Taiwan needs to secretly develop nukes ... NOW.

@Elessar

Yes, I've already proposed the Royal Navy re-fit their Astute-class nuclear-powered submarines, which can carry Tomahawk cruise missiles, with nuclear-armed Tomahawks. They'd have a range of 900 nautical miles (1,600 kilometers).

The Royal Navy isn't due to replace the Vanguard-class boomers until 2030s. The U.K.'s entire nuclear deterrent is sub-based. Britain currently keeps at least one Vanguard at sea at all times, but there are only four of them. One of them could turn most of Russia into a radioactive wasteland.

The French have both an air-based and sub-based nuclear deterrent, if you can even call it a deterrent. With only four subs and generally only one at sea like the British, the Russians will hunt those down quickly in a pre-emptive strike. And Putin's hypersonic missiles will give the French little time to get the birds in the air. France could also face a submarine-launched ballistic missle attack.

Europe has two years, perhaps three at most, to arm itself sufficiently to have a chance to repel a Russian conventional military attack without the assistance of the United States before Russia's military recovers from the war in Ukraine. That's probably the amount of time they'll have to build a credible survivable nuclear retailiatory capability if the U.S. nuclear umbrella were to no longer provide them with protection.

To be blunt, Europe cannot count on "regime change" in the U.S. political landscape in 2028. And Putin may elect to strike while Trump is still in office, knowing the U.S. will be indecisive at best on intervention.

@beckyromero The problem iirc is that the British ones rely on US tech, there's little use of a nuclear deterrent if the Manchurian president can switch it off.

On the other hand, France's dissuasion is entirely independent from US tech. The problems you highlight indeed come down to scale. Obviously the current arsenal isn't big enough, we absolutely need more subs and more warheads. And the entire thing shouldn't be in control of a single country, or we're just another Trump or Le-Pen away from losing the nuclear umbrella, but ideally to an ad-hoc entity that responds to the EU commission. The bureaucratic aspect may need just as much work as the actual production itself.

Yeah the timing is dire, indeed. But even the most Trump-aligned country (i.e. mine) is ramping up military production; France and Britain is guaranteed to follow, even the new German chancellor released optimistic statements. Asides from the armaments, intelligence and satellites are areas we lag behind that aren't easy nor fast to compensate to either

Agreed about the last paragraph. Europe needs complete autonomy. It's a bonus if the US comes back to sanity of course, but it mustn't be an assumption nor a requirement

@Elessar
The Vanguard-subs are fully independent. They do not need U.S. approval to launch their nukes. That order would come only from the British Prime Minister (with pre-written instructions in case of the loss of communications).

Otherwise, I agree with what you wrote.