>>15671496>but I suppose the Americans would nuke Russia for usNo, for the exact same reason as France.
If the US nuke Russia, Russia still has enough onboard submarines at sea to nuke them back.
Is it worth to have the US destroyed to "avenge Germany"? no.
Countries need their very own nuclear weapons.
Those "shared" you mention are a scam, because they have double key systems so they can't be used without US permission. Which they won't give unless THEY need those nukes, themselves. Also those are tactical weapons, mere toys compared to the strategic ones.
In addition, they are old-style bombs carried by planes, very vulnerable and which still need to fly over their target like it's 1945 again.
And not just the warheads, but also intercontinental missiles to carry them (regularly replaced by a new generation) and submarines to carry said missiles (required to be able to retaliate if you are nuked first).
There's a reason countries like the US, Russia, France have those, terribly expensive as they are. A very good reason.
So the EU needs them, too. Fortunately we already have them in the EU (the French ones). It's just a matter of having them officially protect the EU not just France - this just requires the EU members signing a treaty and making a common speech. Then, everything changes immediately. Turkey can no longer plan to take stuff from Greece ; they would be nuked.
Russia can no longer plan to invade Estonia. And so on. Works for every EU member and every potential aggressor.
It's only a matter of political will. Which has been lacking so far. But it may change - and very quickly. We could have that literally tomorrow.
