Europe & United Kingdom

[dualstow]

Sorry for the generic title; I’m not sure where this is going to go, but the ‘Putin Invades Ukraine’ thread is becoming about Trump in practice if not in name.

America now voting with Russia, North Korea, Belarus etc. is a very clear indication that Europe should no longer trust any American partnership/support (trade, information sharing or American supplied military (or commercial) hardware), and should join the rush to de-dollarize (convert dollars to gold). The UK has already made initial steps to oust Apple from the UK, great opportunities for European rivals/alternatives to Google, Apple, Microsoft ...etc.
…

I don’t know what’s going to happen with Trump, but I have to wonder if Seajay was referring to the UK asking Apple to remove the highest level of encryption. It must be something else.

I’m not a “USA #1” jingoist kind of guy, and like coasting, I think the U.S. could have at least abstained on the vote regarding Ukraine. Now that that’s out of the way…

Europe has a reputation, at least from the point of view of some in the States, as regulating and fining companies with which they can’t compete. If I were British, I would not be excited about what the government is doing to Apple.
A) I wouldn’t want the gov’t to try to sway me from (or toward) a particular product or service.
B) You can already get into trouble in the UK for posting conversial things on social media. (I’m not talking about inciting riots or violence, things that *should* attract the attention of the authorities).

So now, the UK gov’t wants to break into your iPhone to see what you’re up to when you’re not posting and since they can’t, they want Apple to make it a little easier for them. Hooray for Apple’s future British/European competitor?

[ochotona]

Germany needs its own nukes. WW2 was a long time ago. If they, France, and UK had nukes, it would be more of a deterrent against Putin. Especially if they deploy tactical nukes in tiny, unconventional asymmetric-warfare type of vehicles... air or land or sea remotely piloted land vehicles, etc.

[yankees60]

Germany needs its own nukes. WW2 was a long time ago. If they, France, and UK had nukes, it would be more of a deterrent against Putin. Especially if they deploy tactical nukes in tiny, unconventional asymmetric-warfare type of vehicles... air or land or sea remotely piloted land vehicles, etc.

1) It is fairly amazing that we now approaching 80 years of a weapon first being used and only two times at that. There has been on other comparable weapon prior to its invention. Every other weapon was both immediately embraced by all and frequently used.

2) What exactly is a tactical nuclear weapon? The two that were dropped were devastating and my understanding that their power is now nothing compared to what has been produced since and which are now possessed?

3) I read the woman's recent book on the aftermath of a nuclear war. Ann Jacobson? Fairly difficult to stop them all from being used once the first one is used.

[dualstow]

Well, you wouldn’t want to have more destructive power, you’d want to have less. More destructive power = mutual assured destruction.
But, if you could deliver a small warhead quickly, as with a hypersonic missile, that would be quite a deterrent. Wouldn’t it?

[coasting]

2) What exactly is a tactical nuclear weapon? The two that were dropped were devastating and my understanding that their power is now nothing compared to what has been produced since and which are now possessed?

From PBS News May 2024: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/what ... old-drills
What are tactical nuclear weapons?
Unlike nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles that can destroy entire cities, tactical nuclear weapons for use against troops on the battlefield are less powerful and can have a yield as small as about 1 kiloton. The U.S. bomb dropped on Hiroshima during World War II was 15 kilotons.

Such battlefield nuclear weapons — aerial bombs, warheads for short-range missiles or artillery munitions — can be very compact. Their small size allows them to be discreetly carried on a truck or plane.

Unlike strategic weapons, which have been subject to arms control agreements between Moscow and Washington, tactical weapons never have been limited by any such pacts, and Russia hasn’t released their numbers or any other specifics related to them.

[Mountaineer]

Germany needs its own nukes. WW2 was a long time ago. If they, France, and UK had nukes, it would be more of a deterrent against Putin. Especially if they deploy tactical nukes in tiny, unconventional asymmetric-warfare type of vehicles... air or land or sea remotely piloted land vehicles, etc.

1) It is fairly amazing that we now approaching 80 years of a weapon first being used and only two times at that. There has been on other comparable weapon prior to its invention. Every other weapon was both immediately embraced by all and frequently used.

2) What exactly is a tactical nuclear weapon? The two that were dropped were devastating and my understanding that their power is now nothing compared to what has been produced since and which are now possessed?

3) I read the woman's recent book on the aftermath of a nuclear war. Ann Jacobson? Fairly difficult to stop them all from being used once the first one is used.

Minor correction: Used way more than two times. Other than Little Boy and Fat Man, bunches of tests by mainly the US and the Soviet Union were done. I remember in the early 1960s the class going outside our science classroom with a Geiger counter to measure the radioactive particles in the air.

[Xan]

Minor correction: Used way more than two times. Other than Little Boy and Fat Man, bunches of tests by mainly the US and the Soviet Union were done. I remember in the early 1960s the class going outside our science classroom with a Geiger counter to measure the radioactive particles in the air.

For purposes of a weapon, I wouldn't say that testing would qualify as a "use" of the weapon.

[dualstow]

For purposes of a weapon, I wouldn't say that testing would qualify as a "use" of the weapon.

Unless you were a gila monster minding its own business in New Mexico

[seajay]

Tariffs applied against Europe (and China etc.) will obviously be reciprocated in one form or another. Try as a American to open a bank account in Europe and its not simple/straight-forward. US stock funds I previously held years ago had tax changes applied in response to prior US actions - that make them prohibitively expensive to now hold. Having security removed from Apple phones is just one such more recent case i.e. makes the phone insecure as a touch-payment device. Awkward/punitive barriers can be little different to outright bans. Prompts for Apple and the likes to consider listing (paying taxes) elsewhere outside of the US for the larger markets that provides that otherwise are likely to have barriers raised.

The US dollar was accepted as a common agreed international trade settlement currency on a piggy-back of the capacity to export inflation being in part used to fund a common defense umbrella, which is now being depleted. Less a case of intentional harm being led by the EU against the USA, rather the opposite. Not good for either, but US led.

Ukraine gave up its nukes for promises - that similarly are now being betrayed. Likely what remains of Ukraine that can be salvaged will be absorbed into the EU as the EU builds up its own defense capabilities that perhaps reinstate Ukraines nukes. Which similarly is inclined to be worse rather than better.

I'm not anti-American, quite the opposite, would rather closer integration and increased relations. But when the US sanctioned Russia (although a seemingly reasonable 'penalty') that destroyed a lot of trust (if the US can do that to Russia it could also do it to any other country). Regulation changes with a view to benefit the US are a cost to others - that again lowers trust and prompts reciprocation. That pathway leads to de-dollarization, which is likely to be a considerable loss of a prior major benefit for the US. Not helped by Trump criticizing allies and talking up Putin, and voting with the N Korea, Russia, Belarus ..etc crew rather than abstaining. Division of the 'West' where Trump opens the door with a 'Putin is a nice guy' type leading is inclined to see Europe and Australia forming better relations with Russia/China, reducing US relations, which significantly diminishes the 'West'. Even Canada is indicating a preference to follow those lines.

Yes Europe has swung extreme left (woke) to where prior central is now declared as being far right, but that pendulum is slowing/starting to turn. Personally I think the demise arose out of changes to the electoral system - where net beneficiaries are the majority and get to appoint the governance. Former generations had only those who largely net contributed as being the electorate.

[seajay]

Germany needs its own nukes. WW2 was a long time ago. If they, France, and UK had nukes, it would be more of a deterrent against Putin. Especially if they deploy tactical nukes in tiny, unconventional asymmetric-warfare type of vehicles... air or land or sea remotely piloted land vehicles, etc.

Putin has used chemical/bio weapons in Ukraine, as has he previously deployed there use in the UK (Novichok and later the Skripal's). Nukes are 60's, we've had a lull since the ending of the cold-war but that looks like it being resumed but with far worse/destructive (for mankind) alternatives.

[yankees60]

Germany needs its own nukes. WW2 was a long time ago. If they, France, and UK had nukes, it would be more of a deterrent against Putin. Especially if they deploy tactical nukes in tiny, unconventional asymmetric-warfare type of vehicles... air or land or sea remotely piloted land vehicles, etc.

1) It is fairly amazing that we now approaching 80 years of a weapon first being used and only two times at that. There has been on other comparable weapon prior to its invention. Every other weapon was both immediately embraced by all and frequently used.

2) What exactly is a tactical nuclear weapon? The two that were dropped were devastating and my understanding that their power is now nothing compared to what has been produced since and which are now possessed?

3) I read the woman's recent book on the aftermath of a nuclear war. Ann Jacobson? Fairly difficult to stop them all from being used once the first one is used.

Minor correction: Used way more than two times. Other than Little Boy and Fat Man, bunches of tests by mainly the US and the Soviet Union were done. I remember in the early 1960s the class going outside our science classroom with a Geiger counter to measure the radioactive particles in the air.

I thought I did not have to spell it out and was clearly implied "only two times [in war]"