PC. European NATO countries all have independent deterrent.

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
The UK & France are the only European countries in NATO that have their own deterrent.

The UK's is based on the "loaning" of US Polaris then Trident SLBM's based on UK built SSBN's with a UK front end.

The French designed their own system (although covert help may have been given by the US), again mostly based on French built SSBM's.

What if Holland, Italy, Germany, Denmark, Norway and Belgium all decided that they too wanted their own deterrent. Possibly a fleet of around 6 boats each.

How would they go about this?, Off the top of my head, I'm thinking they'd go with the French system based on their own built SSBM's.

Would this be allowed, especially by the US and how would this play out in the politics of the Cold War?. Would the USSR give it's own WARPAC members their own deterrent?

Cheers filers
 
What if Holland, Italy, Germany, Denmark, Norway and Belgium all decided that they too wanted their own deterrent. Possibly a fleet of around 6 boats each.

How would they go about this?, Off the top of my head, I'm thinking they'd go with the French system based on their own built SSBM's.

6 boats EACH!?!?!
You realize that the UK has a total of 4 boomers currently, and The Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and Belgium are much smaller countries than the UK.

Could Germany afford the same as the UK or France? Yes, if they wanted to. Italy MIGHT be able to handle a force half that size, and the other nations would be doing very well to afford a single boat each.

Moreover, Germany would, IMO be more interested in ballistic missiles and/or aircraft, partly since she doesn't have a whole lot of major ports or navy.


Having each of those countries armed with nuclear weapons, if NonProliferation is smashed before it gets started, is certainly possible. SLBMs, though? Highly unlikely, IMO.
 
Well West Germany and Italy had tactical nukes during the Cold War, loaned from the U.S. and operated under a dual key system. The cost of an independent detterent is prohibitive, we tried it in the 1950's, squandered millions on 3 V Bombers, when a single type would have been sufficient and then had to run to the Americans when the bills came in. I wonder if the European Defence Community had managed to come into existence if there would have been a collaborative, non-Americsn nuke programme? That might answer your question
 

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
6 boats EACH!?!?!
You realize that the UK has a total of 4 boomers currently, and The Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and Belgium are much smaller countries than the UK.

Could Germany afford the same as the UK or France? Yes, if they wanted to. Italy MIGHT be able to handle a force half that size, and the other nations would be doing very well to afford a single boat each.

Moreover, Germany would, IMO be more interested in ballistic missiles and/or aircraft, partly since she doesn't have a whole lot of major ports or navy.


Having each of those countries armed with nuclear weapons, if NonProliferation is smashed before it gets started, is certainly possible. SLBMs, though? Highly unlikely, IMO.

Correct, of course it is expensive, but as PM Thatcher explained in the mid 80's when there was a move by both the US & USSR to remove all WMD's from Europe, the UK deterrent allowed the UK to keep it's defence spending to be around a 4.75% of GDP. Without the deterrent we would've had to increase spending by a factor of 3 which would've bankcrupted the UK.

Having the above counties have a deterrent would allow a decrease in their respective defence spending.

As for the 4 boats of the RN, the plan was originally for a fleet of 5 but due to the cancelling of the 5th by the then Labour govt, it forced the RN to use practises that would otherwise not be used if the 5th was built.

That's why I originally went for each country to have a fleet of 6, so they could avoid the problems that have dogged the RN only having 4.

Regards filer
 
I think the biggest problem with other Europeans making their own nuclear weapons is that by the time they build up the infrastructure to do so the idea that nuclear weapons are awesome and everyone should have them was over. I think by the 60s it was seen that nukes were a costly pain in the arse and only a few countries could justify the effort and expense, particularly if their use would be limited in scope and was already being covered by dual-key nukes. The NPT was negotiated in this timeframe and signed in 1968, which knocks the idea on the head once and for all.
 
The UK & France are the only European countries in NATO that have their own deterrent.

The UK's is based on the "loaning" of US Polaris then Trident SLBM's based on UK built SSBN's with a UK front end.

The French designed their own system (although covert help may have been given by the US), again mostly based on French built SSBM's.

What if Holland, Italy, Germany, Denmark, Norway and Belgium all decided that they too wanted their own deterrent. Possibly a fleet of around 6 boats each.

How would they go about this?, Off the top of my head, I'm thinking they'd go with the French system based on their own built SSBM's.

Would this be allowed, especially by the US and how would this play out in the politics of the Cold War?. Would the USSR give it's own WARPAC members their own deterrent?

Cheers filers

Does it have to be boats

For example it could be an Air dropped nuclear bomb or artillery delivered nuclear shell.

One of the difficulties Russia had in any invasion of the West Scenario is that 3 of the member Nations had Nukes and independent control of them.

Had all of them had a nuclear deterrent then the NATO countries are impossible to attack in a conventional fashion with out risking one or more of them of them popping off a Nuke!

It is a general Rule that no 2 Nuclear armed Nations have gone to war with each other since WW2

The minor exceptions have been a border 'war' between China and Russia that actually ended up with them creating closer ties to prevent a repeat and a proxy war between India and Pakistan that effectively ended when Pakistan's part in it was discovered.
 
I wonder if the European Defence Community had managed to come into existence if there would have been a collaborative, non-Americsn nuke programme? That might answer your question

This is what I was thinking for a plausible alternative: a Eurobomb programme. It spreads the cost, and more importantly in the decades after WWII, means Germany doesn't have an independent deterrant, which Britain, France and the USA would all oppose.

I've been tinkering with a TL where the EDC goes through due to America under Harold Stassen wanting a more hand-off approach to Europe and being very pro-nuclear makes up for lack of ground troops by helping a Eurobomb programme get off the ground.
 
Top