Europe's Nuclear Trilemma:Difficult and Dangerous Options for Post-US Deterrence(foreignaffairs.com)
foreignaffairs.com
Europe's Nuclear Trilemma:Difficult and Dangerous Options for Post-US Deterrence
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/europe/europes-nuclear-trilemma
18 comments
I was under the impression that France uses a warning shot doctrine. Essentially, they nuke some military target to warn off an invasion, most likely before they go all "99 Red Balloons"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-sol_moyenne_port%C3%A9e
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-sol_moyenne_port%C3%A9e
The obvious move is to extend the French nuclear doctrine to all of the EU and to sharpen the threats. If a single Russian soldier touches EU soil, nuke Moscow.
That only works if you have US/Russia level nuclear infrastructure. Second-tier nuclear states are still vulnerable to the two superpowers just by sheer number advantage, be it warheads, delivery systems, or just the land area to hide things like VLF arrays
All of these ideas have the presumption of reason being applied. If reason is thrown out the window the nukes are meaningless and only endangering the planet.
It's like better the entire existence of the planet that the other guy is reasonable. I don't like the odds and consequences of that bet.
It's like better the entire existence of the planet that the other guy is reasonable. I don't like the odds and consequences of that bet.
this is also the reason why french nuclear doctrine is so offensive.
the force de dissuasion specifically allows for a nuclear "warning shot". A small nuclear warhead which is to be used against conventional forces to show the enemy france means bussiness and this is the last and final warning prior to Armageddon.
It also forces all major nuclear powers to act in some way if it is ever used. It allows france to wield a far larger stick compared to its nuclear arsenal.
It also forces all major nuclear powers to act in some way if it is ever used. It allows france to wield a far larger stick compared to its nuclear arsenal.
France has, apparently, 290 deployed nukes, mostly on SLBMs. Probably enough to give Moscow _some_ pause.
How about nuking his ‘villa’ by sochi. Personal note to Putin.
That would obviously be excessive. Mistakes do happen, even when it's Russia.
that's true, maybe Russia should offer a 200km buffer zone along their border to avoid accidentally invading their neighbours. They are known to make mistakes after all.
A much simpler and potentially more effective strategy than the long writeup in the article. I think it is only a MAD posture that can deter the Russians. I don’t think the EU should be depending on the UK given what’s happening in the US and the fact that the UK is not in the EU anymore.
Politically, this is not obvious. France is a semi-presidential system and Eastern Europe might not be willing to rely on an assumption that all future French presidents will abide by the maximalist doctrine.
It makes more sense to develop a "Polish bomb" with several other countries cooperating, and share it with the most threatened countries from Finland down to Romania.
It is "just" way more expensive.
It makes more sense to develop a "Polish bomb" with several other countries cooperating, and share it with the most threatened countries from Finland down to Romania.
It is "just" way more expensive.
what politically needs to happen is there to be real, fundamental steps towards a european defence union to safeguard its nuclear stockpile and thus its sovereignty.
The last couple of months have shown that the world is moving back into a multilateral order, in which individual european nations are far too small individually, in which they would be used as pawns on the geopolitical chessboard by nations with far larger economies and populations. i would rather have to discuss the use of defensive materiel with a Frenchman then an American, considering the latter has two oceans between it and any major threats.
The last couple of months have shown that the world is moving back into a multilateral order, in which individual european nations are far too small individually, in which they would be used as pawns on the geopolitical chessboard by nations with far larger economies and populations. i would rather have to discuss the use of defensive materiel with a Frenchman then an American, considering the latter has two oceans between it and any major threats.
> its nuclear stockpile
There is no European nuclear stockpile, so the first step would have to be making one to safeguard. France has made it clear that its nuclear weapons are France's alone.
There is no European nuclear stockpile, so the first step would have to be making one to safeguard. France has made it clear that its nuclear weapons are France's alone.
This is precisely the catch. Few believe that France would be ready to relinquish its exclusive control over its nuclear force.
> It makes more sense to develop a "Polish bomb" with several other countries cooperating, and share it with the most threatened countries from Finland down to Romania.
I really hope this will finally happen.
I really hope this will finally happen.
I don't think that's a viable idea. If we nuke Moscow, they'll nuke something of equivalent value to us, probably multiple EU capitals.
The same is true of France. If Russia nukes Paris, France will nuke Moscow. If Russia nukes Paris and Marseille, they nuke Moscow and St Petersburg, etc.
The countries that claim to believe that they can use tactical nuclear weapons will probably stop very quickly once people respond to them with approximately equivalent nuclear destruction.
Nuclear weapons are mostly irrelevant, provided that you have them. If you and your opponent have them, what matters is the balance of your conventional forces and your willingness to respond to any nuclear attack proportionally, and to persist in whatever you were doing before.
The French and Russian ideas about deterring non-nuclear attacks etc. are threats, and threats are something to ignore, because the threatened act can always be performed whether or not the demand was met. If someone points a gun at you and tells you to do something you don't want to, why would you do it-- he can shoot you even if you do, so you ignore threats of that sort.
The same is true of France. If Russia nukes Paris, France will nuke Moscow. If Russia nukes Paris and Marseille, they nuke Moscow and St Petersburg, etc.
The countries that claim to believe that they can use tactical nuclear weapons will probably stop very quickly once people respond to them with approximately equivalent nuclear destruction.
Nuclear weapons are mostly irrelevant, provided that you have them. If you and your opponent have them, what matters is the balance of your conventional forces and your willingness to respond to any nuclear attack proportionally, and to persist in whatever you were doing before.
The French and Russian ideas about deterring non-nuclear attacks etc. are threats, and threats are something to ignore, because the threatened act can always be performed whether or not the demand was met. If someone points a gun at you and tells you to do something you don't want to, why would you do it-- he can shoot you even if you do, so you ignore threats of that sort.
I genuinely don't see in nuclear armament for Europe, considering it's the one thing that has kept WW3 away until now. All countries bordering Russia should just get nukes ASAP. It's literally the best way to preserve peace. Russia respects only force.
While the article is quite indepth, i find it lacking or simply wrong in some assumptions. French nuclear doctorine is and has always been a first strike doctorine if necessary for the national integrity of france.
European stability can only be reached by dettering russia and keeping its posture large enough on the world stage to not get gobbled up between the US and China.
Further integration, especially on the internal stage seems to be the only path forward in which european nations are somewhat able to determine their own destiny without being picked off by the other major powers.