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

221–230 of 302 posts

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

#221

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

cm2187 wrote: post #107
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the collapse of the US as "The World's Policeman", will result in the most nuclear proliferation since the 50s. That alone will make the world a much, much more dangerous place.

Why more dangerous? I am worried about religious fanatics armed with nuclear weapons. I am not really worried about Germany, South Korea, Japan or Taiwan armed with them. The more deterence, the less likely there will be a war. You go to war when you think you can get away with it, not when you think there is even a 10% chance all you major cities will be nuked.

> I am not really worried about Germany, South Korea, Japan or Taiwan armed with them.

You should be. The more small states with nuclear weapons, the more chances there are that any one country feels like a nuclear assault could be "worth it". Heck, just look at India and Pakistan. I can't remember which Indian government minister said it, but years ago he essentially said that India could "absorb" a nuclear strike from Pakistan, because since India is bigger with a lot more people, any nuclear volley would mean the complete annihilation of Pakistan while India would "only" lose a couple hundred million people...

The more proliferation there is, the higher the chance any one government will move away from MAD theory to "well, guess we've got nothing left to lose".

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

#222

Post by JumpCrisscross »

arandomusername wrote: post #219
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

§ 4 only applies "if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used" [1]. Russia is violating § 2. But Trump, Musk and Vance, by directly negotiating with Putin in respect of Ukraine's borders, are failing "to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" (§ 1). [1] https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/file…

4 is a bit ambigious if the nuclear part applies to the threat or to both. Russia violates 2, but not US. Negotiating with Putin does not violate "to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" because it's not enforced. Ultimately it is up to Ukraine if they want to accept the deal negotiated by Trump

> Negotiating with Putin does not violate "to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" because it's not enforced

America negotiating with Putin on the future borders of Ukraine absolutely disrespects its sovereignty (by not including them) and borders. The proper role, if we wanted to directly mediate, would have been making it clear to Kyiv that the resource roll was done while informing Russia that if they come to the negotiating table then sanctions relief will be on the table. Then step back.

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

#223

Post by Retric »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #149
Retric wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The fact first strike didn’t look like it would work has a lot to do with why we’ve avoid nuclear war.

I’m not saying nobody would ever target a missile silo, just that they aren’t particularly high on this list of targets.

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

#224

Post by [deleted] »

surgical_fire wrote: post #210
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#225

Post by absolutelastone »

StrauXX wrote: post #146
Retric wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And they have to assume you will assume this, so they would expect your silos will already be emptied in a retaliatory strike. Of course you have to trust early-warning systems and the ability to react decisively and quickly.

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

#226

Post by yks »

ssssvd wrote: post #212
yks wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The realistic answer is to say that Ukraine is going to be supplied with weapons for as long as needed, case closed. The whole Russian strategy after the initial blitz failure was to wait for Trump to get into power, who telegraphed to anyone with the brain, that he doesn't care about Ukraine and loves Putin very much. Russia can't do it forever, but it focused on appearing "strong" until the elections, the bet that…

Except Putin doesn’t need to outrun America — he just needs to outrun Ukraine. There’s a finite number of Ukrainians, and an even smaller number of Ukrainian men actually willing — or physically able — to fight. 20% of the population already left, and around 1.5 million of them went to Russia. Another 15% are stuck under occupation. Ukraine’s demographics were already a disaster after the WW2 wipe-out, the Soviet col…

Russian economy doesn't have enough juice to "outrun Ukraine" under the sanctions regime and the war intensity they maintain to impress the Westerners. It's not a "year or two", it's a decade at least.

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

#227

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Retric wrote: post #223
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The fact first strike didn’t look like it would work has a lot to do with why we’ve avoid nuclear war. I’m not saying nobody would ever target a missile silo, just that they aren’t particularly high on this list of targets.

> they aren’t particularly high on this list of targets

The target list is obviously conditional on a nuclear war happening. Unless your position is the U.S. is invulnerable to a first strike, then the silos should stay at the top of the list. (Even in a second strike you hit them and hit them fast. If there was a launch error you get a tremendous defensive ROI in taking them out.)

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

#228

Post by mostlysimilar »

mongol wrote: post #192
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...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j51HZncBvEI

YouTube link for easier sharing.

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

#229

Post by ssssvd »

yks wrote: post #226
ssssvd wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except Putin doesn’t need to outrun America — he just needs to outrun Ukraine. There’s a finite number of Ukrainians, and an even smaller number of Ukrainian men actually willing — or physically able — to fight. 20% of the population already left, and around 1.5 million of them went to Russia. Another 15% are stuck under occupation. Ukraine’s demographics were already a disaster after the WW2 wipe-out, the Soviet col…

Russian economy doesn't have enough juice to "outrun Ukraine" under the sanctions regime and the war intensity they maintain to impress the Westerners. It's not a "year or two", it's a decade at least.

So what’s the plan here, exactly?

Keep Ukraine on life support for a decade, hoping Russia collapses under sanctions?

Cuba’s still standing after 60 years. Iran after 40. The USSR took decades to fall — and none of them had China bankrolling their survival.

Russia’s economy bleeds, but it’s not cut off. China sends tech and machines, India buys the oil, and Europe keeps quietly paying top dollar for gas through backdoors.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s population shrinks, its economy is wrecked, and its army can’t fight without Western money, Western weapons — and soon, Western bodies.

Because if you actually want to push Russia back — not even collapse it, just push it back — that means European and American troops on the front line. Conscription, mobilized economies, the whole package.

Without a sustained meat grinder to chew up Russian forces, Russia just consolidates and digs in — with China keeping the whole thing afloat.

And if the West isn’t ready for that, who exactly do you think will still be standing in 10 years?

The only guaranteed winner? China — with Russia as a client state, Europe as a deindustrialized theme park, and America too exhausted to stop them.

If this is a game of who bleeds out last, Ukraine’s already done, Europe bleeds out first, Russia bleeds to its usual stupid level — and China walks away without a scratch.

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

#230

Post by ironyman »

throw0101d wrote: post #7

Some folks are arguing even further, "Japan, South Korea, and Poland need nuclear weapons immediately": > The modern world is a place where nuclear-armed great powers, led by authoritarian leaders, often feel the impulse to bully smaller nations. If those smaller nations lack nuclear weapons, they lie prostrate and vulnerable at the feet of the bullies. But if they have nukes, they are much harder to push around. Thi…

These are nuclear capable countries but actually fielding them requires strong political will and a supply chain that is untouchable to adversaries. Given the amount of sabotage the Chinese routinely do to Taiwanese, Japanese and Korean systems, I don't have much faith in that.

Small nuclear armed states will never have a credible deterrent because unfortunately due to their countries' small size they will always be at risk of a first strike. Chinese leaders believed they were in this position vis-a-vis the United States until about a decade and a half ago.

For example, we hear about North Korea a lot but they don't have a credible deterrent. Their stockpiles are easily destroyed in a surprise attack by a couple of JASSMs because they don't have the luxury of a large landmass like Russia and China to move their mobile launchers around.

Post reply on HN