[alephnerd]

> I guess the EU should hire them

The EU doesn't have control of defense policy - that is the mandate of individual European states.

The only EU member with nuclear weapons is France, which has it's own domestic nuclear ecosystem.

More critically, public sector hiring is not the same as private sector. Working for a foreign government's NatSec apparatus would be a red flag for any sort of hiring - especially in the domestic nuclear industry in France.

[fifilura]

Although your comments are technically correct I think the bigger picture may still make this relevant.

These are not normal times and I believe USA also hired foreign nationals to top secret programs during and after WWII.

[alephnerd]

> These are not normal times and I believe USA also hired foreign nationals to top secret programs during and after WWII

The 1950s is ancient history now.

All countries have drastically ramped up background checks in NatSec and NatSec adjacent industries, and hiring foreigners (even from aligned states) can be a potential threat, as they will continue to retain family ties with their country of origin.

This same incident literally happened last week in the French nuclear industry, where a senior exec was canned because they weren't able to pass background checks due to their familial ties in Russia and past work in the Russian defense space before naturalizing as a French national.

If the US is to be viewed as a threat by EU member states (like a lot of Redditors-turned-HNers argue or imply), then it suffices to say that these states need to view Americans working in NatSec industries as potentially compromised.

[wakawaka28]

So the US is a threat because it refuses to pay disproportionate funds for the defense of Europe? I think everyone whining about it is losing their minds over nothing. We have been massively subsidizing these "friends" so that many of them can afford free healthcare. Fuck that noise.

[thecopy]

The ROI to USA that it has been the dominant military power for the last decades, combined with the cooling effect of NATO across the globe – i think you can imagine the instability and increase risk of nuclear war without NATO (Japan, South Korea, Europe, etc would acquire nukes without USA guarantees)

It has enabled a very stable and predictable world. This has benefited USA immensely. It it not clear to me, that rewinding and dismantling this system will have net positive effects in the next 50 years for USA.

[alephnerd]

But in the 1990s, militaries like West Germany, Canada, etc remained competitive and helped balance the load.

There's no reason Germany (and in reality it's only Germany that's the laggard) can't rebuild their conventional fighting capacities to help load balance again.

It's just German instraginence because of their fanatical opposition to deficits that is hampering their ability to do so.

> increase risk of nuclear war without NATO (Japan, South Korea, Europe, etc would acquire nukes without USA guarantees)

As I wrote below, that is highly unlikely in much of Europe, as most European states (except the UK and France) lack the capabilities to develop credible nuclear delivery systems like ballistic missiles or nuclear submarines.

[thecopy]

>There's no reason Germany (and in reality it's only Germany that's the laggard) can't rebuild their conventional fighting capacities to help load balance again.

They could, yes. But would they need to if Russia is weak? The current strategy from USA seems to be to appease Russia, give them what they want and weaken security guarantees. The point im trying to make is that there is another way here which i beleive nets the West (both USA and Europe – USA's natural ally) more benefits than gearing up for war (aka the Peace Dividend).

>lack the capabilities to develop credible nuclear delivery systems

Is this the case? I think Sweden were months away from testing their nuclear bombs when they were conviced to dismantle the system in return for protection from USA's nuclear umbrella and were in process of producing supersonic nuclear bomber in the 1950s. They still produce today world class submarines, develops and build their own fighter jets.

I would think that Europe has knowledge and skillset. I mean, North Korea managed.

[wakawaka28]

We can't afford to police the whole world. NATO expansionism is one of the causes of the latest conflict in Ukraine.

It's not clear to me that unwinding our interventionism around the world is going to make the world more stable. But it is clear to me that we can't afford to keep doing it. China is eating our lunch and they have about 3x as many people as we do. Neither Europe nor the US are producing much, and the entire West is in massive debt. Do you seriously think we can win the inevitable war with China? We can't even defeat Russia in Ukraine, and China would fight much dirtier than Russia. It's time to get real, restructure our debts, and rebuild our own country.

[mopsi]

> NATO expansionism is one of the causes of the latest conflict in Ukraine.

There's no such thing as NATO expansionism. Eastern Europe became dead set on joining NATO after seeing the destruction of Russian democracy by the remnants of the Soviet security-military complex. They correctly predicted that Russia would degenerate into an authoritarian dictatorship that would turn outwardly expansionist after KGB hardliners consolidated power and crushed all internal dissent.

Eastern Europe's entry into NATO is like townsfolk signing up for neighborhood watch after seeing the social order break down in the next town and fearing that criminality will spill over into their own community. The criminals, of course, are disturbed that people are setting up security cameras and looking out for each other. Breaking into houses would be much easier in a town where everyone keeps to themselves.

Eastern Europe managed to break free of Russian military occupation only in 1994. Criminal gangs had taken over our town by force at the end of WWII and prevented us from living normal lives for half a century. Now, the same criminals demand that we dismantle cameras, fire security guards, and stop cooperation amoung ourselves because "neighborhood watch expansionism" violates their "interests." Damn right it does.

[thecopy]

>Do you seriously think we can win the inevitable war with China?

I believe showing Russia, China, and the world, that USA stands behinds it commitments and allies, defends the rule based world order and is true leader of the democratic society would deter leaders such as Putin and Xi from trying anything.

NATO is (imo) close to collapsing. All it would take is a minor just-under-war incursion, e.g. in northern Finland by Russia. Would USA (Trump) defend Finland in this scenario? If not, NATO is dead and the next 100 years belong to China and Russia.

[fifilura]

> inevitable war with China

Never a better time to throw your allies under the bus.

[alephnerd]

> I think everyone whining about it is losing their minds over nothing

I agree. It is doable for individual European states to rebuild their conventional fighting capabilities.

France has been a proponent of this kind of "strategic autonomy" for decades, and so has the UK to a certain extent.

Most of the angst is coming from Germany, who let the Bundeswehr degrade from being one of the most capable Armed Forces in Europe in 1990 to what it is today.

[fifilura]

Note that "US as a threat" was a strawman argument.

(Although USA has threatened to occupy EU territory in the last weeks.)

It does not have to be a threat, but if Europe should take more responsibility for their own defense, it would make sense build up their nuclear capacity.

(And I am well aware of the differences between EU, Europe and individual countries. But it seems to me tha France is the country to build upon.)

Ukraine had nuclear weapons that they gave away. Maybe they shouldn't have?

Also - universal healthcare is not about 1-2 percent lower military spendings (much of which goes back to the country itself). USA is a rich country, you could also afford it.

[wakawaka28]

Ukraine had weapons systems that it could not operate due to them being locked down by USSR leadership. So their choices were really to give them up, or begin reverse engineering and risk getting invaded by parties that didn't want them to have those weapons.

>Also - universal healthcare is not about 1-2 percent lower military spendings (much of which goes back to the country itself). USA is a rich country, you could also afford it.

We can't afford it. Most of the Western countries that have it can't actually afford it either. The US and the rest of the West are only rich in a very narrow sense, in that they get to borrow more than anyone else. Manufacturing has left, and everyone is running a trade deficit. It's time to turn all that around before our countries become 100% dependent on imports and unable to defend themselves.

[fifilura]

Yes, but France and UK has working nuclear weapons, my point is that it may give protection to build on them especially when their previous ally leaves the space.

AFAIK USA pays more for healthcare per capita per person. It is not about economy, but political will. (And I did not bring up this argument).

One thing that can be criticised though is low retirement age in southern Europe. But whenever that question is brought up (Macron has bet much of his political future on it), the JD Vance friends from the far right wakes up and start wild protest and collecting votes against (yellow vests, AFD).

I don't think we disagree that Europe has been naive in trusting both USA and the current world order with free global trade.

But that also gives them the freedom to act.

[Denote6737]

Maybe that will change. Germany certianly has capability to manufacture nuclear armements. The UK may rejoin if the situation gets dire enough.

[alephnerd]

> Germany certianly has capability to manufacture nuclear armements

Yep, but as I mentioned below, that's not enough anymore.

Just about every major nuclear power (US, Russia, China, India, Israel) has a nuclear triad and second strike capabilities.

Just having nuclear weapons doesn't unlock that capability overnight.

[ben_w]

> Maybe that will change. Germany certianly has capability to manufacture nuclear armements. The UK may rejoin if the situation gets dire enough.

Given the politics here, I don't see that happening. No nuclear reactors, even.

I won't be too surprised if Finland gets some, but I don't really know the full politics of the area, only that they have reactors and are concerned about Russia.

Poland might, but no earlier than 2030.

In Europe but not in the EU, Ukraine… entirely depends on if they think they have nothing left to lose. If it looks like Trump will sell them out and they don't think anyone else will pick up enough slack to keep them independent of Moscow, they may rush a development program.

I can easily believe that Ukraine would try to hire any of these workers. No reason to think any of these workers would be interested, but I can see Ukraine trying.

[throw0101d]

> The only EU member with nuclear weapons is France, which has it's own domestic nuclear ecosystem.

The UK has US-derived (?) nuclear weapons, and so it would perhaps make sense for them to hire the Americans that maintained them:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_of_the_United_...

Given the 'waffling' of Trump on NATO support, Poland may want to develop their own.

Also South Korea and Japan may want to ramp up their own native infrastructure given the waffling of US Pacific support.

[alephnerd]

> The UK

Not in the EU.

And the same NatSec requirements hold.

> Poland may want to develop their own.

A nuclear shield is useless without second or third strike capabilities - which requires a nuclear triad - as both Russia and China have developed those capabilities due to their rivalry with the US.

Poland hypothetically building 10 nuclear devices does nothing if Russia can launch multiple strike after getting striked.

Furthermore, developing nuclear weapons is causus belli enough to justify a hot war for China or Russia, nor does it actually prevent war as can be seen with the Kargil War.

More critically, nuclear programs are expensive and that money is better used in further building out conventional military capabilities, as can be seen with the Russia-Ukraine War, where a country with an ossified MIC (Ukraine) is able to cause significant pain to a nuclear power.

Tl;dr - Nuclear weapons alone are useless in a world where most Nuclear Powers (US, Russia, China, India, Israel) have a nuclear triad and multi-strike capabilities.

> Also South Korea and Japan may

The Indo-Pac theatre is different from the European theatre, as there is bipartisan support to prioritize Asian defense over European defense.

Furthermore, in a situation where American support is reduced, Asian countries can continue to retain conventional warfighting capabilities. This is because defense spending across Asia had always been high since the early-mid 2010 standoffs, so there hasn't been the same level of angst that much of Central Europe has.

Furthermore, Korean and Japanese military exports are extremely competitive, with Indonesia, Vietnam, and Philippines all closely aligning with SK and JP on defense posture.

[mytailorisrich]

Nuclear weapons are not meant to be used. They are meant to prevent invasion attempts.

For instance, between China and its own nuke North Korea is guaranteed not to be invaded by the US.

Likewise, Israel is guaranteed that Arab countries or Iran won't try to invade it.

In fact, that's why France developed its own nukes, in addition to making sure they'll keep a seat at the "adults table".

Poland might be/have been another good example. They would only need to guarantee that St Petersburg, Moscow, and Minsk would be vaporised in case of invasion to be safe on their Eastern border.

[alephnerd]

> Poland might be/have been another good example. They would only need to guarantee that St Petersburg, Moscow, and Minsk would be vaporised in case of invasion to be safe on their Eastern border

As I mentioned above, the fear of vaporization goes away if you can continue to keep striking after being striked. If you've reached the point where you are launching nuclear strikes, you accept the massive toll that you will have to pay with a launch, and wish to enact as severe a toll as possible. To do that you need second strike and nuclear triad capabilities.

Every single one of the countries you mentioned has second strike capabilities and either has Nuclear Triad capabilities (China, US, Israel) or is working to implement them (France, North Korea).

A country like Poland or Germany is too late in the game to build second strike or nuclear triad capabilities, and even starting a nuclear weapons program would be causus belli enough in the short-to-medium term for a war while being unable to prevent a strike.

[mytailorisrich]

No,the fear does not go away. The point is that Russia isn't even going to try if they know their main cities are going to be wiped. Whether they can possibly ultimately "win" because irrelevant if it is a pyrrhic victory and/or cost is to high.

[alephnerd]

> The point is that Russia isn't even going to try if they know their main cities are going to be wiped

And my argument is if you as a state are seriously consider a nuclear strike, you have accepted that millions will die, but it's better to completely wipe out the other opponent. No amount of rationalization can resolve that level of existential threat. Poland saying "we can threaten to nuke Moscow" is enough of a justification for Russia to view Poland as an existential threat to wipe off the map.

Large countries, and especially large nuclear powers, have multiple cities where industries are distributed. This remains true in Russia, as most of their military manufacturing capabilities remain spread out across Omsk, Kazan, Novosibirsk, etc.

If you wish to scare a country from fighting a war with you, even conventional capabilities are enough to highlight the pain while also not reaching the threshold where a conflict becomes existential.

So no, it does not make sense for Poland or Germany to develop nuclear capabilities so late in modern world.

[actionfromafar]

Russia is not the USSR. In practice, Russia is Moscow and St Petersburg. Pose a credible threat to those cities and be set. Because Poland and Russia are so close geographically, plausible second strike capability can be achieved many ways without having ICBMs and nuclear strike subs.

[alephnerd]

If you're at the point where you're actively considering nuclear strikes, you are fine with accepting the MASSIVE costs that arise.

Even if Moscow or St Petersburg are completely wiped off the map, Novosibirsk, Kazan, Omsk, etc will remain while much of Poland is irradiated.

> Russia is not the USSR

It's not the USSR, but it's still a large country, and much of the defense industry has remained in Siberia since WW2.

[ben_w]

I'd focus on your previous point about second-strike capabilities.

> Even if Moscow or St Petersburg are completely wiped off the map, Novosibirsk, Kazan, Omsk, etc will remain while much of Poland is irradiated.

Yes, but the goal isn't to win a first strike, it's MAD to prevent the other side doing that.

Russia has enough warheads to not just level Poland's cities, but every settlement and forest in the country.

Poland with 10 credible nuclear weapons is enough to break the economic back of any country who attacks, so they won't attack.

This needs what you said before, second-strike capability. Either that or a fast enough response time that they can launch while hostile missiles are still inbound. (Or does that still count as second-strike?)

[alephnerd]

> Poland with 10 credible nuclear weapons is enough to break the economic back of any country who attacks, so they won't attack.

If you are in a situation where you are even seriously considering a nuclear strike, that means you are viewing a threat as existential, which completely undermines the economic argument.

> This needs what you said before, second-strike capability. Either that or a fast enough response time that they can launch while hostile missiles are still inbound. (Or does that still count as second-strike?)

Absolutely, but the issue is that this takes A LOT of time to build and implement, and a country like Poland or Germany cannot build that kind of capability overnight. Yet a nuclear program can be viewed as an existential threat that can be used as a causus belli for war (conventional or nuclear).

This is a pretty bad RoI.

Nuclear programs are expensive, and instead of spending the amount you would need to build a nuclear program, it's much better for Poland and Germany to double down and concentrate on conventional war capabilities such as rocket systems, drones, artillery, and heavy weapons. The fact that a country with an ossified MIC like Ukraine is able to bog down a military like Russia's with conventional capabilities is proof enough that doubling down on building conventional war-fighting capabilities is enough to cause severe pain on an aggressor while not turning a conflict into an existential one which justifies nuclear warfare.

And this is why you never hear Polish or German military leadership talk about developing a nuclear program.