- cross-posted to:
- Europe@europe.pub
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.
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.
I’d say there is a chance of a large scale conventional counter attack in that scenario but it’s a slim one. Definitely not a risk any sane person would ever take.
Well, maybe. But in which scenario would such a tactical nuke be used against an enemy that also has nukes? Most likely in one where the large scale conventional attack is already happening.
At least in Europe these tactical nukes are supposed to be a counter against a large scale conventional attack that can not be defended against with existing conventional means.