this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2026
211 points (99.5% liked)

World News

58614 readers
1296 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

European nations wanting “insurance” against Russia are looking to France and Britain to share their nuclear deterrents.

European countries that spent decades sheltering under America’s nuclear umbrella are now openly discussing a new form of protective alliance against Russia built around French and possibly British atomic weapons.

It’s a direct response to Donald Trump eroding confidence in NATO’s Article 5 common defense pledge by trashing allies, questioning U.S. commitments and turbocharging doubts with threats to seize Greenland.

Leaders in Sweden, Norway, Germany and the Netherlands — some of Europe’s most pro-American countries — have publicly confirmed in recent days that they're holding conversations about a European nuclear deterrent to complement the American version.

all 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] doug@lemmy.today 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

yayyy just what we need! more nukes!

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 28 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

I mean, you joke. But compare Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea right now. One of them has absolutely no fear of a US invasion.

[–] djmikeale@feddit.dk 9 points 8 months ago

NK dont fear invasion because China would not want to run the risk of having US forces on their doorstep. And China would not want to deal with millions of NK refugees. Hence that's likely an even bigger reason than nukes. Sure, nukes is also a really great deterrence, but even without they wouldn't get invaded.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

One of them has absolutely no fear of a US invasion

Precisely.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Good.

Every country needs to have a nuke now. If the US is a-okay with electing people whose brains don't work (and we've elected two in a row), mutually-assured destruction is your only protection from the next madman we elect.

[–] MrSulu@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago

I'm not liking the nukes element, but l understand how even letting the US know it is being considered is a tool. They will be part of the structured and comprehensive response for our economic and sovereign safety. A so called ally has shown that we need to change the balance of power and influence for our futures. Hopefully, ne without nukes!

[–] how_we_burned@lemmy.zip 2 points 8 months ago

I don't think people understand how completely different French nuclear weapons and doctrine is compared to the UK and NATO.

The French have a nuke first strike policy "dissuasion du faible au fort”, deterring a stronger power by threatening unacceptable damage.

Their policy, is to use a Rafale to, from a Carrier, fire a ASMP-A nuclear tipped cruise missile across the bows of anyone dumb enough to antagonise them.

Conversely the British have no tactical nuclear weapons like the French. All they operate are the Trident II D5s from their ballistic missile subs, even then they only carry 5 MIRV (est) warheads per missile.

And no first strike policy either.

Don't get me wrong. I very much favour a European military alliance that pushes Europe off the US teat. But the idea of the UK and France changing their doctrine (and a host of other elements) without non nuclear states contributing a significant amount of money is pretty unlikely.

[–] lechekaflan@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Putin's concept of infighting among the Western powers is disturbingly functional, unfortunately.

[–] Ladislawgrowlo@lemy.lol 2 points 8 months ago

they’re holding conversations about a European ...

"Holding conversations" on something in the EU means nothing is set in stone yet, which is worrying.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

the entire world will be arming up with nuclear weapons now, and someone somewhere will use them.

[–] taldennz@lemmy.nz 1 points 8 months ago

Attaboy Mr President. You win 'race to armageddon'... The 'Pillock of Peace' will be all yours once there's no one around to make war.