As does the UK.

But the collapse of the EU/US relationship means you probably want to plan for the potential of a similar collapse within the European alliances.

The UK buys its nukes from the US, so it's not really independent. (As I recall, the UK doesn't even have free choice on where those nukes are targeted).

It buys the launch missiles from the US, the submarines and the warheads are home-grown.

I think the opposite. It straightens incentives to cooperate.

IIRC the UK has committed its nuclear weapons to defend NATO countries.

> IIRC the UK has committed its nuclear weapons to defend NATO countries.

So has the US, which is part of why this is so odd of an approach. Technically we’re required to nuke ourselves if we attack Greenland.

Just like the US committed to defend Ukraine?

Not enough to be a deterrent. Until now NATO implicitly relied on the USA as their deterrent. That seems to no longer be a smart thing to do.

> Not enough to be a deterrent

Even if American defences stopped 80% of them, estimates say France has enough (290*(1-0.8)=58) to destroy every state capital.

Is more really necessary, if the goal is simply to deter?

France kicked the US military out of France in 1966 and left NATO's military command structure.

They largely rejoined in 2009 (and very deliberately never rejoined NATO's Nuclear Planning Group), but if any NATO member is capable of going it alone on this one, it's probably France.

240 nukes on subs is plenty to wave around as a stick, too.

One is enough. Two were enough the last time they were used in war, and those were much smaller than current weapons.