I concur 100%+ with the points made about nonproliferation. Regarding a European deterrrent, I think it would be a mistake to simply replace the US's "extended deterrent". "Extended" applies both geographically and as a response to non-nuclear threats. It is the latter which should be jettisoned (either by NATO or Europe). First-use threats are not credible, and that includes Putin's. But the lengths that Putin has had to go to bloster the "credibility" of his threat increase the danger of inadvertent use. The only credible deterrent stance is retaliation-in-kind, which is logically incompatible with first-use threats. If it comes down to a Europe deterrent, let us hope its sole purpose is deterring nuclear attack.
I concur 100%+ with the points made about nonproliferation. Regarding a European deterrrent, I think it would be a mistake to simply replace the US's "extended deterrent". "Extended" applies both geographically and as a response to non-nuclear threats. It is the latter which should be jettisoned (either by NATO or Europe). First-use threats are not credible, and that includes Putin's. But the lengths that Putin has had to go to bloster the "credibility" of his threat increase the danger of inadvertent use. The only credible deterrent stance is retaliation-in-kind, which is logically incompatible with first-use threats. If it comes down to a Europe deterrent, let us hope its sole purpose is deterring nuclear attack.
I thought some people might like this restacked
https://open.substack.com/pub/joannamilne/p/is-america-still-a-democracy-and?r=3j9y88&utm_medium=ios