[extropy-chat] Bill Moyers' Comments - Debunked

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 01:43:25AM -0800, Samantha
> Atkins wrote:
> I think at this stage of the game it is obvious that
> the only countries that
> are safe are those with credible deterrence
> potential. 

No, those with democratic-enough governments are also
quite safe.  The EU definitely qualifies, in contrast
to Iraq under Saddam or to North Korea.

> Unfortunately, the EU is too slow to realize that,
> and start investing in a
> nuclear umbrella (teaming up with Russia would seem
> like a good idea), as 
> well as the ability to protect its assets in orbit
> and/or be able to 
> terminate enemy assets.

France is a declared nuclear power, as (I think) is
the UK.  They could plop nuclear silos all over Europe
without violating international agreements, so long as
said silos were under control of the EU rather than
member countries (which might require setting up a
formal EU-wide military first; I don't think one
already exists).  And they definitely have the ability
to produce ICBMs - possibly more ability than either
Russia or the US at this point, given the state of
their respective space (specifically, expendible
long-range rocket) industries.

Exact nuclear capabilities are often state secrets,
but it's probably safe to assume that the EU has more
than enough nuclear deterrent already.  (Not that it
takes much.  The mere capability to destroy several
major cities, which could be done with less than 10
missiles, should give pause to any would-be invader
who wants to have a country afterwards.)