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

151–160 of 302 posts

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

#151

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #114
aerostable_slug wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because this President campaigned on ending the long wars, which he opposed. I'm not sure where the confusion lies because Trump has been very clear about getting the US out of what he views as foreign entanglements. I'm not passing judgement on it, just noting that what we're seeing is consistent with his campaign messaging.

> getting the US out of what he views as foreign entanglements The point is our alliances are also foreign entanglements. These idiots didn’t think through that withdrawing from those means fewer weapons (and other) orders from America, more nukes pointed at America and less strategic depth between our adversaries and our shores.

The US hasn't withdrawn from any of its military alliances, and thus far has expressed no plans to do so.

I feel like this is where a lot of NATO commentary gets bogged down. There's a large group of people, conventionally referred to in US media as "the blob" (https://www.vox.com/22153765/joe-biden-foreign-policy-team-r...), who believe that the United States has an affirmative duty to engage in lots of global military interventions above and beyond the actual commitments it's made. I don't think they're lying - people seem to genuinely believe, for example, that the US is betraying NATO by cutting off support for Ukraine when most NATO members would prefer to expand support. But the North Atlantic Treaty simply does not contain a promise to align foreign policy in this way.

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

#152

Post by throw0101a »

sva_ wrote: post #140
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.

I sometimes heard vague theories of rich people on the east coast having their jets ready to fly to New Zealand, but I'm not sure how realistic that would be in such a scenario.

> fly to New Zealand

It's a 7700nmi trip:

* http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?MS=wls&DU=nm&P=KJFK-NZAA

Not many private jets (or even commercial ones) can do non-stop:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Global_7500

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream_G650/G700/G800

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

#153

Post by [deleted] »

pqtyw wrote: post #142
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Technically the Budapest Memorandum was a "political agreement" between the governments of US/UK/Russia at the time. It wasn't an actual treaty like NATO that was ratified by congress. Of course you do have a point about the "such action as it deems necessary" part.

[deleted]

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

#154

Post by EA-3167 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #138
EA-3167 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> in the delusion of a united Europe, in which Germany is willing to subordinate itself to France The Haudenosaunee a/k/a Iroquois had a unique confederacy consisting of two dominant and a few lesser powers [1][2]. And the Roman Republic had two consuls, including on campaign. Maybe a nuclear command inspired by both is the answer: any launch requires codes from each of Paris, Berlin and the head of state of the coun…

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.

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

#155

Post by JumpCrisscross »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #151
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> getting the US out of what he views as foreign entanglements The point is our alliances are also foreign entanglements. These idiots didn’t think through that withdrawing from those means fewer weapons (and other) orders from America, more nukes pointed at America and less strategic depth between our adversaries and our shores.

The US hasn't withdrawn from any of its military alliances, and thus far has expressed no plans to do so. I feel like this is where a lot of NATO commentary gets bogged down. There's a large group of people, conventionally referred to in US media as "the blob" ( https://www.vox.com/22153765/joe-biden-foreign-policy-team-r... ), who believe that the United States has an affirmative duty to engage in lots of global mil…

> people seem to genuinely believe, for example, that the US is betraying NATO by not supporting Ukraine

You’re correct in this being incorrect.

The informed concern is in Trump and Musk’s coziness towards Putin. That brings up questions around what, if anything, Trump would do if Putin annexed Latvia.

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

#156

Post by yks »

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.

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 paid off for them. Now imagine they were facing a prospect of non-friendly US administrations for decades, they would've already stopped.

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

#157

Post by tetrisgm »

I’m simple on that notion: Russia is our adversary.

They have assassinated people in the EU and UK. Sabotaged our pipelines. Paid anti EU politicians. Threatened EU powers. Shot down civilian flights. Made plans to invade the Baltics.

They are an adversary. We have weapons and an army. We should neutralize that adversary.

Russia has currently lost momentum in Ukraine. So they are seeking a temporary peace, to rebuild. Logic dictates that we start behaving as their adversary. To not give them any benefit, and build on that momentum to keep them diminished.

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

#158

Post by aerostable_slug »

clivestaples wrote: post #117
aerostable_slug wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because this President campaigned on ending the long wars, which he opposed. I'm not sure where the confusion lies because Trump has been very clear about getting the US out of what he views as foreign entanglements. I'm not passing judgement on it, just noting that what we're seeing is consistent with his campaign messaging.

Yeah, agree that's what is happening. My original question wasn't rhetorical in nature. I would really like to know what would secure victory without escalating it to involve American troops on the ground and/or potentially a nuclear exchange.

I would as well. It's unclear to me what would change the picture there. Do they just need more of the same (155mm artillery shells, drones, tanks, etc.) or are there qualitative things that need to change?

This speaks to the fact that I haven't seen any clear "this is how we win it" proposals. I could understand why the details would be classified, but I've not seen broad strokes, either. Has anyone else?

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

#159

Post by locallost »

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.

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, so that they can get retired for further enormous costs. I'm not sure you can lead where your allegedly biggest asset is barely holding its head above water and is long term s huge liability.

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

#160

Post by cloverich »

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.

> 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 can't escalate, because the west has more leverage and more options, it would be zero sum at _best_ for Russia. The West would likely hand them Crimea for peace, but giving them all of Donbas is too large a victory for Russia. The post WW2 orders foundational principle is that appeasement of land grabs leads to stronger positions for the grabber - see Hitler's numerous escalations before his full on attack as an example. Ideally you don't wait until the attacker is on your door step before fighting back, that's what this whole debacle is about.

Some of the options could have been:

    - Continue on, but with aligned support from the left and right (read: Russian psyops campaign vs the US right failed). Probably enough on its own.
    - Pressure China (tariffs) to pressure Russia
    - Pressure Europe to increase commitments
    - Offer Russia Crimea (already done ages ago, when their position was stronger)
    - Setup an increasing schedule of more advanced weaponry
> How would Russia respond if we send more advanced weaponry?

AFAIK they haven't responded to the last several increases; what would they respond with? The Nuke is their last card, and in addition to pulling in more Western support would alienate the other players (India, China) who have their own leverage on Russia. IDK overall it seems like the only major limitation here was the psychology of Trump's party.

Post reply on HN