> Australia doesn't have nukes because they don't want them
I don't think you did any investigation before posting that,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_and_weapons_of_mass_...Australia didn't need a nuclear power industry during this era, it was a major coal producer and nobody cared about emissions.
The non-proliferation cause it's another way of saying "we are the only one that should have nuclear capability". It doesn't look like to me that the USA is interested in a world without nuclear weapons (1), only in a world where the others don't have nuclear weapons.
>>"If Europe is not freeloading, why was there so much negative reaction by European leaders to Trump reducing presence in Europe? Surely this should be celebrated!"
If the problem is freeloading and defense, instead of "business", why being against spending the money in European military industry?
I notice that you don't address the question that Europe already spend more than Russia.
I think you forgot your links in your answer.
(1) - https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/02/politics/nuclear-treaty-i...
> only in a world where the others don't
> have nuclear weapons
It's a world where only Russia, (mainland) China, the US, France and the UK have nuclear weapons, in pursuit of a strategic balance. > If the problem is freeloading and defense, instead
> of "business", why being against spending the money
> in European military industry?
Yeah, it doesn't surprise me to hear the pentagon whinge about people spending money with other vendors.On this theme - there was an interesting Foreign Policy paper arguing that the F35 program serves as a US version of the belt-and-roads initiative. Still, it must be half-decent or countries would not buy it. e.g. Australia is licensing its recent sub design from France. But, it is buying the F-35, despite the lock-in problems. Israel produces an astonishing amount of its own tech but, likewise, is buying the F-35.
> I notice that you don't address the question
> that Europe already spend more than Russia.
I thought my comments about the relevance of NATO to be a response to this. It is or it isn't, countries should decide. There are non-NATO European countries that spend less than 2%.My themes in the original comment was the notion of the European military on two grounds. (1) If military goals were important, nations would/should have been lifting their weight in NATO. (2) There are obstacles to creating a command structure for a European military, which is a very weak federation.
If Europe is not freeloading, why was there so much negative reaction by European leaders to Trump reducing presence in Europe? Surely this should be celebrated!
If NATO is no longer relevant, then nations should drop out of it. There is a clear path to this. If they want to be members, they should honour their obligations.