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

171–180 of 302 posts

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

#171

Post by adev_ »

TheAlchemist wrote: post #169
locallost wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

> ? I assumed for quite long, am I completely wrong here ?

France has more of 10y of Uranium stockpile for it's own consumption.

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

#172

Post by endofreach »

quackscience wrote: post #124
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.

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…

How is trump speed running towards another world war? To me– a non-us citizen– it does seem like quite the opposite.

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

#173

Post by palata »

aerostable_slug wrote: post #72
forty wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also selling weapons. What this idiot of Trump seems to have missed is that countries have been purchasing weapons to the US to actually purchase US protection (like Australia did when they cancelled the submarine purchase they did to France to purchase US ones instead). Now that the US has announced being an unreliable protector, there is probably good business opportunities for all the countries that are nuclear po…

Depends on the weapons. Certainly France is competitive when it comes to ships and many expendable munitions, but they aren't selling F-35s and the US is, and so far it seems that the juice is worth the substantial squeeze when it comes to that jet. The race is largely for second, because first place (the Lightning) is so far in front of the pack.

The F-35 is an expensive, very criticised (even inside the US) plane and the US notoriously have some kind of backdoor to it. It makes no sense to me that the EU would buy F-35 other than as a way to give money to the US ("buying protection").

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

#174

Post by t_mann »

palata wrote: post #163
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…

> 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. Th…

Almost nothing of relevance can be done overnight, but the first step is always the most important one. I haven't heard of that comment by vdL yet, maybe they're ready to take it, but the proof is in the pudding.

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

#175

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #155
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US hasn't withdrawn from any of its military alliances, and thus far has expressed no plans to do so. I feel like this is where a lot of NATO commentary gets bogged down. There's a large group of people, conventionally referred to in US media as "the blob" ( https://www.vox.com/22153765/joe-biden-foreign-policy-team-r... ), who believe that the United States has an affirmative duty to engage in lots of global mil…

> people seem to genuinely believe, for example, that the US is betraying NATO by not supporting Ukraine You’re correct in this being incorrect. The informed concern is in Trump and Musk’s coziness towards Putin. That brings up questions around what, if anything, Trump would do if Putin annexed Latvia.

It does, and it would be wise for the US to take steps to defuse those questions. This is why US troops often (and have continued in the new administration) engage in various celebrations and joint drills with NATO allies; there was a detachment of US troops in an Estonian Independence Day parade late last month, which I'm quite confident will not be happening for Russia Day in June no matter how much US-Russia relations warm.

But reasonable questions about the strength of an alliance aren't the same at all as withdrawal from or betrayal of the alliance.

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

#176

Post by hedgeho »

sva_ wrote: post #140
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.

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.

Billionaires such as Zuckerberg are also building luxury bunkers [1]. Kinda wish they tried to prevent apocalypse instead...

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prep...

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

#177

Post by palata »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #38
dtech wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU already also has a mutual defense clause extremely similar to NATO though

> EU already also has a mutual defense clause extremely similar to NATO Is it explicitly nuclear?

Well, there is still NATO. Because the US are unreliable doesn't mean that the other members of NATO are? Genuinely asking.

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

#178

Post by yks »

cloverich wrote: post #160
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.

> I was curious to learn from you, or anyone, what could be done differently to defeat them Russia doesn't have infinite capacity, their primary strategy was to take as much as possible at all costs as fast as possible, while waging info campaigns against the far right, in the hopes that Trump would come to power and cement a deal with them. If that option goes away, it strictly reduces Russias exit strategies. They…

> the only major limitation here was the psychology of Trump's party.

The party that has 50/50 chance of winning the elections has been communicating to Putin all this entire time that they will hand him Ukraine when they win. Now they conclude that this strategy didn't help Ukraine and therefore it's time to hand Ukraine to Putin. Brilliant strategy, I wish them to enjoy their Russian friends who will definitely not screw them over very soon.

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

#179

Post by palata »

erentz wrote: post #41
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…

I really think too many people inside America do not properly understand how much the world now thinks it’s at risk from the US. The world sees what has happened as us turning into an autocracy that is now adversarial to democratic countries. Words are actions in politics. They aren’t jokes or memes. We are threatening our neighbors. And for actions we have flipped on Ukraine and now withdrawn all aid, including inte…

To say it bluntly, everybody hates the US right now. I think that too many people inside the US do not really understand that.

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

#180

Post by kdmtctl »

throw0101a wrote: post #152
sva_ wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> fly to New Zealand It's a 7700nmi trip: * http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?MS=wls&DU=nm&P=KJFK-NZAA Not many private jets (or even commercial ones) can do non-stop: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Global_7500 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream_G650/G700/G800

That is why those models are in high demand. Not only for a doomsday scenario, but as a general convenience to fly non-stop.
Post reply on HN