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

201–210 of 302 posts

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

#201

Post by cloverich »

cm2187 wrote: post #134
cloverich wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not an argument against my statement, IMHO. If I were a nation without Nuclear arms, I would absolutely be racing to get them. That's independent of whether or not I think the aggregate risk increases. The US and Russia have deep levels of communication that have evolved over time in responses to near misses with Nuclear weapon firings. The more countries that enter in to that territory, the more need to have that communication and the more chances and avenues there are for mis cues. One mis cue results in at least one nuke being fired, and where one flies several have the chance to. And that's ignoring the fact that fanatical / suicidal regimes do in fact come to power from time to time.

I too hope that more nuclear arms will result in reduced conflicts and a reduced risk model overall. But if I were to bet, I'd bet that if we 10x the number of players with Nuke's, we 10x the number of chances for some to be used.

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

#203

Post by arandomusername »

WinstonSmith84 wrote: post #105
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.

Yes they did (with Russia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_de... > ... In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia ... in exchange for economic compensation and assurances from Russia, the United States and United Kingdom to respect the Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.... And yes there is this point but this is irrelevant. Ukraine played by the…

> Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Which they did. Please tell me which exact aspect of the Budapest Memorandum did US not follow through?

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

#204

Post by arandomusername »

kdavis wrote: post #109
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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

> Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Which they did. Please tell me which exact aspect of the Budapest Memorandum did US not follow through?

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

#205

Post by m4rtink »

adrr wrote: post #131

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.

Yes, under the Budpest memorandum Ukraine should have been protected by the USA from Russian aggression in exchnage for giving up its nuclear arsenal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

Given how that played out, not one will ever get ridd of nuclear weapons they have & many more will logically now need to have them as well to assure basic security for their country.

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

#206

Post by arandomusername »

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…

The Budapest Memorandum did not promise any defense.

> Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Which they did.

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

#207

Post by rich_sasha »

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.

I wonder how it works in practice.

I share the scepticism that the UK can fire these independently. But then, from a purely technical PoV, you'd imagine these missiles can be fired:

- from underwater, away from radio reception

- as a second strike weapon, i.e. with command centres destroyed

So here's the dichotomy. If these assumptions hold, then the UK must be able to fire the missiles independently - they seem to work offline. And if they don't, then they are even more useless than I thought. Essentially they would only be good for a first strike, approved by the US, or second strike in a sub-global conflict, not even for a NATO-wide defence in an all-out war.

I can't see a third way. Maybe US satellites which would diffuse a Trident in-flight if the US says so?

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

#208

Post by ssssvd »

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.

You can’t fully defeat a nuclear power. You can, at best, drive it back — if you’re willing to pay the price.

And that price means Europe will have to absorb a dramatic, sustained drop in quality of life — plus forced mobilisation.

Even the Poles - the most serious player in Europe right now — only have about 200,000 troops.

The British and French combined have maybe 40,000 soldiers actually capable of high-intensity combat. That’s enough for, what - four weeks of real war?

After that, there will be no volunteers. That means a draft.

So the real question is: Are you ready to be drafted to “defeat Russia”?

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

#209

Post by Tainnor »

watwut wrote: post #198
Tainnor wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Oh for sure, I agree, OP's take was nonsensical.

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

#210

Post by surgical_fire »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #194
surgical_fire wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, the UK does not belong to the EU. So it really doesn't matter in this conversation all that much.

As for the EU, I imagine it will eventually create more integration tiers above the ones that currently exist. If I am not terribly mistaken Macron advocates for such a thing. Not a bad idea to be frank.

Post reply on HN