209
Norway becomes ninth country to sign up for French nuclear deterrence as trust in US falters
(www.defensenews.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2026
209 points (99.1% liked)
Europe
11267 readers
1164 users here now
News and information from Europe ๐ช๐บ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You were not talking about nuclear proliferation in the comment I was responding to, but made the ridiculous claim that Norway turned itself into a vassal of France. Following up towards another poster with a smear against "French people". That said, I take back my comment towards you in respect of the rules. Maybe you should take back yours too.
I am not sure how arguing for nuclear proliferation means being a Russian bot. Is there a "not" missing? In that case how is nuclear proliferation when it does not change the number of nuclear war heads, does not spread nuclear war heads to another nation nor does it give any additional government control over nuclear warheads.
I was, you assumed otherwise. Norway submitting to France's 'protection,' means they must always agree with France, they cannot ever go against France, otherwise they'd lose protection.
That's being a vassal state. Vassal states are and were states not powerful enough to defend themselves, so they sought protection from Empires that felt it would be too costly to conquer them but still needed some of their resources.
Nuclear proliferation is the solution to prevent vassal states, and have an actually independent Norway. Unless you're a nuclear power, you do not have an army. You do not have any form of defense. It does not matter what you do, you are under the vassalage of a nuclear power. Picking France over Russia is fine, I guess, but the effect will always be the same.
I see, I did indeed misunderstand you.
So you are arguing really for proper nuclear proliferation with Norway getting its own independent nuclear capabilities like France. The only small country having nuclear capabilities is Israel, and they surely pay a hefty price for it and are extremely dependend on the support of another major power nonetheless, probably more than Norway is dependent on France, even after this deal.
If France renegades on that deal, the worst thing that happens to Norway is being in the situation form before that deal.
Ukraine has no nuclear warheads and is bombing a nuclear power heavily (defending against its aggression), damaging a lot of its strategically important oil and gas industry btw. A nuclear deterrent is a strong power but it is not the only way to exert hard power, nor does the lack of having nuclear weapons make a country necessarily easy prey.
Ukraine has essentially received materials and nuclear protection from the entire western world. The US has explicitly stated they will retaliate (well Biden did) if nuclear weapons are used. They are lucky they are white enough. They also just genuinely surprised the western world in the first two weeks, as it was assumed they would fall, given the country's history of extreme corruption and multiple intelligence agencies presuming their lack of military capability would fail them long before Russia ran out of steam.
While e.g. Norway is white, and notably less corrupt, there's only so many times the entire western world can rally behind a country being attacked. If any multi-polar attack were to be launched but not turned nuclear, there's very little that could be done for some of the victims. Some country would fail to be protected, and they would fail.
Nuclear protection for Ukraine, do you have any credible source for that claim? Materials and arms from other countries, hardly makes a case against your point that you have no army unless you have nuclear arms.
Even if Biden said anything. Biden isn't in power anymore and even with him it was far fetched to believe the US would risk nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. This whole premise has become entirely absurd under Trump. Yet, the counter attacks against Russia have vastly intensified since Biden is out of office.
Your racist classifications are not necessarily as central to foreign policy as you might believe.