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

141–150 of 302 posts

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

#141

Post by rKarpinski »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #133
rKarpinski wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tectonic_plates

Sure, maybe "political" + "boundary" was redundant.

But clearly missed the announcement that declared Eurasia to always having been Asia.

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

#142

Post by pqtyw »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #120
arandomusername wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US convinced Ukraine to scrap their nukes as they promised they would come to Ukraine's aid if needed No they didn't. There was never any promise like that.

> There was never any promise like that There wasn’t a treaty obligation. But there was a promise. Similarly, there is no treaty obligation for America to respond to Russia nuking Paris with even harsh words. Just promises around the treaty obligation to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force” [1]. Let there be no doubt: the United States is defaulting on its promises in Ukraine. [1…

Technically the Budapest Memorandum was a "political agreement" between the governments of US/UK/Russia at the time. It wasn't an actual treaty like NATO that was ratified by congress. Of course you do have a point about the "such action as it deems necessary" part.

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

#143

Post by ssssvd »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #103
ssssvd wrote: post #92

Ah, the formation of German-lead coalition to oppose Russia AND US, how fresh. Surely third time will be the charm.

> German-lead coalition to oppose Russia AND US Macron isn’t German.

He hasn’t managed to lead much of anything so far. The British will happily switch sides the moment they can play those Continental fools against each other again — it’s practically a national sport, and it always works.

When the real trouble starts, it’ll come down to the Germans and the Poles, as it usually does.

On the bright side, all that capital fleeing France and Germany will go a long way toward reindustrializing the US and giving Britain’s economy a much-needed shot in the arm — so, it’s not all bad.

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

#144

Post by dragonwriter »

cm2187 wrote: post #127

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 a…

> That's why de Gaulle left NATO in the first place,

De Gaulle did not leave NATO, the alliance; France has been a member of NATO since its founding without interruption.

France left NATO’s integrated military command from 1966 to 2009, and also did not join the NATO nuclear planning group when it rejoined to integrated military command.

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

#145

Post by LAC-Tech »

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.

Absolutely fair points. He's at least trying. But it's the tragic comedy of the point at which he has to start from, and the date on the calendar...

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

#146

Post by StrauXX »

Retric wrote: post #129
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You don't know where the enemy ICBM warheads will land until it is too late. So you have to assume that they will target the silos

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

#147

Post by TheAlchemist »

EA-3167 wrote: post #130
t_mann wrote: post #126

Earlier 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.

Exactly. And in these wild times, one realize that being dependent on the US, is no longer a viable path forward.

It's quite similar actually to Germany's dependence on Russian gas. It was all self inflicted (nobody seem to remember the corrupt German politicians, that all went to work for Gazprom and co...).

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

#148

Post by picafrost »

clivestaples wrote: post #95
picafrost wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US funded wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for 20 years with no idea what the next move was, no tangible end in sight, and stakes far lower. The so-called threat of weapons of mass destruction was enough to swiftly defeat Iraq's army, topple its government, and start an unprecedented manhunt for its leader. Russia has invaded a neighboring country twice and spent the first two years of the war they started threatenin…

I don't need a lecture on Russia's character. What I was curious to learn from you, or anyone, what could be done differently to defeat them? How would Russia respond if we send more advanced weaponry? Does Ukraine have the men to fight? I'm getting downvoted but honestly looking for answers.

It’s a war of attrition now, which is a war of will and logistics. Can anything be done differently? I don’t know, but I don’t think so. Isn’t victory under these circumstances making the war so costly that your opponent must find a way out?

The US was doing that. Russia’s will has won out over the US’s, that is a defeat, and we can only hope next time it isn’t the same.

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

#149

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Retric wrote: post #129
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> nuking empty silo’s is pointless

Nuking full siloes is the point of a first strike. So yes, you’re relatively safe near a silo field if America is launching first and the adversary assumes or knows that every silo launched perfectly.

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

#150

Post by t_mann »

EA-3167 wrote: post #130
t_mann wrote: post #126

Earlier 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.

Without knowing anything about the arrangement, I would assume that as far as these matters are concerned, whoever controls the launch button effectively owns the thing. Those things are made exactly for the kind of situations where treaties aren't enough.
Post reply on HN