What if America turned off Britain's weapons?
reaction.life
reaction.life
Whatever happens, we need to break free of the USA for defence procurement.
The US has been giving this feedback for over a decade. While I don't necessarily support the President's posture, it took these extreme measures for Europe to start listening. Europe and US are natural allies, but it must be an actual alliance.
That’s a net loss for American defence companies and jobs in the USA. For the US military, costs per unit will go up, because they aren’t mass producing these systems at the same scale.
Trump didn’t just step back from an alliance that existed for 80 years, he also burnt the bridge by destroying trust.
For Europe, it’s probably a good thing to kickstart a new economic recovery, e.g. German automakers can switch to tanks and IFVs.
I think SAAB is already reevaluating the choice of a US engine in the Gripen fighter jet, as the US is talking about blocking their sale to Columbia. The next version won't have a US engine.
These weren't cuts, but an overall redirection of budgets inside the Pentagon. Over the long term, US defence companies have a very profitable future ahead (and a fair amount of European rearmament will involve buying stuff from US due to obvious industrial capacity issues).
e.g.
https://breakingdefense.com/2025/02/pentagon-seeks-to-shift-...
They both might be able to avoid the remote off switch, but others could be a bit nervous.
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/the-only-way-is-tempest/
F35 SaaS.
The Gripen engine is US-designed, but licensed and (AIUI) built by Volvo:
The JAS 39C/D is using the Volvo RM12. JAS 39E/F is equipped with the General Electric F414.
Has he been paying attention to the past couple months?! Strategic betrayals that damage America have been one of the few consistent themes. Every single country in the world is foolish to rely on the US for their security going forward. This is an incredibly grim development that will leave every single country less safe and prosperous but it's simply the reality.
It's not just weapons of war either, pretty much all serious threats are now higher. The US killing disease prevention and research efforts in order to cut the budget by 0.0001% will make pandemics more likely to hit every country. The lack of even a token effort to safely regulate AI increases the risk everywhere. The list goes on...
Countries should start addressing the new risks now, or face much steeper costs down the line. Hoping you can wait out the next four years and things will just bounce back is beyond reckless. It's much easier to break things than to build them up and the amount of breakage after the next four years is going to be enormous. Even if a sane regime takes power in four years, which is a massive 'if', there won't be a way to reset much of this damage and after so many lines have been crossed there's a high likelihood they will be crossed again or worse.
Now, if the UK were to turn against us militarily (yet again), it'd be a different story. But in lieu of that, the reputation of American industry is likely to be the incentive that keeps them functioning.
There are four civilian bands, with a fifth in the works for critical uses. There are two military bands, and they are encrypted.
The military bands (two) have always been encrypted and being on different bands, cannot be received at all by civilian receivers, though I imagine it's mostly a firmware change with some minor hardware changes.
Don't talk about things you wildly do not understand or know anything about.
Can't see why I wouldn't on a tech forum. Certainly not because some rando on said forum instructs me so. Good day.
> United States President Bill Clinton signed a bill ordering that Selective Availability be disabled on May 1, 2000; and, in 2007, the US government announced that the next generation of GPS satellites would not include the feature at all.
Also, SA just meant you couldnt resolve with an accuracy less than 100 meters. It didn't mean "turn off GPS in a part of a world".
I'm gonna take a stab and say there hasn't been an immediate, sharp increase in public desire to completely destroy relations with Europe. Certainly, the Ukraine war is very polarizing, especially in the U.S., but I don't know how far I would read into it to determine overall European sentiments.
I'm specifically thinking outside the confines of Trump, who is a wildcard, and pointing more toward public sentiment.
I'm curious if your impression is mostly informed by what media have told you about how we feel, or if you have talked to any Americans about how we feel about the current administration...
There were two years between these diplomatic efforts and now. What happened in the meantime? It's obvious EU could have invested more in defence. How come they get outcompeted by _North Korean_ defence industry?
Another thing - it's actually very easy to help Ukraine and punch Putin. Just place EU troops in Western Ukraine, to free up Ukrainians for the war. Putin will find out he has to agree to security guarantees otherwise he'll get literal troops in his face. EU statesmen are pressuring US for guarantees they are unwilling to give themselves, when they ought to do it for their own interests.
I think Trump is very very crass to say the least, but you also need to look at underlying realities, and EU behaviour has been poor.
It's not just the military. For example, a common argument I see for why the US can't have proper universal health care when so much of Europe manages to do it is that Europe is (supposedly) free-riding off of US medical R&D.
I'd also wager that a large part of this group doesn't think anyone should be helping Ukraine.
There's a difference between big EU countries (which have been skimping), and the small E. European countries which are more realistic about defence. Note Ukraine itself did a lot here.
>a common argument I see for why the US can't have proper universal health care when so much of Europe manages to do it is that Europe is (supposedly) free-riding off of US medical R&D.
US actually spends more. The trick is seeing where this expenditure goes ('greedy CEOs' is technically accurate, but not the biggest reason).
The police are threating to kill us if we protest.
Our students, normally the readiest to protest, face threats of expulsion and deportation if they attend a protest that is deemed "illegal".
Most of our working class are living paycheck to paycheck. In this job market, that means missing even a few days' work to protest means looking for a new job. With a lack of real social support programs, a large scale protest means hungry children. Maybe even homeless children.
What would you like us to do?
I think the protests will start in earnest once there's a large unemployed population. How long will that take, though?
How many protestors have been executed by police in France or Germany or Italy in the last decade?
Much of the world is now at the mercy of the United States, they must bend the knee.
They don’t even have nuclear power anymore - they shuttered the last of their nuclear power plants. The entire supply chain will need to be developed and tested without running afoul of the test ban treaty.
Besides, nuclear weapons are almost worthless without submarines to carry them. They’d only be useful against an unsophisticated adversary.
Basically, it would send Europe back into the stone age, I fear. In under a week.
Strictly said, the US does not spend that much on its defense either. Most of the expenses go into projecting power afar.
Strategic goals of, say, Poland, are different. They won't be fighting China over Taiwan, and so they don't need aircraft carriers or a chain of bases around the world.
They might invest in an atomic bomb of their own, though.
"Much of the world is now at the mercy of the United States"
In what sense? If the US starts another hot war in, say, the Middle East, I suspect that the outcomes won't be much better than they were in Iraq.
"they must bend the knee"
This only works if the giant has some consistent goals. The current US administration seems to flail around instead of pursuing some particular intelligible path.
Instead of bending knees, a dozen countries will start developing their own nukes. Non-proliferation might not be dead, but it is certainly critically ill.
You’re thinking of the actual left.
I get it, Ukraine is pushed to the brink. But Europe isn't - and have you looked at the state of the other side?
As for simpletons - did you see the people pushing for Brexit? Or the moron Australian Prime minister who tried to the couuntry from upgrading from ADSL? It appears the world has no shortage of simpletons.
It also appears democracy doesn't prevent you from electing them. I would not blame the yankies too harshly for electing one. We all do it. What democracy does is let you get rid of them. If it doesn't, you, like Russia, don't have a functioning democracy.
There's a long history of crippling economies to fund armies and buy weapons.
Frankly, that's how US military spending has worked as well. The country would be much wealthier if it hadn't squandered so much on military spending. We just overlook that effect because the country looks so wealthy overall.
Prevent US naval supply. Push American hubris and drive the US into thinking they are doing some 'Berlin Airlift 2.0' and gung-ho Americans will burn through our military $$$s. There's thousands of ways to 'death by 1000 cuts' America's military budget. We take for granted our partners support and can't afford our military without it. Make each and every base an island that has to be completely provided for by the home country, in every detail, with military resources. No civilian transport of supplies for anything. Force it all through military ports/military airports, every last drop of diesel, every moving electron, we'll see how for the US military budget goes.
Yeah, and the world is going to react. This situation might benefit the US economically in the short run but it sure won't in the long run.
If you don't think there are buttons that can paralyze/impact the US more than those forced to bend the knee you aren't looking. That the only one pushing this game is US doesn't mean we have the inherently stronger hand. And at some point if we keep pushing others will start stabbing our soft underbelly and we are absolutely fucked.
Brits unironically assume Trump and his followers care of their reputation?
Didn't JD Vance dismissively call UK 'a random country' like a few days ago?
I am also concerned about US ability to ground the F35B fleet since these need a software update after every mission that can only be deployed by US contractors. Hopefully Starmer will dust off plans for a Typhoon successor that has no US reliance - Japan, Italy, Germany could partner.
Basically anything that can run code or needs maintenance or parts is a vector for the US to control use.
As the oldest democracy in the world, with a deliberate 2 party system that is essentially ideologically similar, the US political system is quite resilient. Yes, a "deep state" or a "military-industrial complex" does have enormous influence over the country - but there's nothing truly insidious about it when you realise that it is a part of the US political system. It is somewhat undemocratic, but it still acts as one of the checks and balances of US political system to ensure the US remains a superpower (i.e. it only comes into picture on superpower politics). It is composed of the core of the US capitalistic system, whose leaders also have a lot of political influence. Both the US political parties understand that you need this "deep state / MIL complex" to continue to be a superpower, and so a US President is only ever allowed to freely exercise his democratic powers domestically (i.e. in America) and for routine foreign diplomacy. For anything else related to superpower politics, the President of the US does not have a free hand in any manner of speaking - it's a 100+ year old idea and institute that has ensured the US becomes the eminent (and now sole) superpower in the world.
And Trump is going to be a President only for a few years. (Again, note, by design - term limits in the US political systems ensure authoritarianism cannot flourish).
Moreover, many might not remember that once the US developed nuclear weapons during WW 2, with the help of British and other European scientists, it immediately expelled British scientists from its research labs and worked to deny this technology to the British. The British had to do their own research to create nuclear weapons. (But they still chose to be dependent on the US because they understand the value of alliances - it's always better to fight a war alongside someone, than alone). The delivery systems for nuclear weapons are much easier to create, especially when you have wealth and help from others (alliances). Even if by some rare and extraordinary fluke, the US explodes from within, the British can easily catchup.
You are saying this as if it hasn't had very real consequences already?!
Except people are going silent, cowed into submission by threats of violence: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/06/us/politics/trump-democra...
They're "scared shitless": https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/trump-congress-politic...
And this has been going on for a while: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/11/mitt-ro...
Trump's already tried to overthrow one election and he's already talking about trying to get a third term.
He may even try to confect an excuse to stop midterm elections. I wouldn't put it past him.
It turns out it matters who runs the country and how they run it.
It’s also worth discussing domestic policy, that’s just not this thread.
This is precisely this thread.
You are excluding trust and relationships. You can't just ignore the impact of both of those. Those are gone and aren't coming back.
It is not 4d chess to achieve something that was already occurring PRIOR to the 4d chess move. It is a petty asshole being petty, and it will cost the US dearly.
And are they the only members of NATO?
> You are excluding trust and relationships.
No. All that talk is just a hype in the western media to make the increase in defence spending more palatable to European citizens. The European politicians know nothing really has changed in the strategic relationship with the US. In the short-term, yes, there will be some small damage. But both sides consider it minor and acceptable to the larger goal of pumping more money into their military alliance.
Perhaps it's a naive take, but I'm just armchairing this from the perspective of playing a 4x grand strategy game and the sort of decisions you have to make in these contexts.
Arguably in a world of superpowers, only superpowers have total sovereignty under your definition, hence why I said it was a sliding scale. 95% of any individual nation or most configurations of alliances you could technically (though maybe not plausibly) come up with would still get crushed by the French military in a mano a mano military conflict. They can defend themselves, but what if they have to defend themselves alone vs the United States, Russia, the PRC, or a medley of European great powers? NATO keeps them from having to go it alone, and NATO plus the EU takes a couple of those possibilities off the table, at least for a while, but in Charles de Gaulle’s time, France still had a colonial empire they were trying to keep together (and they still have a fair number of overseas territories outside of metropolitan France) and the plausibility of NATO keeping it together was all up in the air.
Throughout the duration of the Cold War, I don’t think you can make a winning argument that on balance the US was ever a bad ally, but as an old European leader, he was definitely right to be skeptical about the tradeoffs, and right to think that if France has more power, then it wouldn’t need to cede sovereignty or at least much sovereignty to all these newfangled international institutions popping up across Europe.
In theory.
In reality, it took Snowden leaks for some of the smartest and most motivated people working in technology to discover they had been backdoored by a third-party.
Experts disagree with you, at least over the "long term".
>Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet secretary, Robert Armstrong, told her that “in the inconceivable case of a future US government deciding to cut off supplies of components”, there would be “no sudden effect”, though over “two or three years” the deterrent’s effectiveness would “begin to fall off”. In 2006 Commodore Tim Hare, a former nuclear-policy chief at the Ministry of Defence, told the Commons Defence Committee: “If, over a very long period, we became deeply estranged from the Americans and they decide to rat on their agreements, we would be in…great difficulty.” But the risk was “very low”.
>Sir Lawrence reckons that were that to happen there would not be a “cliff-edge” loss of effectiveness, “but over time we would be scrambling to keep it going”. The biggest problems would be replacing the Kings Bay missile storage and running out of critical spare parts.
>Effects would be tiny over long term.
The experts I quoted:
>over a very long period, [...] we would be in…great difficulty
>over time we would be scrambling to keep it going
"great difficulty" and "scrambling to keep it going" isn't "almost" the same as "Effects would be tiny "
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-...
Yes. Can you explain why Britain needs nuclear missiles that can be launched from below the surface of the sea?
Maybe one less nuclear power isn't a bad thing?
EDIT: Oh I see you're saying in general they shouldn't have nukes. I mean, I don't like that anyone has them but I get why they do
Let Russia de arm first. They are the ones using their nukes as cover to steal land from other countries.
If you look at the Budapest Memorandum, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine also voluntarily gave up their nuclear arsenals by becoming a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in exchange for security guarantees.
Russia is the reason why the west has nuclear weapons, and now the fascist US is reviving its imperial ambitions, with threats of annexation to Panama, Greenland, Canada, and Palestine. Sounds to me like the entire fucking world should be scrambling to become a nuclear power.