2026 US-Denmark Tensions/End of NATO

[Kirkhill]

And, one more time Europe tries to prove it can co-operate.

Six European Countries to Develop Low-Cost OWE 500+ Cruise Missile: What Are Its Characteristics?

The overall concept of OWE 500 is to create a weapon that can be purchased at a relatively low price and used in large quantities to overwhelm the enemy.

militarnyi.com

Meanwhile Palmer Luckey is off building his own stuff and finding customers,

Anduril Industries

Anduril Industries, Inc. is an American defense technology company that specializes in advanced autonomous systems.

www.anduril.com

Neither Maxim nor Gatling guns were the result of a government committee, much less six government committees.

 

[Good2Golf]

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/02/14/the-conservative-thinker-quietly-shaping-trumps-approach-to-nato-00781630

"Burden shifting" and a return to the "Dormant NATO" of pre-GWOT.

The interviewee is given credit for shaping the Trump administration's European NATO policy.

"Why is this shift in posture necessary? What problem is it trying to solve?

"The foreign policy of any country is determinant on structural factors, and the structural reality of the world that we live now is this: On one hand, you have the rise of China as a peer rival in Asia, which is in a different league compared to pretty much every other great power rival the United States has faced in his entire history. The second thing is the Global War on Terror that went on for 20 years, and it’s decimated American coffers. The U.S. is in massive debt, and people are unhappy about forever wars."

Trump as actor, not director.

So America warns Europe of future US drawdown, yet continues to soften its position against Russia.

Ironically, many European countries are actually envisioning US forces leaving (or being invited to leave) their respective countries, sooner than later. I’ve personally heard those rumblings. Non-U.S. leadership and working staff within NATO seem to acknowledge that NATO is at a pivot-point. America portraying it as a guard dog that need to go back into its kennel and wait until America calls it, is a level of tone deafness that can’t go unnoticed. America ignores, or at least tries to pretend it doesn’t exist, but its hegemonic power profits greatly from its forward deployments throughout Europe. However, if it is retreating from holding Russia to account, what good is it. It might as well reposition its troops to the M.E., Pacific and South American AOs.

“The core strategic reality …. is this: Europe must assume primary responsibility for its own conventional defense.”

Europe is waking to the fact, and in fact, not limiting itself to ‘conventional’ defense.

 

[Kirkhill]

So America warns Europe of future US drawdown, yet continues to soften its position against Russia.

Ironically, many European countries are actually envisioning US forces leaving (or being invited to leave) their respective countries, sooner than later. I’ve personally heard those rumblings. Non-U.S. leadership and working staff within NATO seem to acknowledge that NATO is at a pivot-point. America portraying it as a guard dog that need to go back into its kennel and wait until America calls it, is a level of tone deafness that can’t go unnoticed. America ignores, or at least tries to pretend it doesn’t exist, but its hegemonic power profits greatly from its forward deployments throughout Europe. However, if it is retreating from holding Russia to account, what good is it. It might as well reposition its troops to the M.E., Pacific and South American AOs.



Europe is waking to the fact, and in fact, not limiting itself to ‘conventional’ defense.

The law of unintended consequences may be making its inevitable appearance.

But the other point is that is not just socialists that run out of other people's money. Capitalists can as well.

The Americans were already running thin in the Reagan era, hence Nixon withdrawing from the Gold Standard and the rise of OPEC. Reagan then spent a fortune on NATO and driving the USSR into debt faster. The wars on drugs and terror didn't help the coffers any. Nor did they help the temper of the people paying taxes, spilling blood and going broke.

Trump is a consequence, unintended, of many prior decisions. And so is this NATO retrenchment.

....

And we are to blame....

We. The west. Europeans, Japanese, Brits and Canadians. Resentful at not being Americans and not caring if America struggled, happy to take their dollars and their protection while complaining about their character and imposing their lifestyle on us, we failed to contribute.

Now, America is broke. Not broken, just plain broke.

 

[Good2Golf]

Perhaps unintended, but you undervalue the benefit that America derived from having pawns supporting its agenda. The benefit was in no way omnidirectional for European Canada.

 

[Kirkhill]

One plus to all of this -

All this talk of AI causing job losses means there will be an awful lot of people avaiable to train as FPV pilots so that they get their Universal Credit allowance.

 

[Kirkhill]

Perhaps unintended, but you undervalue the benefit that America derived from having pawns supporting its agenda. The benefit was in no way omnidirectional for European Canada.

I agree. Nobody does anything out of sheer altruism. Nobody.

 

[Kirkhill]

Europe is waking to the fact, and in fact, not limiting itself to ‘conventional’ defense.

Poland should ‘begin work’ on nuclear defenses, Nawrocki says

Warsaw should base its security strategy around ‘nuclear potential,’ Polish president said.

www.politico.eu

....

How might the UK fit into this?

AI comment 1

The United Kingdom continues to possess and operate a sovereign, independent nuclear deterrent. While the Trident II D5 missiles are leased from a US communal pool, the warheads themselves are designed, developed, and manufactured in the UK, with the current stockpile in service since the 1990s.

• Current Sovereign Capability: The Royal Navy's Vanguard-class submarines carry UK-designed and built warheads.
• Last New Air-Launched Weapon: The WE177 nuclear bomb was retired in March 1998.
• Future Sovereign Warhead: The UK is currently developing the replacement Astraea (A21/Mk7) warhead, scheduled to support the new Dreadnought-class submarines.

Although the missiles are American, the warhead on top of them is British-made.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7987e840f0b642860d8d88/Cm6994_Factsheet5.pdf

AI Comment 2
Yes, the UK largely owns and develops the technology for its submarine nuclear reactors, with Rolls-Royce Submarines Limited acting as the primary designer, manufacturer, and technical authority. While early reactors were heavily aided by the US, the UK now maintains sovereign capability for its nuclear steam raising plants.
Key details on UK submarine reactor technology:

• Designer/Manufacturer: Rolls-Royce holds the contract to design, build, and support the reactors for the Royal Navy, including the new Dreadnought class.
• Sovereign Capability: Rolls-Royce has been the technical authority for the UK's nuclear steam raising plant (NSRP) since the 1960s.
• Technological Basis: While the upcoming PWR3 (Pressurised Water Reactor 3) for the Dreadnought class incorporates some U.S. design elements for efficiency, the reactors are still considered UK-developed technology.
• Fuel Supply: The nuclear fuel for the reactors is obtained from the USA, despite the reactor technology itself being British-designed.
• AUKUS Partnership: Under the new AUKUS defence pact, the UK is collaborating with the US and Australia, but will continue to build its own nuclear submarines (SSN-AUKUS).

The UK maintains the full lifecycle capability for these reactors, with major facilities located in Derby and testing performed at the Vulcan Naval Reactor Test Establishment.

And further to this the UK has floated the idea of powering commercial ships with British SMRs.

UK-led Maritime Consortium Sets Out Plan for Nuclear-Powered Fleet | LR

Lloyd’s Register convenes leading partners to deliver safe, secure and sustainable nuclear-powered ships for a net zero ocean economy/

www.lr.org

...

So France isn't the only nuclear player in Europe.

....

But "nuclear" "defences"? George Orwell would be proud.

 

[RangerRay]

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/02/14/the-conservative-thinker-quietly-shaping-trumps-approach-to-nato-00781630

"Burden shifting" and a return to the "Dormant NATO" of pre-GWOT.

The interviewee is given credit for shaping the Trump administration's European NATO policy.

"Why is this shift in posture necessary? What problem is it trying to solve?

"The foreign policy of any country is determinant on structural factors, and the structural reality of the world that we live now is this: On one hand, you have the rise of China as a peer rival in Asia, which is in a different league compared to pretty much every other great power rival the United States has faced in his entire history. The second thing is the Global War on Terror that went on for 20 years, and it’s decimated American coffers. The U.S. is in massive debt, and people are unhappy about forever wars."

Trump as actor, not director.

Elbridge Colby is the same shit bird who unilaterally shutoff weapons shipments to Ukraine a few months back. He can get bent.

 

[Kirkhill]

Elbridge Colby is the same shit bird who unilaterally shutoff weapons shipments to Ukraine a few months back. He can get bent.

Good. What are you going to do about it?

 

[Good2Golf]

So France isn't the only nuclear player in Europe.

UK remains beholden to the U.S. to use its nuclear capability.

France has no U.S.-based LIMFACs on its 100% sovereign nuclear armament program.

No matter how you slice it, the UK’s nuclear weapons program is not 100% sovereign.

 

[JLB50]

UK remains beholden to the U.S. to use its nuclear capability.

France has no U.S.-based LIMFACs on its 100% sovereign nuclear armament program.

No matter how you slice it, the UK’s nuclear weapons program is not 100% sovereign.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought the UK manufactures its own nuclear weapons yet relies on the U.S. Trident missiles for delivery of its weapons. If so, would it be that difficult for the UK to develop its own missiles? Is there a pact preventing the Brits from doing so?

 

[Remius]

So America warns Europe of future US drawdown, yet continues to soften its position against Russia.

Ironically, many European countries are actually envisioning US forces leaving (or being invited to leave) their respective countries, sooner than later. I’ve personally heard those rumblings. Non-U.S. leadership and working staff within NATO seem to acknowledge that NATO is at a pivot-point. America portraying it as a guard dog that need to go back into its kennel and wait until America calls it, is a level of tone deafness that can’t go unnoticed. America ignores, or at least tries to pretend it doesn’t exist, but its hegemonic power profits greatly from its forward deployments throughout Europe. However, if it is retreating from holding Russia to account, what good is it. It might as well reposition its troops to the M.E., Pacific and South American AOs.



Europe is waking to the fact, and in fact, not limiting itself to ‘conventional’ defense.

They would struggle to have a ME presence that is effective without a foot hold in Europe I would think. Leaving Europe puts their presence in the ME in a precarious position I would think.

 

[YZT580]

They would struggle to have a ME presence that is effective without a foot hold in Europe I would think. Leaving Europe puts their presence in the ME in a precarious position I would think.

especially if they have to rely on the KC46.

 

[Blackadder1916]

They would struggle to have a ME presence that is effective without a foot hold in Europe I would think. Leaving Europe puts their presence in the ME in a precarious position I would think.

There's space in Gaza that needs development.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

France has no U.S.-based LIMFACs on its 100% sovereign nuclear armament program.

Well, look at that: De Gaulle was right, and farsighted.

 

[Good2Golf]

Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought the UK manufactures its own nuclear weapons yet relies on the U.S. Trident missiles for delivery of its weapons. If so, would it be that difficult for the UK to develop its own missiles? Is there a pact preventing the Brits from doing so?

They could, but to date, they have not. Fabricating an SLBM is not an easy task in and of itself.

Interestingly, the UK chose not to pursue tactical air-launched nuclear weapons, unlike….alors, La république de France.

They would struggle to have a ME presence that is effective without a foot hold in Europe I would think. Leaving Europe puts their presence in the ME in a precarious position I would think.

Oh, I’m not saying that the U.S. ‘eat its cake and have it too’ regarding force bed down in Europe, but not serving Europe makes sense…especially when CENTCOM is in the same continent as EUCOM, and nowhere near the M.E., but here we are…