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

191–200 of 302 posts

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

#191

Post by EA-3167 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #167
EA-3167 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Again, when we're talking about warfare, there is a strong economic and industrial dimension. Unless the scope of your warfare is limited to extremely fatalistic worst-case scenarios.

Russia was on the ropes in many ways because of the cost of the war they're waging, while Ukraine was in a stronger position because of aid and promises of future rebuilding investment. If push comes to shove and there's a European conflict, Germany has a (horrifically) proven track record of war production.

I'm also baffled by the claim that Germany is a distant second to France in terms of military. Germany doesn't have any need for a carrier because they don't have colonies/former colonies they want to "work with". Germany does however spend more than twice what France does on their military budget, although in GDP terms France spends more... alas France has a much smaller GDP. Germany has a slightly smaller military force, but only about 19k or so.

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

#192

Post by mongol »

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.

This fantastic speech points in that direction. This is the type of rhetoric that can rally Europeans behind France

https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1j46edt/we_are_figh...

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

#193

Post by palata »

ssssvd wrote: post #188
palata wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

It had been honoured — or at least not directly violated — for 20 years. And in international affairs, 20 years is "forever." Between 1918 and 1938, how many treaties were signed, broken, rewritten, and ignored by how many powers?

I'll keep that in mind next time I sign a contract: "I commit to honouring it until I don't".

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

#194

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

surgical_fire wrote: post #121
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even if you grant that perception of the US (which UK at least has explicitly stated it doesn't agree with), it doesn't resolve the practical obstacles where different member states don't necessarily agree on military action. One good example came up just today; France and the UK want to deploy peacekeeping troops to Ukraine to enforce a ceasefire, but Italy does not. In a unified European military, does Italy get a veto, or does the command structure somehow require Italian divisions to deploy somewhere the Italian government doesn't want them to go?

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

#195

Post by m4rtink »

tombert wrote: post #187
endofreach wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well he has talked repeatedly about taking Greenland "by force", which in itself wouldn't be a world war, but of course is still terrible. I think the concern is that telling Ukraine to surrender their land after they were invaded by Russia will give Russia the confidence to start attacking other European countries. Traditionally, NATO would have protected us from that happening, but with Trump upsetting all our NATO…

Well, this is how yout tell anynone feeling like fixing like they might be in a position of fixing old grudges or grabbing some land - go for it! :P Not very safe and can get out of hand very very quickly...

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

#196

Post by kdmtctl »

deactivatedexp wrote: post #36
erentz wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surrendering is not known to be a good negotiating position. They were building into a good position with russia very depleted and economically on the ropes. Despite hold ups in US aid over the Biden admin. Pressing more aid and strengthening their position would be better for negotiating a peace. But quite simply Trump/Vance/Musk don’t want that.

what do they get by supporting russia? would love some data

If I remember correctly Trump promised to stop the war in 24 hours. The only way to do negotiate this fast is to totally diminish one side's position. When there no discussion, there is nothing to negotiate. The goal is not long standing peace, it is a plain populism and potential "peacemaker" title, and likely even a Nobel prize, if this wasn't derailed by Zelensky who refuses take words as a guarantee.

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

#197

Post by s1artibartfast »

It would be nice to have a substantive discussion of the topic without falling into the well worn rhetorical traps.

In that sprit, I'm curious what advantages Euro-nukes offer relative to the existing French arsenal. What is the current status and limitation of French nuclear protection through NATO and European Union security guarantees, and how do these limitations compare to what nuclear protections the USA has historically provided?

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

#198

Post by watwut »

Tainnor wrote: post #190
watwut wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is the exact line of thinking that Hitler used to justify WW2. Hitlers literal claim was that Germany needs a living space, that Germans do not fit into German. Plus he claimed that the world is a war of races. Like, these were his literal justications.

Well yes. But he also claimed that Poland had attacked first.

The equivalent there would be Russian claims about Ukraine attacking them right before invasion. As of now, the Russian invasion itself is provably existing.

It is about zero paralel with "The war could have been over if Biden and Musk hadn’t meddled in Kyiv’s strategy."

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

#199

Post by ssssvd »

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…

And what exactly is "The West" these days? A glorified open-air Continental museum, a failed British Empire with an army the size of Belarus, and a bickering hegemon half-convinced it should retreat to regional power status, house divided and all.

Europeans are still high on their own supply, fantasizing they’re global players, when in reality they’ve got no money, no energy, no industry, no credible army, no unity, and no diplomatic weight — not even within their own borders.

Europe spent decades as an American piggy bank and a strategic liability. Now the bill’s come due — and Uncle Vlad is doing Uncle Donald a favor, playing the bogeyman just well enough to scare Europe’s capital and industry back into the safe harbor of the New World.

And if Russian pressure helps deliver "MAGA in four years" by triggering capital flight from Europe to the US — is Ukraine really too steep a price for such a valuable service?

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

#200

Post by m4rtink »

Epa095 wrote: post #67
colechristensen wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was under the impression from things I've read (though I don't remember where) that Japan has for a long time been everything but nuclear ready. As in they wanted to be able to say they didn't have nuclear weapons but in reality they'd done everything but final assembly of devices (or similar 95% complete kind of status). Perhaps even similar to Israel's assumed but never publicly acknowledged full nuclear capabili…

It's called nuclear latency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency Japan is considered a "paranuclear" state, with complete technical prowess to develop a nuclear weapon quickly, and is sometimes called being "one screwdriver's turn" from the bomb, as it is considered to have the materials and technical capacity to make a nuclear weapon at will.

Also the solid fueled orbital launch rockets Japan has are totally not ICBMs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-V#Potential_as_an_interconti...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epsilon_(rocket)#Vehicle_descr...

"The Epsilon is expected to have a shorter launch preparation time than its predecessors;[11][12][13] a function called "mobile launch control" greatly shortens the launch preparation time, and needs only eight people at the launch site,[14] compared with 150 people for earlier systems.[15]"

All this is just a coincidence. ^_-

Post reply on HN