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

231–240 of 302 posts

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

#231

Post by m4rtink »

ironyman wrote: post #230
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…

That's why you usually base nuclear missile in submarines for smaller contries, the idea being that if the country itself gets attacked, the hidden submarine will figure it out & launch the nukes while playing "god save the queen"/"sakura sakura"/"Gangam style" on the PA system. The last one possibly being a worse crime on humanity than the nukes.

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

#232

Post by arandomusername »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #222
arandomusername wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

Again, it doesn't because America is not deciding for Ukraine. America negotiates a deal with Russia, then sends the deal to Ukraine and it's up to them to take it or leave it. Just because you don't like how the negotiating is done does not mean that US is disrespecting Ukraine's sovereignty.

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

#233

Post by TiredOfLife »

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.

Soon to be more after trump gives them american ones

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

#234

Post by clivestaples »

yks wrote: post #156
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.

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…

Realistically, does Ukraine have the manpower to sustain this tempo for years? If not, what countries should put boots on the ground?

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

#235

Post by JumpCrisscross »

arandomusername wrote: post #232
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 i…

Again, it doesn't because America is not deciding for Ukraine. America negotiates a deal with Russia, then sends the deal to Ukraine and it's up to them to take it or leave it. Just because you don't like how the negotiating is done does not mean that US is disrespecting Ukraine's sovereignty.

> America negotiates a deal with Russia, then sends the deal to Ukraine and it's up to them to take it or leave it

Come on.

> because you don't like how the negotiating is done does not mean that US is disrespecting Ukraine's sovereignty

We're treating their borders as violable in the negotations. That violates the deal. The fact that many Americans have jumped the shark when it comes to honest dealing sort of underwrites why we're no longer a reliable partner--we don't even know when we're lying.

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

#236

Post by yks »

ssssvd wrote: post #229
yks wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 backd…

The Westerners have been tirelessly making excuses about how it's impossible to defeat Russia for a while now, so forgive me for not being impressed, but the proposition is quite simple really — if you don't want to support Ukrainians fighting for themselves against Russia today, Ukrainians will be sent to fight poles and others for Russia tomorrow. Of course as it's clear now, the US wouldn't defend Poland either, fighting Canada is the new geopolitical priority, so there's that.

Agree that China is a winner of it all simply by virtue of not being mad, but as they like to say in Russia — it's not the evening yet.

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

#237

Post by JumpCrisscross »

absolutelastone wrote: post #220
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…

This seems like a sideways trade and in the same spirit. Military defense guarantees, not on the table according to 4 presidents now, could become a possibility for that subset of land which does not require entry into a currently ongoing war. The prior tactic (mere 100's of billions of aid, plus some sanctions) has resulted in the same outcome via a stalemate anyway.

> Military defense guarantees, not on the table according to 4 presidents now, could become a possibility

If someone trades territory for a U.S. security guarantee--absent a U.S. base that would have to be bombed by anyone trying to take more of the country--they're an idiot.

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

#238

Post by aaronbrethorst »

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 suspect EU leaders started drawing up plans in 2017, and dusted them off in November.

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

#239

Post by Retric »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #227
Retric wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

My position is first strikes vs US, Russia, or China are almost completely useless.

Even France and the UK has 4 nuclear subs, the US has what 14 ballistic missile submarines?

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

#240

Post by Aloisius »

palata wrote: post #170
ssssvd wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It has been honored by the US and UK.

The only obligations it imposes, besides not attacking Ukraine, is to seek UN Security Council action should Ukraine be nuked. I don't know why people keep trotting it out like it's a comprehensive defense pact.

Post reply on HN