Which military capabilities needs Europe to expand most urgently to deter another Russian aggression?

[BeBMan]

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has reassured allies that Donald Trump is not anti-NATO and that the country will remain in the alliance, but he's also asking his counterparts to make sacrifices and raise defence spending to 5%.

​

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/04/03/us-will-stay-in-nato-but-it-must-be-stronger-marco-rubio-tells-his-31-counterparts

Buuut:

In 2024, the U.S. spent nearly $1 trillion on its defense budget, equal to 3.4% of GDP.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/lar...%20Defense%20B udgets%20in%20the%20World&text=Download%20the%20ap p%20for%20free,equal%20to%203.4%25%20of%20GDP.




​

[Jon Miller]

5% might be required to remove dependency on the US.

JM

[N35t0r]

Dependency on the US for what? Being able to send a full carrier fleet to the Persian gulf and invade two different middle eastern countries at the same time? Why would Europe want that?

[Geronimo]

Dependency on the US for what? Being able to send a full carrier fleet to the Persian gulf and invade two different middle eastern countries at the same time? Why would Europe want that?

perhaps that's the level of resource required to roll back unacceptable Russian gains and deter future Russian military campaigns while fielding a nuclear deterrent a tiny fraction of the size of Russia's? If they really believe the US is also a military power to deter then even that level may be woefully inadequate.

[N35t0r]

perhaps that's the level of resource required to roll back unacceptable Russian gains and deter future Russian military campaigns while fielding a nuclear deterrent a tiny fraction of the size of Russia's? If they really believe the US is also a military power to deter then even that level may be woefully inadequate.

So because the current total of *checks notes* zero EU military personnel involved in Ukraine is not enough, Europe should go down the USA's path of shoveling cartloads of cash into it's MIC?

Also, the size of your nuclear deterrent is irrelevant if the goal is actually deterrence, and not extinguishing all life on earth.

One single Indomitable SSBN carries enough warheads to reduce Russia to a non-entity, or to very severely cripple the US (and possibly break the actual entity, the federal government isn't as resilient as it was three months ago). France's nuclear doctrine is expressly counter-value.

I do agree that Trump's actions will lead to much greater nuclear proliferation, as countries see how one previous apparent defender of the current order is now more likely to be an aggressor, and nuclear weapons are the only feasible deterrent.

[Provost Harrison]

​

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/04/03/us-will-stay-in-nato-but-it-must-be-stronger-marco-rubio-tells-his-31-counterparts

Buuut:



https://www.visualcapitalist.com/lar...%20Defense%20B udgets%20in%20the%20World&text=Download%20the%20ap p%20for%20free,equal%20to%203.4%25%20of%20GDP.




​

There's a massive disingenuity in their 3.4% too...other nations do not count (nor have to count given aspects such as socialised healthcare, welfare state, etc) the social welfare costs of their military in their budgets which starts chewing into that quite significantly. I mean, it probably isn't that far ahead of the UK's 2.5% and France not far behind that and Germany now playing catchup.

But let's be clear, the only reason that's made greater defence spending necessarily is the loss of an ally, a partner. I mean, we are still in peacetime and if there's something that we've learnt over the past decades that nuclear powers just end up being all about show but rarely attack each other. But does demonstrate why the nuclear deterrent needs to be European covering all European nations, and automatic like in the sense of how the UK's sea-based deterrent works (there's no senior level decision that needs to be made, there is a default, assured response in the event of a severing of the chain of command and confirmation of a nuclear attack on one of the protected states). And I think the coordination strengths and economies of scale from working as a "European Army" in signficant aspects will be far more potent.

[Provost Harrison]

So because the current total of *checks notes* zero EU military personnel involved in Ukraine is not enough, Europe should go down the USA's path of shoveling cartloads of cash into it's MIC?

Also, the size of your nuclear deterrent is irrelevant if the goal is actually deterrence, and not extinguishing all life on earth.

One single Indomitable SSBN carries enough warheads to reduce Russia to a non-entity, or to very severely cripple the US (and possibly break the actual entity, the federal government isn't as resilient as it was three months ago). France's nuclear doctrine is expressly counter-value.

I do agree that Trump's actions will lead to much greater nuclear proliferation, as countries see how one previous apparent defender of the current order is now more likely to be an aggressor, and nuclear weapons are the only feasible deterrent.

Yeah, our nuclear deterrent works on a different basis. I think the only justification for having more nuclear capacity is regarding the rate of interception and how many you need to make an effective delivery. Even if we unleashed all of the nuclear capability of one of our Trident submarines there is always going to be an interception or even failure rate that needs to be factored in. But either way, what will get through would end that entity as a meaningful power even the US. And I think most of the talk about how effective interception by existing SAM systems is wishful thinking.

[Dauphin]

I do wonder how effective it would be to get a small submersible vehicle with a nuke and swim it up to a harbour. Float to surface and boom. Can work on any coastal city.

Would it be as destructive, would it be detectable / intercepted as easily. Logistics too, but the difficulty in creating such a sub would be nothing compared to building the actual nuke.

[Provost Harrison]

I do wonder how effective it would be to get a small submersible vehicle with a nuke and swim it up to a harbour. Float to surface and boom. Can work on any coastal city.

Would it be as destructive, would it be detectable / intercepted as easily. Logistics too, but the difficulty in creating such a sub would be nothing compared to building the actual nuke.

Yeah, getting hold of the volume of uranium to refine that amount of uranium-235 would be challenging, let alone synthesise something more exotic like plutonium-239. But past that the concept is quite simple, go from not critical mass to critical mass and add some neutrons. Bang.

Funnily enough I've got a bit of knowledge () related to uranium enrichment at the moment and getting those centrifuges and refining the process to get weapons grade enrichment would be quite challenging. Don't think you could get those on Amazon :-D And then the dangers of working with uranium hexafluoride...yeah, screw that

[Jon Miller]

Nations that border a potentially aggressive nation need to have a large enough army to survive a day or two.

And be under a nuclear umbrella.

JM

[Dauphin]

Funnily enough I've got a bit of knowledge () related to uranium enrichment at the moment and getting those centrifuges and refining the process to get weapons grade enrichment would be quite challenging. Don't think you could get those on Amazon :-D And then the dangers of working with uranium hexafluoride...yeah, screw that

Ok Harry Daighlian.

[BeBMan]

I was to suggest that we modernize joke warfare for the 21st century, but the likes of Putin seem to be completely immune to humour ...