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

161–170 of 302 posts

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

#161

Post by JumpCrisscross »

rKarpinski wrote: post #141
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Eurasia to always having been Asia

Nothing in the text you’re referring to implies that. It just suggests Russian isn’t fully European. Which has never been in doubt. Within a security context where Russia is the aggressor, it makes sense to exclude them.

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

#162

Post by CamperBob2 »

hypeatei wrote: post #74
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.

You won't want to live anywhere after nukes start flying. Even if your location isn't hit directly, you're dealing with a complete collapse of society as we know it. Not to mention things like nuclear winter. > The US is too big to bomb in its entirety. Russia has ~5500 warheads, so maybe not every square inch but certainly several cities and other locations in each state.

If more than 10% of their warheads still work, I'd be (hopefully metaphorically) blown away.

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

#163

Post by palata »

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…

> On a more practical level, they would need to ditch the Maastricht rules on fiscal discipline

I think this has been suggested by Ursula von der Leyen. Europe has to get united and get to the point where it can defend itself. The US has definitely proven that they are unreliable, so it has to be done. But it will take some time, and in the meantime Europe has to rely on the US. If not as allies, then as partners.

The US have been threatening to become enemies, but that's not (yet) the case, which is why the EU is still considering relying on a partner.

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

#164

Post by dragonwriter »

t_mann wrote: post #150
EA-3167 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In the short term, that's true.

If they can't independently maintain the weapons, it ceases to be true beyond the short term, though.

OTOH, my understanding is that that is not a problem for the UK; they don't “essentially lease” their arsenal from the US; they use domestically developed and maintained warheads on purchased-from-the-US but locally-maintained Trident missiles carried by UK-built-and-maintained subs.

They might have some uphill work if they wanted major delivery system upgrades, but their existing arsenal is, AFAIK, functionally independent of an ongoing dependence on the US.

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

#165

Post by bluehornet »

A two front war is tough. Trump has also said the he'll get Greenland, "one way or the other":

https://www.politico.eu/article/us-will-take-greenland-one-w...

The last time a US president has used that phrase Nord Stream was blown up.

There is a high chance that all of this is political theater designed to get the EU to spend more on its military and take over the Ukraine war so the EU will be the culprit while the US can trade with Russia and China. Playing off continental powers against each other has historically been the hallmark of Britain and now the US, both of whom live in splendid isolation.

The EU should hedge against this scenario and seek better relations with Russia.

If Trump is serious and none of this is theater, the EU should also seek better relations with Russia, otherwise it will have a two front war against the two superpowers.

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

#166

Post by clivestaples »

picafrost wrote: post #148
clivestaples wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

War of attrition. I thought we'd be further along after three years of sanctions and weapons but I wonder if Ukraine has the manpower to keep it up. From what I understand, Ukraine is drafting men ages 25-60 which may signal they need boots on the ground soon.

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

#167

Post by JumpCrisscross »

EA-3167 wrote: post #154
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 coun…

The Germans have the money, the largest GDP in the EU and France is a distant second (would be third if you counted the UK though). At the end of the day there is no EU without Germany, and as we've seen with Ukraine, waging a war without funds is like trying to breathe in a vacuum.

> Germans have the money, the largest GDP in the EU and France is a distant second

For nuclear purposes Germany is irrelevant. For martial purposes, it’s a distant second to France.

It obviously should be part of mutual-defence discussions. But it doesn’t need to be and doesn’t bring that much to the table in the short term. (Absent a hypothetical land war.)

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

#168

Post by anjel »

jlaporte wrote: post #11
zzzeek wrote: post #2

yeah, they're going to have to build a new NATO-like alliance and go it alone. Seems like it would be a good thing if the EU had some military teeth of their own to give them more leverage in all the Bad Things going on now.

Macron has been advocating for a European Army for around a decade. With the recent EU defence spending announcements the idea of a unified command structure in Europe is becoming likely. The French offer to extend their nuclear umbrella seems to me to have two purposes: 1. Deal with the immediate vulnerability opened by questions over U.S. Article 5 commitments to NATO 2. Try to get ahead of potential nuclear weapon…

3. Repair the French economy with "defense" industry $pending.

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

#169

Post by TheAlchemist »

locallost wrote: post #159
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.

France depends on Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Niger for uranium. At least it depended on Niger until there was a military coup that stopped further exports. If there is a large scale conflict, I would not bet on those reactors accomplishing much. Not to mention that they did not accomplish much three years ago during the biggest energy crisis in decades, and that they need humongous investments just to keep running, s…

That's interesting. In case of large scale conflict, for how long could French reactors run ? I assumed for quite long, am I completely wrong here ?

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

#170

Post by palata »

ssssvd wrote: post #122
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 p…

> though they ultimately chose to denuclearize under the Budapest Memorandum in exchange for security assurances.

That the US and the UK (and obviously Russia) did not honour, did they?

Post reply on HN