[miklosz]

Oh, I hoped it's about nuclear weapons. Pitty, it's not. Now, as US is slowly leaving NATO, European countries should urgently work on increasing their nuclear capabilities, developing strategic and tactical nuclear weapons and means of delivery (rockets, bombers, submarines).

[mandmandam]

> Oh, I hoped it's about nuclear weapons. Pitty, it's not.

If you were going to resume work on nuclear weapons, would you announce it immediately? ... Or would you say that you're developing your nuclear power capabilities.

There are well established historical lines here to be read between.

[gpderetta]

Can you effectively have nuclear weapons without a civilian nuclear power infra?

[mrweasel]

Depends on what you mean by "effectively". Yes, you can absolutely have nuclear weapons without nuclear power infrastructure, North Korea and Israel both have nuclear weapons, but no nuclear power programs.

Having a civilian program makes things a little easier, or at least easier to hide. Italy does have a tiny uranium reserve, which it never mined, but I'd guess that they'd need to buy the uranium they'd need for a nuclear weapon. That's a bit easier to do, if you can disguise it as nuclear fuel.

[n3storm]

So you think Americans honestly think nuclearly destroying Europe will give them peace?

[JumpCrisscross]

> you think Americans honestly think nuclearly destroying Europe will give them peace?

American here. It’s becoming clear that a sizeable section of our electorate only respects nuclear sovereignty.