late.
I mean I still doubt the US will allow non Western European countries to get one. And the Israelis have been making sure the middle east stays nuke free (mostly)
So other than western Europe I'm not even sure who'd go for one these days anyway. Maybe Taiwan? If they can really sprint for one. I think it is mostly redundant anyway since the real enforcement mechanism is either the US or Israelis blowing something up
edit: a Y
US is on its way out. Even if it survives it won't be able to keep a technological, economic or military edge with incompetents hostile to science and education in charge, and many people associated with the administration want to carve it up into their personal kingdoms anyway. And that means it won't be able to continue supporting Israel, who seems hellbent on alienating everyone else and who Europe frankly doesn't need.
So, I don't think what US allows or won't allow is going to be relevant much longer.
Remindme! 10 years
Yeah ok buddy, go back to bed.
Well, if the orange king sides with Russia, considers rebuilding the russian sphere of influence in Eastern Europe for good deals with Kushners, canceled non proliferation treaties, canceled non proliferation research and support to domestic and international nuclear programs, then there is no surprise...
I mean killing the NPT and putting a target on the '51 refugee convention is a ton of work for one year in office
The Nordics absolutely need to have both strategic and tactical nukes.
Strategic is sufficient. Our conventional weapons are perfectly good for tactical use.
If Russians use tactical nukes, we must have capability for matching response. It's even better deterrent than strategic nukes: we sink half of the Baltic Fleet on one go vs going apocalypse on Moscow etc.
Might be a better deterrence against nuclear weapon use if the Russians know the only way we can and will respond to any nuclear weapon use is wiping out their main cities. The point of nuclear weapons is the deterrence, you should never aim for a situation where you need to use them.
If Russian use tactical nukes to destroy military defence line in a forest in Baltics, we can't nuke Moscow in retaliation. But we can nuke their force concentrations, naval bases and such.
Deterrence must be credible. Immediate 100% escalation is not credible. It‘s like saying „I will blow myself and everyone in this room to hell if you don‘t give me your lunch money.“
The 'tactical' part of tactical nukes is a complete misnomer. Many of the nuclear weapons that are considered 'tactical' are still perfectly capable of wiping out most cities. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagaski would be considered 'tactical' nukes today.
Any tactical nuke large enough wipe out a naval fleet is also going to be powerful enough to effectively wipe out a mayor urban center. And any strategic nuke is perfectly capable of wiping out both.
Using a tactical nuke is also just going to escalate things to a full-scale nuclear exchange very quickly anyway, which is why NATO has largely abandoned the idea of true battlefield nukes.
Agreed. Denmark+ Norway + Sweden should produce their own nukes together.
Tactical nukes aren't a thing
There's no way in hell use of 'tactical nukes' won't result in russia and europe getting glassed by a nuclear exchange
That would be bad, but yes, there is.
If Russia drops a fission bomb (tactical), we need to be able to answer that terror in kind, rather than increasing the stakes with a fusion bomb (strategic).
Finland already has the Project Väinämöinen.
Shhh! Opsec!
And Sweden has Surströmming
I see you didn't precede that with "project"...
No, a project implies it's something that's being worked on. But you see, Surströmming is a ready B/C DWMD already
You're not supposed to talk about it online.
What does this mean?
Dang, didn't think I'd see the time European non-nuclear-weapon nations would be considering getting their own nukes. The dangers of nuclear war tend to go up the more nukes there are overall.
The orcs gave us no choice. I think Romania should have nukes too. Or at least dirty bombs and nerve agents.
But I'd support some form of an EU federation with EU (not French) nukes.
Norway had a nuclear weapons program from 1947 to 1968. Both for uranium-235 and plutonium weapons. We were running uranium centrifuges and reactors to supply plutonium (the reactors hardly had any civilian use). We had all parts of a nuclear weapon, but never assembled it.
This is likely just posturing to get commitments from the UK and/or France. Would be really interesting if they actually go for it though.
Yeah there’s no serious discussion in Sweden about obtaining nukes.
There should be
How exactly are you going to get a "committment" that the nuclear weapons will be used to protect you, without the control being actually transferred to you? You don't make the call, the status quo remains exactly the same.
It's like Russia moving nukes to Belarus. It made civilian news, but changed absolutely nothing militarily and everyone still knows that Russia considers Belarus to be a lower value subordinate. It would be betrayed and sold out at first opportunity.
Let’s get it!!!🇸🇪🇩🇰🇳🇴🇫🇮
Yes please
Hell yes
Unfortunately if you want to be taken seriously in 2025 and beyond its become a necessity.
Whish Germany would follow up on nukes. We have every technology in the country for it. Even the uranium enrichment facilities of which Europe + Britain apparently only has 3 of.
the day we decide to go for nukes I declare our national spirit to be officially healed
France figured this out in the early 50s and proceeded to become a sovereign nuclear power.
Canada needs them too. How bout we work together? We have a lot of uranium and nuclear expertise.
Add Canada to this list. Canada should have a submarine port for British and French nuclear submarines, immediately, and it should acquire its own arsenal to ensure its neighbours remain neighbourly.
Agree.
Both the Nordic as well as Poland and Germany needs nuclear weapons
Even Brazil is thinking about it: Today: Brazil just rejected nuclear-weapons ban treaty, what do y’all think?
I really hope that our government is secretly working with Swedes or other nerby state, to produce nuclear weapons
Well you need 2 things for nukes:
1) Nuclear material - Poland is building two nuclear plants
2) Carriers/missiles - The Perun has been launched successfully and will be developed further
I for one welcome the idea of a nordic nuclear umbrella headed by Sweden.
Revoke the "Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction" and then make a 50 megaton Surströmming bomb. That would show people we mean business! We can name it after our beloved king and call it the Knug Bomb.
I would start a petition to measure the power of the Surströmming nuke in "Megaburk".
Yeah, that's just pure evil.
Came here for the Surströmning bomb joke.
I might prefer to be nuked tbh. At least it’s quick.
What a horrible fate to receive a surströmming bomb.
You just have to detonate it under water
I’d just like to have some nuclear weapons for the European NATO countries. Not under the command of a specific NATO country, but with the simple agreement that a nuclear strike on NATO will lead to a nuclear strike on the attacking country.
Yep, at the minimum Germany, Poland and Sweden should have nukes.
I’d probably throw the Netherlands in there as well in the second wave.
I honestly believe Canada needs its own nuclear deterrence. As unbelievable as it sounds, it’s not Russia or China, that threatens Canada. We have the tech, we could do it quickly.
Of course the nordics need nukes. It is a silly question. And if not, any invasion will be a slow war of attrition with countless dead.
I want nuclear weapons for my country, Italy, too.
Maybe the smaller democracies need to come together to create a modern nuclear deterrent together rather than all going at it alone
At the core NATO was, ultimately, about nuclear non-proliferation. As long as the US remained a solid guarantor for NATO, the rest of the NATO countries didn't need nuclear weapons.
That trust in the US's willingness to use nuclear weapons as the ultimate defense of a NATO member country was always under some level of doubt, but now, with the current US administration (and very likely, many future administrations), that trust has completely evaporated.
I predicted this would be the result back when JD Vance made his Valentine's Day speech in Munich.
The will is probably there now among most European publics, but the cost is likely to be prohibitive. People here have often pointed out that it's not the nukes that are particularly hard or expensive to build, but the delivery mechanisms. Those systems are what give substance to any architecture of deterrence but they are unbelievably expensive, have to be built in-depth, and have to be maintained regularly and eventually replaced, all at further enormous cost and requiring a whole panoply of logistical services.
All to have a capacity that will (hopefully, almost certainly) never be used. Online enthusiasm to stick it to Trump is one thing, but generating the serious sustained political and financial commitment in many countries simultaneously to go through with it is another.
An equal complication for any group of European nations doing this would be the lack of unified governance to create a coherent and credible use-policy and command-and-control structure. That can't really be solved absent federalization, which is an even larger and more complex challenge unlikely to be undertaken any time soon, or one nation being entrusted as the 'boss' with their finger on the trigger, which is theoretically possible but seems unlikely to able to be agreed to in practice.
It's unfortunate but the US has just reignited the nuclear arms race in the worst possible way.
Learning the lesson from Ukraine, any country at risk from Russia, North Korea and China should possess nuclear warheads. It isn’t because some countries got them 1st that others shouldn’t join the club. And all the bull about nuclear proliferation is just that - only bullies allowed?
We’re gonna need a bigger doomsday clock
We need one for finland called väinämöinen One for sweden called thor One for norway called odin One for denmark called ragnarök
If someone touches these nordic lands they shall feel the warmth and power of nordic gods.
In the past, then Sweden, South Korea etc was speaking building there own nuclear weapons, US came rushing with nuclear guarantees.
All involved parties believed that US would honor there promise, that included USSR/Russia and US itself. So there was no need for minor nations to get nuclear weapons.
But now the whole nuclear guarantees is hollow because nobody trust US to 100% honor the guarantees. Hence it lost its potency.
So yes to a Nordic/EU nuclear weapons.
I'm pro-nukes (but anti-use-of-nukes) because there's no way for nuclear disarmament would work. Even if everybody agreed to get rid of nukes they would keep a few because that's the tactical thing to do. You'd either have a massive upper hand against the other countries or you'd have an equal hand against the other countries that also kept a few nukes. So it's better for everyone to have a few nukes as to not be left behind.
A man can only get so hard...
No. The Nordics are not about to, nor planning to have nuclear arms.
Call the engineers at saab a36 vargen is back on the table.
The Nordics and Poland want and need nukes now, and they've known this since Trump was reelected, but can't pursue it openly. That may change now that it is clear Trump was playing them on Putin's behalf - pretending to continue to support Ukraine so that Europe would delay rearming, and not escalate its involvement in Ukraine's defence. Putin also thinks he can destroy the EU (and what remains of NATO) by election subversion, and sadly on current evidence he may not be wrong about that.
He’s certainly been successful in the US.
There should be a European solution with a variety of weapons from small tactical to more massive rocket mountent. Europ needs to be seen independent and serious.
Hopefully Canada joins the boat too. China and Russia are already eyeing our Arctic region and with this new dictator just south of us you never know what can happen..
Trump made it every man for himself - Don’t cry when the cat is out he box.
The Nordics/Baltics should have nukes, but please place them with someone rational like Finland so that my government doesn’t use them to push through more mass surveillance by nuking dissenting nations
UK would be willing to share their nuclear deterrent to our nordic brothers, in my opinion at least.
Do it in secret, like Japan and Taiwan...
Haven't heard anything public about nuclear weapons for sweden. Doubt the general public would even remotley approve.
Sweden had a finished nuclear program between 1945 to 1972 and produced their own prototypes. But then Daddy US said that we need to cancel it and let us protect us instead. But we have all learned that these kind of promises mean jackshit.
So should we have nukes in the most developed democracies in the world, why not.
This seems very reasonable - we know that we cant rely on the US anymore, and we know that Russia only respects power an they rely on their own nukes to project that power, we need our own to neutralize that power.
Fuck yeah, a joint nuckear program between Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland would be amazing, nukes are the only guarantee of peace, they're the great equaliser between a superpower and a tiny country. If we got nukes, we could finally stop sucking up to USA for protection.
LOL.
Looking forward to that debate in Sweden, will be a shit show and all the newspapers will just put out propaganda how bad it is and that we should just hug.
If they want todo it, it should probably be hidden from the public like last time.
Tell them that if Sweden doesn’t head the program, Denmark will.