Russia's invasion of Ukraine is the main cause. Countries can't count on agreements or treaties to keep them safe. Russia would have never invaded if Ukraine had its ICBMs and hundreds of nuclear warheads.
Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies
131–140 of 302 posts
Re: Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies
#132Given 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…
> The US convinced Ukraine to scrap their nukes
To be fair Ukraine didn't really have nukes. I mean they technically had nukes in their territory and maybe could have kept them if they really wanted to but it's a bit like e.g. Scotland trying to keep British nukes after declaring independence. Wouldn't make a lot sense.
Economically Ukraine was in a horrible state. Nuclear weapons have extremely high cost and I'm not sure if they even had any delivery vehicles? Also the the political repercussions, trade relations with Russia were very important etc.
Last but not least Russia and Ukraine were certainly not adversaries back in those days. After all Ukraine was on Russia's side when they attacked Moldova to establish Tranistria. Them going to war back in the 90s would have been almost as absurd as US invading Canada...
Re: Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What about the European power with the world’s largest nuclear arsenal? If we’re being pedantic to the point of silliness, we could argue that a significant fraction of Russia’s nuclear assets are outside European Russia [1][2]. And that Muscovite Russia retains significant elements of its Mongol roots relative to the Kievan Rus [3]. [1] https://npolicy.org/interactive-nuclear-atlas/russias-nuclea... [2] https://en…
It's not pedantic, Russia is part of Europe and according to your link has 80% of its population in Europe [1]. The exclusion from the list of European Nuclear powers is incorrect and politically motivated. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Russia
> Russia is part of Europe…politically motivated
The Europe-Asia boundary is a political boundary [1].
Re: Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why more dangerous? I am worried about religious fanatics armed with nuclear weapons. I am not really worried about Germany, South Korea, Japan or Taiwan armed with them. The more deterence, the less likely there will be a war. You go to war when you think you can get away with it, not when you think there is even a 10% chance all you major cities will be nuked.
The more independent entities with Nuclear weapons, the more avenues for one to be used. Simple as that. Every country has potential to move towards national fanaticism over time.
That's just not the case. Look at every conflict of the past 50 years. Major powers trade very carefully against a nuclear armed nation. Which by the way largely explained Biden's tepid military support to Ukraine, giving them just enough weapons for them not to collapse but not enough to make any serious dent to Russia. And basically maximising casualties by making the conflict last.
Re: Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know the more I think about it, the more I consider that even without US support, their primary adversary has already demonstrated their impotence as an offensive military power. Maybe they simply don't need to do much more than they're already doing.
> their primary adversary has already demonstrated their impotence …the call is coming from inside the house. Europe’s existential risk has shifted from Russia to a Russo-American alliance.
A slight thawing of relations is a long way away from an alliance. Even then, would Russia take it? They might see more value in their current arrangement with China.
Still, long term maybe you're right. It does make geopolitical sense for the US to be more closely aligned with Russia. In a pivot to Asia it's much more useful to sow-discord in the Sino-Russian relationship, than it is to prop up the EU.
Re: Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What's the next move? Let the Ukrainians decide. The war could have been over if Biden and Musk hadn’t meddled in Kyiv’s strategy. There is no peace with a Moscow that believes it can gain resources and mollify its population with wars of expansion. Pausing in Ukraine just allows for build-up for another wave. Maybe in Ukraine. Maybe elsewhere.
> Let the Ukrainians decide. With money and military/economic tensions for EU and US ? EU might have some interest in stabilizing the border and preventing future threats, but US literally has no interest there. And the only EU member that possibly had to worry about Russia is Finland, but they are in NATO now.
Good thing US integritiy has no value anymore and US word is apparently worthless nowadays - otherwise I guess honoring the Budapest memorandum would make sense:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
You know, that one thing that certainly prevented a lot of nuclear proliferation so far.
Re: Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies
#137Earlier 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.
Why do you think France or Britain would nuke New York? And there isn't that much point for Russia to nuke their new ally either.
I don't think it's super likely, though if our president decides to declare war to try reignite American imperialism, then it seems like it could happen.
He's already talked about invading Greenland, what's to stop him from trying to invade somewhere else, somewhere with more firepower to fight back? All it would take is Fox News or OAN to start running stories about how the US is actually entitled to the land of France. It's not like it matters if there's any truth to it.
Re: Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> in the delusion of a united Europe, in which Germany is willing to subordinate itself to France
The Haudenosaunee a/k/a Iroquois had a unique confederacy consisting of two dominant and a few lesser powers [1][2]. And the Roman Republic had two consuls, including on campaign. Maybe a nuclear command inspired by both is the answer: any launch requires codes from each of Paris, Berlin and the head of state of the country actually launching.
(Practically, the Germans are sort of irrelevant given they not only have no nuclear weapons, they’re also dismantling their civil nuclear expertise. I’m assuming they grow up and reärm. Otherwise, centralising nuclear power in Paris doesn’t depend on Germany agreement.)
Re: Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
Give them the tools they need to finish the job. This whole thing started when they willingly disarmed in return for security assurances that didn't turn out to be worth the paper they were written on. It progressed when Obama failed to help them stop Putin in 2014, and now it's metastasized due to Biden's half-assed support and Trump's active antipathy.
That's exactly what I'm asking: what tools? The only thing I see is endless supply of money and ammo which means attrition. Russia will win in manpower but maybe not economically. I'm kindly asking to be educated with more than talking points we've all heard from politicians.
Not arbitrarily stopping intel sharing and - reportedly - remotely disabling supplied wepons (!!) would be a good first step.
Like if you ever want anyone to give you a single dolar for your weapons in the future.
Re: Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies
#140Earlier 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.
I sometimes heard vague theories of rich people on the east coast having their jets ready to fly to New Zealand, but I'm not sure how realistic that would be in such a scenario.