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

291–300 of 302 posts

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

#291

Post by quackscience »

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…

This, basically. He's said that we're going to take Greenland one way or another, is talking about taking the Panama Canal, is basically telling Russia we're on their side and Europe can deal with it themselves, and China is ramping up activities around taking Taiwan [1]. He's also classified the cartels as terrorist organizations and has talked about sending in elite US forces to take them out, which Mexico has said they would view as a violation of their sovereignty.

I've been listening to a lot of French news lately and France is already talking about needing to build more nuclear weapons and to extend nuclear protections across Europe, as the US has in a short few weeks completely alienated all of our allies from the past 80 years [2].

So, I don't know, seems like we're closer to everything going to shit globally than in any other time in my 40+ years.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-will-work-firmly-a...

[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/how-realistic-is-france...

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

#292

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Retric wrote: post #218
StrauXX wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The B part of ICBM means ballistic, and they are. Thus you can get a useful approximation of where it’s going to land based on the initial trajectory. By useful I mean you can do significantly better than saying if it’s targeting the middle of the US, east, or west coast. Though it’s quite a large area.

> you can get a useful approximation of where it’s going to land based on the initial trajectory

If you’re doing a first strike and aren’t a moron, you conventionally strike the early-warning radars first. Ideally in a plausibly-deniable way.

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

#293

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Retric wrote: post #239
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

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

That’s incoherent with this thread, which started with someone asking what would happen “if someone decides to nuke the US.” Not if France launched a suicidal first strike on America.

The realistic scenarios for America getting nuked are a first strike from a rogue state, first strike from Russia or China, and second strike from Russia or China.

First strike from a rogue state is basically nuclear terrorism; it will probably target a population centre or something close and hittable, e.g. Guam for Pyongyang. First strikes from Russia or China would target silos. (Unless theatre-based, e.g. hitting Guam and our Japanese airbases ahead of an invasion of Taiwan.) Second strike would mean silos are probably empty, though not necessarily, these are hundreds of decades-old mechanisms in who knows what condition of readiness, but sure, if the American first strike is comprehensive and flawless, and the enemy omnipotent, we’d probably not see too many nukes go at silos. (You would at other nuclear infrastructure.)

So in general, no, if we’re in wide-scale nuclear war the planners who thought about this for decades in the Cold War may not have missed that launched tubes that have launched are now empty.

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

#294

Post by locallost »

akvadrako wrote: post #275
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…

Uranium is common, it's just not profitable to mine at current prices. But fuel costs are just a few percentage points of the total. If there were a shortage, it's no problem to pay even 5x more. Then you'll see suppliers pop up everywhere.

It's a theory that makes sense, but in reality e.g. during the crisis in 2022, one of the solutions 6 months in was to fly in welders from the US. Which might be a point that a solution can be found in a crisis, except the Edf had lost billions up to that point, after countless delays, finishing the year over 15 billion in the red. Overall, that industry has been incapable of delivering anything in a reasonable timeframe for decades now, especially in France.

So I would not take theories for granted, even if they make sense.

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

#295

Post by Retric »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #292
Retric wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The B part of ICBM means ballistic, and they are. Thus you can get a useful approximation of where it’s going to land based on the initial trajectory. By useful I mean you can do significantly better than saying if it’s targeting the middle of the US, east, or west coast. Though it’s quite a large area.

> you can get a useful approximation of where it’s going to land based on the initial trajectory If you’re doing a first strike and aren’t a moron, you conventionally strike the early-warning radars first. Ideally in a plausibly-deniable way.

First strike detection isn’t limited to early warning radar or ground based systems except in the very early days of the Cold War.

There’s no plausibility deniable way to take these systems down in practice.

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

#296

Post by Retric »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #293
Retric wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> My position is first strikes vs US, Russia, or China are almost completely useless That’s incoherent with this thread, which started with someone asking what would happen “if someone decides to nuke the US.” Not if France launched a suicidal first strike on America. The realistic scenarios for America getting nuked are a first strike from a rogue state, first strike from Russia or China, and second strike from Russ…

> First strike from a rogue state is basically nuclear terrorism

Obviously by definition someone can attack first, however:

“First strike capability is a country's ability to defeat another nuclear power by destroying its arsenal to the point where the attacking country can survive the weakened retaliation while the opposing side is left unable to continue war.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_strike_(nuclear_strategy...

So yes in theory sure a first strike would take out nuclear silos, but neither side believed they could preform a successful first strike. It’s a theoretical goal, not something that seems to have been possible barring the very early days of the Cold War before ICBM’s existed.

Which then brings up the question of what exactly you target if you assume thousands of nukes will hit you regardless of what you aim for.

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

#297

Post by iteratethis »

glimshe wrote: post #284

I see we've had hours of the European echo chamber here. I'm an American but I obviously don't represent my country. I just want to say one thing... You Europeans don't need to worry. We will not abandon you in case Russia shows up in NATO territory because we have too long of a history together and strong commercial relations. We are a large country and you can bet we have shared values. It's in our strongest intere…

"You Europeans don't need to worry. We will not abandon you in case Russia shows up in NATO territory because we have too long of a history together and strong commercial relations."

This history has been wiped out in a month's time. Trump has threatened to annex EU territory, plays with economic destruction on the daily, constantly lies about Europe and mocks and humiliates us.

America is now a threat and an enemy. "Don't worry" will not cut it.

Your mind must be truly warped when you think supporting a sovereign country that is ruthlessly destroyed by Russia is "disrespecting Russia".

We do not have shared values. Yesterday Trump decided to cut sharing intelligence so that Russian missiles and drones can go through without Ukraine being able to prepare for them. Trading human lives for a better mineral deal, like picking a corpse.

Demonic "values".

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

#298

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#299

Post by iteratethis »

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…

A few days ago the press secretary of the White House closed the session by commenting on a hockey game to be played that night between the US and "our soon-to-be 51st state", whilst grinning.

A declaration of war packaged as a prank.

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

#300

Post by [deleted] »

madspindel wrote: post #43

I was listening to an interview with the Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson about this. He said it's good that Europe has nuclear weapons capacity. Then he says something like "it's not relevant to us right now but could be in the future". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_progra...

[deleted]
Post reply on HN