Could Europe Get its Own Nuclear Deterrent?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 апр 2024
- Thanks to Keeps for sponsoring this video! Head to keeps.com/SIMON to get a special offer. Individual results may vary.
→ Subscribe for new videos at least twice a week!
ruclips.net/user/biographics...
This video is #sponsored by Keeps.
Love content? Check out Simon's other RUclips Channels:
MegaProjects: / @megaprojects9649
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Casual Criminalist: / @thecasualcriminalist
Today I Found Out: / todayifoundout
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
XPLRD: / @xplrd
Brain Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Places: / @places302
Astrographics: / @astrographics-ve4yq
Simon's Social Media:
Twitter: / simonwhistler
Instagram: / simonwhistler
Thanks to Keeps for sponsoring this video! Head to keeps.com/SIMON to get a special offer. Individual results may vary.
Good to see Keeps has a sense of humor when it supported you for sponsorship.
Radosław Sikorski RAD ("Rard") O (as in dog or log) Ł/ł (whoaaah) A (as in "art") W ("ff") ..... Rardoswharff
@@terryhoath1983I’ve often wished Simon would employ a pronunciation checker. There are far too many RUclips videos where he’s so mangled the pronunciation of a word that it’s annoying enough that it’s almost comical.
Perhaps he’s trying to gaslight the world into pronouncing words wrong? 🤔
@@sam1812seal I sometimes wonder if he does it deliberately.
Can it keep my wife from leaving me
France and UK; Yeah, what if?
But there missiles are controlled by the USA 😂😂😂
@@Gogopak_69france has it own nuclear weapons
Uk isn’t eu any more
A whole video on "what if france armed europe with its nukes" got it.
@@yveslebailly3592 France is a satalite state of USA 😂💩
As a former U.S. Marine and U.S. Army Soldier, let me be the first to say, South Korea isn't stupid.
"I have never doubted an American soldier, but I would be foolish to put the security of my nation in the hands of an American politician." Fact Check True.
Brinkmanship with North Korea is a lot less risky stateside.
@@SusCalvin your attitude to the Korean peninsula situation is directly proportional to if youre in range of the missiles
Since near 50 percent of USA consist of unreliable fanatic republicans, I would not put my security at stake relying on USA.
Yeah. Former US sailor here. Ask Ukraine how far they can trust our politicians.
@@smalltime0 this has the same energy of "talking alot of shit when you are within ICBM distance"
Britian - " we are purposely ambiguous about how or when we would use our weapons" we all know the tea market is the fine line
If Iceland steals our cod again, they are bound to suffer the consequences...
As a brit i can confirm that
"We have just spoken to the King, Yorkshire Tea has fallen, godspeed my fellow britians"
The Royal Navy has long since decided if BBC4 went down there’s no use keeping the world around.
Hey, tea is serious business.
To be honest, upgrading article 5 to :'' A attack on one, is a nuke back from everyone '' has a isotope to it.
Isotope?...... I see what you did there. ;) LOL!!!!! :D :D
Having a bald man sell hair loss products is like selling ice to eskimo's: you gotta appreciate the hustle
Visioning Simon with a full head of hair is horrifying
Truly hillhairyass!
@biggieboy2510 No, i feel like the equivalent of what you said would be selling scalp to a bald man.
But what he is doing is like a homeless man selling you his 3 bedroom suite
@@rentacop577it's not a lot of hair but if you go really really really far back in videos and you can kinda see hair on the top of his head. I started watching when he had some hair on top his head and no hair on his face. Now his skalp is bald and his face is full with a glorious bushy lower face warmer we call a beard. 😂
I don’t believe the U.S. should ever abandon NATO, but at the same time I believe putting your security in the hands of a nation a whole ocean away from your home soil is not wise.
Agreed.
The very few EU countries that have nukes would logically be expected to use them specifically how they see fit. Even if that means not defending a fellow EU member. But America is bad and even more, Orange Man is bad; if America did the same thing.
Yes. If I had a say, I'd exploit someone's backdoor channels and somehow persuade the countries whompst would like the US's defense underbrella covering them, to let the US operate military assets and bases close by. Then the ones defending the Europeaners would be less than an ocean away! But I'm not involved in any of that. So they'll have to finger themselves out.
It's not just that, the idea was never a bunch of nations hiding behind a few strong nations that would come to your rescue after you've been invaded and being overrun.
The idea was that yourself and your immediate like minded NATO members would be next to impossible to successfully invade (your own at least competent and well trained/supplied army with on the ground back-up just days away from your neighbours) then you had the backing of other powerful and far away nations that would bombard the enemy to dust as soon as possible.
Basically making the idea of any lightning invasion against a NATO member inconceivable because you won't even make it past their border and a war of attrition laughable.
Having your own well resourced army is part of the agreement because it protects everybody from WWIII.
If everybody isn't meeting their financial obligations than the agreement is no longer relevant because it defeats the purpose of it.
It doesn’t matter if the nation is far away, they can still send ships and planes
@Allfaxnocaps Sure, but will they get there in time? Can you be certain they won't be intercepted or sunk? Can they quickly reach your country's ports or coastline? Can you be absolutely certain your political ties are strong enough to guarantee that those soldiers, sailors and marines will be willing to risk their lives for you? Can they effectively mount a counterattack on your homeland?
These are all questions to consider if you don’t have a strong military.
"The reign of Liz Truss" all 5 seconds of it. 😂
They rushed to get rid of Boris and made an even bigger mess !
Brexit is the gift that never stops on giving.
Well, she DID nuke the economy in that 5 seconds in power, so she's got some experience with firing nukes.
The thing I find most amazing is that she *still* hasn't lost faith in her own fantasies, and is now flogging them to American conservatives.
She’s a cretin, best not to even speak of her. She craves validation and attention.
1:05 - Mid roll ads
2:30 - Chapter 1 - Nuclear nations
6:50 - Chapter 2 - Stockpiling
11:05 - Chapter 3 - French deterrent
14:50 - Chapter 4 - European umbrella
17:25 - Chapter 5 - German factor
22:20 - Chapter 6 - Europeans dreams
🫡
Eurobomb would be a sick name for a band
This debate should be seen in the light of France’s fractious relationship with NATO/OTAN. They never liked the anglophone core of the organisation and although they were always a member the level of French participation varied throughout the Cold War. France had always been a proponent of an EU military and, being the only EU member with nuclear weapons, they would be pivotal to any defence structure. The U.K. never agreed with an EU military force, preferring to rely on NATO. Since the U.K. left the EU this stumbling block has left with it and France see this as an excellent time to push this idea again. Trump’s chaotic first presidency and his known ambivalence to NATO only strengthen its appeal.
Which is all very funny because nobody trusts the French who have always demonstrated their complete lack of understanding of why nations join alliances. Macron was taking pictures with Putin while Russian troops massed on the Ukrainian border. Eastern Europe will be alow to forget that and equally slow to put their faith in any French security guarantees.
I think trump just sees NATO for what it is: a sham that is basically the US and crew. The EU/NATO couldn’t even supply Ukraine with large stockpiles because there aren’t any. Wouldn’t need NATO if everyone stopped hating on Russia for zero reason since the collapse of the USSR. Putin asked bill Clinton to join it, and GW Bush to work on a missile program together. It never happened though, and the world would be significantly safer had it been a reality. Purposefully ragging on Russia/sanctioning it/stealing people’s money and property makes our security posture WORSE, and trump sees all of that
"Trump's ambivalence" is an odd way to put it seeing how he had the exact same policy towards NATO members not paying their fair share as the previous 3 administrations did. The only thing he did differently was to actually get the other nations to start paying more into their own defense.
@@danh2716 yes but he did so very publicly and crudely which influenced public sentiment about NATO (meaning some nations like France might have a populace more inclined to leave it and go down another route... weakening everybody).
There is a reason that many great leaders have been known for their charisma and elegant speech.
I appreciate that politicians in general have become trained PR machines and it's aggravating the roundabout and nonsensical way they talk BUT that doesn't mean simply being brash and loud is better.
@@retsaMinnavoiG 4 years, no wars, allies started contributing. Sounds like brash might have been the correct approach the other guys should have tried decades ago.
"i have never doubted an American soldier. But I would be foolish to place my nation's security in the hands of an American politician." yeah, in the US military we say the same thing. we know in our soul, "nobody gets left behind" as a way of life. politicians seem more like "cut that turd loose."
Every time I hear about nuclear weapons I always remember this saying . “Don’t be afraid of the loud dog it’s the quiet ones that bite .”
Finding myself just staring at the lights reflecting in Simon’s glasses !
Every time 😂😂
So am I now. Thanks..
Lol and he only wears them now because they are part of he branding, he had lasik some time ago.
Give it another couple years & Sweden will announce the testing of its SaaBomba.😁
It won't be the biggest or the flashiest.
It will be just right, you know, very lagom 😅
A-26 with submarine launched nuclear missiles 😩 a man can dream
SAAB did design a Swedish nuclear delivery missile for the Swedish nuclear weapons program. However, it was halted in the 60's. Probably a not so wise decision. It's been official doctrine since, to rely on assurances by the USA. Not talked about, but it's there in print. I think the military strategy document stating it, is dated in 1962. Most Swedish people don't know, and don't want to know.
@NotASeriousMoose Absolutely. I can picture the packaging & instruction manual now.😂
Ba dum tsss
Sweden (!) halted it's nuclear weapons program in the 60's. It was very near completion, with even SAAB having designed the missiles to deliver the warheads. (The very advanced missile technologies developement have continued. Probably the best anti ship missile around, has also been sent early on to Ukraine, when Odesa was in threat of amphibian assault.)
The nuclear weapons program was halted mainly on ideological pacifist grounds. There is a reason Nobel also stipulated a peace prize. But also the USA gave very strong assurances of nuclear deterrence protection to Sweden. And yes, Sweden has never really been anything like truly neutral. Military cooperation with the USA has been much deeper than most of the general public in Sweden wanted to know.
I've always been a bit doubtful as to if it was really a good thing that Sweden halted it's nuclear weapons program. And with the war in Ukraine, I'm pretty certain Swedish and Finnish people would feel safer with a nuclear deterrent. And today, I'm pretty sure Sweden would be willing to share such a program with the Baltic states - and likely also Poland. (Norway counts in without the need of mentioning it, actually. The Nobel peace prize is actually awarded by the Norwegian parliment. Gives you an idea of how close the Nordic countries are.)
Today, I think a British/Nordic/Baltic/Polish shared program would be a good idea. The trust is there, to share the firing button.
I generally think it's better to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a few geographically far ranging and geographical strategic nations with large land masses.
A partnership in spirit is fine but I do think it is better if the host nation has ultimate authority.
Basically my train of thought is that this lessens the likelihood of nuclear war but is also a solid shield and very daunting.
E.g. in my ideal world I think Aus, US and France (or UK) would be the best candidates and they have a very thorough and strategic coverage and a healthy buffer between themselves and likely direct conflict.
As you point out, the most likely candidates for new European nuclear states are Poland, Baltics, and Scandinavian countries, some of which have been wiped off the map in recent history. They would be keen on solidifying the current borders with nuclear arms, since they are aware how fragile borders are.
Exactly!
love all these comments from people who haven't whached the vid ranting about the UK and france
It’s so wild!!! There are people out there so bent on looking smart (and super fast, I guess?) and/or making others look stupid that they don’t even watch the video they are about to argue on. In turn, they are the ones who look foolish. THEN, they will spend the next two weeks defending their stance because these same people don’t know how to drop it or gracefully admit they were wrong…
It’s as if they just click on titles and shotgun blast comments everywhere, hoping one gets 200k likes, and they are on their way to RUclips-comment-section-stardom. I mean, that’s something you can show the grandkids some day…
Perhaps, if they spend their time watching the videos instead of defending their stances,, we could all end this loop of prideful idiocy!!!
@@dmay4433I agree. Simply put, it’s wiser to stay silent and let people think you are stupid than to speak up and remove any doubt.
@@dmay4433 social media brain. hearken back to the anti-drug campaign of the 90's. the one where they crack an egg into a hot, dry frying pan and say "this is your brain. tyhis is your brain on drugs." replace drugs with social media and/or the internet. swiss cheese and the attention span of a gerbil.
how many nukes of russia work? they ''simulated'' a nuclear strike after scrapping the ''no nuclear test'' treaty.
Not as many as they would hope, far too many for the rest if us to ignore
Probably like 60% are viable, you have to simulate their viability as you can't test them like you said, The US even does this and to a more significant extent compared to Russia so their viability rate would be higher. 60% of thousands of nukes is enough to collapse society as we know it.
Given that the USA only keeps 1365 warheads deployed and spends $187 Billion annually on their arsenal, it's a safe bet that Russia, whose entire military budget was less than $90 Billion prior to their invasion of Ukraine, has far less ready to use. Furthermore, given the hilarious levels of corruption in Russia's military industrial complex and the resulting failures across every part if their military showcased during said invasion, one must wonder what the true state of readiness of their nukes really is, compared to what Putin has been told it is by his subordinates.
How many of those in the west would work?
@@haroldhaywardiii9226 classic russian whataboutism
Ooph cannot wait till Simon reports tomarrow
Somewhere out there a US marine has just finished repainting 10 000 Humvees from tan to green, and now....
The French have a tactical nuclear cruise missile (Air-sol moyenne portée), which would probably be used not to take out a Russian city but more likely to take out Russian air defenses and invading army as a final warning shot, were they to invade a NATO member country.
The ASMP. Has a variable yield nuclear warhead like the American B61. The French are also developing a hypersonic successor to this vessel. The ASMP can be deployed from land or carrier-based Rafale fighters.
last time I was this early, we still fought with spears
Last time for me we fought with sticks and stones
@@lukevalsek5020 -and we had to share the stones between ourselves as well.
You guys are funny I liked your jokes
dont worry we are headed back that way soon it feels like lol
@@oshomonaosikhena6525 you didn't like lukevalsek5020 comment that's not nice like it please
To me it feels like the most reasonable option would be to supercharge France's nuclear program with other nation's funds. So EU Nuke Forces would mostly buy nukes from France and then build up some amount of independent maintenance capacity.
Of course, this assumes that France would accept that which is far from certain.
The main problem with that idea, in my opinion, is that when it comes to nuclear weapons, France is obsessed with sovereignty and regards the control of nuclear weapons as eminently sovereign. That makes sharing the bombs almost impossible.
That said, France also has all the technology and industrial capabilities to build and (which just as important) maintain nuclear weapons. And I don't believe sharing this technology and these capabilities would be such an improbable proposition.
Then again, that would mean that such a European deterrence would be extremely reliant on France. The Germans would not like that.
@@Plutokta my idea wasn't that France would lose control of any of their nukes, rather that France's existing nuclear tech and manufacturing capabilities would be used to build nukes (and continue developing new ones) for EU Nuke Forces as well as themselves. The key tech that would have to be shared would be for short and long term maintenance of the EU nukes (to ensure that they can be used independently).
To me this idea would make sense for everyone involved (there's decent risk/reward ratio for everyone) - but it's still far from certain that this could be arranged.
@@IrthexIt is pretty difficult to imagine the EU being nuclear armed, but other European countries than France and Britain could just as well buy nuclear weapons from anyone willing to sell and capable of manufacturing them if this really is in mutual interest. From the United States for example, unless the Americans see it as being against their interests that more of their allies are nuclear armed.
The same goes for any other nuclear weapons power in friendly terms with European countries.
The Nonproliferation Treaty raises its head as a handy excuse for France to refuse to release nukes or nuclear tech to other EU partner nations, which (mirabile dictu!dictum! [/sarc]) coincidentally maintains France as a key nation who MUST be deferred to in terms of military preparation, since they'll hold the launch keys.
Why are 99% of these comments absolute nutjobs? The answer isn't more nukes 😂
Thanks for a great show
You might have forgotten about Sweden having had a plad to go nuclear within 6 months if needed under the cold war
6 months? They should worry about refugee immigration first.
Germany: Yeah, let's spend bilions on unrealible energy sources, that are thought to be 'green', rather than care about our safety and current threats. xd
Simon doing keeps ads is so wholesome
The entire world "America what are you the world police? Why do you spend so much on your military?"
Also the entire world "America, come protect us with your military, we can't do it ourselves." 😂
Also, Europe tries to protect itself: “nooo not like that! The EU is the new USSR!1!1!1!”
The West is infested by the most rabid anti-westoiss that would even Xi and Putin blush.
Absolutely this comment
Next Tuesday: breaking news the EU has announced they have their first nuclear weapons
When talking about British nuclear deterrence I always think of that yes prime minister episode… “so when do you push the button, when the soviets are at Piccadilly, number 9 Downing Street.”
Europe should have a joint military force with each nation providing elements of their speciality. Like Poland, Finland and Germany providing the land force component and France, UK and Italy providing naval and aviation components. Not to mention nations like UK can provide excellent special forces elements to the joint force.
And they should have a joint nuclear deterrent with each nation paying for the maintenance of the nuke forces.
Germany wouldn't be good in providing raw manpoeer, but be very good in providing specialized forces, not special forces but specialized forces. The medics, pioneers and maintenance Crews are quite good
We already have that with NATO, with the added bonus of the US and Canada being in the gang.
Yeah, and whenever one party pulls out, eveyrthing falls to peaces.
As long as every nation has a nuke button. Having nukes on your soil but not having the button is worse than useless. It makes you a prime target for nukes yet you have ZERO deterrence.
@@apuuvah hell, Britain's nukes don't even have a code or permissive action link. All the bomber sub captain needs to do is give order and the crew to obey. 😂
Already has it 🇫🇷🇬🇧
But there missiles are controlled by the USA 😂😂😂
@@Gogopak_69 the UK have left the EU for reason. It wasn’t just because the uk was paying too much to the EU.. they knew what was coming and KNOW WHAT IS COMING
@@Gogopak_69you keep posting the same sht. Are you on drugs? Jesus Christ.
in case of France at least that is completely false. The Netherlands also have a small stockpile of Nuclear weapons - those are under control by the US.
@@Gogopak_69Utter nonsense, is there not some dirty coca cola bottles you should be refilling?
A friend of mine was rotated to Europe a year ago and did joint missions with their armies. He was not particularly impressed. I’m being rotated myself I must see if he’s right.
I for my part have been very impressed by the South Korean army. Good soldiers, badly paid though.
Thank you
Pretty solid analysis on this.
I don't like the direction this timeline is headed
The European arsenals are comparatively small. It depends on what is "enough" devices.
Well, Russia has only a few really important cities compared to its overall size. Combined with how centralized their government is, the loss of just Moscow and St. Petersburg might just do the trick.
@@josephshreeves8192 A few of the smaller nuclear powers count on the psychological deterrent even a dozen devices gives. North Korea or Iran with under ten devices would still be a lot different than none.
ok thats terrifying.
" years and years from now, not Tuesday next week"
Tuesday next week: 💣 💥
5:07 *LoL* oh Simon
American here. I’m no fan of Trump, but I do think that Europe should be able to be self sufficient, just in case America can’t or won’t (God forbid) come to Europes aid.
Take that a step further... Not only would the US not need to come to their aid in that case, but there likely wouldn't be any war in the first place.
Who really believes Russia starts a land war in Europe if Germany is self-reliant for energy and the member states all have legit military defenses?
Ukraine wouldn't be the land-mine infested no-man's-land it is right now if the EU didn't just sit and complain about how America hasn't done enough for the last 20 years.
Yeah I hate Trump as much as the next guy, but I likewise think Europe should continue with ramping up their defense spending. They have been ramping up recently, so I won’t pretend like they’re sitting on their hands for the most part
@@awesomedude222
I 100% agree.
Hi Simon Factboi. Great video as always. Can you also do a hypothetical one wherein Germany arms up to their world war days level and how much of a force they could be. Kinda like the vid on invading America being next to impossible. Thanks and hoping for a more peaceful world in the coming years.
While I am not necessarily an opponent to the idea, i can’t help but worry about the continent in, say, 2 centuries time if we would expand our nuclear capacity.
"Babe wake up, Warographics just dropped a new vid"
LOL
Wow, imagine having to worry about protecting yourself. How horrible.
The US has always been opposed to European nuclear weapons programs.
Rightwing American spotted!
@@j.a.weishaupt1748 What's wrong with being rightwing...? It's not like he's an extremist.
@@eyalamit5120 Did I state an opinion? Did I say there’s something wrong with it?
No I didn’t.
@@j.a.weishaupt1748 Well the way you worded it sounded judgemental is all
8:06 "plenty still see a role for London in a future nuclear umbrella"
Yeah... I still see a role for my front door in the defense of my home too... Good job guys
Tbh I forgot this video's title, and when you said "there might be one more nuclear-armed state soon" I was like "Iran, right?"
If it doesn't exist already, a video on Iran's progress towards acquiring nukes would probably be timely...
This guy has refused to talk about the Iran-Israel war. Wonder why🤔
@@isaiah5654 He hasn't "refused to talk about it", more that he hasn't had time to put a video out yet. Details are changing by the hour and misinformation is rife; I'd rather he took the time to be thorough and accurate.
Ok. France already has them so big deal.
But your missiles are controlled by the USA 😂💩
@@Gogopak_69 france has its own, other countries keep usa nukes
@@Gogopak_69 France doesn't have anything controlled by the US. We developped our own (at great cost, but so be it)
@@Gogopak_69no they’re not. That’s the entire reason that France developed its own nuclear wepoans.
Did you watch the video? French missles would currently only be deployed to defend French land, which wouldn't be a protective deterrent for the rest of Europe
The world has gone mad. We are literally talking about allow Germany to have nuclear weapons
If you think Germany having nukes is worse than russia, china, pakistan and north-korea having nukes... then you haven't been taking your pills or have been taking the wrong ones. Or lived under a rock for the last 80 years.
Well Teddy, I tried to get a sword, was going to be two, but they said NO.
I notice that Simon deliberately avoided trying to pronounce the name of the South Korean General.
The problem with relying on the UK for nuclear protection is that multiple prime ministers have outright stated that even if the UK comes under nuclear attack,they will not “press the button.” As for purchasing nukes from the U.S., it would possibly violate both the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978 as well as the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons
What is the UK nuclear doctrine?
Rubbish, to say so effectively make the money spent on the nuclear deterrent a waste.
@@stephenclark9917 don’t shoot the messenger but yes, they have said that
Long way before that. Europe has no regalian power of its own. So there's no European army, not even an unified commandement for armies of EU members and it has no authority that could decide to use the bomb.
Yes! That is basically the core of the problem. The EU is politically integrated but not to the point of being its own country. And that comes mostly from the unwillingness of its member countries to renonce to their sovereignty.
If the EU had the bomb, who would have the authority to use it?
The president of the Council? The commission? Would it necessitate the agreement of all the member states? Before even thinking about a European bomb, a sufficient political integration with a supreme European authority would have to exist. And that, I think, is really the limiting factor.
Several European countries have been advocation for decades for a true European army (France and Germany among other, ironically) but to no avail, because for it to truly work, the member states would need to actually transfer most of their sovereignty to the EU, which has always been extremely controversial.
@@Plutokta What's the point of defending anything when you renounce all sovereignity? It's the Sovereign's problem now to defend serfs.
New glasses! Suits you Simon
If 10 years ago you had told me that a failed steak salesman would be credibly responsible for nuclear proliferation, I would've laughed you out of the room
We already have and its us French.
It got 🏳️at the end?
Yeah but like ur tanks they only have reverse gears ...
@@flecx9767 keep playing dumb with your early 2000s jokes juste because WE did not join an illegal war.
We are the only european country with independent and functionnal nuclear deterrent. The UK is deeply dependent of the US.
@@jasondarby5103 anything else from your rotten brain ?
Or is it just overused pavlovian white flag joke ?
Haha france couldnt hold germany for 2 months 🤣🤣🤣
I feel that a lot of Americans want the rest of nato to pay their fair share due to a good percentage of those countries having universal health care. if they can afford that, then they should also pay their fair share and have bigger military. American blood shouldn't be shed if other countries decide to put their money into universal health care and not their military.
Spot on.
While the US was busy spending it's grandchildren's wealth on Europe's defense, Europe was happily handing out expensive free stuff to it's citizens. This goes back to the 1990's or before. Way before Trump called them out.
That is very much the American perception. That Europe can afford their domestic social programs *because* of American military forces, which have to be large and powerful enough to be able to defend *all* of our allies, through the world.
Whether you agree with the reasoning or not, *that* is the general view of American voters. And history since the end of WWII tend to underline the logic of that position. In ANY major effort anywhere in the world where US military aid would be useful, the cry is always, "Where are the Americans?" Everything from disaster relief to backing up a smaller, weaker nation faced with invasion.
Simon talks about it in the video. All NATO countries are on point to reach the threshold in the next couple of year at most.
@@resileaf9501 Fine, good for them, and thank Donald J Trump for that.
The US isn't defending anyone else when they get involved in conflicts around the world, they are defending King Dollar and Queen Wall Street
It’s gonna get to the point where having nukes will be As effective as not having nukes
Isn't it funny how when the US reacts to something everyone complains about them being World Police, but if they don't they ask when the US will do something?
We have 2 England and france!
The UK
But there missiles are controlled by the USA 😂
Wait, now you're taken UK as Europe?
@lucasjleandro uk is still part of Europe just no longer in the EU
@@Gogopak_69 “France is the only member of the European Union to possess independent (non-NATO) nuclear weapons.”
we should consider producing nerve agents as well, Russia and Syria sure love having them. I'm more of a phosgene man as that stuff can be repurposed or mass produced far more quickly as our plastic industry already uses tons of it.
You know the wind is a thing still yeah?
War crime
@@Betweoxwitegan ever heard of the genver checklist ?
I also think nukes are out of the question, the ultimate weapon is biological
@@davianoinglesias5030 dual purpose research (making bioweapons just to find counters) and their slow effect make it unlikely. the more a bioweapon kills, the thinner and more guarded the survivors become. it's very self sabotaging.
The Netherlands should develop nukes and call them Stroopnukes.
Britain and france "am I joke to you?"
Video: Yes
lol this channel is about to be busy
Seriously like wtf. Shit has been insane all week and I've been waiting on a video
I’m surprised that people are not seeing patterns: Brexit, Trump, Le Pen…
I wonder which megalomaniac leader would actually benefited from these developments…
France wasn't willing to sacrifice Paris for the French. Who thinks they would sacrifice Paris for anyone else?!
No one. There is no such thing as a "nuclear umbrella", it's a fanciful notion. The USA would never sacrifice New York or Washington DC to avenge Talinn, it's obvious.
Today's France is a different France, who actually respects De Gaulle and have learned more from him, then the pathetic Philippe Pétains who made the call to surrender and save Paris. History is fun, but those are the facts! 😉
You think the Yanks would sacrifice New York or the Brits London? Are you serious, now?
@@adrien5834 France has been trying to prepare itself against Russia for a long time, an attack would be more likely considering distance and lack of American defense systems, meanwhile corporate America won't let anything touch New York, the US weapons industry is just crazy in multiple ways so I'm not going to get into that. Point is, Britain, Germany, Poland and France are not the US, and with how much the US politics change it was wise for France to not be so dependent on the US for protection over the years. No one would want to sacrifice any city, but the power balance is not in France's favor but has better odds then Britain and it's poor military spending choices.
@@adrien5834 and I think we can all agree after what we've seen in the past year or so is that the US has definitely been "pick and choose"
Our good old General (De Gaule) was right all along.
That being said, i do believe the US would have far too much to lose from cutting themselves off from Europe. We should become independent for sure, but i simply don't see the USA letting go of their primordial ally, and all the benefits that come with having it, over some petty political rhetoric.
28 leaders to decide and only 10 min to decide
As a former US Marine I love my country. I will however state that our politicians are quite effective at tearing our country in two and doing it on the world stage. That being said, in my opinion, I feel Europe as a whole should work towards its own nuclear umbrella as relying on someone else to through down with an aggressor who is an active threat is ridiculous and will result in many lives lost.
Appreciate you for your service to our country...America needs to take care of its own first. I wish for America to leave NATO and put that money to the advancement of the USA.
The UK and France together have like 1200 nukes
But the UK warheads and mostly the delivery systems are controlled by US.
@@jamezlt75no they aren’t, don’t make shit up. They provide a single type of WARHEAD, which the UK attaches to a delivery system and stores and controls from Britain.
More like 500 combined.
@@jamezlt75 That is a myth
I believe the figure to around half of the figure you mention.
UK has around 225 and France somewhere 350. Also the UK only had about 10 missiles deployed at any one time on one submarine. Each missile usually carries 3 warheads or Multiple reentry vehicles (Mervs) I'm not familiar with French Nukes but would imagine each missile would have somewhere between 3-10 MERV'S. France will only likely have somewhere between 10-16 missiles deployed again on a single submarine. It usually works that 1 submarine is in nuclear deterrent patrol, one is on training, one is in deep maintenance and one is on shore leave after carrying out a patrol. At a push and in a crisis the UK could deploy an extra sub and the same for France.
Either way, Moscow and St Peterberg would be turned into ash along with most Russian air, Naval and Nuclear bases.
Quite the video to watch right after watching the new Fallout show...
😅Except in the current world it's the weapon companies pushing the conflicts. This won't end well
Exciting times ahead ...
If Germany can't afford them then how would Poland be able too ?????????
My guess would be a nuclear consortium. The EU already has them for aerospace and conventional arms.
They would have to scrub a lot more toilets in Western-Europe lol.
@@Exxperiment626 Not sure why you're making jokes when Poland is actually rearming and the coward Western European nations, including Germany, have yet to establish a military that isn't a laughing stock.
they literly said but you didnt listen it seems they said with the nordic and baltic states
Pakistan can afford them with about half the GDP of Poland. The main problem for Germany isn't that the money wouldn't be available it's to convince a public that doesn't even want nuclear energy reactors to accept spending any money on nuclear weapons.
they maybe better off developing intercept system, would be lot cheaper
All defenses can be overcome.
Ah yes develop an intercept system to cover a whole continent which will only intercept like half of the missiles launched, each interception costs more than the target, you still get nuclear fallout and dispersion and on top of that you literally can't intercept hypersonic missiles.
Suffice to say it's a stupid idea, you'd spend a shit ton of money and receive little to no benefit whatsoever. Russia would actually favour this, in effect you're just wasting your resources.
@@Betweoxwitegan There are many types of defences which can add value to the robustness of air defence network of ones country, which could be of use both in a conventional and nuclear scenario. Russia uses loads of cruise missiles and tactical balistic missiles in Ukraine and intercepting and defending against them is an art form in itself which has become an important part of waging the ongoing war.
But no kind of defence is inpenetrable, and in a nuclear exchange even a few unintercepted weapons are a few too many. For this kind of scenario developing the capability to retaliate in kind is really the best defense.
The UK used to have a variety of Strategic Bomber
Regardless of the politics. I believe every nation should be capable of defending itself without relience on protection from other nations.
That's the problem, why do we in the US have to give blood and treasure when our allies have been neglecting their defense.
Because the Budapest agreement was beneficial to the US in many ways, because of article 5 of NATO agreement, that war called only by the US on 9/11
Russia is one country of 115m people, poor af and you’re telling me the whole of Europe can’t defend against it?
I don’t know if that’s embarrassing or impressive by Russia
I don't understand the logic either, considering that Ukraine is at a stalemate with Russia, and they are getting their weapons and training from the EU.
So how do you explain that Russia even dared to initate hostilities in Europe's direct neigbhourhood? Also: Russia has invested in it's armed forces, while Europe has basically gutted them. Without USA, Europe has no capability to speak of and little to no coherence.
I guess it's the nukes and quantity over quality.
Nah it's just Simon's clickbait reporting. Without going nuclear Russia would stand zero chance against a united Europe.
What if? I think you mean "when". If there's one lesson to be had from the last 2 years, it's that you need such weapons if you hope to remain unmessed-with.
Is Warographics not 4K? The 1080p (Even with the enhanced bitrate) looks very grainy.
The EU is so bureaucratic that they'll discuss it for 10 years before deciding what to do.
How true
28 countries to make one decision?
They never able to agree one point 😂😂😂
This may take a while😊
Thats called democracy, it might be a foreign concept for you, but its pretty simple to under stand, enjoy your dictator for life 😂
@@danielgregus9456it may be slow but once it gets going good luck stoping it
Vs. 50 states to make one decision?
It's democracy.
If it were 1 person, it would be Russia.
16:05 - that's not quite accurate. A B-61 does have selectable yield, as little as 0.3kt, but as high as 340 or 400kt, which is not just "as powerful as" Little Boy's 15kt, it's in the neighborhood of *25 times* the yield.
Thanks for a great show
You might have forgotten Sweden, under the cold war they had a plan to go nuclear within 6 months if needed.
There must have been some development done to be able to do so
Like all other small nations at the time, the nuclear program was slow and costly.
@@SusCalvin yes but if you can make a bomb in only 6 months, some research must have been done
Not a chance it will happen.
Plus, we already have it in France. Why would we double up ?
They definitely should. The United States though treaty bound by NATO to defend Europe may encouter hurdles and get bogged down by home politics or Russian interference when the time actually comes.
Yeah unfortunately it's gonna make it virtually impossible to stop Iran from obtaining nukes.
Our deliberate ambiguity would be very humourous if it wasn't about nukes lol
Selling nukes to other countries violates international law
So does conquering other countries.
The U.S. would never outright abandon NATO...
But one thing is for sure: We are real tired of carrying the team.
You werent outright tired when you got your nose into Ukraine for their resources and thus indirectly starting the war 😂 funny aint it if you look carefully the period from after ww2 till now wars has USA footprint 😂😂
@@25thbaam43 remind me who bankrolled Mao in 1945-1949? Who tried to assassinate Tito? Have you seen the list of "People's Republics"? Cut your bs, comrade.
There is no “we”. It’s the US gov which you’re not a part of. You have no say in any of it.
@@25thbaam43lol misinformation bot please go lay down lol
@@25thbaam43and resources lol that’s funny
the eu dictators with the ability to nuke
thats a scary idea
they have too much power as is
Dictators? Ok Vlad, hand in the crack pipe.
dont remember the last time we got to elect any of them
dont remeber the last time a countries people could say no to one of their demands
just because you stick your head in the sand doesnt mean your ass is safe
5:39 "AmAriker"
A word -well- spoken right here.
"contribute financially to the nations that have nukes for protection"
Nukes As A Service? Netflix for Nukes? lol
On the one hand.. the "Orange man bad" talk is stupid..
But on the other hand, im happy that the EU is finally more concerned about it's defense. Really don't like the idea that the EU would need the US to defend itself.
You mean the guy that is live quoting Hitler?
The #OrangeManBad is coming back, this is practically inevitable.
@@EndTheLifeOfConservatives”Trump drinks water. You know who else drinks water? Hitler!”
@@TzarBomb stay mad loser
@@waterdamagedtextbook9858 Hitler wore clothes ... Trump is just like Hitler!!! Orange Mann Hitler !!!
So this is the new version of msnbc. This isn’t an independent youtuber.
What do you think of NATO and the nuke then?
Aww you’re mad he’s not a maga nutter? Cry about it
Totally agree, it was a "OrangeManBad" cheap shot. But that wouldn't be the first for Simon's writers.
Germany, Italy and Sweden have the technology to produce nuclear armed ballistic missiles. Like for many other big military projects, the solution is to make a consortium. Before they wouldn't be allowed, but now would be hard for the US to impede such a move without at least giving up the control of the shared nuclear B61
As a french lol
new glasses simon??
Yeah. They have clear glass in them. He doesn't need them anymore after LASIK. He wears them because it's part of his brand. He said so during a live Blaze. Laser Eyes he is now. Cheers
They take trump way too literally. And I get it it’s quite unprofessional as a president to act the way he does but his policies have been great. He’s a showman not a politician so yes he says some wild shit but if you look what he says and what he does are different things. There is no way he would pull out from NATO he just doesn’t think it’s fair his country has to pay for everyone else share that has already been established years ago
The problem is that we already have seen trump behaving like an idiot whist being USA president so we do not trust trump for a bit anymore.
A second term Trump without a crew of more moderate republican minders would be a lot more free.
US does not pay NATO members 'share'.
Yup, look at what he does ... and not at "mean tweets" that seem to get everyone's knickers in a knot.
He kept Putin in check, all while the left and the media manufactured Russiagate.
He called out European NATO countries for not paying their fair share ... something that was decades overdue.
That is a very valid way to interpret Trump's statements and behaviour, but it's also very valid for European leaders to see his behaviour as unpredictable and unreliable. Those are not adjectives one likes to use about a close military ally.
We in the us have spent too much blood ,sweat ,and treasure for the safety of the world for countrys who can pay their way , not to.
Most of the US home front barely notices the impact of current expeditions.
The last 30 years you spent blood sweat and treasure to make the world less safe, and literally caused mass migration that almost broke Europe a few times.
Are you smoking crack? The reason ye have been playing world police is because it benifits ye greatly..
Industry at home and plundered resources ya think??
Yeah, it does get a bit irksome when people accuse of us Americans of "descending into isolationism" simply because we are starting to grow tired of sacrificing our wealth and the lives of our soldiers for what seems like little benefit to our country. If other nations were judged by the same standard, then every nation on earth is isolationist. I don't see any of them stepping up and even trying to do what America has been doing for nearly a century now.
But then you have remember the highest moral code anyone seems to live up to nowadays... _"It's okay when I do it."_
I guess you’re comfortable speaking Russian.
I feel like the US would like to be offered that same financial compensation agreement. And it would probably help calm transatlantic tensions. Our nuclear modernization program is very expensive and is eating into the military's budget. We wouldn't have to be talking as much about concentrating on Europe or Asia if we had more money so we could do both.
It could also be combined with the buying US bombs idea. Adjust the nuclear sharing to include a payment to the US for the continued maintenance and development of nuclear capabilities and in return the US agrees to offer the bombs to countries which are part of the nuclear sharing if we were to pull troops out of said country. It can be thought of as paying the US to maintain the option for the country to buy nuclear bombs.
Point of order the majority of NATO nations are not currently hitting their target they are only promised to hit their target
We as the EU cannot rely on the USA if war comes to the EU, so we must be able to defend ourselves
Yep the us cant decide if they want a wanna be dicator or a old man as president
If that's what it takes to get freeloaders to pay for their own defense, so be it.
@@MrTexasDan the us is the only nato country that has used article 5
@@nikolaideianov5092 Not sure what that has to do with the subject.
Oh and I recall a bunch of Euro "Allies" telling the US to stuff it then, too.
@@MrTexasDanwhat it has to do is that becose of article 5 we had to fight with the us in afganistan amd other places and you know how afganistan went
And that noone exept the us has wanted the help from nato
The use of article 5 is ultimatly dependand on the country thats attacked