Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 302 posts

Re: Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies

#121

Post by surgical_fire »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #63
LAC-Tech wrote: post #16

The speed at which EU defense integration precedes is dizzying. In only: - one month after the US openly said it won't be the primary security guarantor of Europe - a month and a half after the second inauguration of a NATO sceptical president - three years after the start of a major european land war bordering the EU - 14 years after another US administration formally announced it's "Pivot to Asia" ... a European co…

Macron has been advocating for tighter European collaboration for years, insisting that there should be an integrated European army in 2018 and calling NATO "brain-dead" in 2019. The question is whether other European countries want to be integrated, and thus far the answer has been that they do not.

I think this is rapidly changing, now that the US is essentially a hostile foreign nation.

Re: Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies

#122

Post by ssssvd »

onepremise wrote: post #9

Given that the Trump administration aligns itself with Russia and North Korea, the EU will need it. The US convinced Ukraine to scrap their nukes as they promised they would come to Ukraine's aid if needed. Trump is basically exploiting the situation to gain access to their natural resources. He's also telling them to let Russia keep the territory they stole when they Invaded Ukraine. Yes imagine that, Russia startin…

Ukrainian nukes were about as Ukrainian as Texas-based US nukes are Texan — they were Soviet weapons targeting US cities, with launch authority and maintenance cycles controlled from Moscow.

After independence, Ukraine had physical possession of a huge nuclear arsenal but lacked the codes and infrastructure to operate or maintain it long-term. The only practical options were to dismantle them, bargain them away, or possibly sell off some nuclear material or technology to third parties — though they ultimately chose to denuclearize under the Budapest Memorandum in exchange for security assurances.

What could have truly deterred Russia was Ukraine’s enormous conventional military inherited from the USSR (actually, the size of Russia's), but it was steadily gutted over the decades through underfunding, corruption, and arms sales.

Re: Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies

#123

Post by euroderf »

TheAlchemist wrote: post #73

For several reasons, France is uniquely positioned to be the leader of Europe. Nuclear arms, a lot of nuclear energy, defense industry, food independence. All of this thanks to Charles De Gaulle, who insisted that France must be autonomous in most important domains. With hindsight, this was extremely important. Without France's nuclear energy and arms, Europe would be in a very very bad position right now.

Ain't it the truth.

Re: Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies

#124

Post by quackscience »

tombert wrote: post #66
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the collapse of the US as "The World's Policeman", will result in the most nuclear proliferation since the 50s. That alone will make the world a much, much more dangerous place.

Makes me wonder if I should get the hell out of New York. Seriously, if someone decides to nuke the US, where would they start? Almost certainly Washington DC and NYC. The US is too big to bomb in its entirety. Maybe I should move to Boise, Idaho or something. I don't think they're going to get bombed, and it seems nice.

New Yorker here. Last year one of my meditation teachers here in the city casually mentioned that in some sects of Tibetan Buddhism there's a prophecy of some sort of catastrophic global event between 2026 and 2032, and a former monk friend of his advised him to leave NYC by 2030. From some casual googling it seems like the text is "The Light That Makes Things Clear: A Prophecy of Things to Come".

I'm a non-believer when it comes to these sorts of things, but if anything was to convince me otherwise it'd be watching Trump speed run us towards another World War these past few weeks.

Re: Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies

#125

Post by [deleted] »

deactivatedexp wrote: post #27
onepremise wrote: post #9

Given that the Trump administration aligns itself with Russia and North Korea, the EU will need it. The US convinced Ukraine to scrap their nukes as they promised they would come to Ukraine's aid if needed. Trump is basically exploiting the situation to gain access to their natural resources. He's also telling them to let Russia keep the territory they stole when they Invaded Ukraine. Yes imagine that, Russia startin…

hmm what does game theory say about the situation? right from wrong is not applicable to this situation not even one bit

[deleted]

Re: Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies

#126

Post by t_mann »

TheAlchemist wrote: post #73

For several reasons, France is uniquely positioned to be the leader of Europe. Nuclear arms, a lot of nuclear energy, defense industry, food independence. All of this thanks to Charles De Gaulle, who insisted that France must be autonomous in most important domains. With hindsight, this was extremely important. Without France's nuclear energy and arms, Europe would be in a very very bad position right now.

The UK also has a nuclear arsenal [0]. A bit smaller than France's, but the reality is both pale in comparison to the US and Russia. Europe has no natural leader, it's an ensemble of what some would now call random countries that only have relevance when considered together.

But that doesn't need to be an issue imho. Decentralized systems are generally messier but also more resilient than centralized ones. If this situation leads to an arms race of individual countries, the outcome may well be that the combined total force is the strongest on the planet. The question is whether they're willing to go there. They would have the engineering and industrial footprint, but they would completely need to change their political DNA. Avoiding armament of European nations is literally the EU's original raison d'être. On a more practical level, they would need to ditch the Maastricht rules on fiscal discipline, something that is also deeply enshrined in the EU's institutional mindset, as well as its laws. Or they would need to issue collective debt, but that runs against the political DNA of some member states. Everything is doable, the question is whether the sense of urgency is strong enough. Given how keen European leaders currently are to let everyone who wasn't asking know that they're helpless without the US, it seems that there's still a long way to go.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_we...

Re: Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies

#127

Post by cm2187 »

No country will risk its own annihilation to defend the borders of another country. That's why de Gaulle left NATO in the first place, he didn't want anyone else's finger on the french nuclear button than his own, he didn't trust the US would go nuclear with the USSR over France. Third party nuclear protections are little more than warm reassurances, but will amount to nothing when the day comes.

And to be honest I am not even sure first party nuclear protection is worth that much. French president Giscard d'Estaing famously said he would probably not have used nukes if France had been invaded under his presidency. What a moronic thing to say (it massively undermines French nuclear deterrence).

Re: Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies

#129

Post by Retric »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #93
tombert wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes me wonder if I should get the hell out of New York. Seriously, if someone decides to nuke the US, where would they start? Almost certainly Washington DC and NYC. The US is too big to bomb in its entirety. Maybe I should move to Boise, Idaho or something. I don't think they're going to get bombed, and it seems nice.

> if someone decides to nuke the US, where would they start? First, nuclear forces: ICBM and IRBM silos and their C2, nuclear weapons storage, strategic airfields and ballistic-missile submarine bases. (This is why nuclear arsenals escalate against each other. The defensive role of missile silos is both deference and to soak up the enemy’s nukes.) Second, leadership: command posts and communication. Third, other mili…

That’s a nice theory but nuking empty silo’s is pointless.

So, attacking them just means they launch everything at you while also wasting your nukes.

Re: Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies

#130

Post by EA-3167 »

t_mann wrote: post #126
TheAlchemist wrote: post #73

For several reasons, France is uniquely positioned to be the leader of Europe. Nuclear arms, a lot of nuclear energy, defense industry, food independence. All of this thanks to Charles De Gaulle, who insisted that France must be autonomous in most important domains. With hindsight, this was extremely important. Without France's nuclear energy and arms, Europe would be in a very very bad position right now.

The UK also has a nuclear arsenal [0]. A bit smaller than France's, but the reality is both pale in comparison to the US and Russia. Europe has no natural leader, it's an ensemble of what some would now call random countries that only have relevance when considered together. But that doesn't need to be an issue imho. Decentralized systems are generally messier but also more resilient than centralized ones. If this si…

Without in any way indulging in the delusion of a united Europe, in which Germany is willing to subordinate itself to France, one thing is worth saying:

The UK does have a nuclear arsenal, but it's essentially leased from the US.

Post reply on HN