Parliament in Finland just passed a bill (2/3 majority) to lift a ban on nuclear weapons that had been in place since the 80s. This website indicates it'd most likely be fighters (F-35 or Rafale) and either US or French weapons. That said, Foxnews indicates the lifted ban would also repeal a ban on production. I would think Finland producing their own nukes is unlikely compared to the previous examples. But if they don't get some nukes on their territory, they might.

In context with the UK defense minister's warning/resignment, it's going to be interesting in the coming years; to what degree will the European rearmament include nuclear weapons?

5 hours ago, busdriver said:

Parliament in Finland just passed a bill (2/3 majority) to lift a ban on nuclear weapons that had been in place since the 80s. This website indicates it'd most likely be fighters (F-35 or Rafale) and either US or French weapons. That said, Foxnews indicates the lifted ban would also repeal a ban on production. I would think Finland producing their own nukes is unlikely compared to the previous examples. But if they don't get some nukes on their territory, they might.

In context with the UK defense minister's warning/resignment, it's going to be interesting in the coming years; to what degree will the European rearmament include nuclear weapons?

If they want a credible nuclear deterrent they need also nuclear armed TBM or cruise missiles and a secondary strike capability, a nuclear sub. Basically mirroring the Israeli nuclear capability (allegedly), 100-150 weapons.

If the Euros want their own deterrent, pooling resources, agreeing to sharing technology and buying common delivery systems could make this feasible. Also keeping the requirements tight and focused, i.e. not trying to deter anyone other than regional aggressors, weapons yields and delivery ranges focused on that. All nations agreeing to a minimum capability purchase and maintenance, also declaring these capabilities are in addition not in lieu of conventional capabilities.

They could probably make this work within their political and philosophical boundaries: declare no first use, no threat of first use and no deliberate targeting of civilian population centers unless their civilian populations were struck first by a WMD.

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by Clark Griswold