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.

  • Sicsurfer@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Russia literally can’t beat the Ukraine, I’m fairly certain they can’t take a unified Europe

  • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    6 hours ago

    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

    • bob_lemon@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      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.

      • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 hours ago

        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)

      • remon@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        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.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          39 minutes ago

          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.

        • bob_lemon@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          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?

          • remon@ani.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            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.

            • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 hour ago

              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.

  • splendoruranium@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 hours ago

    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?

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      They have a pretty famous strategic use, actually. To be fair, it dovetails heavily with domestic politics, but MAD is still strategy.

    • Venus_Ziegenfalle@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 hours ago

      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.

      • poVoq@slrpnk.netM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        33 minutes ago

        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.

    • misk@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 hours ago

      … 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.

      • BastingChemina@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 hours ago

        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)

      • splendoruranium@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 hours ago

        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.

        • misk@sopuli.xyzOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          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.

            • misk@sopuli.xyzOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 hours ago

              Full scale one would bring death and destruction to the whole world one way or another. But a limited one with UK/France? 🤷‍♂️

              • poVoq@slrpnk.netM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                27 minutes ago

                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.

                • misk@sopuli.xyzOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  14 minutes ago

                  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.

  • Lemmist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Help Ukraine. Ukraine has competence in nuclear weaponry and energetics. Ukraine isn’t just a wheat growing banana-republic.