French President Emmanuel Macron said it would be “madness” to ignore the threat Russia has become for Europe and said he is open to discussing the extension of France’s nuclear deterrence to Paris’s European allies.
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 explainXKCD, because it’s Umwelt)
Seems good. I trust France more to work in the interest of Europe than I trust the US. Because a safer Europe is in the interest of France. The US can just move on, France is right here.
As it should. Federalise NOW! It is the only REAL option
Viva la France!
But we cannot expect France to shoulder the entire burden. Other European nation should consider developing their own weapons as well.
Exactly!
Just what the world really needed.
The fact that us Canada are asking France and the UK for nuclear umbrella because of the US is a crazy time-line. Charles De Gaulle was right about the US and NATO.
Is this the start of Cold War 2.0 ?
Looks like it never ended and we just were not paying attention.
Wouldn’t mind a cold one tbh
It’s only cold because, if slightly anything goes awry, humanity ceases to exist.
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.
I have to quibble with the idea that they were seen 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.
Hopefully. All the other possibilities I can think of are darker.
Nuclear umbrella is a good band name
France also has political groups opposed to this and with government options. We need a European nuclear button, not a national one with promises, nor 27 national buttons. One. European. Everything else will lead us to more war later.
And who gets to press the european button…?
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.
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 like france <3
I like macron <3
He just cares deeply about the EU and europe.
Macron is a neoliberal d*** to his people, which is why there is so much unrest in France. He blocked a center-left majority coalition in favor of forcing a center-right coalition that since failed, after pulling the same snap-election stuff that got the Brexit in the UK.
Macron is the epitome of the rich exploiting the rest. It is just that he understands that EU is central to maintaining his rich friends assets.
Thank you; I’ve felt like I’ve been hallucinating the past week with Lemmy doubling down on capitalism – but in our backyard – and seemingly neglecting that Europe had its own long, and currently ongoing, history of colonialism and exploration.
The reach for shoring up existing systems – but just, now, in European control – rather than establishing better ones has been massively disappointing.
Are you from France? Or just another “socialist” that spends all their time attacking world leaders that are opposed to fascism?
Macron is not opposed to fascism. If he was, he would have embraced the center-left coalition instead of forcing a center-right coalition which failed within a year, further strengthening the fascists in France.
Neoliberal Capitalists are always open to Fascism as long as it preserves their wealth.
We have a word for this… NATO
France has what NATO doesnt: a preemptive defense nuclear option.
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 and 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
Preemptive defense is just a fancy way of saying first strike.
And if you’re going to do a first strike against russia, you need a lot of capacity. A lot. You basically have to destroy nuclear assets in three hemispheres at the same time. Not including the oceans.
First strike is a great tool against asymmetric adversaries, but peer or near peer adversaries it’s not an option
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.
How many R are there in Strawberry
Which of France’s allies truly believes that, in the event of an imminent threat of conflict with a nuclear power, France would be willing to defend an ally? Given France’s history of double standards and frequent shifts in stance, such a commitment seems highly questionable.
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
Give it to Taiwan too.
