Archive: https://archive.is/2025.03.18-050128/https://www.ft.com/content/7fed8f2b-98c7-43c6-88b3-d66be449bfac
Macron has repeatedly stressed that a French president would always have ultimate power to decide whether to use the bomb — the same applies to Britain and the US within Nato.
Together, British and French nuclear capabilities would at least make Moscow think twice about attacking, said a senior western official.
However, “what really influences Russian decision-making is the scale of US deterrence”, he said. Europe would need at least a decade of spending at around 6-7 per cent of GDP if it wanted to emulate that and acquire another 1,000 warheads, he added.
You must log in or register to comment.
I have never supported nukes before. Now I think; if you want to not be Ukraine, you need your own nukes. Noone is giving Ukraine nukes. They won’t give you nukes. They won’t use them on your behalf. No one wants to use them. But you need them non the less.
if you are surrounded by cooperating, well functioning democracies, then all is well. You can rely on the empathy of the voting poulace. Dictators, however, are unreliable.
Russia literally can’t beat the Ukraine, I’m fairly certain they can’t take a unified Europe
Russia is doing their best to sabotage the unity part.
Brits have for a long time had enough nukes to destroy Moscow (and Sankt-Petersburg?) sometimes this is called “Moscow criterion”. French nuclear arsenal is larger
That sounds like a reasonable amount of nukes. If the threat of losing one or two major cities isn’t deterrent enough, were in absolute lunatic territory anyways, and no amount of more nukes will deter any further.
The French have been always pretty explicit about it:
Within ten years, we shall have the means to kill 80 million Russians. I truly believe that one does not light-heartedly attack people who are able to kill 80 million Russians, even if one can kill 800 million French, that is if there were 800 million French.
(De Gaulle in 70s)
Russia is also pretty much those two cities and their little colonies, in practice.
If one side only loses 1 or 2 cities, you do not have mutual assured destruction. And the loss of 2 cities is really not much compared to the general losses in conventional war. So no, that’s absolutly not enough deterrent.
There is no Russia without Moscow and St. Petersburg as that’s the imperial core. Without central authority to enforce unity by force the rest would instantly splinter.
Moscow has 11 million inhabitants. That’s half the Soviet losses in WWII, which were insanely high.
It’s about the total losses of the Axis powers over the spam of the entire war.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Russia has 140 million people and is demonstrably not to concerned about their well-being. I would it past Putin to sacrifice 11 million people if it meant Russia was the only nuclear armed superpower left standing.
Destorying a city or two, even if it’s the capital, will not destory a countries military or industrial capabilities. You can’t have mutual assured destuction of only one side actually has the capability to destroy the other.
That’s correct, although the stuff he personally cares about is in the two big cities. You’re right that it’s not MAD exactly, but it’s more of a deterrent than it would be if this was DC and New York, or Paris and London.
Help Ukraine. Ukraine has competence in nuclear weaponry and energetics. Ukraine isn’t just a wheat growing banana-republic.
However, “what really influences Russian decision-making is the scale of US deterrence”, he said.
I find that hard to believe, considering that nuclear weapons have no strategic or tactical military applications whatsoever and only serve as an (effective) PR-campaign for scaring opposing civilian populations.
… does the Russian civilian population have any influence on Russian decision-making? Is there any point in running expensive PR-campaigns against them?nuclear weapons have no strategic or tactical military applications
They very much do. Nukes can be fine-tuned pretty well regarding blast radius, radiation intesity and duration of effect. Someone dropping a huge bomb on a city is how everyone pictures the start of a nuclear war but tactical missile strikes on military equipment and infrastructure would be much more likely. It’s extremely difficult to destroy fortified military structures with conventional weaponry.
Any tactical use would quickly escalate to strategic use. Anyone who claims otherwise doesn’t know what they are talking about (including the authors of the original article).
France has more than enough nukes as a deterrent. More important are credible second strike delivery mechanisms. Which rules out those silly gravity bombs the US has stationed in Germany for political reasons. How effective the French submarine fleet is in that regard is largely unknown, but on paper at least it looks solid.
Any tactical use would quickly escalate to strategic use.
I’d say there is a chance of a large scale conventional counter attack in that scenario but it’s a slim one. Definitely not a risk any sane person would ever take.
Well, maybe. But in which scenario would such a tactical nuke be used against an enemy that also has nukes? Most likely in one where the large scale conventional attack is already happening.
At least in Europe these tactical nukes are supposed to be a counter against a large scale conventional attack that can not be defended against with existing conventional means.
They have a pretty famous strategic use, actually. To be fair, it dovetails heavily with domestic politics, but MAD is still strategy.
… does the Russian civilian population have any influence on Russian decision-making? Is there any point in running expensive PR-campaigns against them?
Never forget Stanislav Petrov. In the end it’s a human that needs to press the button, at least for now.
Never forget Stanislav Petrov. In the end it’s a human that needs to press the button, at least for now.
Fair (with a special ominous shoutout to your “at least for now”), but do you think Petrov’s or any similar individual person’s decision making in this scenario would involve any considerations regarding the size launching nation’s or block’s arsenal? I.e. “Launch detected from US… hm, better play it safe. Launch detected from France… eh, hit that button!”?
I mean… nuclear threat is nuclear threat. I am not questioning the effectiveness of that threat, I’m questioning the premise of the article.When evaluating Mutually Assured Destruction scenarios military must consider backup plan for what happens after we bomb ourselves back to Stone Age. Russia has much more capability to carry on due to size, low population density and being used to things being awful all around. They’re mad but they are also cold calculating bastards that they are probably estimating chances of Syberia / Arctic being habitable after bombs and global warming.
„What is the point of the world without Russia in it?” - Putin bluffed some time ago.
A full nuclear war would bring nuclear winter to the global north.
Full scale one would bring death and destruction to the whole world one way or another. But a limited one with UK/France? 🤷♂️
There was a recent study that even a limited nuclear war between India and Pakistan would cause a global nuclear winter with billions dying from hunger.
You’re very likely right. India and Pakistan have roughly the same combined amount of warheads as UK & France do. Russia has much more so even in the best scenario outlook is rather grim but thankfully the deterrence has been working amazingly for every state with nukes, so far.
What really worries me is that in the event of a global war we’ll be dealing with lots of previously secret weapons. Satnav will go poof once Russia explodes their garbage bombs in space and that’s just one of the credible threats done so far.
There is a French movie about a similar situation : The Wolf’s Call.
the French military command detects a nuclear missile sent from Russia towards France, they send the order to retaliate to their submarine but … (I am trying not to spoil the whole movie, people should watch it. Even though it’s from 2019 it is very fitting with what is happening now)
More countries need to go nuclear now that America is the 2IC of the new axis of evil
France needs to reintroduce its tactical nukes.
they always had these available
Didn’t they phase them out in the late 90’s? I’m talking battlefield nukes, low yield to take out an airfield or industrial complex.
The TN 81 has a minimum yield of 100 kilotons, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. Battlefield nukes are much smaller yield. Putin has them in Belarus.
Russia claims to, at least
Nuke can be tactical or strategic regardless of yield. Suitcase nuke in capital of most probable adversary is strategic, 5Mt Spartan ABM is tactical. Here it comes down to it being a clearly announced capability that is hard to mistake for anything else and is one step before SLBMs
it might also have lower minimum yield
