You must log in or register to comment.
Sure let’s explode civilization in a speerun before we boil alive.
A more closely integrated military would actually be good for the environment, eliminating redundancies would lower emissions, and shared R&D would accelerate the development of more climate friendly technologies, with the knock-on effect of augmenting civilian research as well.
Genuinely can’t tell if you’re taking the piss or not…
Saying a more closely integrated military would be good for the environment is like saying electric bomber planes would be better because their per bomb CO2 emissions would be lower…
I mean, I get what you’re saying and all… buuuut the CO2/bomb WOULD be great on an electric bomber.
I couldn’t be more of a pacifist, but the fact is that there is a conquering imperialist power with the stated intention of undoing the European experiment right next to us, and we can’t afford to not have a military capable of guarding against that. That means we do need to spend money, work, and yes, emissions on that. It sucks, we could spend all that on much more positive goals.
And yes, if we are going to build hundreds to thousands of tanks, let’s figure out how to build them together to one standard so that we don’t have to support a logistics nightmare to keep that afloat. Or if we take R&D, what if we could come together and get the FCAS thing going, so we don’t need to fly hundreds to thousands of jets, flying and fuelling a smaller number of more advanced planes instead.
And it is actually what you are saying, we have to operate on the assumption that Russia will park thousands of tanks on our borders and start rolling in. That means we will have to, and we will drop thousands of bombs on them. The question is, what will preparing for that cost in terms of for example emissions, and how many people will die until we can. If we don’t prepare as if this is real in a decade, maybe sooner, then it will definitely be real.
If you want to argue this, go, be my guest, buy a ticket to Moscow, and try to tell Putin why this is going to be bad for all of us and the planet. I doubt you will be able to convince him.
Ukraine unfortunately became a reminder that nuclear weapons are still required for the safety of a nation. Ukraine gave theirs up after the crumble of the Sovjet Union for assurances of independence and sovereignty by other nations, including russia. Since russia disrespected these guarantees, they showed they can’t be trusted and every nation that does not want to be attacked by russia will henceforth need nuclear deterrent. It’s unfortunate and sad, but there is no future for nuclear disarmament while russia still has nukes.
Talk is cheap, let’s hope he doesn’t spend the money though.
You do realize the French already have nuclear weapons right?
Not quite. Thanks for the correction.
I guess they’d need more of them though and try to get other EU members to spend money…? So it’s an industry politics angle?
“The French president said he was open to discuss the use of France’s nuclear weapons for European defense.”
Literally the first sentence. For more details just read the article.
I don’t see why France would need more, considering they have 290 nuclear bombs, and are fourth after the US, Russia, and China.
I was actually surprised, but France even has 4 ballistic missile subs, and is planning to get more. TBH that’s what we need as a deterrent, a credible second strike tool.
More integration wouldn’t hurt though, maybe make the SNLE program a multinational program like the FCAS or this new tank is.
If France wants the European Union to be a military power, there are two things that only France has and will have to share, one is nuclear weapons (I am glad to see that this is beginning to be considered) the other is the permanent seat at the UN, it can still be a Frenchman who sits there, even name it France, but it must respond to the interests of the union and answer to the commission
Without these two things together, the EU will never be a superpower on a par with the USA or China.
