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.

  • 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
          ·
          4 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
            ·
            58 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
              ·
              45 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.