We can’t just exchange the NATO/US nuclear umbrella against a French or British one (which isn’t on offer anyway) - but the debates on our options for a European nuclear capability need to be had now. Some of my comments from yesterday.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Agree. This is why a EU deterrent could make sense, not only cost-wise also anti proliferation-wise. UK pays 20% its defence budget to its nuclear deterrent for comparison. That is a lot of conventional arms you can get, if you share it.
China holds 500 nuclear warheads. EU could do the same.
I'm a bit surprised, because the American nuclear umbrella is also a one-way street; use is only possible if the USA agrees to it. The only major difference is that there are no tactical nuclear bombs in the French and UK arsenal. But to then question whether france would risk war for Vilnius (as /1
was written in another German opinion piece) seems disingenuous, to say the least, coming from Germany. France is much closer and much more impacted than the USA would ever have been, but Germany was fine with that for decades... Seems like going from one extreme to the next tbh. But maybe I'm not/2
A few things: the decision resting with the French president would probably not be much different from the NATO setting, but it is worth spelling out because many ppl don’t understand the French position, nor know the current setting.
Second, the Vilnius vs Paris question was the same for the US too and always an element of uncertainty of nuclear deterrence 🤷♀️.
So my points are more about the difference in arsenals (type and size), and about what France actually offers.
That nuclear sharing today center on B61 is a bit of a historical accident. Other weapons like ASMP are possible. With a modest increase in ASMP-numbers, say another 80 or so, french nuclear sharing could be meaningfully introduced.
Just an important point that hasn't been mentioned as far as I can tell (maybe it has on "le collimateur " or your Sicherheitspodcast, in which case I apologize for not following enough); French nuclear doctrine seems to me to not be very good in a European context. "du faible au fort" works /1
Thanks for the clarification! I agree with your points, I was just a bit surprised that we seem to go from blind trust in the USA to readiness to go for full proliferation 😉 and not trusting anyone at all anymore. But great educating the masses about what it means!
One major stumbling stone about putting european security under the french nucluar umbrella is a future french government under Le Pen.
There are so many ways this could backfire.
It would be "Vom Regen in die Traufe".
I am not disputing your point, just stating my take on the current state of affairs. Your wording seemed to imply that Europe is still reliant on the US nuclear umbrella until an alternative is developed. My point is that the US umbrella is already gone. Forgive me if I misunderstood you.
Well I am not an expert on nukes obviously but a tactical nuke over the centre of Moscow should render Russia useless for a while amid their population density in one spot.
France and UK have enough capabilities to render Russia useless, which works as deterrence. We don't need to "replace" the 6000 nuclear warheads USA can field to work as a deterrence.
The point about French and UK nukes is not that they are *weaker* than US NATO nuclear sharing nukes but *stronger*. Which translates into a different type of deterrence.
So your point so massively misses the mark, there really is no sense in continuing this conversation.
You latterly scratched 4 different topics in 59 seconds, capability and amount of war heads were two of them. But guess it is on me to understand your point better or not engage here at all. 👍
The EU should immediately finance four additional Triumphant- submarines, build and nuclear equipped by France, and use them as common EU deterrence assets. First could be ready 2030, one more each year.
Comments
China holds 500 nuclear warheads. EU could do the same.
We might have the same issue with Russia.
So my points are more about the difference in arsenals (type and size), and about what France actually offers.
There are so many ways this could backfire.
It would be "Vom Regen in die Traufe".
So your point so massively misses the mark, there really is no sense in continuing this conversation.