Whether there is a kill switch or not is somewhat irrelevant. There is a larger than nonzero chance that there is a kill switch, and the US cannot be trusted anymore. So we have to assume there is a kill switch.

Lack of maintenance parts is just a kill switch with a timer.

Jet Fighters need a lot of maintenance, they are not like cars.

So a kill switch in software is not needed. If the US stops shipping parts, then it is only a matter of time before the Jet Fighters is an expensive paper weight.

Huge part of F35 (like the engine) is made in EU/UK. We could "kill switch" USA as well.

https://www.ft.com/content/1503a69e-13e4-4ee8-9d05-b9ce1f7cc...

It’s false to say that all F-35 engines are made in the same country.

Iran is still flying F14s.

F35 is networked heavily, for its sensor fusion and various abilities. It has probably 25 million LOC and is heavily software dependent. It should be viewed somewhat as a closed software product that needs heavy vendor support right from mission planning.

You don't have to use the ALIS in an F35.

Israel uses it's own version of ALIS it co-developed with India and France (forgetting the name - will add once I remember).

The fusion aspect was added because of NATO's Air Force fusion/unified command policy in Europe and MENA before the current administration.

> forgetting the name

BNET and IAI+Thales+BEL's Datalink

Yes, but also no.

Some of the capabilities, sure -- you're never going to be able to use them if you don't have the things it needs to talk to.

The lack of those things don't turn it into a brick. It's still a highly capable fifth gen LO fighter/bomber without them.

Exactly. There probably is a kill switch (the temptation to add one is just impossible to resist), but it's not even needed. Stop maintenance, and in a matter of days these things can't fly.

That's basically what the article says. And that even if there isn't a kill switch, these weapons rely on constant updates and cutting those off is effectively a kill switch, even if it wasn't designed as one.

With absolutely no military experience, I find this thought process hard to believe. Namely that the existence of backdoors is hard to conceal forever, and that their discovery would do worse damage than what Trump is doing now. Given most administrations seemed interested in maintaining friendship with Europe, I don't see the strategic benefit.

> I don't see the strategic benefit.

Selling expensive weapons that can never be used against oneself sounds like a pretty significant strategic benefit to me. Are there risks? Sure, but the US could just shrug if exposed. A kill switch seems likely.

One of the kill switches are the Intel ME, AMD PSP, Windows OS, Google. Apple? Who knows if they will participate in such national security measure.

Also core routers, interxions, sealines, Level 3 et al.

Having a kill switch "just in case" really is a strategically logical move. Consider the case of Iran: In the 1960s and 1970s, the US delivered several US-built aircraft to Iran, including F-4s, F-5s, and F-14s, some of the most advanced fighters of that era. After the 1979 revolution, US-Iran relations collapsed. Despite the US cutting off spare parts and maintenance, Iran has been able to keep the aircraft operational to this day (likely through effortful reverse engineering). So now there is an adversary that is armed with equipment you provided. The obvious way to avoid that is to install a kill switch.

> After the 1979 revolution, US-Iran relations collapsed.

Amusing way of putting it, if you ignore the US/UK instigated 1953 coup of Mossadegh and the installation of the Shah who was busy selling out Iran to the western powers, yeah you can assuming US-Iran relations "collapsed". I'd say they collapsed in 1953 and 1979 was the aftermath.

Yeah, not delivering additional aid for free is one thing.

But retracting support is the nuclear option.

Figuratively, because you can probably one do it once, so you better pick a good reason for doing it.

And literally, because small European countries do now have to consider nukes.

Not just small European countries, but all European countries that do not have their own nukes, which is all except France. The issue is, they’ll have to leave the Non-Proliferation Treaty for that, and once an otherwise respected country does that, the floodgates would be open in the world. The other problem is that such a decision would be very divisive in the European country’s electorate, and therefore highly problematic on the respective domestic political front. This is simply not likely to happen.

The more likely outcome is that French nukes will be stationed in other European countries. But France is also not willing to give up exclusive control over those nukes, and the next French government could very well be far-right, and thus become as unreliable as the current US government. It’s a difficult situation.

Both France and the UK have floated the idea of extending their nuclear umbrella to include other European nations. Both countries operate ICBM carrying submarines so don't have to deploy nukes on anyone's territory.

I wouldn't be surprised if it happens on the fact they could share the cost between nations alone for something they've already paid for.

The UK’s nukes are sourced from the US. If they want to be independent, they’ll have to develop their own.

For other countries, the problem remains that if the UK or France government turns far-right, the other countries may quickly be on their own again, just like what they now fear with the US.

An EU-level control over the nukes seems unlikely, as France (and even more the UK) want to retain their sovereignty over that.

The UK's warheads are UK made by the UK Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE).

The UK lacks an independant warhead delivery system since the cancellation of the Blue Streak in 1960, and currently uses US missiles for the UK submarines.

The UK was the first country to start a nuclear weapons programme and talked the US into starting the Manhatten project.

Once subsumed by the US project, the UK started again post WWII and developed warheads and bombs tested in Australia. They managed to dust a future UK prime minister with fallout as a child in Adelaide.

> small European countries do now have to consider nukes

It wouldn't be all that surprising to see Poland and Finland doing atmospheric tests in the next few months. Given that Ukraine gave up their weapons for a totally vacuous security guarantee it would make sense for them to build bombs too. 2025 could be the year of global nuclear proliferation.

I don't think anyone is dumb enough to restart atmospheric testing. If you want a subsurface test to be public knowledge, there's a pretty good track record of how to do that: invite the press. Pakistan, North Korea, India & others can serve as a good example.

In fact, while most nuclear powers have dabbled in the idea of 'how could we conceal a nuclear test', it seems that only Israel is capable of doing it. That is an argument from the absence of evidence unfortunately.

> while most nuclear powers have dabbled in the idea of 'how could we conceal a nuclear test'

Given the sensitivity of global seismometers, I don't think this is physically possible.

Maybe you could test one on the far side of the moon? :)

There are seismometers on the moon, though.

The point of an atmospheric test wouldn't be to merely say "we have capability" it would be to say "we have capability and we're absolutely not afraid to use it, no matter what the cost." The idea is to demonstrate overwhelming strength and resolve, such that the opponent doesn't dare attack, not to escalate slowly.

The whole point of nuclear weapons is to NOT conceal them, but boast as loud as possible.

For Europe, yes. But on a tangent, for example for Iran it would be desirable to conceal tests until the point you have proven that you can make and deliver nukes.

Not really. For example, everyone considers the UK to be a nuclear power.

Exactly what weapons they have seems to be tied to the deals of the US-UK defense agreements. The UK's development of fission weapons is well documented. The development of thermonuclear is unclear and its not exactly obvious when and how they tested proper thermonuclear weapons.

Pakistan probably had nuclear weapons decades before their official tests. The US even made them one heck of an offer to maintain this policy of uncertainty. Ultimately they would debut very small thermonuclear weapons. They probably can manufacture large scale nuclear weapons into the megaton range. Pakistan probably also has plenty of delivery options. But ultimately their arsenal is mainly just there to deter China or India's territorial expansion. Pakistan can't really threaten other nuclear powers and it seems unlikely that a country like France is just going to launch an invasion of Pakistan. So there isn't really too much reason to bother with more tests. Ambiguity is their ally.

> In fact, while most nuclear powers have dabbled in the idea of 'how could we conceal a nuclear test', it seems that only Israel is capable of doing it.

Only because the US decided to officially look the other way. See "The Vela incident" which was never publicly attributed, but was almost certainly a joint Israel-South Africa test.

I think you're correct but it also hasn't ever been publicly attributed to Israel. It's certainly a nuclear weapon test, but there isn't anything to directly tie it to Israel. "could have been anyone" is a pretty good shield

Not just European countries. Non proliferation is dead.

I just read here a few days ago how very dependent on regular US maintenance the British nuclear weapons are.

"US support to maintain UK's nuclear arsenal is in doubt (theguardian.com)"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43299011

The Economist gives a more nuanced view [1]. Essentially saying the deterrent is independent and if support was pulled by the US that there wouldn’t be a ‘cliff edge’, which would potentially give time to replace.

The UK has produced its own nuclear weapons in the past and has weapons grade processing at Sellafield. There’s ~140 metric tons of separated plutonium stored there.

It is apparently enough material to build tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. Not every warhead has to be a billion megatons to be a deterrent.

[1] https://archive.is/Qz2lI

Trident is made by Lockheed Martin, though. Or does the UK have the capacity to perform maintenance and manufacture make spare parts on their own?

I guess there would be enough time to switch to French rockets even in the worst case.

> Trident is made by Lockheed Martin, though. Or does the UK have the capacity to perform maintenance and manufacture make spare parts on their own?

The Economist piece spells out that, yes, long term maintenance is problematic, but in the short term nothing will break over night.

With Polaris (the system before Trident) the UK was manufacturing the missiles (effectively under license). It seems unclear whether there's any similar arrangement with Trident.

I guess my main point was that the deterrent is independent (the UK prime minister decides when to fire and can do so without the US sign-off) and there's no cliff-edge where the tech can be disabled by the US. So, with the raw materials ready to go and UK arms manufacturers like BAE Systems perfectly capable of building the tech, the risk to the UK (of being without a nuclear deterrent) is relatively low. Not zero, but low.