[Not loaded yet]
Sweden plan to study the requirements for next program. Sweden being a NATO member perhaps will modify and adapt its future plans.
[Not loaded yet]
With a USA turning towards Asia and homeland, Europe has to take care of its defence. It can not depend on USA protection that might not exist.
A strong and independent Europe can be a more interesting partner for USA and the beginning of a new allians.
EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas warned that creating a separate EU army alongside NATO would be “extremely dangerous”, arguing it would blur chains of command in a crisis.
Kallas denies rift between NATO and EU
EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas warned that creating a separate EU army alongside NATO would be “extremely dangerous”, arguing it would blur chains of command in a crisis.
USA have given notice it is focusing defence to homeland and Asia. Europe have to invest and replace USA unique forces and functions.
Small states in Europe can only create and manage expensive and complicated structures together via federal military centers, units and forces.
[Not loaded yet]
-
View full thread
NATO har funnits länge och förändrats. Organisation och erfarenheter kommer naturligtvis vara viktiga att bevara, även om bara Europa eller del därav blir kvar. Idag är det oklart vad alliansen verkligen innebär, särskilt USA framtida delaktighet.
Alltså, Europa bör förbereda att kunna ta över organisation eller skapa en kopia. Och själva skaffa de unika förmågor mm som bara USA har i dagsläget.
[Not loaded yet]
Ryssland är väl de som kan anfalla oss och grannländer i Europa. Sverige har inte mycket att bidra med om något Grannland blir angripet och samma för grannländer i NATO, de har små försvar. USA som har kapacitet verkar ointresserat. Allting var mycket enklare innan Trump började yra om Grönland.
[Not loaded yet]
It is clear that USA priorities have changed. And Europe have to adapt.
NATO medför förutsättningar och struktur för att vi kan få bistånd om vi blir anfallna, men idag oklart vad det betyder. I synnerhet vad USA kommer göra.
Samtidigt ökar vår risk, då vi nu skall bistå om någon allierad anfallas.
"Developing nuclear weapon + delivery vehicle might cost 2-3% the combined GDP of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, spread over several years."
Deterrence require probably more than tactical nuclear weapons like bombs and cruisemissiles. Ballistic missiles in submarines, will be very expensive.
The time has sadly come for a Nordic nuclear weapon
The time has sadly come for a Nordic nuclear weapon
Nordic countries have a lot to lose, which brings the political responsibility to discuss “nuclear what-ifs”. These governments must have the courage for this public debate precisely because they can afford the independent nuclear deterrence needed today
Deterrence require probably more than tactical nuclear weapons like bombs and cruisemissiles. Ballistic missiles in submarines, will be very expensive.
