Macron Suggests Extending French Nuclear Umbrella To European Allies In Face Of Russian Aggression.
-
Bro by definition you can only have two hemispheres. Lmao
How many R are there in Strawberry
-
Bro by definition you can only have two hemispheres. Lmao
Unless you let some of them overlap, I guess, which is maybe what OP was thinking.
-
Is this the start of Cold War 2.0 ?
Hopefully. All the other possibilities I can think of are darker.
-
That was terrifying sixty years ago. Nowadays lots is going wrong and we're actively leaning into the destruction of our habitat.
Not placing any false equivalencies on the table here, MAD would be worse. It's just that we're used to the idea by now, too numb.
And there's rituals and rules with gravity surrounding them now. During the Cuban missile crisis nukes were seen as just another weapon. At this point they're more like symbols of state that you can hypothetically end the world with.
-
France has what NATO doesnt: a preemptive defense nuclear option.
Does the UK not have first strike capabilities?
(I know nothing!)
-
People make fun of France for their military due to a meme but damn.
They are ready to protest, have the guillotines and also have Fuck Putin nukes.
Ah France, I hope you never change.
Relevant XKCD. (On explain, because it's Umwelt)
-
I trust France a damn sight more than I trust the US
Well, that doesn't mean hope is high. Historically, France acquired nuclear weapons because it believes that only its own capabilities can guarantee its defense, rather than relying on the protection of another nuclear power. If France does not trust others to ensure its own security, why should its allies do that? In his speech yesterday, Macron emphasized that other European countries must develop their own defense capabilities. Furthermore, it is not a new concept that France’s nuclear arsenal also serves as a deterrent against attacks on its allies.
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/dgris/politique-defense/la-dissuasion-nucleaire-francaise
-
Does the UK not have first strike capabilities?
(I know nothing!)
It has the capability, but not the doctrine. Most nato countries have a mutually assured destruction policed enforced by secondary strikes in retaliation for a nuclear attack. France says "fuck that" and has a nuclear warning shot. None of the retaliatory nonsense. Clear aggression will be met with a limited nuclear strike with a dare to do something about it and start the real fireworks.
All "nuclear doctrine" is just outlining how far each country is willing to hold when playing chicken. America can afford to sit back and wait to retaliate because no one strike can feasibly take down every nuke America has. France doesn't really have that option, so their public stance is to use nukes as soon as their ability to use said nukes could be compromised, hence preemptive nuclear option.
-
It has the capability, but not the doctrine. Most nato countries have a mutually assured destruction policed enforced by secondary strikes in retaliation for a nuclear attack. France says "fuck that" and has a nuclear warning shot. None of the retaliatory nonsense. Clear aggression will be met with a limited nuclear strike with a dare to do something about it and start the real fireworks.
All "nuclear doctrine" is just outlining how far each country is willing to hold when playing chicken. America can afford to sit back and wait to retaliate because no one strike can feasibly take down every nuke America has. France doesn't really have that option, so their public stance is to use nukes as soon as their ability to use said nukes could be compromised, hence preemptive nuclear option.
Fascinating insight, thank you
-
And there's rituals and rules with gravity surrounding them now. During the Cuban missile crisis nukes were seen as just another weapon. At this point they're more like symbols of state that you can hypothetically end the world with.
I have to quibble with the idea that they were seem that way during the cold war. There was plenty of that attitude going around when America had the bomb alone of all others, but by the bay of pigs and all that, the logic of MAD was fully in effect. The field of game theory was being studied at that time by RAND specifically around possible applications with nuclear warfare.
I don't know if there's one prevailing mindset around nukes today, but I think we can both agree that the less people see them as mere weaponry, the better. I also fear that the 'madman theory' of Nixon's era is still being applied by too many rogue nations (in which I now include the US, personally). Such charades are eventually fatal.
-
well, the nuclear launch protocol varies between powers, but I suppose it would have to be the chief of the executive in some kind of according with a high military chief
Which would be Ursula von der Leyen at the moment.
-
Which would be Ursula von der Leyen at the moment.
As I said, it varies from one country to another, but some kind of agreement with a high military command is usually required. In any case, she is currently the head of the European executive power, she was elected by the citizens less than a year ago, yes, she should be an important point in this regard. She and whoever her successor is in the future
-
I have to quibble with the idea that they were seem that way during the cold war. There was plenty of that attitude going around when America had the bomb alone of all others, but by the bay of pigs and all that, the logic of MAD was fully in effect. The field of game theory was being studied at that time by RAND specifically around possible applications with nuclear warfare.
I don't know if there's one prevailing mindset around nukes today, but I think we can both agree that the less people see them as mere weaponry, the better. I also fear that the 'madman theory' of Nixon's era is still being applied by too many rogue nations (in which I now include the US, personally). Such charades are eventually fatal.
Early vs. late 60's makes all the difference here. MAD was first coined in 1962, which is the year in question, so obviously it hadn't grown to the point of being official doctrine, let alone a global, immovable strategic equilibrium. I'm not a professional historian, so maybe I'm missing something, but this has been my take on the period.
In the 70's the system as we know it starts to develop, and you see the ABM treaty signed as a symptom of this.
-
System shared this topic on
