Alternatives to NATO

[uk 75]

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.

 

[Orionblamblam]

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?

 

[Desertfox]

Why would they even need supercarriers?

 

[Orionblamblam]

Why would they even need supercarriers?

Why does the US? or China? Force projection.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Please, no immigration poliitics in this topic.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

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.

 

[Dilandu]

Why does the US? or China? Force projection

Its less a priority for many European countries than coastal defense and mine warfare.

 

[Antonio]

Do we really need to insist on sterile and divisive topics?

 

[zen]

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.

 

[Arjen]

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.